Before he was brutally killed with axes at Vitomirica Peja, Arlinda Sylaj Zekiaj had held a long battle for her protection and the right to have her close to her son. A partial defence order, issued after delays and repeated requests, letters to institutions and meetings with Prosecutor’s directors are just some of the developments preceding the tragedy.
The signal newspaper has provided new information on 49-year-old efforts that, before losing their lives on October 25th, had repeatedly called for the intervention of institutions due to reported domestic violence and disagreements over child care.
According to information provided, Arlinda had managed to obtain a partial defense order, but not without going through a protracted process, conveyed with urgent demands, remarks and continued intervention by her lawyer.
To request institutional action, the late and her legal representative had several times communicated with the chief prosecutor in Pec, had written to the court, and had demanded that the defense order be treated without further delay.
But Arlinda’s efforts did not end with her personal protection.
Her son was in the center of another battle.
According to signal sources, the husband had left for the United States, leaving the child in the care of other people. Arlinda had sought to take the boy next to her, but the process had been followed by constant obstacles and drag, according to claims by her side.
In this process, attention was also focused on the Centre for Social Work, for which complaints were filed regarding delays in preparing the child’s report.
Because of such delays, intervention was also required by the mayor of the municipality through a letter expressing concerns about how the child was handled.
For Arlinda, according to information provided, this was not simply an administrative procedure or a disagreement between parents. It was the attempt to have her with her son after Father left for America.
However, concrete decisions that had been made for child care, deadlines for handling requests, and reasons for the alleged delays remain to be clarified.
Doubts about returning family members to the home where the victim lived
Another situation that requires clarification relates to the dwelling place of family members.
According to information received by the signal, while the husband was in America and prior to the pronunciation of the defense order, his family had lived in Decani.
But after the defense order was issued, they were allegedly brought to the home in Vitomirica, where Arlinda and her son lived.
This situation raises questions about the motive for housing change and the impact that the presence of family members may have had on the victim’s safety and the effective implementation of the defense order.
It has not yet been confirmed whether the shift was made to exert pressure on her, who had decided it and whether the responsible institutions had been announced.
Last letter and warning preceding murder
On October 22, 2026, just three days before the assassination, an urgent letter of Arlinda’s address to the chief prosecutor had been accepted at the Constitutional Prosecutor’s Office in Pec.
In that letter, which the Signal newspaper has provided, it required taking measures against officials who, according to her, had failed in fulfilling the duties, the immediate execution of the judicial order, and the investigation of the actions of the institutions involved.
This is my last addition, she wrote.
Furthermore, Arlinda had expressed fears that institutions could be forced to render accounts only after life was taken.
Three days later, she was found murdered in her home.
The victim’s brother – in – law, Albert Sylaj, is suspected of murder, while her husband, Sylaj, according to information provided by the signal, has been detained for 48 hours after the interview.
New developments make a thorough review not only of the murder circumstances but also of the history of denouncing, protection requirements, judicial decisions, and institutional treatment of the child’s case necessary.
When was the defense order first requested, and why was it only partially issued? How long have the demands remained untreated? What actions has the Centre for Social Work undertaken? Is the danger appreciated after the husband’s family was placed in the home where the victim lived?
The answers require the examination of the official documentation and concrete actions of each institution, without prejudiced on individual responsibility.
Arlinda had sought self – protection and had struggled to have the child with her. Today, after her murder, it remains to be clarified whether the institutions acted with the urgency and care required by her situation.
Because the history of Arlinda cannot be closed just by dawning the moment it was taken away. It has to be dawned on all her demands before that night.
Source Layer: Signal