ministry of internal affairs police inspector of kosovo

3 INSPECTION DEPARTMENT - POLICE INSPECTORATE OF KOSOVO

Ministry of Internal Affairs

Police Inspector of Kosovo

Inspection Department

Inspection Report on the Administration of Investigation and Detection of Crime, and Case

Management

No. 6/2019


Title Inspection Report on the Administration of Investigation and Detection of

Crime, and Case Management

Date 31 December 2019

Prepared by Fitore Gajraku, Head of Inspection Team,

Xhavit Fetahaj, Inspector

Supervised by Ilir Idrizaj, Inspection Supevisor

Head of Inspection and Reporting Division

Supported by Bujar Mustafa,

Head of Analysis, Planning and Quality Division

Approved by Miradije Kelmendi

CEO

Police Inspector of Kosovo

Date of approval 31 December 2019

Signed and stamped


Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

1.1. Background on Inspection Results ..................... (4-5)

1.2. Background on the Implementation of Recommendations .................... (5-5)

2. Introduction

2.1. Reasons for initiating inspection ............................................. ............... (6-6)

2.2. Objective..................................................................................................(6-6)

2.3. Object..................................................................................................(6-6)

2.4. Subject.................................................................................................(6-6)

2.5. Inspection objectives ............................................. ............... (6-7)

2.6. Significance of inspection ............................................. ............... (7-7)

2.7. Methodology of inspection ............................................. ............... (7-7)

2.8. Time required to complete inspection ............................................. ............... (7-

7)

2.9. Period covered during the inspection ............................................. ............... (7-7)

2.10. Direction of inspection ............................................. ............... (8-8)

2.11. Evaluation criteria..............................................................................(8-8)

2.12. Obstacles and constraints in achieving the objectives ................................. (8-8)

3. Description of the object, findings and recommendations

3.1. Performance of investigative units and detection of crime

3.2. Management of confiscated evidence and items .......................... (14-23)

4. Plan for the implementation of recommendations

4.1. Action Plan for Implementation of Recommendations

............................... (24-26) Annexes


1. Executive Summary

1.1. Background on Inspection Results

1.1.1. Detection of criminal offenses is a process that starts with vague and incomplete

information on the criminal offense and its perpetrator, and continues with searches for, gathering,

evaluation and verification of evidence and facts, and it is completed with a decision to file an

indictment or terminate investigations. The competent prosecution office oversees the compliance

of legality during the conduct of investigations, and police work is largely related to the prevention,

investigation and detection of crime. Accordingly, Kosovo Police undertakes investigative actions

and measures necessary to detect criminal offenses and their perpetrators. This PIK inspection

assessed compliance with the rules and procedures of Regional Investigation Sectors, management

of criminal cases, and regularity of cases with the required documents and forms in relation to the

investigation, detection and documentation of crime.

1.1.2. The inspection of criminal files showed that a number of them did not have a Police Notice

Report to the State Prosecutor. A number of cases have been identified in which the chain of

command was not observed, in relation to checks and signatures by supervisors. Forms used within

the criminal records are not consistent and uniform between sectors, and there is no applied

standard of case file drafting. Some case files included minutes (statements) which do not contain

the reserved rights of parties. Some statements that include reserved rights are not in line with the

Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo (PCCK). There are unsigned statements from

interviewers, suspects, or witnesses interviewed. Criminal reports filed meet the basic criteria and

contain the necessary substantive elements for submission to competent Prosecution Offices. PIK

appreciates the police commitment to comply with the KPCC provisions on representation with an

attorney in cases where his/her presence was necessary when taking suspects’ statements.

1.1.3. Measuring the efficiency and performance of regional investigative units was challenging

due to the lack of statistical data on criminal cases carried over from previous years. Annual reports

of regional police directorates do not reflect the total number of these criminal cases, thus PIK

measured the performance and efficiency only for cases initiated in recent years. This problem

raises the need to review current policies, to ensure a more complete reflection of crime and status

data which, for various reasons, remain incomplete. The number of criminal offenses within the

Regional Investigation Sectors has declined in 2018, compared to one year before, while Prishtina

Region Investigators had the highest caseload in comparison to other Regional Investigators. The

detection trend continued to increase by 3% in 2018, compared to a year earlier. Considering two

comparative years, Ferizaj (2017) and Gjakova (2018) achieved the highest detection rate, while

Prizren (2017) and Prishtina (2018) the lowest detection rate. In general, in 2017, there is a 1 in 2

ratio of the number of undetected to detected cases, while in 2018, this ratio is 1 to 3 in favor of

the number of detected cases. In 2017, the ration in Ferizaj is 1 to 7 in favor of detected cases,

while in Prizren it’s 1 to 0.4 in favor of undetected cases. In 2018, in Gjakova the ratio was 1 to

14, while in Prishtina and Gjilan 1 to 2 in favor of detected cases.


1.1.4. Evidence is linked with the investigation of criminal offenses and must be retained until

the investigation and criminal proceedings are completed. The scope of handling evidences is

regulated by a procedure on their placement, treatment and retention. The procedures in place

provide for clear rules for the prevention of the loss, damage, destruction, decay or contamination

of evidence. Some of the evidence rooms in regional directorates have failed to meet the criteria

defined for adequate treatment of evidences. In some cases, due to their specificity, it is clear that

evidences are not stored separately in individual locations. Cases have been identified where cash

is not stored in the relevant storage area, and cases where biological samples are not stored in

refrigerators. In most cases, evidences are easily identified, but not all cases were properly

packaged and marked. In some cases, there were no data on movements of evidences in storage

chains and registers. The situation must be improved in keeping more complete evidences. More

focus should be paid to ensuring compliance with recording procedures when opening evidences.

Measures should be taken in enhancing security of evidences, using adequate storage spaces for

the placement of certain types of evidences. Attention should be paid to the rule on the rights of

authorized people holding keys to Evidence Chambers to prevent unauthorized access.

1.1.5. The security level in Evidence Chambers in regional directorates must be enhanced, given

that the alarm system, video surveillance and smoke detection systems vary between chambers.

There are Evidence Chambers with functioning systems, others where, although installed, systems

are not in function, and some with no system in place. Some Chambers have issues with humidity,

as they are placed in inappropriate spaces. In Gjilan, evidences are stored in unsuitable conditions,

with high levels of humidity. Evidences are at risk of damages, destruction and contamination.

Failure to use refrigerators and the lack of adequate refrigerators has led to a situation where

storage of evidence takes place in inadequate places. No revision, inventorying and inspection has

taken place in most Evidence Chambers, whereas in others this was not done regularly.

1.2. Background on the Implementation of Recommendations

1.2.1. The inspection indicates that out of 12 recommendations issued by the previous inspection

(inspection No. 5/2013), two (2) recommendations were fully implemented, three (3) were largely

fulfilled, four (4) were partially fulfilled, and three (3) recommendations were not evaluated (for

more please see the table in appendix 1).


2. Introduction

2.1. Reasons for initiating inspection

2.1.1. Pursuant to the Law No. 03/L-231, PIK has a legal mandate to conduct police inspections

to assess the way in which they perform their duties. This activity assists and supports the Police in

providing a professional, democratic and responsible service. The Annual Plan of Regular

Inspections of the PIK Inspection Department (2019) included the conduct of inspections in several

areas of management, including the management of crime investigation and detection, as well as

case management. Inspection of this area of management is an area of interest for the PIK, with the

aim of assessing whether Police is committed to preventing, investigating and detecting crimes and

reducing the level of criminality, as foreseen in strategic plans, in order to strengthen rule of law.

Thus, professionalism, commitment and police accountability must be evident and consistent to

ensure effective management of criminal cases. Considering that inspection is a successful

instrument to evaluate the handling of these areas, the Chief Executive Officer, on July 10, 2019,

on the basis of the Inspection Work Program, initiated an inspection to evaluate the police

performance in this area of management. The fulfillment of the recommendations of previous

inspections will also be assessed.

