He had left America, but not the suffering behind. One woman who, according to new information, had faced constant domestic violence, leaving home, and stumbling to have her son with her close, ended up fatally murdered. Before her life was taken away, she had knocked on the doors of institutions, sought protection, and warned of the impending danger.
The murder of Arlinda Silla Zekaj, 49-year-old who was hit to death by ax in Vitomirica, Peja, is bringing to light a story much longer than the tragic night of October 25th.
The signal newspaper has provided new information on victim life, family conflicts, claims of systematic violence and its efforts to ensure institutional protection.
According to these information, Arlinda and her husband had lived in the United States for about ten years. The family descended from Decani, and later lived in Vitomirica, Pec.
However, after returning to Kosovo, family relations had allegedly deteriorated to the point that Arlinda had faced continued violence.
Signal sources claim that her husband had expelled her from her home, burned her clothes, and separated her from her.
But according to these information, one of the most painful parts of this story was related to her son.
After the breakup, Arlinda was allegedly faced with obstacles to take the child with her.
Sources say that, at a time when the husband had traveled to America, the boy was left under the care of a third person, while the mother had asked for institutions to intervene to resolve the issue.
According to the same information, the requirements for intervention were also linked to the claim that the child was left unattended by the parent who had left abroad.
For Arlinda, not allowing her son to be with her was not just a family dispute. According to claims conveyed to the signal, she experienced this situation as a serious form of psychological violence.
This account also mentions the existence of a protective order related to the violence reported by the husband.
However, it remains to verify its content, duration, and application, as well as decisions made regarding child care.
Another disturbing element relates to claims of delay in handling institutional requirements.
According to information received by the signal, about 24 days had been received for an order, while another claim was denied.
It has not yet been clarified what concrete decision it comes to, which court or institution had addressed the request and on what reasoning the verdict was made.
But what is already documented is that Arlinda, just three days before the assassination, had urgently sought the intervention of the Basic Prosecutor in Pec.
In the letter received on October 22, 2026, to the chief prosecutor, the victim had sought to take action against officials who, according to her, had failed in fulfilling the duties, as well as the immediate execution of a judicial order.
In the document, she wrote that the danger to her life continued, while she also sought investigation into officials involved, starting with the Centre for Social Work.
This is my last addition. He wrote Arlinda.
In the same letter, she had warned that the day could come when institutions would be forced to render an account only after life was taken.
Three days later, she was killed.
On the evening of October 25th, Arlinda was interviewed at the Pec Police Station in connection with a family violence case, and around 20:58 had returned home from police patrols.
About ten minutes after police officials left, it was found without signs of life in the bedroom.
Her brother – in – law, Albert Sylaj, has been suspected of murder, while the victim’s husband, Sylaj, has been detained for 48 hours after the interview. Each individual’s eventual criminal responsibility remains a matter of investigation and judicial procedure.
Arlinda’s story already raises questions that go beyond the circumstances of the murder.
What had happened to her pleas for protection? What decisions were made for the boy? Was the protective order carried out? What institutions had been informed of claims of systematic violence, and what actions had they taken?
These questions require answers recorded by responsible institutions.
Claims of institutional failures remain to be verified and do not automatically prove the responsibility of any official.
Arlinda had not only sought protection from violence. According to new information, she had also fought for the right to be with her child.
Today, she no longer lives to tell her story.
What remains is her letter, her requests, and the obligation to whitewash not only those who claimed her life but also what happened to her warnings before it was too late.
Source Layer: Signal