Ingrid Towers’ murder at a house in Prizren has turned into a retrial for accused Sead Halilaj. The Court of Appeals has annulled his sentence to 15 years in prison after proving that the sentence was based on unacceptable evidence and did not sufficiently clarify the facts linking him to the crime.
Halilaj, who was extradited from Great Britain in 2024, will be tried again at the Foundation Court in Prizren. He has continued detention until another first-degree decision, the Signal newspaper reports.
The event took place on June 4, 2013. According to the indictment reflected in the decision, Halilaj and Senad Towery, the victim’s brother, had come from Shkodra and had met with Ingrid in Prizren, where they had stayed in the home of an acquaintance.
Ingrid worked as a singer and dancer at a local in Mitrovica. According to the prosecution’s version, the family opposed her work, and she had refused to return home. Halilaj is accused of being stabbed with her brother.
According to forensic expertise described in the decision, the victim had died of mass bloodshed as a result of numerous cutting and piercing wounds. Senad Tower was sentenced to this event earlier.
One was used as evidence against another
One of the main violations that Apel identified was the use of three previous acts of prejudice against Senad Towers, issued by the Foundation, Appeal, and Supreme.
The first-instance court had given these decisions provative values in support of Halilaj’s guilt.
However, according to Apel, under the circumstances of this case this conflicted with the ban on the use of a defendant’s statements as evidence against co-conception, either in the same procedure or in separate procedure, except that cases are legally permitted.
The college found that the Foundation had an obligation to care for, according to official duty, so that the decision would not be based on unacceptable evidence.
Two knives at the scene, but the connection with Halilaj remained unclear
The appeal also raised remarks about the Foundation’s conclusions regarding the two knives found at the scene.
In the canceled act, it was found that both knives were used to carry out the work. According to Apel, however, their only finding was not enough to confirm that conclusion.
It had not been clarified by what knife the work had been done, who had used it, and whether there was any concrete link between these tools and Halilaj.
And according to college, it did not result that knives had been subjected to expertise for determining material or biological tracks that would connect the accused with them.
The Witnesses had not seen the time of the murder
In Apel’s assessment, witnesses surveyed the decision had indicated the attitude of persons at the residence, transporting them and the work of the victim, but had not provided direct information on the execution of Halilaj’s assassination.
None of them had witnessed the moment of the crime.
Meanwhile, forensic reports confirmed the nature of wounds and time of death, but contained no data linking Halilaj to the work done.
According to Apel, the Foundation had largely described statements and material evidence, without making the necessary analysis of their credibility, connection between them, and how they supported the outcome of guilt.
The college also identified contradictions. The device mentioned interval between 3:23 and 06:47, while in reasoning, based on forensic expertise, death occurred between 0400 and 0600.
The prosecution demanded harsher punishment, defence rejected guilt
The Constitutional Prosecution in Prizren had demanded harshing the 15-year sentence, claiming it was not in proportion to the weight of the work, the way it was carried out and its motives.
According to the prosecution, the case was related to the lifelessness of a young girl for poor motives and circumstances related to patriarchal thinking and customs.
The defence, meanwhile, had rejected evidence and rationale of criminal responsibility. He had also stressed that Halilaj was not a member of the victim’s family and that the opposition to her work by family could not automatically serve as an excuse for his involvement in the murder.
At the Appeals session, Halilaj had declared that his mistake was that he had been at the wrong time and place.
What should be clarified in the retrial?
With the decision of July 1, 2026, Appeals has imposed the Foundation to eliminate violations and fully assess the evidence.
The court must determine concrete actions attributed to Halilaj, the evidence that supports them, and whether they are enough to prove his criminal responsibility. More evidence can be administered if necessary.
Following the annulment of the indictment, the prosecution’s request for stiffening the sentence and other complaints bases are considered unsults for this phase.
Canceling the sentence is not a free decision. The case will be considered again, while Halilaj remains in custody under this act.
Note: The people mentioned in this news are considered innocent until their guilt is confirmed by court’s firm form.
The signal where the truth speaks before the news!
Source Layer: Signal