Arlinda Zekaj was killed on October 25 in Vitomiricë, Peja, just minutes after Kosovo Police had escorted her to her home. The Basic Prosecution Office in Peja announced that she had reported domestic violence again that evening. Her former husband was detained for 48 hours, and proceedings were initiated against him for the criminal offense of “disobeying the court.”
According to the Prosecution, Zekaj was offered shelter, but chose to return home, where her son and her property were. At around 9 p.m., a police patrol escorted her there. A few minutes later, the authorities were notified that she had been struck with a blunt object. Her brother-in-law is suspected of the murder and remains at large.
Të lidhura
None found
Following the incident, the Chief State Prosecutor called for a detailed review of the actions taken by the institutions to determine whether there had been any shortcomings or individual responsibility. The Kosovo Police Inspectorate was also tasked with examining how the Police had handled Zekaj’s previous reports.
Makasqi: Responsibility is shared among institutions, but each must be clear about its role
Criminologist Dita Makasqi, speaking to “Bota sot,” expressed concern that a woman could report domestic violence and be killed that same evening.
She said the authorities must assess the risk as a whole and ensure genuine protection, taking into account threats, family circumstances and the possibility that other people may have access to the victim. She said the case calls for clear answers about how the risk was assessed and what was done to prevent such tragedies.
“When a woman reports violence and is killed just a few hours later, we must ask whether information about the risk was translated into concrete safety measures. Receiving a report and detaining a suspect are important steps, but protection also requires assessing where the victim will stay, who may approach her and what threats may continue.
Criminological analysis must consider the full history of violence: threats, control over the victim, violations of protection orders and the possibility that other people were involved. In this case, the fact that the person detained and the person suspected of the murder are different individuals raises a direct question: was the safety of the family environment to which Arlinda returned assessed?
Research on murders committed by current or former partners identifies threats involving weapons, access to weapons and separation from a controlling partner as significant factors. This information can help identify warning signs, but it should not be used to draw automatic conclusions about this case, since the person suspected of the murder is another family member.
An incident like this can undermine women’s trust in institutions and reinforce the fear that reporting violence does not guarantee safety. The institutions must therefore provide verifiable answers about how the risk was handled and what measures will be taken to prevent further cases,” Makasqi said.
She said the institutional measures had failed to protect Arlinda Zekaj’s life, while precise responsibility must be determined through a full and impartial investigation.
Makasqi said the implementation of the protection order, the possibility of a safe place to stay and the use of other protection mechanisms should be examined. In her view, the fact that the victim declined shelter does not release the institutions from their duty to consider other legal options.
“The measures taken did not save Arlinda. Nevertheless, the legal responsibility of each institution or official must be determined through a comprehensive and impartial investigation. The tragic outcome alone does not automatically prove that an individual breached their obligations, but it does demand rigorous scrutiny of every decision and failure to act.
The Prosecution’s announcement, as reported in the media, says that Arlinda had a protection order and that returning to the shared home had previously been assessed as a risk to her life and safety. If the risk had been identified, the investigation must determine what specific measures were implemented to manage it and how the situation was reassessed before she returned.
Depending on the risk and the authorities’ legal powers, they should have considered effective enforcement of the protection order, securing a safe place for her to stay, police protection when necessary, involving a victim advocate and social services, and addressing threats that could come from other people. If the children were exposed to risk, their safety should have been assessed alongside their mother’s.
It must be remembered that refusing a shelter or wanting to return to one’s children and property does not make a victim responsible for the violence. Her autonomy must be respected, while the institutions have a duty to consider lawful alternatives to protect her. Refusing one option does not mean the institutions’ responsibility ends,” she said.
Makasqi added that a 48-hour detention, on its own, does not ensure the protection of a domestic violence victim.
She stressed that a full risk assessment and a clear safety plan are needed, including enforcement of protection orders and a response to potential threats.
“No. A 48-hour detention, without other measures, is not enough to say that the victim is safe. It may temporarily limit the risk posed by the detained person, but it does not resolve other threats on its own or guarantee safety once the detention ends. Any additional measure against the suspect must, of course, be taken in accordance with the legal requirements and by the competent authority.
