After nearly three decades on the run, Sokol Hoxha was extradited from the United States to Albania in August. His case has now taken a dramatic turn, with reports that a Fier court accepted the defence's request to declare his 25-year prison sentence time-barred.
 |
The decision, according to the information provided, followed a request by his defence lawyers, Toto Avdija and Rozeta Plaku, who argued that the period for executing the 25-year sentence imposed in Albania had expired.
Hoxha had been sentenced in absentia in 2000 for the 1997 murders of brothers Banaj in Patos. After fleeing Albania, he was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment by a Belgian court in connection with the murder of 19-year-old Brunilda Dervishi in Brussels.
The reported ruling raises a central legal question: what happens when a sentence imposed decades earlier can no longer be enforced under the applicable domestic rules, while a separate foreign conviction remains outstanding?
The 1997 murders that led to a decades-long manhunt
The case dates back to March 1997, when two brothers, known by the surname Banaj, were murdered in Patos following a dispute reportedly involving a car cassette player.
Hoxha was subsequently convicted in absentia and sentenced to 25 years in prison by a court in Fier in 2000. He had left Albania and remained outside the reach of Albanian law enforcement for decades.
In August 1997, he was also implicated in a separate murder in Belgium. Belgian justice later sentenced him to life imprisonment for the killing of Brunilda Dervishi, a 19-year-old Albanian woman.
The two cases became the basis for an international search involving authorities in several countries.
Arrest in Ohio ended nearly three decades on the run
Hoxha was arrested on May 5, 2026, in Ohio by the U.S. Marshals Service, working alongside other American law enforcement agencies and international partners.
According to the U.S. Marshals Service, the arrest followed a six-year fugitive investigation. Hoxha was wanted internationally in connection with the Belgian conviction and was also sought by Albania for the murders of the two brothers.
The case involved cooperation between authorities in the United States, Albania and Belgium, alongside international police coordination.
On August 6, 2026, Hoxha was transferred from the United States to Albania and taken into custody in Fier, where authorities intended to enforce the Albanian sentence.
His return appeared to mark the end of a long-running manhunt. The subsequent court proceedings, however, introduced a new legal complication.
Why did the defence seek his release?
During the proceedings in Fier, Hoxha's lawyers argued that more than 25 years had elapsed since the Albanian sentence became final without it being executed.
Their request was based on the legal principle known as the statute of limitations for the execution of a criminal sentence, or parashkrimi i dënimit in Albanian.
The prosecution, represented by Malbora Dinaj, opposed the request and sought continued detention. It also pointed to Hoxha's life sentence in Belgium for the murder of Brunilda Dervishi.
The defence, meanwhile, argued that the Belgian case did not provide a sufficient basis for continued detention in the proceedings under consideration, referring to the absence of a relevant international arrest request from the Belgian authorities, according to the information provided.
Judge Aurora Tusha reportedly accepted the defence's request and ordered Hoxha's release.
The precise terms and legal effect of the decision require confirmation from the court, particularly given the separate Belgian conviction and the possibility of further legal proceedings.
Does the reported ruling mean Hoxha is free of every sentence?
Not necessarily.
The crucial distinction is between the enforceability of the Albanian sentence and the separate Belgian judgment. A decision declaring one sentence time-barred would not, by itself, establish that a foreign conviction had also ceased to have legal effect.
The status of any Belgian request, the recognition or transfer of the foreign sentence, and the existence of any independent legal basis for detention would all be relevant to determining what happens next.
The case therefore extends beyond the question of whether the 25-year Albanian sentence can still be executed. It also tests how domestic criminal procedure interacts with international judicial cooperation when a person has been convicted in more than one country.
A case that raises questions about the justice system
Hoxha's case highlights the consequences of a criminal sentence remaining unenforced for decades. The passage of time can create legal obstacles even when a person has been convicted of extremely serious crimes.
For the victims' families, the legal distinction between a sentence being time-barred and the underlying crimes remaining matters of public record may be difficult to reconcile. For the courts, however, the question must be resolved according to the applicable law and the specific circumstances of each conviction.
The reported decision in Fier could therefore have implications beyond this individual case, depending on its legal reasoning and whether it is challenged or reviewed.
For now, the key issues are the official wording of the court's decision, its finality, and the status of the separate Belgian life sentence.
After nearly three decades of international pursuit, Sokol Hoxha's case has entered a new phase — one in which the decisive questions may be less about locating the fugitive and more about the legal limits of enforcing sentences across borders.