The head of case management at the KPA has not passed the vetting, but the lottery decides who passes and who doesn't!

For the majority of citizens, the mechanism of re-evaluation of judges and prosecutors, known briefly and widely as vetting, is complex, and the efforts of experts and the media to explain how this mechanism works have had little effect.

In the complexity of the process, the paths for its manipulation are even greater.

There are no shortage of denunciations of double standards and in the past the decisions of the courts, even that of Strasbourg, that the vetting was wrong.

The public and main side of the vetting are the judges of the revaluation bodies, which in the first instance consist of three members and in the second instance of five members. For each name subject to the vetting filter, lots are drawn to determine the judge relator of the case.

This is where the administration of vetting bodies comes into play.

In the Special Board of Appeal, the lot is in the hands of Manjola Kelolli, who since 2018 holds the position of head of the case management department.

Throughout this period, under her direction, lots were cast to determine the relators for the files that ended up in the Special Appeals College after they were previously examined in the Independent Qualification Commission.

The lottery is theoretically just a technical and procedural aspect to fulfill the obligations stemming from the vetting legislation, practically it is suspected that it has been transformed into a measure used by Manjola Kelolli for corrupt affairs.

Kelolli is suspected of serving certain interests of the members of the Independent Qualification Commission, orienting the lot of cases to the Special Appeals College.

The orientation of the lot is done in both cases, either in cases where the subject of the vetting must be dismissed, or in cases where he must be left in office, regardless of whether or not he meets the re-evaluation criteria.

Kelolli is suspected of having activated a relative of hers as a realtor for the manipulation of cases in the KPA, while more concrete evidence and facts regarding this activity of hers, Voxneës.al will convey in a second moment through the study of the lot of cases in KPA and their decision-making.

But who is Manjola Kelolli, the lawyer who avoided vetting for herself and now decides for others?

She graduated from law school in the early 90s, in what is commonly known as the generation of poplar lawyers. It was about the preparation of hundreds of jurists to replace the communist jurists in the system.

In 1995, Kelolli started working as an assistant judge in Berat. In 2000, she was appointed chancellor at the same court. In 2009, he climbed the career ladder in the inspection department at the Ministry of Justice.

Until before the justice reform, this directorate was responsible for proposals for administrative measures and even dismissals of judges and prosecutors at the High Council of Justice.

In 2015, Kelolli was transferred as a legal advisor to the Court of Administrative Appeals in Tirana. She held this position until before the vetting law came into force, where according to her status as a legal advisor she was subject to this law.

From the courts it goes to the Dossier Authority, from where it is then catapulted to the vetting bodies in one of the highest administrative positions of the KPA.

Kelolli has been publicly accused of resigning from the position of legal adviser in the Administrative Appeal of Tirana to avoid the vetting process, as she did not justify her wealth.

However, even though she herself has not been reevaluated in any of the three criteria, this is apparently not an obstacle for Kelolli to determine the lot and through the lot the fate of prosecutors and judges in the country.

©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.