Prime Minister Edi Rama has also shared on Facebook the statement of Nicola Lettieri, deputy prosecutor general at the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, regarding the practice of pre-trial detention in our country.
Attached to the video, Rama says that there are people who stay in prison for months without being tried, solely on the basis of "reasonable suspicion."
"This formula has taken many people who have ultimately been found innocent, but also psychologically crushed, or that keeps people in prisons without trial today who may be found innocent tomorrow, is one of several points that must be seriously reflected on, to make Albania a country where the presumption of innocence is not violated by the presumption of guilt," Rama writes.
During a roundtable held on Thursday in Tirana on this issue, Nicola Lettieri, deputy prosecutor general at the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, explained how this practice could be changed.
According to Lettieri, a person should only be detained when there is serious evidence or indications, and not just suspicions. He proposes that in Article 228 of the Criminal Code the expression “reasonable suspicion” be removed and replaced with “reasonable grounds”, in order to establish a clearer criterion.
The expert emphasizes that today the prosecutor can request detention for any criminal offense, but the judge must realistically review the file, provide concrete reasons why detention is necessary and why lighter measures, such as periodic reporting or house arrest, are not sufficient.
“What we suggest is to use in a specific provision, 228 of the Criminal Code, a specific formulation of “reasonable grounds” for serious evidence or indications instead of the current formulation which is “reasonable suspicion”. There is no threshold, an express limit of the criminal offense to be detained. The prosecutor can request this, the judge can approve the security measure for any criminal offense. This is not coherent with the same Code in Albania because for instance article 241, provides that intermediate or prohibitive measures that are less punitive than the measure of detention, can only be applied in processes that include criminal offenses punishable by law with a sentence of more than 1 year in prison. We have also focused on the criteria of legal reasoning. What we wanted to avoid is that the judge can approve a measure by referring only to the request coming from the prosecutor, without making any effort to see the file and to form his opinion, to avoid formulas stereotypes. So we suggest two changes, changes to Article 245. The first is when detention is requested, the court must ask for specific reasons why it considers this detention appropriate or not, defining it under Article 237. The court cannot limit itself to approving this measure and must expressly state why alternative measures cannot be applied. The judge cannot only refer to the request coming from the prosecutor but he or she must prove that he or she carries out an autonomous assessment/review and if this is not done, then the court of a higher instance can annul this measure ”, he said.