OFFICIAL/ The Tall One's jokes are definitely saltier than the Duce's!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Homes and private spaces are not guaranteed as inviolable!

2026-03-24 21:51:01Pikëpamje SHKRUAR NGA YLLI MANJANI
Star Manjani

Homes and private spaces are not guaranteed as inviolable!

****

Yes, yes. This is the constitutional standard of inviolability of the home that has been violated by the Criminal Procedure Code, even the reformed one!!!

Let me explain a little.

The constitutional guarantee of the inviolability of the home is one of those constitutional standards that represents an absolute red line between the individual and the state.

The Constitution of Albania, in Article 37, formulates this protection as a fundamental right:

"the apartment is inviolable and entry into it is permitted only under the conditions and procedures provided for by law."

On the surface, we have a clear standard: the state cannot enter a citizen's private sphere without a strong justification and strict legal control.

But this is exactly where the logical clash begins. Because the law, in this case the Criminal Procedure Code, instead of building strong procedural guarantees, creates a space where the prosecutor, through often formal court decisions, can intervene in the apartment in any way he wants, even as often as he wants, without an effective complaint mechanism on the part of the citizen.

Do you understand, or not?! You have no place to complain anywhere against the control decision, even though it may be openly abusive!!!!

Now, we have a fundamental constitutional problem here: can a residence be called "inviolable" if it can be searched several times, on the same suspicion, without giving the individual the right to challenge the legality of this search?!

No court, not even the Constitutional Court, has bothered to provide an explanation, a way out to date. Not that there haven't been any cases, but they have been ignored!!!

Although we have a reversal of the relationship between the constitutional norm and the implementing law, still no reaction!!!

The Constitution aims to limit power. Criminal procedure, in this case, seems to expand it. The right to oppose state intervention is an integral part of any fundamental guarantee. In the absence of this right, the guarantee becomes declaratory. However, the Constitutional Court is silent. It does not even bother to say the phrase "it is in the hands of the legislature"...

The problem becomes even more acute when we analyze the lack of effective legal remedies. The procedural system, in fact, allows for an appeal against the seizure measures on the items, but not against the very act of searching the apartment from which the seized items originated. This creates a legal absurdity: you can challenge the consequence (taking the items), but not the cause (entering the apartment). In constitutional logic, this is a truncated right, because effective protection must include the initial intervention itself.

Undoubtedly, this practice, which stems from a flawed law, conflicts not only with the spirit of the Constitution, but also with its article number 37. Clearly! This practice also conflicts with article 8 of the Convention and with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has consistently emphasized that interventions in the home must be:

-based on law,

-necessary and proportionate,

-and, above all, controllable by an independent authority.

Without a real opportunity for appeal, judicial control becomes illusory.

A court decision authorizing a search is not enough if it is formal and not subject to subsequent verification. In this sense, the criminal system becomes a self-legitimizing mechanism of state intervention.

More broadly, this issue touches on one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law: the balance between public security and individual freedoms. The fight against crime cannot justify the erosion of constitutional guarantees. Otherwise, the state risks gaining efficiency in the investigation, but losing democratic legitimacy. In fact, this has already happened. Or do we need a foreigner to tell us so that we can understand?!

This is a screaming situation!

The Prosecutor can take what the Constitution guarantees without being forced to account for what he does!!!

Then they ask, "Why do you call us the "Republic of Prosecutors"?!"

One last thing, for all the lovers of foreigners who reform our justice system, I have a question: is there such a thing anywhere in the West where the right to privacy is multiplied by zero by the law and by the abusive actions of prosecutors and judges?!


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×