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

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Veliaj's defense responds to SPAK: Eight points that prove that the investigation is malicious, intentional and against the law!

2024-12-27 15:31:45Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Veliaj's defense responds to SPAK: Eight points that prove that the
Erion Veliaj

Erion Veliaj's defense has released a statement regarding the investigation and the way in which the information shared regarding this investigation was managed.

Veliaj's defense, in eight points, refutes the entire argument used against SPAK, considering the investigation as malicious, intentional and in violation of the law.

Veliaj's defense points explain that all the elements cited by the prosecution are in the air in terms of evidence, but on the other hand, it is abused in terms of image, deliberately denigrating him.

Defense Arguments:

Malicious, intentional and unlawful investigation:

1. Initiation of the investigative process beyond reasonable doubt

• The investigative process was initiated on the basis of an anonymous report and alleged (fictitious) data, without sufficient evidence or indications being presented to create reasonable legal suspicion.

• The criminal offense for which EV is reported or suspected is not clearly understood.

• If the report was made specifically in the name of EV, the prosecutor had a legal obligation to register his name in the criminal offense register. From that moment, the six-month investigation deadline should have begun.

2. Concealing the fact that EV and his family were placed under investigation

• EV and his family have been under factual investigation since March 2024, but this fact was kept secret by the Prosecution, claiming that the investigation was being conducted "for the criminal offense" and not "against the person".

• However, the investigative actions carried out have been focused on specific individuals, creating the situation of a substantively individual investigation against EV (and others), without officially announcing this status.

3. Request for searches and seizure of phones without a warrant

• The prosecution requested searches and seized the phones, in the absence of a special court order (warrant), violating the legal procedure in force.

• The phone was seized not only without a court order (the court did not even accept the prosecutor's request), but also without the user's consent. It was not seized as an object with which a criminal offense was committed, but with the aim of searching for data that could be used in an alleged offense. In other words, it was a seizure in search of the offense, not of evidence for a defined criminal offense.

4. Intimidation and aggressive violence against those called "informed persons"

• Persons called with the qualification "persons in knowledge" have been faced with threatening approaches and "security"-style violence, being forced through pressure and intimidation to testify against themselves.

5. Misuse of the “informed person” designation for EV and AX

• Although EV and AX are de facto under investigation, they have been summoned by the Prosecution as “persons in knowledge” in order to force them to testify against themselves or their family members, thus depriving them of the mandatory right to a defense attorney.

6. Exceeding investigative deadlines

• The investigative deadlines have been exceeded. According to the law, the six-month investigation period should begin from the moment specific investigative actions against EV and AX have been initiated, and not later.

7. “Fishing expedition”

• The investigation appears to be targeted at an individual, not for a specific criminal offense, but for the person himself (EV), with the aim of necessarily catching him in a violation, whether criminal or administrative.

8. Release of information about the investigation to the media

• Various information regarding the investigation has been broadcast in the media, creating space for malicious and denigrating interpretations of the figure of the mayor. This has fostered a public perception of EV's guilt, undermining the principle of the presumption of innocence and violating the equality of the parties in the process.

• Such an action may constitute serious violations, whether through intent or negligence, as it constitutes maladministration of the investigation and damages the integrity of the criminal procedure.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×