2.2. Purpose of inspection

2.2.1. The purpose of this inspection was to:

Determine whether the relevant laws, regulations and principles, and police procedures

were properly implemented and are appropriate to achieve the goals;

Determine whether police resources are used effectively, efficiently and are appropriate

to achieve the goals and objectives;

Provide an objective opinion on issues related to the management of criminal cases;

Prevent possible violations that may be committed while working in the relevant field

Identify weaknesses and recommend legal and organizational measures for a better

functioning.

2.3. Object of inspection

2.3.1. This regular inspection assessed the performance of duties in the area of crime

investigation and detection management, as well as case management.

2.4. Subject of inspection

2.4.1. The inspection is concentrated locally, mainly in the Regional Investigation Sectors of

Regional Police Directorates.

2.5. Inspection objectives

2.5.1. The objectives that this inspection aims to achieve are:


Assessing operational capacities in combating crime;

Assessing compliance with rules and procedures in crime investigation and detection;

Assessing the fulfillment of objectives of police crime-fighting strategies;

Analyzing and comparing crime indicators and crime combating performance;

Assessing compliance with procedures and rules in evidence management;

Assessing the management of criminal records;

Assessing the fulfillment of recommendations from past inspections.

2.6. Significance of inspection

2.6.1. Inspection in this area of management plays an important role in:

Increasing the professionalism and commitment of staff to ensure a higher level of

efficiency in investigating and detecting criminal offenses;

Increasing responsibility in complying with rules and procedures for crime

investigation;

Raising awareness in developing active approaches to crime prevention and reduction;

Increasing police integrity when investigating criminal offenses;

Increasing citizens’ confidence in investigative authorities combating crime;

Ensuring a principled approach to respecting the rights and freedoms of victims and

suspects.

2.7. Methodology of inspection

2.7.1. During the inspection:

a) Meetings - interviews were held with executives, staff, and functionaries, including:

heads of regional investigative sectors, and police officers responsible for evidence

chambers;

b) Inspections and audits have been conducted of investigative files, samples of evidence,

physical and security conditions in evidence rooms, as well as records of investigative

cases;

c) Documents were obtained, such as: copies of files (10 criminal files were obtained from

each regional investigative sector), annual reports, copies of chains of storage and

records, as well as inventory, audit and inspection reports.

2.8. Time required to complete inspection

2.8.1. According to the Inspection Work Program, inspection started on 22.07.2019 and ended

on 13.08.2019.

2.9. Period covered during the inspection

2.9.1. The inspection was focused on the evaluation of the performance of the relevant

investigative sectors over the two year period (2017-2018) and the current state of management.

10

INSPECTION DEPARTMENT - POLICE INSPECTORATE OF KOSOVO

2.10. Direction of inspection

2.10.1. To meet the objectives, the inspection was focused on the following key areas:

Performance of regional investigative units and detection of crime;

Management of confiscated evidence and objects.

2.11. Evaluation criteria (standards)

2.11.1. The following documents are the basis on which the work of inspectors is relied when

assessing the performance of duties:

Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo;

Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo;

Law on Police;

Regulation on Personnel and Administration;

Regulation on Operations;

3 Standard Operating Procedures - Case handling and subject matter jurisdiction

for investigation;

Standard Operating Procedure for Criminalistic Techniques - Crime Scene

Sector;

Standard Operating Procedure for the Evidence Chamber;

Guide to the content and order of the criminal file; and

Other relevant documents regulating the field of investigation.

2.12. Obstacles and constraints in achieving the objectives

2.12.1. PIK ascertains that during fieldwork and when reflecting the findings in the extended

inspection report, it did not encounter difficulties that would affect the successful fulfillment of the

objectives as defined by the Inspection Work Program.

11


3. Description of the object, findings and recommendations

3.1. Performance of regional investigative units and detection of crime

3.1.1. In its efforts to combat crime, the Prosecution is obliged to oversee the compliance of

legality, as a prevailing body in investigative proceedings. The State Prosecutor’s Office has the

right to carry out any investigative action it deems necessary to establish the presence of a criminal

offense. The police are a state body that takes care of protecting society from crime, maintaining

public order, and securing a determined state order. Police work is largely linked to prevention,

detection and discovery of crime, therefore the Police will take investigative actions and necessary

measures to detection of perpetrators and perpetrators and to gather the information needed for the

whereabouts of perpetrators, to detect and keep track of evidence that contribute to shedding light

to the perpetrators and collect information for criminal proceedings. In order to successfully

counter crime, the Police will undertake a number of police activities as defined by the legislation

in force. In order to assess compliance with the rules and procedures by regional investigative

sectors when managing cases under their jurisdiction, PIK has obtained a number of investigative

files from each regional directorate. Criminal files processed in competent Prosecution Offices

with criminal reports or special reports were checked, informing the State Prosecutor of criminal

offenses and their perpetrators. To assess the regularity of criminal cases and whether they contain

the necessary documents and forms related to the investigation and documentation of crime, 80

cases were searched, including ten 10) for each regional sector. The observance of preliminary

investigative actions, as well as the unification of the forms used within the cases, was assessed.

3.1.2. From the moment of receiving information on a suspicion of violation of law, the Police

will document all its actions until the case is processed to the competent body. Pursuant to Article

70, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo, after receiving the

information on the alleged criminal offense, the Police will investigate whether there is a

reasonable suspicion that a criminal offense, prosecuted ex officio, has been committed. The police

are obliged, within 24 hours, to submit a police report to the competent State Prosecutor who then

decides whether to initiate criminal proceedings. In this regard, the PIK checked the sampled

criminal records to verify whether they contained such police report. The inspection notes that not

all of the regional investigation sectors fulfilled this requirement, as in 75 out of a total of 80 files

checked, namely in 94% of them, the Notifying Police Report to the Prosecutor was not provided

as required with Article 70 of the Criminal Code 1. The lack of a written report to the State

Prosecutor on reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense is considered to be due to the negligence

of police officers to draft written reports on the description of a reasonable suspicion related to the

criminal offense of which they are aware. Failure to report in writing the reasonable suspicion of

a criminal offense constitutes a violation of Article 70, paragraph 5, of the CPCK. Such cases have

also been encountered in the past, when it was recommended that the Police ensure that, in

circumstances where there is a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a criminal offense has been committed,

to comply with the legal provision of the CPCK, within 24 hours, to submit a police report to the

State Prosecutor.

1 in Mitrovica North (in all cases), Mitrovica South (all cases), Prishtina (all cases), Peja (9 out of 10), Prizren (6 out of 10), Gjakova (all cases) , Ferizaj (in all cases)

and Gjilan (in all cases).

1


3.1.3. Police investigators handling criminal cases within Regional Investigation Sectors, in close

co-operation with heads of unit, should compile an investigation plan that will be used to conduct

the investigation process on the case. The inspection reveals out of a total of 80 checked case files,

50 of them, or 63% contained no investigation plans which are needed to conduct the investigation

process. The investigation of the case should be done within the shortest possible and reasonable

time, always in close coordination with the State Prosecutor. Upon completion of the investigation,

the investigator must send the case for scrutiny and signature to the Head of the Investigation Unit,

as it is not allowed to send it to the Prosecution Office without his or her signature3. The inspection

reveals that out of a total of 80 checked case files 49 or 61% contain no signature of unit

supervisors4. In these cases the chain of command for investigative files to be subjected to scrutiny

and subsequently signed by the unit supervisors was not respected. Scrutiny of files is necessary

in order for investigator supervisors to ensure that cases are completed so as to avoid deviations

from the necessary actions leading to the discovery of facts and circumstances of criminal offenses.

It is estimated that such weaknesses are a result of negligence in the part of investigators and

supervisors.

3.1.4. The Police also has the right to interrogate persons who may be witnesses of a crime, as well as

persons suspected of committing crimes. The police must inform parties in advance of their

rights they are entitled to during the interrogation, and compile an interrogation report. The

report should summarize questions, answers, identify the police officer who interrogated the

suspect, the time, date, place and identity of the suspect. When exercising authorizations

deriving from the duties and responsibilities provided for by law, the Police play an important

role in the protection and compliance with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Pursuant to

Article 125 of the CPCK, at the beginning of the pre-trial interrogation, the investigator shall

reads the rights of witnesses - suspects, and at shall confirm understanding thereof in writing.

