The Supreme Court a few hours ago announced the decision on the recourse in the "Bektashi" case, on an appeal by the Prosecution regarding the "house arrest" measure imposed by the Court of Appeals, requesting "prison arrest".
On 16.10.2025, citizen Bektash Zeneli was arrested in flagrante delicto, as a suspect for committing the criminal offense of “Production and sale of narcotics”. The prosecution has addressed the court with a request for the legal validation of the arrest in flagrante delicto and the assignment of the personal security measure “arrest in prison” to him. The First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Lezha, on 19.10.2025, decided the legal validation of the arrest in flagrante delicto of the person under investigation and the assignment of the personal security measure “arrest in prison”, as the only appropriate measure in the specific case.
The defense attorney of the person under investigation filed an appeal against this decision, by which he requested the change of the decision of the first instance court, regarding the assigned measure and the assignment of the personal security measure of house arrest. The Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction, with its decision dated 17.11.2025, changed the decision of the Court of First Instance only regarding the personal security measure, by imposing the measure "house arrest" on the person under investigation, after assessing that, in relation to the criteria of Article 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the nature of the offense and his personal and family circumstances, this was the most appropriate measure for the specific case.
So far, it is clear that the Appeals Court changed Bektashi's sentence from "prison arrest" to "house arrest."
Despite the old unifications of the Supreme Court, the Appeals Court applied the Code and Bektashi went home.
What is not understood is, first of all, why did this Supreme Court decision cause a revolution, when the Appeal Court had changed Bektashi's sentence?
In today's decision, the Supreme Court writes, among other things:
“…. In determining the measure of detention in prison, the prosecutor initially and the courts subsequently have the obligation to provide an individualized justification, based on the facts and specific circumstances of the case, which links the need for this measure to the dangerousness of the offense and the perpetrator in the specific case. This assessment must be based on the specific circumstances of the fact, the manner in which the offense was committed and the data related to the person against whom the security measure is determined, including personality, behavior, individual and family circumstances, as well as any other important indicator for assessing the real procedural or social risk that he poses in the specific case.”
What happened then during the process in the Supreme Court?
The Court asked the Prosecutor to provide an individualized reasoning, based on the facts and specific circumstances of the case, and the Prosecutor objected? It does not appear from the decision that the Court has invalidated the Prosecutor's claims! It remains to be believed that the Prosecutor has refused to respond to the Court!
The decision further states:
“… in relation to Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the burden of justifying the need for the imposition and continuation of the security measure “custody” lies with the prosecution….. The prosecution has the obligation to present and argue in a concrete manner the facts and circumstances that support the need for this measure, including the concrete risk and the inadequacy of less restrictive measures…”
So what happened in the Supreme Court during the legal debate on the “Bektashi” case?
The Prosecution has refused to respect the obligation arising from the convention by refusing to bear the burden of justifying the need for the imposition and continuation of the security measure “prison arrest”? The decision does not reveal any reasoning that refutes the Prosecution’s arguments. It remains to be believed that the Prosecutor has refused to argue as much as the Court requires.
We recall that Bektashi was released from prison by the Court of Appeals.
And the convention was the same as it is today.
The unifying decision of the Supreme Court was not revolutionary, but nothing prevented the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code despite the old unification.
In the end, the Supreme Court simply dismissed a prosecution appeal, but the text of the decision cannot possibly refer to the debates in the courtroom. Because if that were the case, then we must deduce that the Prosecutor refused to argue as much as the Court required. He refused to the extent that the Court was forced to show us the prosecutor's place for today and tomorrow, because Bektashi's arrest measure had been changed by the Appeals Court. The Supreme Court did not change it!
While the Supreme Court today upheld a decision of the Court of Appeals, this unifying decision did not release Bektashi from prison.
Bektashi was simply used as a "scapegoat" to bring the case into consideration. Somewhere they are cheering that the Supreme Court "changed the practice", but the practice for Bektashi would have been fine!
For those who hoped that the unification of Sadushi would get Veliaj out of prison, we must clarify that these unifiers did not even get Bektashi out of prison with this decision.
Bektashi had been staying at home since 17.11.2025. It's his fate that the Supreme Court "ate" only 5 months to rule on him! Others are waiting much longer!
