The failure of a child, allegations of manipulation of statements, evidence that threatened to disappear and alleged interference in the investigation’s work. These are just some of the serious charges Arlinda dellaj Zakaj’s lawyer had filed in a disciplinary complaint to the chief prosecutor of the Constitutional Prosecutor in Pec. The document, provided exclusively by the Signal newspaper, highlights another chapter of efforts to protect the victim and her child.
The cruel murder of Arlinda Sillaj Zeqiaj in Vitomirica of Peja is continuing to bring to light documents raising serious questions about the way the institutions had addressed its provisions and defence requirements.
The signal newspaper has secured a 14-page disciplinary complaint prepared by lawyer Adelina R. Hoxha, the quality of the authorized Arlinda representative.
The complaint is addressed to the chief prosecutor of the Constitutional Prosecutorship in Pec and targeted the actions of a state prosecutor during handling a case involving the victim’s minor child.
The document calls for disciplinary investigation into allegedly violating official duties, serious professional negligence, effective neglect of the prosecutorial post, and failure to impose the child’s best interest.
But what had happened?
The child was questioned while the lawyer claims that the necessary guarantees had not been respected
The complaint describes an incident of July 10, 2026, when police and Prosecution were notified of circumstances related to the child’s departure from motherhood and his position on other people.
According to claims submitted to the document, the minor was found in the presence of third persons, while the mother had raised concerns about the impact they could exert on him.
The lawyer claims the child was questioned without effective assistance from psychologist, professor or expert for communication with minors.
One of the most serious claims is that a safe environment for interviewing the child was not guaranteed in advance, although there were concerns of influence, suggestion and possible manipulation of his statements.
Concern also arises that the mother had warned the organs about the danger of being influenced by those in whose presence she was present.
The legal representative claims that, despite such information, all necessary actions were not taken to ensure the minor’s free and professional statements.
Security cameras and evidence that could be lost
A considerable part of the complaint is dedicated to the alleged lack of evidence from the site.
According to the lawyer, images of security cameras could have helped identify people present, determine contacts that the child had had, and verify the circumstances of his departure from his mother’s care.
The complaint raises doubt that electronic evidence had not been provided in time, although there was the danger of automatically hiding or losing records over time.
The legal representative demanded verification of whether the images had been preserved if they were ordered to sequencing them and why the respective actions were not immediately taken.
It also wanted to verify whether the site of the event had been fully documented and if individuals who had contact with the child had been identified.
Suspicions for Intervention and Later corrections of instructions
Another serious claim relates to the way the prosecution allegedly intervened in the direction of the investigation.
The prosecutor reportedly, after announcing the situation, had delegated actions to police investigators, without specifying, according to the lawyer’s claim, sufficient instructions for protecting the child and providing evidence.
The document calls for a review of communications between the prosecutor and investigators, including phone calls, messages, electronic communications and official notes.
Especially serious is the claim that after the defense raised concerns, there had been efforts to correct or rehabilitate formal previous instructions without a clear record of changes.
The lawyer wants to verify whether later communications have been common procedure actions or attempts to correct previous shortcomings.
These are claims filed in complaints and not the findings of a disciplinary body.
What did the lawyer ask for from the chief prosecutor?
In the final part, the legal representative called for recording the complaint and examining the disciplinary responsibility.
It required urgent security of electronic evidence, verification of instructions given to the police, and clarification of the legal basis on which the child was left under the care of third persons.
It was also required to verify whether the minor was interviewed by specialised professionals and whether legal standards were respected for his defense.
The complaint also calls for saving phone and electronic communications, recording from security cameras, operational notes, and other documents that could help clear up the way the case was handled.
The lawyer also expressed willingness to submit videos that, according to her, testified to psychic pressure and serious beatings on the child.
From the battle for the boy to the murder that shocked Pec
This complaint takes particular importance in light of other documents provided by the signal.
On October 16, 2026, the Constitutional Court in Pec had issued a defence order against Arlinda’s former husband, deciding among other things that the child should be temporarily entrusted with the mother and that she would be allowed to return to the common house.
On October 22nd, another police chip documented the difficulties of returning her home and concluding that staying there was not safe because of the situation.
That same day, Arlinda had delivered an urgent letter to the Founding Prosecutor in Pec, demanding measures against officials who, according to her, had failed to perform duties.
Just three days later, on October 25, she was found murdered in her bedroom in Vitomirica.
Her brother-in-law, Albert Sylaj, was suspected of a murder, while her former husband, Liene, was reportedly detained for 48 hours after the interview.
The documents provided by the signal show a long history of complaints, defence requirements and efforts to implement institutional decisions.
However, the disciplinary complaint does not automatically prove that the prosecutor committed violations, nor that the actions handled in it are due to subsequent murder.
What requires answers is whether the attorney’s claims were considered, whether measures were taken to preserve evidence and whether institutions had reacted in line with their obligations.
Had the disciplinary complaints been addressed? Were the evidence provided? Was the child’s interrogation verified? Had there been a measure against any official?
The signal paper will request clarification from competent institutions on these issues.
The story of Arlinda Zekiaj cannot only be treated as chronic of a murder. The new documents require review of the way institutions handled its demands and warnings during the months preceding the tragedy.
Note: The person mentioned in this news is considered innocent until his guiltyness is confirmed by the court’s firm form.
The signal where the truth speaks before the news!
Source Layer: Signal