PIK has analyzed compliance with these rights in the pre-trial procedure during interrogation of

Recommendation No. 1 PIK recommends that Chiefs of Regional Investigation Sectors should fulfill the obligation

deriving from Article 70, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of

Kosovo, under which, when there is a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offense has been

committed, the Police shall within 24 hours submit a report to the competent State Prosecutor,

who then decides whether to initiate criminal proceedings on the case.

Recommendation No. 2

PIK recommends that Chiefs of the Regional Investigation Sectors should exercise increased

control over investigators in charge of criminal cases, to eliminate weaknesses identified during

the inspection related to the lack of investigation plans in the initiated cases, as well as

insufficient control by supervisors when cases are proceeded to prosecution authorities.

1


parties. In four out of a total of 80 case files checked or in 5% of them we found statements that

did not contain the the rights of suspects or witnesses5. In some of the statements that contain

the rights of the interviewed persons, the rights are not in conformity with the articles provided

for in the CPCK on the rights of suspects or witnesses. This is evidenced in 17 out of a total of

80 controlled files, or 21% of them 6. We also found statements that were not signed by the

those that took such statements. In some of sampled case files, there are cases where the

interrogation records were not signed by the suspects-witnesses7 and this was due to the

negligence of investigators and may have adverse effects during the later stages of criminal

proceedings.

2 in Mitrovica/Mitrovicë North (5 out of 10), Mitrovicë/Mitrovica South (1 out of 10), Prishtinë/Pristina (8 out of 10), Peja/Pec

(2 out of 10), Prizren (9 out of 10), Gjakova/Djakovica (5 out of 10) , Ferizaj/Urosevac (in all cases) and Gjilan/Gnjilane (in all cases).

3 Standard Operating Procedures - Case handling and subject matter jurisdiction for investigation.

4 Mitrovica/Mitrovicë North (7 out of 10), Mitrovicë/Mitrovica South (in all cases), Prishtinë/Pristina (4 out of 10), Peja/Pec (8 out

of 10), Prizren (1 out of 10), Gjakova/Djakovica (9 out of 10), Ferizaj/Urosevac (4 out of 10) and Gjilan/Gnjilane (6 out of 10)

1


3.1.5. The analysis of the investigative files reveals that the interrogation records, criminal

reports, special reports and other case documents contained in the case files are not consistent

across Regional Investigation Sectors and there is no drafting standardization across regional

directorates. Despite the fact that standard forms of interrogation statements of parties are available

in the internal electronic communication network (intranet), there are still cases where old forms

of records (statements) were used. The application of such forms is considered unreasonable and

should be eliminated in the future. The application of standardized forms creates conditions for

uniform use of documents, thus meeting a standard of data representation and facilitating or

enabling their full presentation. Failure to apply unified forms came as a result of negligence in

the part of investigators, thus, mobilization to standardize such operational records is required.

3.1.6. The suspect has the right to a defense counsel in all stages of criminal proceedings and

before conducting any interrogation of the suspect, the Police shall inform him or her of the right

to engage a defense counsel. The right to defense may be waived, except in cases of mandatory

defense, if the waiver is expressed clearly and voluntarily after receiving all information on the

right to defense. Legal defense of a child victims is made accordingly based on Article 63,

paragraphs 1 and 2 of the CPCK. The inspection of case files assessed the compliance with legal

provisions related to statements of suspects in cases where the defense was mandatory when

entering the statement. It was found that legal provisions on the right to defense were implemented

in accordance with Article 57 of the KCCP, in all case files inspected. PIK appreciates the efforts

of regional investigators in complying with these legal provisions.

5 Mitrovica/Mitrovicë North (3 out of 10 cases) and Prizren (1 out of 10).

6 Prizren (4 out of 10), Gjakova/Djakovica (5 out of 10), and Gjilan/Gnjilane (8 out of 10)

7 Mitrovica/Mitrovicë North (7 out of 10), Peja/Pec (3 out of 10) and Gjakova/Djakovica (1 out of 10).


PIK recommendation for the Chiefs of Regional Investigation Sections is that, when

interrogating witnesses or suspects, their rights should be read in accordance with the

provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo and, at the end of the

interrogation, records (statements) should not be processed without the parties’ signature.


PIK recommends that the Chiefs of Regional Investigation Sectors exercise increased control

over investigators in order to apply unified forms that are in line with applicable legal provisions

in order to create standardized investigative files when conducting investigative actions.

3.1.7. The Strategic Development Plan (2016-2020) has set a specific objective for the Kosovo

Police, “Improve and Maintain Public Safety, Prevent and Detect Criminal Activities”, which

foresees reduction of criminal cases and increase disclosure. Regional Authorities conduct various

operational - investigative activities to prevent criminality, apprehend suspects and identify the

routes used to commit criminal offenses. PIK is interested in measuring the performance of

Regional Investigation Sectors, with an emphasis on the detection of criminal offenses and the

overload of investigators with criminal cases, but this has been hampered by the lack of

information in annual reports on cases carried over from previous years, the number of which is

high and there were cases carried over since 1999. PIK will address this issue in the near future.

The standard reports of directorates reflect the number of criminal offenses initiated as new cases

within the year, the number of disclosed criminal offenses (criminal offenses with known

perpetrators, criminal offenses disclosed and criminal offenses closed for various reasons) and the

number of undisclosed criminal offenses (criminal offenses sent with NN and criminal offenses

under investigation). PIK finds that it is necessary to review the format of these reports, as such

format does not contain all the necessary data on criminal offenses and their disclosure. The revised

format should also reflect additional indicators that measure the performance and efficiency of

these Sectors.

3.1.8. PIK has analyzed the trends and fight against crime, detectability of criminal offenses and

efficiency of units in handling cases initiated within the calendar year, but not in the cases carried

over. The number of cases categorized as offenses under the competence of Regional Sectors has

decreased during 2018 by 9% compared to the previous year. Three Regional Sectors have marked

the highest number of cases (Peja, Gjakova and South Mitrovicë/Mitrovica). Prishtinë/Pristina

leads with the highest number of criminal offenses in the past two years, representing 43% and

47% respectively of all cases at the level of all Regional Sectors. Gjakova/Djakovica has registered

the lowest number of cases in two years. From the case load analysis of investigators, it turns out

that in 2017 a regional investigator administered on average five

(5) cases initiated during the year, while in 2018, this case load decreased to four (4) cases. During

2017 and 2018, Pristina Regional Investigators had the largest caseload, with each of them

administering on average nine (9) cases per year. During 2017 and 2018, the regional investigators

of Gjakova/Gjakovica, respectively Gjilan/Gnjilane, had the lowest case load. Each of the

investigators in Gjakova during 2017 managed on average two (2) cases. During 2018, each of the

Gjilan/Gnjilane regional investigators also administered on average two (2) cases.

