DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Ilir Beqaj's open LETTER from prison: The Parliament that (doesn't) ask what and how it should be asked?!

2025-10-19 11:21:51Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Ilir Beqaj's open LETTER from prison: The Parliament that (doesn't)
Ilir Beqaj

Former Minister of Health, Ilir Beqaj , has published an open letter criticizing the way the Albanian Parliament has handled the annual reports of independent justice institutions for 2024.

Describing the process as a failure for two consecutive years, Beqaj states that the leaders of institutions such as the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the Constitutional Court have avoided specific questions with the justification of " their independence ", while the MPs themselves have shown themselves passive, not raising the questions that the public expects.

"Independence does not mean a lack of accountability. The Assembly has a legal and moral obligation to verify how this independence is being exercised," Beqaj writes.

Ilir Beqaj's letter from prison:

The Assembly that (doesn't) ask what and how it should be asked?

(Why did the annual reports of "independent" justice institutions fail in the Albanian Parliament)

Honorable ladies and gentlemen,

I have been on a restricted regime for months. This has given me more free time than usual and the television has become my only window to the free world. For the second year in a row, I have been following with attention the live broadcasts of the annual reports to the Albanian Parliament of the independent institutions of justice.

When I was in that hall myself, I did not pay any particular interest to these reports. I was more attracted to those of ERRE, AKEP, ERRU, the Bank of Albania or the Financial Supervisory Authority. But today, with distance and concrete experience with the justice system, it has become clear to me that the Albanian Parliament has failed for two consecutive years with the reports of independent institutions such as the KLGJ, KLP, ILD, etc.

The leaders of these institutions avoided answering specific questions because they are independent. And, in a way, they are right. Even more so when those who voted for their independence cannot be the ones who violate them.

There are also MPs who hide behind the same excuse: "they are independent institutions, they should not be harassed."

But independence does not mean a lack of accountability. If the law has granted them this independence, the Assembly has a legal and moral obligation to verify how that independence is being exercised.
I am not a lawyer, but my experience in public life and my dealings with justice in recent years have helped me compile a non-exhaustive but essential list of questions that the Assembly failed to ask.

I. General and institutional questions

1. How is it possible that the issue of wiretapping of members of the Constitutional Court was not addressed at all? Was it investigated who ordered it, how it was carried out, and were the legal guarantees respected? The independence of constitutional judges does not only protect a few individuals, but also protects the balance of the entire system.

2. How is it possible that the Appeals Court of Kosovo does not implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court? When the Constitution states that its decisions are “binding for immediate implementation,” who is responsible for their non-implementation?

3. How is it possible that the Supreme Court of Kosovo has not appointed a single court president for six years, but all of them have temporary leaders? Permanent leadership is a contradiction. Without a permanent leader, there is neither vision nor accountability.

4. How is it possible that different criminal panels of the Supreme Court issue opposing decisions on the same legal issue and the Court does not rush to issue a unifying decision? When practice is divided, justice becomes a lottery.

5. How is it possible that after six years of operation, the Special Prosecution Office has still not clearly understood who is a “senior official” according to the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure? How many decisions of the Special Court have been overturned precisely because charges were filed against persons who did not fall into the category of senior officials? Regardless of material competence, personal competence cannot be invented for statistical reporting.

6. How is it possible that the financial threshold to qualify a criminal offense as “with serious consequences” is still based on a 2003 Supreme Court decision? In a country where prices, costs and salaries have increased several times, justice continues to judge with the “value of money” of 22 years ago. How much has the annual salary of the prosecutors themselves who still apply that threshold increased in the meantime? If the law does not move with the times, justice remains in the museum.

7. According to Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wiretapping is permitted by court decision for a period of 15 days and can only be extended by another decision, equally reasoned. But when after several 15 consecutive days the wiretapping does not reveal anything suspicious, why does the court approve the prosecution's blind insistence on continuing it? The law requires “special justification”, not “routine approval”. Otherwise, judicial review loses its meaning and the exception becomes the norm.

8. Why has the exception of Article 223/3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (postponement of filing of wiretapping proceedings) been transformed into a general rule? In every first request, it is requested that the minutes not be filed for five days, but “until the end of the investigations”. The exception is no longer an exception, but has become a stable practice, removing any real control by the court.

