FLASH NEWS
Will corrupt officials be released?/ Former prosecutor casts doubt on Supreme Court's initiative for detention
2026-04-09 22:09:03 / AKTUALITET
Former Serious Crimes Prosecutor and lawyer Eugen Beçi, commenting on the meeting of the joint panels of the Supreme Court on pre-trial detention, expressed doubts about the intentions of the initiators. Beçi stated that the most transparent path would be legal amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, but a decision is being sought that affects the sentencing of senior officials accused of corruption.
"The unifying decision of 2011 was not implemented in practice in court proceedings. You mean that he is under arrest in prison, that he is not under house arrest, why is he not under financial guarantee, that is, with concrete evidence, not a standard formula. That decision had another problem, that the burden of proof is on the defense, more precisely the defendant.
The Supreme Court had the right to intervene with a unifying decision.
This decision seeks to define three essential elements and it remains to be seen whether they will be reflected in the new decision and whether the court will pass this test.
Firstly, the lack of alternatives, why the measure of 'prison arrest' is necessarily needed and why other, lighter measures are not applied.
Secondly, the risk should not be assessed only by the criminal offense, but also by other concrete circumstances.
Concrete evidence is needed. The decision says that the burden of proof is on the defendant, so take me as a defendant but prove me whether I am guilty or innocent.
The Supreme Court had the right to make a unifying decision.
In Albanian courts after 2021, the requests for the imposition of security measures are cliché: there is a risk of departure, of avoidance, and the same for everyone, whether for driving or license or murder. You have to have accurate and complete evidence. But it is not up to Strasbourg standards.
All these difficulties have required that detention be the last resort.
Does the latest decision of the Supreme Court violate legal certainty, because we had a unifying decision from 2011 and one court read it, another did not?
If we want a change, a legal change must be made, because it provides legal certainty. Even in the Code of Criminal Procedure, article 228 et seq., the fact that imprisonment and other alternatives are determined, leaving no unifying decision, gives right to both Andi, who is a cleaner, and Eugen, who is a mayor.
If you leave it alone with a unifying decision, a court will see it differently for Andi and differently for Eugeni and this element makes you doubt the fact that why, if you are so concerned about freedoms and human rights, why don't you make a more transparent process than that of legal changes to the Criminal Procedure Code, but go with the easier path, where a unifying decision is required? If you don't do it with legal changes, it leaves room only for subjectivity. Will we need a unifying decision in this campaign of arrests of high-ranking officials that is used for some and not for others?
"The Supreme Court does not accept any recourse from the districts. Now do you remember? The Supreme Court should have intervened with concrete cases that the courts have abused, but today, without having statistics, it leads and makes the same decision," said Beçi.
Happening now...
Denouncing Berishism is a prerequisite for denouncing the government
Nga Blendi Kajsiu
ideas
top
Alfa recipes
TRENDING 
services
- POLICE129
- STREET POLICE126
- AMBULANCE112
- FIREFIGHTER128