Table no. 1 - Criminality trends and performance and efficiency indicators of RISs

Regional

Investigatio

n Sectors

Numbe

r of

investig

ators

Crimi

nal

offens

e

Discl

osed

Case

load per

police

officer

Disclosed

per

investigato

r 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018

Prishtina 62 61 567 561 413 399 9.15 9.20 6.66 6.54

Peja 35 36 107 124 87 100 3.06 3.44 2.49 2.78

Prizren 29 29 148 103 43 76 5.10 3.55 1.48 2.62

Ferizaj 26 30 178 97 157 82 6.85 3.23 6.04 2.73

Gjilan 28 30 93 72 77 52 3.32 2.40 2.75 1.73

Gjakova 18 16 39 60 29 56 2.17 3.75 1.61 3.50

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica South

26 28 116 127 82 93 4.46 4.54 3.15 3.32

Mitrovica/Mitrovicë North

18 23 80 61 57 44 4.44 2.65 3.17 1.91

Total 242 253 1,328 1,205 945 902 5.49 4.76 3.90 3.75

INSPECTION DEPARTMENT - KOSOVO POLICE INSPECTORATE 1

2

1 1

6


3.1.9. Police units carry out investigative actions within the authority of the State Prosecution

Office. For any criminal investigation, the Police shall submit or notify the Prosecution of the

outcome of investigations, by filing a criminal report when there is a reasonable suspicion that a

criminal offense was committed, or a special report where there is no evidence to establish

reasonable suspicion that a criminal offense has been committed. After sending cases with criminal

reports to the Prosecution Office, investigation units are notified only when the reports are

dismissed, but not for other decisions when cases result in filing of indictments or even the epilogue

of competent courts decisions. PIK considers that the degree of detectability of cases and the

efficiency of investigative units is difficult to to assess due to the fact that cases completed with

criminal reports to the Prosecution do not necessarily end with indictments or convictions for

perpetrators. The analysis of reports revealed that cases sent to the Prosecution Office through

criminal reports with known perpetrators are categorized as disclosed. The comparison of the

number of criminal offenses administered with the number of cases disclosed, during 2018

indicates that there was a positive trend marked by the increase of case disclosure within the

Regional Investigation Sectors by 3% compared to the previous year (from 71 % to 74%).

Ferizaj/Uroshevac had the highest rate of disclosure in 2017 with 88%, while Prizren had the

lowest rate with 29%. During 2018, Gjakova/Djakovica had the highest disclosure rate of 93%,

while Pristina had the lowest disclosure rate of 71%.

Diagram no. 1 - Degree of disclosure of criminal offenses the under jurisdiction

of Regional Investigation Sectors (2017-2018) 100

80

60

40

20

0 73 71 81 81 29 74 88 85 83 72 74 93 71 73 71 72

Prishtinë/Pristina Pejë/Pec Prizren Ferizaj/Uroshevac Gjilan/Gnjilane Gjakovë/Djakovica South Mitrovicë/Mitrovica North Mitrovica/Mitrovicë

South North

2017 2018

1 1

7


3.1.10. The inspection focused particularly on performance evaluation of investigation units, to

see if they were effective in the investigative actions in relation to objectives deriving from the

Strategic Plan. Statistics on the ratio of undisclosed versus disclosed cases were analyzed. The

deeper the difference between undisclosed and disclosed cases, the more likely it is to have a

positive probability of efficiency in enhancing disclosure and meet objectives stemming from the

Strategic Plan. Based on this assessment, if we are to compare the difference in the number of

undisclosed cases with the number of disclosed cases, during 2017, generally at the level of

Regional Investigation Sectors, the number of undisclosed cases with the number of disclosed

cases stands at the ratio of 1 to 2.47. In 2018, this ratio improved and it was 1 to 2.98

(approximately every fourth case was undisclosed during the year). During 2017, Ferizaj/Urosevac

had the deepest difference in the number of undisclosed cases to that of disclosed cases (1 to 7),

while Prizren had the smallest difference in the number of undisclosed cases in relation to that of

disclosed cases. This implies that Prizren has had more undisclosed than disclosed cases (1 to 0.4).

During 2018, Gjakova/Djakovica had the deepest difference in the number of undisclosed cases in relation

to disclosed cases (1 to 14), while Prishtina/Pristina and Gjilan/Gnjilane had the smallest difference in the number of undisclosed cases in relation to disclosed ones (1 to 2). These differences need to be analyzed,

as trends in some Sectors indicate a high level of undisclosed cases during the year, and there might be

uncertainty in meeting objectives for combating crime and increasing of disclosure. The Regional

Investigation Sectors in DRP-Prizren, North Mitrovica?Mitrovicë, South Mitrovicë/Mitrovica and Prishtinë/Pristina should analyze the current degree of disclosure to identify the causes that resulted in this

degree of efficiency in combating crime. It should be borne in mind that Pristina has also been influenced

by the large number of cases with which regional investigators were charged.

Table No. 2 - The ratio between undisclosed and disclosed cases (2017 and 2018)

Regiona

l

Investig

ation

Sectors

Number of

criminal

offenses

Number of

disclosed criminal

offenses

Ratio (undisclosed vs.

disclosed)

2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018

Prishtina 567 561 413 399 1:2.68 1:2.46

Peja/Pec 107 124 87 100 1:4.35 1:4.17

Prizren 148 103 43 76 1:0.41 1:2.81

Ferizaj/Urosevac 178 97 157 82 1:7.48 1:5.47

Gjilan/Gnjilane 93 72 77 52 1:4.81 1:2.60

Gjakova/Djakovica 39 60 29 56 1:2.90 1:14 AM

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica South

116 127 82 93 1:2.41 1:2.74

Mitrovica/Mitrovicë North

80 61 57 44 1:2.48 1:2.59

Total 1,328 1,205 945 902 1:2.47 1:2.98

3.2. Management of confiscated evidence and objects

3.2.1. The administration of evidence is both a challenge and concern of law enforcement

institutions. The CPCK and other secondary legislation define police duties and authorizations

regarding handling of evidence from the moment of their seizure or confiscation until their final

proceeding 8. Police operations are often followed by disclosure and confiscation of objects at the

1 1

8


crime scene. One of the overall tasks and authorizations of the Police is to find and preserve

evidence of criminal offenses that may be used in criminal proceedings, and which are considered

to be the main ring that links the suspect to the crime. Similar to the stage of finding the evidence,

the Police also faces difficulties in preserving them. Physical space and appropriate conditions

must be ensured for systematization, placement and storage of evidence. Evidence rooms operate

within police stations, regional directorates, regional border directorates and at the central level.

PIK has inspected the Evidence Rooms at the level of regional directorates. Pursuant to the Work

Program, inspectors have compiled a Questionnaire based on the criteria set out in the Standard

Operating Procedures to assess the conditions of storage, handling, accommodation and recording

of evidence. The questionnaire included a verification process to determine if the evidence was

handled in accordance with applicable legislation. In order to achieve the inspection objectives,

eight (8) Evidence Rooms were visited and and the security, systematization, accommodation,

packaging, storage and recording conditions were checked in each of them. In this regard, ten (10)

pieces of evidence were randomly selected for each Room.

8 Standard Operating Procedures for Evidence Rooms - placement, handling and storage of confiscated objects, assets

and evidence, in the central and local levels of the Kosovo Police Reference No. ZDPO-02/008/14.

1 1

9


3.2.2. Evidence must be handled carefully to prevent loss, damage, destruction, decay or

contamination. PIK has found that some of the Evidence Rooms have not meet the criteria as set

out in the SOP. Evidence has been found not to be stored separately in specific locations, due to

their specificity9. In the Ferizaj/Urosevac RPD, it was found that the confiscated money, which

was deposited for safekeeping in the Evidence Room, was not found inside the deposit area, and

was kept in a safe in the office of the Evidence Room Officer, located on the highest floor of the

the building where the Evidence Chamber is located. This area is shared with other directorate

officers. Keeping this confiscated money outside the Evidence Room, where access by other police

personnel is not restricted, is found to be an inappropriate safeguarding or handling of evidence,

and is a violation of Chapter V, item C, paragraph 1 of the SOP10, and endangering of the safety and

security.

3.2.3. Biological samples, liquid drugs, syringe contents, razor blades, and money/banknotes are

evidence that should be stored in separate locations, distinct from other pieces of evidence. In the

Evidence Rooms at RPD Gjakova, Ferizaj, Gjilan, Mitrovica South and North Mitrovica,

biological samples were found not to be kept in a refrigerator, while at the PRD Prizren, one (1)

out of ten (10) items of inspected evidence (biological samples) was found without sealant tapes.

Conservation of evidence (money and biological samples) in such areas dedicated to evidence

storage, and admission of such evidence in an open envelope, without sealant tapes which ensure

that such evidence is not tampered with or opened without observing procedures established, they

also ensure upkeeping a required level of safety for the evidence, which is deemed to be of high

sensitivity. Such storage and handling of biological samples is thought to have occurred due to

negligence of the Officers in charge of Evidence Rooms.