Scientifically, risk must be assessed in a structured way, examining the history of violence, escalation, threats to kill, stalking, access to weapons and previous attempts to strangle the victim. Studies have identified the last of these as a significant indicator of the risk of lethal violence in intimate relationships. These are general indicators; I am not saying that all of them were established in Arlinda’s case.
“Danger Assessment” is one of the tools that can help professionals in cases of partner violence, if used by trained people and in appropriate circumstances. However, it cannot predict a murder with certainty and does not replace professional judgment.
The assessment must be followed by a concrete safety plan, which is reviewed when circumstances change. It must be made clear where the victim will stay that night, who may approach her, how the protection order will be enforced and who will intervene if the threat recurs. The Council of Europe also points out that assessment must be linked to risk management in order to protect life and safety,” Makasqi said.
In conclusion, she said that the Police, Prosecution, Court and social services have different roles in assessing risk and protecting victims. Cooperation and information-sharing, she said, are essential to women’s safety.
“Responsibility lies with several institutions, but each one’s duties must be clear. The Police must immediately identify the risk, gather information and intervene on the ground. The Prosecution must take that information into account when directing the investigation and when deciding whether to seek procedural measures. The Court decides on measures within its jurisdiction, while social services and victim advocates help assess needs and arrange support.
According to the Prosecution’s statement, as cited in the media, the court’s decision assigned the Police responsibility for enforcing the order and required them to notify the Court of any potential obstacles. This must be verified against the case documents and assessed alongside the actions of the other institutions.
From a criminological perspective, the greatest risk to institutional coordination arises when each institution handles only one part of a case and no one ensures that the victim has actually been protected. For this reason, information must be shared quickly, decisions documented and responsibility for following up on measures clearly assigned.
Violence against women also requires action to challenge social norms that tolerate control, threats and the subjugation of women. Prevention requires education, economic and social support, and serious treatment of every report. The success of the protection system must be measured by the safety it manages to provide to the person at risk,” she concluded.
Hoxha: The case must be reviewed in full and the investigation must be comprehensive, for at least two reasons
Former Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Valdet Hoxha criticized the failure of state mechanisms to protect women from domestic violence, following the killing of a woman who had sought protection from the institutions.
In a response to “Bota sot,” Hoxha listed gaps in legislation, insufficient human and financial resources, and weak cooperation between institutions among the obstacles to properly handling cases.
“The recent killing of a woman who had sought protection from the state highlights the failure of state mechanisms that have a legal duty to protect the lives and dignity of citizens. This responsibility is especially important in the case of women and victims seeking protection before, during and after divorce, as well as during proceedings concerning visitation, the care of and custody of minor children.
A fundamental constitutional right—the right to life—is being violated, and the state bears direct responsibility for protecting it.
Factors that obstruct the formal system include an inadequate legal framework, insufficient financial planning, a shortage of trained personnel, poor communication between responsible institutions, the absence of a functioning system for assessing and analyzing cases, and the failure to integrate data across institutions. As a result, the mechanism does not properly handle domestic violence cases and, in some instances, may further worsen relations between people,” he said.
Hoxha called for a broad investigation into the killing of the woman, who had warned the institutions that her life was in danger. He called for possible responsibility among officials to be verified and institutional shortcomings identified. He said that the responsible officials’ moral resignations would demonstrate institutional maturity.
“In this case, in addition to the ordinary legal proceedings initiated through her lawyer, the deceased had taken further steps: she had notified in writing the heads of several competent institutions, including the chief prosecutor of the Basic Prosecution Office in Peja, of the real risk that she could be killed. Despite this, she was murdered. This creates the impression and provides indications that the competent mechanisms, despite the system’s shortcomings, may not have properly assessed the situation or acted in light of the circumstances and the history of the case.
The case must be reviewed from beginning to end and subjected to a comprehensive investigation, for at least two reasons. First, it must be established whether the competent institutions took the necessary action and whether individual officials may bear responsibility. Second, shortcomings in laws, human and financial resources, and data-sharing must be identified, and more effective ways for state mechanisms to handle domestic violence cases must be determined and recommended. The focus must be on protecting the lives of victims, who in our country are almost 100% women.
Without prejudging the possible responsibility of officials, the moral resignation of some of the key officials who handled this grave case would be a sign of institutional maturity and ethical and moral integrity. It would also provide a sound basis for improving the management and handling of this issue, one of the most important in the country,” Hoxha concluded to “Bota sot.”
