The Appeals Court’s decision on the incident that shocked Shkodër has revived questions over how the justice system handled a serious episode of violence in front of residents. The three people involved remain convicted only of “disturbing the public peace,” while for that charge they benefit from amnesty.
Appeals Court upholds lower court ruling
The Appeals Court delivered its decision for Izmir Sakica, Samuel Troshani and Alind Kajoshi, upholding the ruling of the Shkodër Court of First Instance.
According to the earlier first-instance ruling, the three defendants were found guilty only on the charge of “disturbing the public peace.” The Appeals Court left that legal classification unchanged.
Amnesty removes criminal consequences for the sole charge
For this criminal offense, the Appeals Court declared that they benefit from the amnesty law.
In essence, even after review by the second-instance court, the case remained limited solely to “disturbing the public peace,” an approach that has sparked public debate over the gap between the severity of the footage and the justice system’s response.
The incident is linked to the assault of 64-year-old Vladimir Bruçi
According to the case file heard by the court, this concerns a 2024 incident in Shkodër, where the three men assaulted 64-year-old Vladimir Bruçi after a verbal conflict over a parking space.
Footage published by the media shows the perpetrators arriving by vehicle in front of an apartment building. In the video, two people can be seen with Kalashnikovs and another with a pistol, as they address residents who had come out to their windows and tell them to go back inside.
What is seen in the video
Then, according to the footage, they enter the building entrance and come out again without finding the person they were looking for. At that moment, Bruçi arrives, they ask him his name, and then begin hitting him.
In the video, the phrase “Why did you insult us?” can also be heard, while several citizens intervene to stop the violence. Bruçi is left lying unconscious on the ground and the perpetrators leave the scene. Residents notify an ambulance and provide first aid to the 64-year-old.
The Appeals Court decision closes the case along the same lines as the first instance: guilt only for disturbing the public peace and the benefit of amnesty for that charge.
For an incident involving weapons, threats against residents and violence against a 64-year-old man, this remains the criminal version accepted by the court.