3.2.4. Not all evidence must be kept inside the evidence deposit room. Pursuant to Chapter V, item C,

sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of the SOPs, dangerous items and evidence (explosives, radioactive

materials, inflammable items, poisonous materials or any other harmful chemicals) must not be

deposited or stored in Evidence Rooms. The officer in charge of the Evidence Room should

immediately request their transfer to sites designated for such items. Such items were found at

the RPD Prishtina/ Pristina (N2O-gas canisters), as evidence gathered in relation to case no.

2017-AS-040. Such evidence cannot be kept in Evidence Room premises, since they are

potentially a risk to other evidence and police officers exercising their activities.


PIK recommends the responsible Evidence Room Officer within the Regional Police Directorate

Ferizaj to keep all evidence and confiscated items inside the Evidence Room's premises, while

the banknotes and other valuable items to be deposited in a safe or a metal box inside the storage

area for such items and evidence.

Recommendation No. 6 PIK recommends the responsible Evidence Room Officers within the Regional Police

Directorates to ensure that when evidence is received from the case investigators, such evidence

is sealed and packed in appropriate packaging, and that such evidence is kept in special storage

areas, depending on the specifics of such items, with a view of ensuring protection against any

potential damages.

1 2

0


9 In Ferizaj/Urosevac, Gjakova/Djakovica, Gjilan/Gnjilane, Mitrovica South, Mitrovica North and Prizren. 10 The storage room for items, property, evidence or money found is a designated and secure room, where items,

property or money found, forged or seized, under the administration of Investigation units at Police Station, Regional

Police Directorate and central levels are stored, handled and stored.

1 2

1


3.2.5. The Standard Operating Procedure for Evidence Rooms has set the rules in cases where

evidence in boxes/packages or sealed envelopes must be opened. In such situations, the date,

reason, and name of the police officer opening such evidence item should be recorded in a special

registry. Only the Chief Investigator or his/her deputy, together with an evidence officer, may be

authorized to reopen such evidence package. PIK selected some evidence items on a random basis

from the Evidence Registry, and inspected whether they were sealed. In such cases of opening of

sealed evidence, compliance with the special registration procedure was examined. At the RPD

Gjilan/Gnjilane Evidence Room, PIK found evidence (a pistol and a magazine, as well as two

samples of gunpowder residue taken from the victim's hands related to a criminal offense of

“Suspicious Death”11), which were open and for which no special registration was made. At the

RPD Mitrovica South Evidence Room, out of the ten (10) inspected evidence items, one (1) item

was found to be open (a black NOKIA phone). The evidence was confiscated due to suspicion of

having been involved in the offense of "Attempted Aggravated Murder"12, however no special

registration was made for unsealing. In the RPD Ferizaj/Urosevac Evidence Room, it was found

that the evidence (AK-47 firearm) seized under the suspicion of being involved in the offense of

“Unauthorized Bearing of Firearms”13 was unsealed, and for the same, no special registration

procedure was undertaken for its unsealing. Such omissions in observing such unsealing

proceedings affect the identity of cases, and may lead to various consequences in further

investigative proceedings.

3.2.6. In the process of depositing, packaging and storing evidence, the responsible Evidence

Room Officer should endeavor to designate specific areas as special storage premises for specific

types of evidence. Firearms, narcotics, evidence of murder cases, should be stored in sites farther

from the entrance to the deposit area, in order to strengthen safety of such evidence or material

proof. During the inspection, it was identified that the evidence storage in the RPD Mitrovica South

had not complied with this criterion set out in the SOP. The evidence room is divided into two

sections, and in the first room next to the front door, firearms are deposited, which as a rule should

normally be stored in farther storage areas. This area is not subject to surveillance cameras.

11 Case number NJHR0016-17. 12 Case number 2018-BI-050. 13 Case Number 2016-CFI-004.


PIK hereby recommends the Regional Director of Prishtina/Pristina to take all necessary action

to remove such hazardous materials from the Evidence Room premises, and in the future, to

dispose of such items in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure.

Recommendation No. 8 PIK recommends the responsible Evidence Room Officers within the Regional Police

Directorates, in which such cases of unsealing evidence have been identified, to refrain, in any

case, from unsealing evidence without fully observing the Standard Operating Procedure for

the Evidence Rooms, which provides for a special registration procedure for unsealing evidence

casing/packaging.

1 2

2


The officer in charge of the Evidence Room should endeavor to store evidence in the farthest areas

of the storage site, to avoid any compromising of their safety.

3.2.7. When submitting pieces of evidence, the List of Evidence and the Chain of Evidence

should be duly completed, thereby entering information describing the evidence items, records of

the person collecting/submitting or seizing such evidence, date and time. Evidence records must

be well-documented in the Evidence Registry, and include records on the time of admission,

investigation unit, case number, type of offense, information on police officer submitting evidence,

description of each item, including vehicle number, serial number, classifier codes, etc. Upon

recording in the Evidence Registry, such information is equivalently transferred to a computer

database. Any movement of an item or proof, delivery to a court or another unit, returned to the

owner or an authorized person, must be recorded in the Evidence Registry and the Evidence

Management Database. If an item and/or evidence is submitted for examination/analysis to the

forensic laboratory, such movement must be recorded in the Evidence Register and the Database.

In the event that evidence is required, by written order, by the Court/Prosecution, submitted for

examination/analysis or re-examination to a laboratory, this must be recorded in the Register and

the Database, while a copy of the examination report shall be attached thereto, which is also kept

in the files of the Evidence Room. To verify the order of keeping such records, we have examined

whether records have been kept in parallel registries. All Evidence Rooms maintain hard copy

Evidence Logs and electronic databases. However, examination has found irregularit ies in

recording evidence in such two types of registries. In RPD Pristina and Gjilan Evidence Rooms, it

was found that Registries record more pieces of evidence than they admitted, with data

discrepancies between the Registry and the Evidence Chain14 . In RPDs of Gjilan, Gjakova and

Prishtina, we also identified cases when evidence deposited in Evidence Rooms were not recorded

in the computer database15.

3.2.8. The chain of custody for items, assets, proof or money found is a necessary document or

form, which identifies/records confiscation, handover, examination, movement, deposits and

storage of items and evidence, and the presence or access of police officers. The original copy of

the "Chain of Custody" should be kept at the Evidence Room, along with the item/evidence, and

another copy in case evidence files. During the inspection, two cases were identified in which

evidence was deposited in the Evidence Room with no Chain of Custody recorded. In the Evidence

Rooms in RPD Mitrovica North and Gjakova, there were two (2) cases identified, in which no

chain of custody for the deposited evidence was recorded16. In the RPD Gjilan/Gnjilane and

Ferizaj/Urosevac, the Evidence Book and the Chain of Custody registers were not properly

maintained, failing to record all necessary information17. In the Evidence Rooms in Gjilan/Gnjilane

and Prishtinë/Pristina, there were serious deficiencies of information in records, failure to describe

all items of evidence (vehicle number, serial number and classifier codes, as per specifications of

the Chain of Custody)18. Records of evidence using abbreviations of evidence titles, and

14 Evidence in cases no. 2018-AC-0712 (RPD Pristina); 001617 (RPD Gjilan).

15 Evidence in cases no. 2019-CA-002,0040-19, 0056-18, 011-19, 009-19 (RPD Gjilan); EB-295 2017 (RPD).

Gjakova) and 2018-AD-0035 (RPD Prishtina). 16 Evidence in cases no. 2016-SG-076 (RPD Mitrovica North) and 2016-EA-1310 (RPD Gjakova).

17 Evidence in cases no. 040-19, 0056-18, 011-19, 009-19 (RPD Gjilan); 2017-CF-2015, 2016-CF-1947 (RPD Ferizaj).

18 Evidence in cases no. 0038-17 (RPD Gjilan), 2018-AC-1428, 2019-AB-0744, 2018-AB-2013, 2017-AS-041 (RPD

1 2

3


Prishtina)

19 SOPs, evidence rooms - placement, handling and storage of confiscated items, assets and evidence, in the

central and local levels of the Kosovo Police, p.12.

