The April 26 assassination attempt in Balldren, Lezha, is suspected to have been motivated by revenge for the murder of Genc Mhillaj in 2016, for which this family accused Jozef and Kreshnik Mujeci of being the perpetrators.

In the show "Në Shënjestër", with author Klodiana Lala, in News24, shed light on this event by referring to the decision issued by the Shkodra court, following the charges filed by the prosecution against Jozef Mujeci.

During the publication of documents referring to this event, it is seen that although the Shkodra Prosecution Office was convinced in its findings against Jozef Mujeci and his cousin Kreshnik Mujeci in relation to the murder of Genc Mhillaj, the Shkodra Court of First Instance deemed that this evidence was not sufficient to declare the two Mujeci cousins ​​guilty.

Describing the conclusions reached by the Shkodra Judicial District Prosecutor's Office as the result of an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

"The prosecution appreciates the fact that the defendant Jozef Mujeci had a conflict with the late Genc Mhillaj a few days ago, this was confirmed by the statements of the witnesses questioned at the trial. Which turns out to be true," the Shkodra court's decision states.

But the court did not dismiss the strong suspicion that the car had moved that day.

This is also based on several environmental intercepts that confirmed such a thing.

Where in the conversation between two people who had knowledge about this event, this interception was obtained.

From the wiretaps, it is seen that Gj. H talks to B. M.

Gj. H: Tell me what you said?

BM: No, sir, an hour ago a car moved, otherwise they'll lock us up, we'll eat it for not reporting a crime. Only an hour ago a car was seen moving, but we don't know the person. That's what you told me.

We eat it for not reporting a crime for up to four years. An hour before the police arrive, but we don't know the person... after all, he killed someone.

Gj. H: Yes, the other guy killed him...

BM: Yes, I got it. Yes, this one has the right papers, I heard him talking.

We owe him money, how could he have done this? Who came up with this idea? What did he think of? He brought the car home.

Another point that convinced the Court to reject the prosecution's claims regarding Jozef Mujeci's guilt was the report kept in his father's apartment regarding the condition in which the 'Audi' A3 vehicle was found.

Where the defense insisted that elements that were not true had been added, solely to blame their client.

"In the request for trial, the prosecution cites that an on-site inspection of the vehicle revealed that the dashboard, hood, and drums were hot.

"According to the prosecution, this fact shows that the 'Audi' A3 vehicle, with license plates AA 966 JL, owned by Jozef Mujeci, was moving on the day of the incident," the decision states.

This claim of the prosecution was strongly opposed by the defense, claiming that 'this information is completely inaccurate, abusive to the point of abuse of office by the person who compiled such information', since according to the defendants' defense, at no point in the minutes in question is the fact presented by the prosecution reflected.

According to the defense, no evidence administered during this trial indicates that the vehicle found in the apartment of the defendant Jozef Mujeci's father, an 'Audi' A3, had a heated trunk and a hot soda card. For this reason, the court, after reviewing the 'Report of the vehicle inspection', dated October 6, 2016, finds the defense's claim that in the specific case, several elements have been added to the request for judgment and the final conclusions, which were not actually found in the report of the questioning, to be correct.

But despite the fact that the car owned by Jozef Mujeci is proven to have been driven to the scene of the crime on the day of the crime, the Court found that the Prosecution did not prove that the suspect was driving this vehicle.

Meanwhile, according to the Court, the Prosecution has focused only on the fact that the defendant Jozef Mujeci is the registered owner of the car. And that is enough to prove that it was the latter who drove the vehicle on the day of the incident.

But he did not investigate whether this car could have been used by someone else that day, even a relative of his.

Meanwhile, the court also relied on this deduction in the fingerprint expertise report, which results in the fact that no trace of the defendant Jozef Mujeci was found in the vehicle owned by the latter.

But on the contrary, traces of citizen D. M were found, as well as other traces of unidentified persons.

"This fact clearly shows that the vehicle in question was also used by other people and this could very well have happened on the day of the incident."

"The court considers that the entire prosecution investigation was wrongly directed towards finding evidence against the defendant Jozef Mujeci and not towards finding the perpetrators of the murder of the late Genc Mhillaj," the Shkodra Court of First Instance decision states.

The prosecution has not investigated the vehicles declared in the yard of the apartment of citizen Pjetër Mujeci. Meanwhile, citizen B. M, declares that 'there were two cars there, a black SUV and a small 'Audi' type car, black.'

According to the court, this fact is also confirmed by the statement of citizen Gj. H.

Likewise, no record of the control or inspection of the scene of the crime is made of the black SUV and consequently the ownership of this vehicle is unknown.

As a result, the Court concludes that this tool has not been removed.

Likewise, the court did not consider the prosecution's claims that Jozef Mujeci, after committing the murder, left the 'Audi' vehicle in his apartment and then left for the village of Boriç i Madh, in a pickup truck, where he was found after the crime, hiding with a relative of his.

Just as the court did not properly consider the fact that the Prosecution based its accusation against Jozef Mujeci and Kreshnik Mujeci on the testimony given by citizen TE who gave a different version in court than the one given by the Prosecution.

