Note : SPAK has been silent for months in the investigation of Arben Ahmetaj, although with almost the same evidence as the ones against the former minister, 36 other people have been criminally prosecuted in the incinerators file.
However, this is not the only difference that raises doubts about the application of the two standards to those investigated in this file. The other difference is related to the procedural side of the investigations.
In the case of Ahmetatj, it took several months for SPAK to "process" the public data proving that the former minister was connected to the incinerators and to bring three charges against him, that of abuse of office, corruption and money laundering. money.
Although the charges against Ahmetaj are more serious than the charges brought against a good part of the other 36 people who are currently under investigation and as a security measure, the procedure was not followed the same.
In the case of Ahmetaj, SPAK interrogated relatives of the former minister, unlike what it did with other persons, officials and businessmen who were charged and imprisoned in cells only on the basis of documents and accusations, which in part well they eat debate on the logic of their rise.
Unlike Ahmetaj, neither they nor their family members were questioned, but under the media frenzy sponsored perhaps unintentionally by SPAK, they were handcuffed and sent to the cell. Another standard is being followed for Ahmetaj, the one where special prosecutors are interrogating his relatives, before deciding whether to arrest him or not.
This is the procedural difference in the same file, which SPAK must clarify and clarify what the legal standard is; the one when 36 accused were charged without being questioned, or the one of Ahmetaj?
©Copyright Vox News
This article is exclusive to Vox News, it is copyrighted according to Law No. 35/2016, "On copyright and related rights". The article can be republished by other media only by citing Vox News and placing the source link at the end, otherwise any violator will be held responsible according to Article 178 of Law No. 35/2016.