1


failure to record all specifications and classifier codes as per the Chain of Custody in the registers

is a result of lack of willingness of officers in charge of the Rooms to comply with the rules laid

down for recording and presenting evidence.

3.2.9. The records of arrangement, shelf designation and location of evidence should be

maintained by the Responsible Evidence Room Officer, who should be able to identify and

document the location of any evidence deposited, which is an important element in the function of

proper storage and prompt delivery. In this regard, all metal boxes, shelves and cabinets must have

clear routing addresses. These records also ensure that the entire premises are properly marked,

using an organized numerical system that is specific, being a valuable element of the system19. Not

all Rooms have numerical records systems, shelf routing addresses and other clear guidelines on

routing of evidence. Evidence Rooms in the RPD Gjilan and Mitrovica South do not meet this

criterion set by the SOP. Responsible officials of the Evidence Room in Peja, Gjilan, Mitrovica

North, Prizren and Ferizaj were not capable of quickly delivering some of the inspected evidence

files. An examination of evidence to verify whether they have records of shelves and boxes in the

Register indicated that the RPD Pristina, Prizren, Ferizaj, Gjilan and Mitrovica South Evidence

Rooms have no records in the Register, location of evidence in the Deposit Rooms. However, in

the database, the responsible officers of the Evidence Rooms in RPD Prishtina, Ferizaj and

Mitrovica South have identified each evidence routes. Evidence that was destroyed by court orders,

or that were delivered to the laboratory for examination, were considered to have met the standard

set by the SOP.

3.2.10. Any movement of evidence, as submitted to the court, to any other unit, or returned to the

owner or an authorized person, must be recorded in the Register and the computer database. During

the inspection of the evidence randomly selected by the inspectors, it was found that all the

Evidence Rooms had deficiencies in recording evidence movement. In RPD Gjilan, nine (9) of ten

(10) pieces of evidence, in Gjakova eight (8) of ten (10), in Mitrovica South four (4) out of ten

(10), in Pristina four (4) of ten (10), in Mitrovica North three (3) of ten (10), in Prizren two (2) of

ten (10), and in Ferizaj one (1) of ten

(10) cases of examined evidence have no records of movement in the Registers. It is a

responsibility of the Officers of the Evidence Rooms to record each movement of evidence, with

all information on hand-over procedures and other procedures they undergo to avoid loss or

damage.

3.2.11. Access to the Evidence Rooms and all other storage areas is restricted to Evidence Room

police officers. Any entry of personnel is recorded in the Access Register of


PIK hereby recommends all the responsible officers of the Evidence Rooms to fill all their

necessary records into the Registry and the computer database in parallel, and that must be

done in recording any item/evidence, thereby describing all items of such evidence with

necessary specifics and classifier codes.

20 SOPs, evidence rooms - placement, handling and storage of confiscated items, assets and evidence, in the

central and local levels of the Kosovo Police, p.22.

1


the Evidence Room. The Registry is found in all the Evidence Rooms. The Evidence Room Officer

is in charge of maintaining such Registry. No one else can have access to the keys of the Evidence

Room, except the Station Commander, Regional Director and Deputy Director General for

Operations20. The inspectors examined how the keys were stored by the managers, and found that

only the Regional Directors in Prizren, Gjakova, Peja, and the Commander of the Police Station in

Mitrovica North have observed the procedures of restricting access to the keys of the Evidence

Rooms. The Regional Director in Prishtinë/Pristina, Mitrovicë/Mitrovica South, Ferizaj/Urosevac

and Gjilan/Gnjilane have not complied with the criteria for keeping the keys to Evidence Rooms,

in a sealed envelope as provided by the SOP.

3.2.12. Evidence rooms must be well secured, as all confiscated items or assets under the

administration of RPD investigative units, should be stored, handled and stored. The evidence

rooms must be appropriately located inside the buildings, constructed of solid materials, such as

concrete blocks or similar. They must be designed without windows, otherwise windows must be

constructed so as to prevent access through them, as well as air conditioning and ventilation pipes

if present in rooms, must be designed to prevent entry through them. The doors to the Evidence

Rooms should preferably be made of metal or reinforced metal, door brackets and joints shall be

installed from the room interior. The inspection noted that six (6) of the eight (8) examined rooms

are located in suitable spaces within the premises, rated as safe and separate spaces within them.

Whereas, two (2) rooms are not appropriately located within the premises. In RPD Pristina, the

Evidence Room is located in the basement of the building. To access the Evidence Room, there

are two ways, one from the interior of the building, and the other entrance from the backside of

the building. This approach does not provide the required level of security for the evidence stored

there. The Evidence Room in the RPD Gjilan is located in the basement of the building, and does

not provide for minimum storage conditions. This room is located in an inappropriate location

inside the premises, with high levels of humidity, severe aromas, apparent lack of untidiness, its

walls are damaged and the lighting is extremely poor, due to poor installation. These conditions

prevent the application of a regular working process. Inappropriate locations and inadequate

conditions jeopardize evidence as material proof, and would render inadmissible any further

proceedings in the whole chain of a justice system. Improperly handled evidence loses value and

may be destroyed. The RPD Gjilan management should act promptly to ensure proper handling of

evidence.


PIK recommends to the Regional Director of Gjilan that, in coordination with the Building

Management Directorate, and within the shortest deadline possible, to move the evidence in a

another suitable premise which would fulfill the requirements of placing and preserving items,

assets and confiscated proof in order not to damage or depreciate their value.

2


3.2.13. Out of eight (8) evidence rooms which were inspected, only one of them was constructed

without windows and most of them have windows constructed which prevent access through them.

In relation to heating, air conditioning and ventilation system which are important to keep the

evidence in a good condition, seven (7) out of eight (8) rooms which were inspected have

ventilation systems. But even though the ventilation system exists in RPD Gjilan and Prizren, it is

not functional. In Gjilan, the ventilation system is not functional at all times, whereas in Prizren at

the time of inspection it was out of order. The evidence room in the RPD Gjakova does not have

such a system in place. Rooms in which the air conditioning, heating and ventilation system is

installed, are designed to prevent unauthorized access.

3.2.14. The doors of the evidence rooms should preferably be made of or processed by metal, or

be solid doors of wood core, and their joints shall be mounted from the inside of room. In six (6)

out of eight (8) rooms inspected, the doors were in compliance with the required standards, while

two (2) other rooms did not meet the standard. In the RPD-Pristina Evidence room, the door is

made of solid material. The knot joints of the door are located on the outside of the room. In the

RPD-Gjakova, the door of the evidence room is made of wood, but also secured with a metal door

in the form of grids, while the joints are also not secured because they are located on the outside

of the room.

3.2.15. The planning of the Evidence room depends on the space available, the working standards

and the volume of evidence to be deposited. But regardless of size, a certain minimum standard

must be included when designing and planning the Evidence room. The rooms must be of good

quality and suitable to use the equipment and to place shelves, cabinets, etc. Not all rooms have

sufficient space for placing evidence that would enable them to be handled according to the rules

and arranged in such a way that access to them is easy and efficient in a timely manner. In the four

(4) Evidence rooms, the planned evidence storage and storage space is completely filled with

evidence. The evidence rooms in RPD-Prishtina, Gjakova, Gjilan and Mitrovica North do not have

sufficient storage space and there is overload of evidence. Since there is no possibility to arrange

evidence on shelves, responsible officials have also placed evidence on the floor.

3.2.16. The evidence room must have an intrusion alarm system installed, which detects when the

door is opened without authorization. The alarm system should be tested monthly and records

should be kept. The system may be activated by motion detectors and provides a good long-term

log for all inputs, with digital image storage in the server processor as well. Five (5) out of eight

(8) inspected rooms are equipped with an alarm system to prevent unauthorized access, but only

in the Evidence room in RPD-Ferizaj and Mitrovica South, this alarm is operational. Alarm

functionality was tested during inspection. Evidence rooms in RPD-Prizren, Peja and Mitrovica

North have such a system installed, but it is not operational. The alarm system is not installed in

RPD-Prishtina, Gjakova and Gjilan.