During the trial as a witness, T. E. stated that: 'I know Jozef Mujeci and Kreshnik Mujeci... a murder occurred, I heard screams, I saw them shooting, there were two people, I did not recognize these people. I saw them, but I did not recognize them because this happened in seconds... about 60-70 meters away, it was daytime. ...

I heard screams, I saw these two people get into a car, one was with a gun, the other with a stick in his hand, they got into the car and drove away, it was a black car, an 'Audi' if I'm not mistaken, a car, a black 'Audi', I didn't see the license plate. The people were one with a mask, the other without a mask...'

Meanwhile, in the prosecutor's office, T. E. said:

'… When I went near the bridge, I noticed an 'Audi' type car, dark in color, I don't remember the license plates, but as far as I know, that car belongs to citizen Jozef Mujeci and it was stopped on the road, at the entrance to the bridge, blocking the road...

Two citizens got out of the 'Audi' vehicle, one of whom got out of the passenger seat was holding a stick in his hand, while the driver sat with an automatic rifle in his hand.

The person with the automatic rifle was not wearing a mask, while the one with the baton was wearing a mask.

I heard the person with the machine gun yell 'get on the ground'.

After they killed him, they came and got in the car and, turning back, fled in the direction of Torovica...

The person holding the stick was tall and thin.

At the moment I don't know him, but after the event I remember that he was citizen Jozef Pjetër Mujeci who lives in Koljakaj, Torovica, tall, dark-skinned, with short hair, dressed in black clothes.

"I know citizen Jozef Mujeci because they are mountaineers, just like I am."

But unlike the Prosecution, the court assessed that there is sufficient evidence and testimony, which proves that Jozef Mujeci was not at the scene that day.

Meanwhile, the prosecution did not refute with judicial evidence the defendant's alibi that at the time of the incident he was in Koplik, selling with his pickup truck.

Or even with judicial evidence of the defendant's presence at the scene of the crime.

On the contrary, the evidence presented by the defendant Jozef Mujeci, but even the evidence collected by the Prosecution itself, proves the fact that the defendant Jozef Mujeci was very far from the scene of the crime on October 6, 2016, at around 11:00 a.m. when the victim Genc Mhillaj was killed.

Shkodra Court of First Instance

Firstly, the presence of the defendant Jozef Mujeci at the place declared by him is proven by the testimony of citizen ND. On the other hand, the testimony of this citizen is confirmed by the testimonies of three other citizens who, in harmony with each other, accept the fact that, on the day of the incident, around 11:00-11:30, Jozef Mujeci parked his pickup truck in the yard of Gjokë Ograjë, in the village of Gruemirë.

Considering the fact that the incident occurred at around 11:00 in an area located about 1 hour away, the court considers the possibility of the defendant being at the scene to be slim.

According to the Court, this is also confirmed by the environmental wiretaps between Jozef Mujeci and his father Pjetër Mujeci.

The latter asks his son to tell him the truth, if he is the author of Genc Mhillaj's murder.

Something that is denied by Jozef Mujeci.

Meanwhile, one of the eyewitnesses present at the time of the crime, despite knowing Jozef Mujeci, did not give any statement that it was the latter who shot Genc Mhillaj.

Shkodra Court of First Instance

During the interrogation, F. K. stated that: '… I want to say that the people who came before us, one of them had a black mask on his head and was about 1.80 m tall,

while the second person with the automatic rifle was slightly shorter than the person with the mask and was wearing a dark short-sleeved shirt and a pair of dark-colored pants...

The two people came running and got into the car, fleeing in the direction of the road leading to Torovicë.

While from the transcript of the environmental wiretapping between Jozef Mujeci and his father, the latter asks him whether, while selling melons in Malësia e Madhe, he was in the company of Nikolla e Zeka or Nikolla e Zi, and the defendant himself tells him that he was in the company of Nikolla e Zeka.

ND, who at the trial in the capacity of a witness, confirmed the fact of being with the defendant on the day of the incident in Koplik.

But according to the Court, Jozef Mujec's presence on the day and time of the incident in the Koplik district was also scientifically proven by analyzing telephone records.

Which turns out to be logged in Koplik.

Meanwhile, it also turns out that neither Kreshnik Mujeci nor Lin Mujeci had any communications with the phone numbers used by Jozef Mujeci, on October 6, 2016 and onwards.

Shkodra Court of First Instance

The phone number logs in use by the other defendant Kreshnik Mujeci are in the Balldren Municipality, Torovicë village and Dajç village antennas.

The three phone numbers used by Jozef Mujeci did not appear to have been logged into the same antennas as the number used by Kreshnik Mujeci during the time frame 10:30 -12.00.

Regarding Kreshnik Mujeci, the Court considered insufficient the mere fact that his car was found 2-3 km from the scene of the crime.

Meanwhile, according to the testimony of the owner of the bar where Kreshnik Mujeci's car was found on the day of the incident, the latter often came to this bar to drink coffee.