9. Si është e mundur që afati 15-ditor i përcaktuar në nenin 110 të Kodit të Procedurës Penale për t’u shprehur me vendim mbi kërkesat e mbrojtjes shkelet haptazi nga prokuroritë, pa asnjë pasojë? Kur vetë organi që kërkon zbatimin rigoroz të ligjit e shkel atë me heshtje procedurale, çdo garanci bëhet formale. Ligji nuk është “orientues”. Është detyrim.

10. Si është e mundur që tarifa për një faqe fotokopje në Prokurorinë e Posaçme të jetë 6.6 lekë për qytetarin, ndërsa vetëm 2.2 lekë për gjykatën? Në një sistem drejtësie që predikon barazi para ligjit, si justifikohet që vetë shteti paguan tri herë më pak se pala që mbron veten? Tarifa me përkufizim duhet të mbulojë kostot. Pak rëndësi ka kush e kërkon shërbimin.

II. Pyetje teknike dhe procedurale

11. Si është e mundur që prokuroritë anashkalojnë jurisprudencën e detyrueshme për provat digjitale? Po përmend disa prej tyre: Vendimi njësues i Gjykatës së Lartë nr. 147, datë 23.12.2021, “Lapsi.al”; Vendimi i Gjykatës Kushtetuese nr. 21, datë 24.04.2025, “E.Q.”; Vendimi i Gjykatës Kushtetuese, korrik 2025, “O.Y.”. Këto nuk janë opinione, por standarde të detyrueshme.

12. Si është e mundur që prokuroritë i kërkojnë të dhëna personale kompanive celulare pa vendim gjykate, në kundërshtim me nenet 208/a dhe 209 të Kodit të Procedurës Penale? Privatësia nuk mund të shkelet me “letër kërkese”.

13. Si është e mundur që kërkohen të dhëna për korrespondencën postare pa vendim gjykate, në kundërshtim me nenin 209 të K.Pr.P.? Posta nuk është kuti e hapur për çdo prokuror të zellshëm.

14. Si është e mundur që prokuroritë kërkojnë të dhëna për korrespondencën elektronike nga AKSHI pa vendim gjykate (nenet 208/a dhe 209 K.Pr.P.)? Shteti nuk mund t’i kërkojë një institucioni shtetëror të shkelë të njëjtin ligj që duhet të zbatojë.

15. Si është e mundur që kërkesat për sekuestrim sendesh formulohen në mënyrë të përgjithshme: “pajisje elektronike si kompjuterë, laptopë, hard disqe, USB, servera, aparate telefoni, pavarësisht kujt i përkasin”, dhe gjykatat i miratojnë pa asnjë kufizim? Këto janë “cartabianca” që bien ndesh me nenin 207 të K.Pr.P., i cili kërkon përcaktim konkret të sendeve që mund të sekuestrohen.

16. Kur do të ndalojnë prokuroritë dhe gjykatat së shkeluri haptazi Konventën e Budapestit, të ratifikuar me ligjin nr. 8888/2002? Standardet ekzistojnë, thjesht mungon vullneti për t’i zbatuar.

17. Kur do të pajisen laboratorët e kriminalistikës me standardet ISO që kërkojnë udhëzuesit e Këshillit të Evropës dhe të GJEDNJ-së për provat elektronike? Të paktën ISO/IEC 27037 dhe ISO/IEC 27042 janë parakusht për çdo hetim të besueshëm digjital.

18. When will labs stop using unacceptable hash algorithms like SHA-1 or MD5? A simple Google search is enough to learn that they are vulnerable. The integrity of digital evidence cannot be protected with 2000s technology. At a minimum, SHA-256/SHA-3, with a full chain of custody, is standardized.

19. When will our forensic laboratories be accredited? Without accreditation according to ISO/IEC 17025, every expert report remains questionable and the judiciary cannot be certain about the evidence it uses.

This list is, of course, not complete. But it is enough to show that the Assembly cannot be satisfied with formal hearings.

It should summon not only the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice, but also the Chamber of Advocates as interested parties.

To demand concrete answers, deadlines and corrective measures and then to demand accountability in the next reporting.

I know that after this note they will tell me:

"Mind your own business and don't give us any trouble."

"You're saying it now, because you have your own worries."

"You were there yourself when the reform laws were passed, you don't have to complain now."

They may be right to some extent. But it doesn't matter who says these things.

What matters is whether they are true, and anyone can face tomorrow a system that they consider "distant" today.

The Assembly has two choices: to cover itself with speeches, or to reveal itself with questions.

I, from this limited regime, have chosen the questions.

YOU???

With respect,

Ilir Beqaj


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×