3.2.17. The Standard Operating Procedure provides that each Evidence room shall be monitored

by a system of cameras located in the entrance part of the Evidence rooms and in their internal

spaces. At the same time this monitoring should store the images in

INSPECTION DEPARTMENT - POLICE INSPECTORATE OF KOSOVO 1

2

server processor. Some rooms did not meet this criterion, as in some cases they did not have

cameras installed, and some of them, although installed, were not operational at the time of

inspection. In the RPD-Prishtinë evidence room, there was a camera only in the entrance of the

evidence rooms and in room no. 1, whilst other rooms have no cameras. In RPD-Mitrovica South,

storage areas are partially monitored and uncovered with camera surveillance, i.e., where the

firearms are stored. The evidence rooms in the RPD-Gjilan and Prizren have a camera system, but

it is not known if they are operational, as responsible officers do not have access to monitor the

footage through them and are not aware whether they are functional or not. Whereas, the Evidence

rooms in RPD-Ferizaj, Gjakova, Peja and Mitrovica North have cameras installed and the same

are operational.

3.2.18. The evidence room should be equipped with fire extinguishers, smoke detectors,

emergency eye wash solution and hygiene sinks. The refrigerator is also necessary for the

preservation of certain biological evidence. All the Evidence rooms inspected were equipped with

fire extinguishers (in the RPD-Mitrovica North Evidence rooms, the fire extinguisher had an

expired deadline for use). Six (6) out of eight (8) Evidence rooms inspected were equipped with a

smoke detector (in Mitrovica South, Prishtina and Ferizaj the smoke detector was operational, in

Prizren, Peja and Gjilan this system was out of operation, while in Gjakovëand North Mitrovicë /

Mitrovica, the rooms did not have a detector installed. All Evidence rooms are equipped with

refrigerators for the preservation of biological evidence-materials. In the RPD-Peja Evidence

room, the refrigerator is out of order and biological evidence is sent to the Evidence room to the

Peja Police Station. In the RPD-Gjilan, the refrigerator donated by ICITAP is not in use and is

located in another room near the Evidence room. The room where the fridge is located is

demolished, its walls are damaged, including the part of the ceiling, which has fallen almost

completely because of humidity. The refrigerator's stay in that room shows the negligence of the

officials responsible for safeguarding police property and its non-use makes it impossible to

preserve biological evidence. In the evidence room in RPD-Gjilan, biological evidence-materials

were seen which are improperly stored outside the refrigerator and for these same PIK kept minutes

and took pictures. In the same place (room) in Gjilan there are also metal shelves for placing

evidence, as a donation by ICITAP and which are not in use. The evidence is placed on wooden

shelves and on the floor. The wooden shelves have absorbed moisture, which also passes through

material evidence. No evidence room is equipped with a hygiene sink.

3.2.19. Audit is a formal periodic verification review to verify the correctness and flow of evidence

in the evidence rooms. A proper audit is an unbiased inspection of the principles, procedures and

actions to determine whether the standards are followed. Internal


PIK recommends to the Regional Directors, in coordination with the Director of Operations

Department and the Director of Support Services Department, to analyze the existing situation

in all the evidence rooms within the Regional Directorates, in order to ensure quality conditions

for systematization, accommodation and storage of evidence (installation - upgrading of alarm

systems, monitoring systems, smoke detection, ventilation, etc.).

2


Audit is conducted by the chief of investigations (or authorized person by the Regional Director,

Station Commander) at least once in three (3) months, in randomly selected groups of evidence

which are very sensitive such as: firearms, counterfeit banknotes or valuable assets and controlled

substances. In order to control the work flow and adherence to standards in the evidence rooms,

PIK has provided reports on audits carried out by several directorates. In the evidence room in

RPD-Ferizaj, two audits were conducted in 2019. According to the report for the second quarter

of this year, the Commission has audited by selecting two cases on a random basis with

accompanying evidence deposited in the evidence rooms. The audit was not conducted based on

the guidelines set out in the SOP where the tools or evidence selected had to be from the files on

weapons, banknotes, narcotics and other evidence for inspection. The evidence inspected by the

Commission was a telephone and a screwdriver, and the audit did not include the other evidence

set out above. Irregularities encountered by PIK inspectors on how to preserve evidence (that

banknotes are not stored in the Evidence Room in the vault for safekeeping) are not presented in

the RPD's audit and inspection reports. RPD-Prizren conducted audits within the evidence rooms

during the inspection coverage period, but did not provide sufficient evidence showing that audits

were made every three months. RPD-Prishtina has conducted two audits in the first half of 2019,

verifying the fulfillment of standards for evidence selected from weapons, banknotes and other

evidence within the deposition area. No audits have been carried out at least every three months

for 2017 and 2018. In the RPD-Peja evidence room there were audits at various periods during

2017-2019 (two in 2019, three in 2018 and two in 2017). The evidence rooms in RPD-Mitrovica

North two audits were conducted in 2018, while RPD-Mitrovica South, Gjilan and Gjakova did

not present audit reports made during the inspection coverage period. The lack of audits comes as

a result of negligence and does not improve the responsibility for the proper handling of evidence.

3.2.20. Inventory is the recording and verification of the presence of item /evidence held in the

evidence rooms compared to the records. Inventory should be carried out at least once a year, each

time staff change or at the request of the Regional Director. A number of inventory reports have

been secured in the evidence rooms to verify whether they have been able to perform the tasks of

registering, recording and verifying items compared to the records. RPDs that conducted inventory

in the evidence rooms are RPD-Peja (for 2017 and 2019) and RPD-Mitrovica South for 2019. The

reports show that the committees did not follow a defined course of action to record and verify

each evidence held within each storage area compared to the records. From the reports presented,

it is observed that not all the deposited evidence has been verified during the inventory. RPD-

Ferizaj, Gjilan, Mitrovica North, Gjakova and Prishtina did not conduct inventory for the periods

in which the inspection was conducted. The lack of inventory increases the uncertainty over the

existence of all evidence in the storage area and the identified weaknesses are the result of

negligence.

3.2.21. In order to review the work process, security, and conditions in which police officers work,

the level of cleanliness, and to follow procedures including viewing records, the Head of

Investigation Sector in the Regional Directorates should conduct as often as possible. unannounced

inspections in the evidence rooms. PIK has also paid particular attention to inspections carried out

within the Evidence and Findings rooms. In evidence rooms

2


RPD-Prishtina in 2017 and 2018 inspections were carried, and in RPD-Gjakova and Mitrovica

North in 2019, while in RPD-Gjilan in 2017 such an inspection was carried out. However, it was

found that not all RPDs carried out inspections in the period 2017, 2018 and 2019, as in the RPD-

Mitrovica South, Ferizaj, Prizren and Peja no inspection reports were presented. Inspection raises

responsibility, as it activates responsible officials to be more committed. The lack of inspections

is the result of negligence by the regional directors to exercise the necessary control over the

evidence rooms.

Recommendation No. 12 PIK recommends the Regional Directors to exercise periodic internal controls through auditing,

inventory and inspection, in order to increase the necessary measures to handle evidence

properly, as provided by the Standard Operating Procedure in force.

4. Plan for the implementation of recommendations

4.1. Plan for the implementation of recommendations

4.1.1. On the basis of the findings, the PIK has made a number of recommendations and following

comments provided by police management at the closing meeting on 30.12.2019, it has been

decided that they will be implemented according to the Action Plan presented in the table below.

No. Recommendation Level of

priority

Comments by the

police

structure

Action

Plan

1. PIK recommends that Chiefs of Regional Investigation Sectors should

fulfill the obligation deriving from

Article 70, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the

Republic of Kosovo, under which, once

there is a reasonable suspicion that a

criminal offense has been committed, the Police shall within 24 hours submit

a report to the competent State

Prosecutor, who then decides whether to initiate criminal proceedings on the

case.

II A report has been sent to the Regional Police Directorates

in which case it is requested to

comply with Criminal Procedure Code, Article 70.

paragraph 5, and at the same

time we will arrange a meeting

with the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council with a view to finding

modalities and to harmonize

practices in on the ground and the CPC.

