Appeals court reduces Dejan Pantiq’s sentence to 1 year in prison in the attack on Municipal Election Commission offices, upholds the rest of the verdict

The Court of Appeals has decided to reduce Dejan Pantiq’s sentence from 2 years to 1 year in prison on the charge related to the terrorist attack against the offices of the Municipal Election Commission in North Mitrovica in December 2022. The rest of the Basic Court in Prishtina verdict was upheld, including the 5-year prison sentences for Milun Milenkoviq and Aleksandër Vllajiq, as well as the acquittal of Miomir Vakiq.

On July 28, 2025, the Basic Court in Prishtina had issued a guilty verdict against Dejan Pantiq, Milun Milenkoviq and Aleksander Vlajiq. Under that ruling, Pantiq had been sentenced to 2 years in prison, while Milenkoviq and Vllajiq were each sentenced to 5 years, whereas Miomir Vakiq was acquitted, “Betimi për Drejtësi” reports.

In connection with this case, the Court of Appeals had held a hearing on April 28, 2026 to hear the parties’ appeal claims.

The second-instance decision was taken by the judicial panel composed of Ferit Osmani as presiding judge, and Albina Shabani-Rama and Avni Mehmeti as members.

Meanwhile, it is worth recalling that on June 5, 2026, Vllajiq was also found guilty by the Basic Court in Prishtina of the criminal offense of espionage and was sentenced to 5 years in prison after admitting that he had been an agent of the BIA.

As for the accused Milun Milenkoviq, the Appeals Court assessed his defense appeal and found that the operative part of the decision does not need to expressly contain the form of guilt, as long as it provides a clear description of the criminal offense together with all relevant facts and circumstances.

According to the Appeals Court, in this case the form of guilt is not determined only formally through terms such as “direct intent” or “eventual intent,” but emerges from the factual description of the defendant’s actions, the manner in which they were carried out, his behavior before, during and after the act, as well as from the totality of the evidence examined during the trial.

The Court of Appeals also found that the evidence presented in the first-instance trial is not separate from one another, but forms an uninterrupted chain of evidence.

From the interconnection of this evidence, according to the Appeals Court, it follows that Milun Milenkoviq was present at all key moments of the event: during the group’s gathering phase, at the moment of escalation near the emergency vehicle, and then in the coordinated movement toward the building that was attacked.

In its decision, the Appeals Court stressed that it fully accepts as correct and well-founded the findings of the Basic Court, assessing that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Milenkoviq was not only present at the scene, but had actively participated in the organized attack on the offices of the Municipal Election Commission in North Mitrovica.

The Appeals Court likewise described as unfounded the claim that Milenkoviq’s guilt is not supported by material or personal evidence, reasoning that the case evidence creates a logical and uninterrupted sequence leading to the conclusion that he participated in committing the terrorist offense.

For the accused Aleksandër Vllajiq, the Appeals Court found that the first-instance court had convincingly established his presence at the scene on December 6, 2022, acting jointly with the other accused in this criminal case, Milenkoviq, as well as with other suspects still at large.

According to the decision, the first-instance court had established a consistent, clear factual situation supported by interconnected evidence that complements one another and rules out any reasonable doubt that Vllajiq’s presence was passive or accidental.

From all the evidence, the decision states, it follows that Aleksandar Vllajiq was at the scene, observed, took photographs, communicated by phone at the decisive moment of the arrival of police and election officials, and also helped further mobilize the crowd.

For this reason, the Appeals Court assessed that the factual situation had been clarified correctly, fully and reliably, while the defense claims fail to overturn the first-instance court’s conclusion either on factual grounds or on logical and legal grounds.