One mother denounced that her child had been interrogated without legal guarantees, that the evidence had not been provided, and that institutions had failed to protect her. The lawyer called for disciplinary investigation into the prosecutor responsible. The chief prosecutor in Pec decided to close the case without initiating disciplinary procedure. Two months later, the woman who had sought justice for her son was brutally killed with ax.
The signal newspaper has exclusively secured a 21-page decision by the Founding Prosecutor in Pec, which finds out how disciplinary complaints of attorney Adelina R was addressed. Hoxha, representative of Arlinda Silla Zekaj, the woman who was killed in Vitomirica on October 25th.
The document holds AD.nr’s first issue of August 21st, 2026. With it, the chief prosecutor of the Constitutional Prosecutorship in Pec had rejected the request for the initiative of disciplinary procedure against the prosecutor who had handled the Arlinda child case.
The decision does not say that the attorney’s claims were investigated to the end through a disciplinary procedure. He says there was not enough basis for such a procedure to begin.
This is the difference that today takes on extraordinary importance.
A mother was looking for the boy, the lawyer was looking for responsibility
The complaint was filed on July 28, 2026, after the events on July 10th, when Arlinda had called for institution intervention for her son, who had remained under the care of other people.
In the document prepared by the lawyer, grave doubts arose about the effective failing to exercise the prosecutorial office, the lack of urgent measures for child protection, non-administration of evidence, and treatment of minors without necessary professional guarantees.
The lawyer did not ask for a favor. He wanted to verify whether responsible officials had respected their legal obligations to a child in the midst of serious family conflict.
The complaint claimed that the child had been questioned without proper professional assistance, that there was danger of influence in his statements, and that video recordings had not been provided that could help whiteen circumstances.
Confirming communications between the prosecutor and police investigators was also required to determine whether the instructions given had been sufficient and legal.
The institutional answer: There is no disciplinary violation
The chief prosecutor reviewed the complaint, demanded statements by the prosecutor involved, and on 21 August issued the decision to reject the request.
It was argued that the prosecutor had acted within the legal competencies and that no action or action that constituted disciplinary violations had been proven.
But that is where the question arises that institutions cannot avoid: Was it enough for the prosecutor’s response and the material discussed to exclude allegations of serious carelessness, or did a disciplinary investigation need to verify them more deeply?
The answer to that question cannot be replaced by the fact that the complaint has been rejected. The decision is the institution’s position; the legality and completeness of that assessment could be subject to independent control.
The child without a psychologist? The prosecution treated him as a conversation
One of the most disturbing points in the document relates to the questioning of minors.
The lawyer claimed that the child was interviewed without the presence of a psychologist and without guarantees that require child treatment in sensitive procedures.
In the chief prosecutor’s decision, this issue was dealt with through the gap between formal interrogation and a conversation conducted within the work of the Centre for Social Work.
But changing the label of an action does not automatically answer the fundamental question: Was the child protected from potential influence and respected by his best interest?
That was exactly the concern the lawyer had asked to be investigated.
What about the cameras? What about the evidence that could be lost?
The claim for no long security cameras was also filed in the complaint.
These recordings, according to the lawyer, could help verify the child’s contacts with other people and clarify the circumstances for which the intervention of institutions was required.
The chief prosecutor argued that not taking a certain action in itself was not enough to prove disciplinary responsibilities without identifying the concrete obligation violated.
However, an inevitable question remains.
Were the recordings provided before they were hidden, or were the institutions content to conclude that their absence did not create disciplinary responsibilities?
The ruling does not provide confirmation that all electronic evidence requested by the lawyer was administered.
And the responsibility to investigate cannot be confused with the responsibility to condemn.
For the child, responsibility referred to other institutions
In the 21-page ruling, the chief prosecutor argues that deciding and caring for the child are issues involving the competencies of the Centre for Social Affairs and Court.
This may be an important judicial difference, but it does not rule out the need to examine whether each institution has acted within its own competencies, in time and effectively.
In a matter in which a mother demanded a child’s return, the problem could not be solved simply by determining who had the powers. He had to make sure that no legal obligation was left unfulfilled.
Arlinda continued the battle.
On October 16, the Constitutional Court in Pec made a decision to defend it and temporarily entrusted it to the boy in care.
The decision also ordered that the former husband allow him to return to the common house.
In August complaints were dropped. In October, he warned that life could be taken.
On October 22, Arlinda again addressed the Constitutional Prosecution in Pec.
This time, an urgent handwritten letter required measures against officials who, according to her, had failed to fulfill the duties and immediate execution of the judicial order.
This is my last addition, she wrote.
In the same letter, Arlinda had expressed fears that institutions could be forced to render accounts only after life was taken.
It was not a warning made after the tragedy. There was an accepted document to the Prosecutor before that.
Three days later Arlinda was killed.
Who will investigate the decisions of those who were to protect him?
Today, after Arlinda’s murder, it is not enough to repeat that the disciplinary complaint had been rejected and that the prosecution had considered the prosecutor’s actions legitimate.
It should be considered whether the August decision was based on a thorough verification if the required evidence had been secured and if the victim’s subsequent warnings were dealt with with with the seriousness of the danger.
The August decision does not prove officials were responsible for the October assassination. But the institution’s assessment that there was no disciplinary offense should not be an obstacle to independent control of its actions.
A mother sought protection for her son. The lawyer denounced violations and requested investigation. The chief prosecutor rejected the complaint. Later, the same woman warned that life could be taken. Today she’s dead.
This chronology is not a guilty decision for anyone.
It is sufficient reason to demand that any institutional action and inaction be considered without exceptions and without privileges.
Justice for Arlinda Sylaj Zekaj cannot be limited to the investigation of the allegedly murdered person. It should also include verifying the responsibilities of those who made decisions about its requirements, evidence, and protection while still alive.
If it turns out to be a violation, there must be a responsibility. If there were no, institutions should testify through documents and a reliable examination, not just through their own decisions.
A mother was killed. The documents of her warnings and complaints exist. Now the answers can’t be missed.
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