January -

Febru

ary 2020

2. PIK recommends that Chiefs of the

Regional Investigation Sectors should exercise increased control over

investigators in charge of criminal

cases, to eliminate weaknesses

identified during the inspection related to the lack of investigation plans in the

initiated cases, as well as insufficient

control by supervisors when cases are proceeded to prosecution authorities.

I A letter will be sent to the

Regional Directors to increase their control jointly with the

Chiefs of the Regional

Investigation Sector, so that no

case is sent to the Prosecutor without the control and

signature of the relevant

supervisor.

Janu

ary

2020

3. PIK recommends to the Chiefs of

Regional Investigation Sections that,

when questioning witnesses or suspects, to read their rights in

accordance with the provisions of the

Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo, and at the end of

the questioning, the minutes

(statements) should not be processed without the parties' signature.


Regional Directors to increase

control jointly with the Regional Investigation Sector

Chiefs.

Janua

ry-

March

2020

4. PIK recommends to the Chiefs of the

Regional Investigation Sectors to

exercise increased control over the investigators in order to apply unique

forms of investigations during the

conduct of investigative actions.


Regional Directors, at the same

time a unique form has been sent to them and they have been

asked to use a unique form

which is

Janu

ary

2020

INSPECTION DEPARTMENT - KOSOVO POLICE INSPECTORATE 2

4

2


harmonized with the legal provisions

in force in order to create standardized investigative files.

also placed in the electronic

form on the intranet.

5. PIK recommends to the officer

responsible for the evidence room

within the Regional Police Directorate - Ferizaj that all evidence and

confiscated items be stored within the

premises of the evidence room, while

banknotes and valuables are deposited in a safe or metal box within the area

of deposition of items and evidence.

I We have sent the inspection

report to all regional directors

and at the same time we have requested that this

recommendation be taken very

seriously and that such

omissions not be repeated.

Janu

ary

2020

6. PIK recommends the responsible

Evidence Room Officers within the

Regional Police Directorates to ensure

that when evidence is received from the case investigators, such evidence is

sealed and packed in appropriate

packaging, and that such evidence is kept in special storage areas,

depending on the specifics of such

items, with a view of ensuring protection against any potential

damages.

I We have sent the inspection

report to all regional directors

and at the same time we have

requested that this recommendation be taken very

seriously and that such

omissions not be repeated.

Janu

ary

2020

7. PIK hereby recommends the Regional

Director of Prishtina/Pristina to take all necessary actions to remove such

hazardous materials from the

Evidence Room premises, and in the future, to dispose of such items in

accordance with the Standard

Operating Procedure.

I I have talked to the regional

director, at the same time I have received a letter from him

with information that he is

waiting for the relevant company, a company which

will send the items for

laboratory examination

abroad.

Janu

ary

2020

8. PIK recommends the responsible

Evidence Room Officers within the Regional Police Directorates, in which

such cases of unsealing evidence have

been identified, to refrain, in any case, from unsealing evidence without fully

observing the Standard Operating

Procedure for the Evidence Rooms,

which provides for a special registration procedure for unsealing

evidence casing/packaging.

I Through the report, the

Regional Directorates have been informed about the

recommendations about the

access to the evidence of the case, and to comply with the

SOP on the operation of

evidence rooms.

Janu

ary 2020

9. PIK recommends the responsible officers of the evidence rooms to

complete their data in a equivalent

manner in the Registry and in the database when registering the

items/evidence.

I Through the report, the Regional Directorates have

been informed about the

recommendations about recording the evidence of

cases, and to harmonize data

in the register

January -

Febru

ary 2020

2


computer, by describing every

evidence with its specifics and classifying marks.

Hard copy as well as the electronic form /register.

10. PIK recommends to the Regional

Director of Gjilan that, in

coordination with the Building Management Directorate, and within

the shortest deadline possible, to move

the evidence in a another suitable

premise which would fulfill the requirements of placing and

preserving items, assets and

confiscated evidence in order not to damage or depreciate their value.

II The recommendation has been

forwarded to the relevant

Regional Directorates, and at the same time we have

requested that this Directorate

in cooperation with the

Directorate of Building Management make a quick

selection in order to preserve

the value of the evidence.

Janua

ry -

April 2020

11. PIK recommends to the Regional

Directors, in coordination with the Director of Operations Department

and the Director of Support Services

Department, to analyze the existing situation in all the evidence rooms

within the Regional Directorates, in

order to ensure quality conditions for

systematization, accommodation and storage of evidence (installation -

upgrading of alarm systems,

monitoring systems, smoke detection, ventilation, etc.).

II A letter was sent to the

Regional Police Directorate, requesting an assessment of the

state of the evidence rooms,

and where it is found that the situation was inappropriate to

act in coordination with the

Director of Building

Management and to remedy eventual defects.

Januar

y - June 2020

12. PIK recommends the Regional

Directors to exercise periodic internal

controls through auditing, inventory

and inspection, in order to increase the necessary measures to handle

evidence properly, as provided by the

Standard Operating Procedure in force.

I A report was sent to the

Regional Police Directorate,

requesting that inspections,

audits and inventory be done based on SOPs and PIK

recommendations.

Janu

ary

2020

2


Annex Annex 1: Data on fulfillment of recommendations from previous inspections

The findings from previous inspections (2013)

inspection: Evidence rooms in Kosovo Police no 5/2013

No. Recommendation given Comments by the

police structure (in

original)

Deadline

for

impleme

ntation

Level

of

implem

entation 1. PIK recommends the Director of the

Support Services Department to intensify

cooperation with the Director of the Investigation Department as well as

regional directors so that the Support

Services Department can furnish evidence rooms with removable shelves,

containers, standard boxes,

refrigerators, extinguishers, fire

extinguishers and other adequate equipment for each piece of evidence.

Assessment

by PIK: General

2. PIK recommends regional police

directors (RPD-Ferizaj, RPD-Gjilan) to

take appropriate measures to eliminate humidity in the evidence rooms wherein

this problem is evident.

Assessment

by PIK: Partially

3. PIK recommends the RPD-Mitrovica

and RPD-Gjilan Regional Police Directors to place additional remedies in

the evidence rooms where the doors have

exterior latches.

Assessment

by PIK: Partially

4. PIK recommends that officers working in

the evidence rooms, that in the Evidence

Register and electronic database, as well as in cabins, shelves, and metal boxes, to

present the information on the location

of evidence (the exact location of

deposition).

Assessment

by PIK: Partially

5. PIK recommends that Evidence Room

officials, when receiving evidence from

case investigators, ensure that the evidence is packaged in standard

packages, which preserve the evidence

from potential damage or loss.

Assessment

by PIK: General

6. PIK recommends that the evidence room

officials, when registering the

items/evidence, to enter the the data in a equivalent manner in the electronic

database.

Assessment

by PIK: General

2


7. PIK recommends that senior

management take steps to secure paper bags in official languages and oblige the

evidence room officials to fill in the

second part of the paper bag to ensure

that there are records of belongs to the storage chain (from-to-date).

Assessment

by PIK: Not

assessed

8. PIK recommends the Directorate for

Strategic Planning and Legal Affairs to engage in the development of a new

document that will precisely regulate the

work of evidence rooms.

Assessment

by PIK: Fully

9. PIK recommends to senior police

management to attend to the internal

control mechanism and to engage in oversight and accountability in relation

to reporting on inventory, auditing and

evidence room inspection.

Assessment

by PIK: Partially

10. PIK recommends senior management to

engage the Training Division to arrange adequate training for evidence room

police officers.

Assessment

by PIK: Not

assessed

11. PIK recommends that senior management be engaged to train some

other alternative persons to acquire the

knowledge about the work in the

evidence room.

Assessment

by PIK:

Not

assessed

12. PIK recommends that senior

management works in that in all

evidence rooms the ICITAP electronic database is applied, in order to have a

unique (standardized) registration.

Assessment

by PIK:

Fully