Report on Balluk, Bardhi: The Assembly cannot determine which security measure is appropriate! It has a duty to verify the conditions for authorizing the lifting of immunity

The head of the DP Parliamentary Group, Gazment Bardhi, in a statement to the media, presented the opposition's report that will be filed in the Assembly after the meeting of the Mandates and Immunity Council with the aim of lifting the immunity of Belinda Balluku, at the request of SPAK, and her arrest.

Bardhi emphasized that the Assembly has the duty to verify whether the conditions exist for granting authorization to lift immunity, which the Special Prosecution Office has requested, and to ensure that "the deputy in the procedure is not a hostage to political-party abuse due to his parliamentary activity."

He also emphasized that the Assembly does not have the competence to assess which security measure is appropriate for Balluk, referring to the position of the Socialists at the Mandates meeting that the suspension measure was sufficient so far in relation to the investigations, as otherwise it would fall outside its competences and would violate the principle of law.

"The Assembly does not have the competence to assess the merits of the case for the determination of the security measure, its type or the conditions for each measure, but has a role only in verifying the formal existence of the fulfillment of these conditions. Otherwise, it would conduct a legal review of the case, outside its constitutional competence and in violation of the principle of separation and balance between powers," the report states.

If the Assembly considers the need or not for the performance of a specific investigative action by the judicial bodies, then democracy faces a flagrant risk: the principle of separation of powers, sanctioned by Article 7 of the Constitution, is undermined. Not only that, but the situation deteriorates and brings about a set of consequences that irreversibly damage the principles of justice and the state, where the law prevails . In this constitutional terrain, in this specific case, it is the duty of the Assembly to verify only whether all the conditions exist for granting the authorization required by the prosecution for the arrest of the deputy. The Assembly, in its capacity as legislative power, has only one duty in this type of procedure: to ensure that the deputy in the procedure is not a hostage to political-party abuse due to his parliamentary activity.

Ne deputetët e pakicës parlamentare në Këshill, mbajmë në konsideratë edhe standardin e vendosur nga Komisioni i Venecias, sipas të cilit: “organi parlamentar që shqyrton një kërkesë për heqjen e imunitetit nuk duhet të bëjë një shqyrtim ligjor të çështjes. Vendimi duhet të bazohet mbi faktet dhe meritat e çështjes siç i parashtrojnë autoritetet dhe deputeti në fjalë dhe jo mbi konsiderata të tjera politike apo të jashtme.”. Në përputhje me këtë standard, Kuvendi nuk ka kompetencë për të vlerësuar meritën e cështjes për caktimin e masës së sigurimit, llojit të saj apo kushteve për secilën masë, por ka rol vetëm në verifikimin e ekzistencës formale të përmbushjes së këtyre kushteve. Në të kundërtën ai do të bënte shqyrtim ligjor të cështjes, jashtë kompetencës së tij kushtetuese dhe në shkelje të parimit të ndarjes dhe balancimit midis pushteteve.

Kuvendi, duke mos qenë organ kompetent sipas Kushtetutës përgjegjës për hetimin penal, nuk mund të cmojë meritën se cila është masa e përshtatshme e sigurimit për të mbrojtur hetimet, apo të veprimeve konkrete që duhet të ndërmarrë prokuroria që hetimi të jetë i plotë dhe i pacenuar. Kjo është një kompetencë ekskluzive e pushtetit gjyqësor. Nëse Kuvendi do të vlerësonte që një masë e caktuar sigurimi është më e përshtatshme sesa një tjetër, apo një masë e caktuar sigurimi është e mjaftueshme, kjo do të përbënte ndërhyrje në kompetencat e pushtetin gjyqësor dhe për pasojë ndërhyrje e drejtpërdrejtë, në mënyrë antikushtetuese, në hetimin penal.

Në rastin në shqyrtim Kuvendi nuk është ftuar për të caktuar një masë sigurimi, sepse nuk është kompetencë e tij caktimi i masës së sigurimit. Kuvendit i është kërkuar autorizim nga Prokuroria, që ajo të ketë mundësi t’i drejtohet gjykatës për caktimin e masës së sigurimit. Ashtu sikurse edhe pika 3 e nenit 260 të Kodit të Procedurës Penale sanksionon: “3. Kur nevojat e sigurimit rëndohen, gjykata, me kërkesë të prokurorit, mund të vendosë zëvendësimin e saj me një masë më të rëndë ose caktimin e një mase sigurimi shtrënguese ose ndaluese shtesë”, është kompetencë kushtetuese dhe ligjore e Gjykatës, që me kërkesë të prokurorisë, të vendos për zëvendësimin ose jo të masës së sigurimit.

The determination of the most appropriate security measure and consequently the constitutional/legal assessment thereof, is within the exclusive sphere of the Court. The Court’s decision-making is subject to internal control by the judicial system itself, initially in the Court of First Instance periodically, then by the Court of Appeal, the High Court or the Constitutional Court. If the Assembly were to maintain the position that there is no need for a certain action within the framework of a criminal investigation (the determination of a more severe personal security measure to protect the person without compromising the investigation), while the body charged by the Constitution with exercising criminal prosecution – the Prosecutor’s Office – considers and proves the opposite, then the Assembly would unconstitutionally usurp the powers of the investigative body and the judicial power, by acknowledging to itself the attribute of determining security measures. This would be a brutal intervention in the sphere of powers of the judicial power and consequently a flagrant violation of Article 7 of the Constitution – the principle of separation and balance between powers.

In accordance with the above, the Assembly, in this type of procedure, has the constitutional authority to verify ONLY:

(1) The existence of a lawful criminal proceeding and the absence of political motives in the criminal investigation of the case;

(2) The existence of legal conditions for authorizing the action requested by the prosecution;

(3) Fulfilling the content of several criteria elaborated by the Venice Commission.

Happening now...

15:49 crossword

Champions League schedule March 2

15:33 crossword

Sports schedule March 2

14:57 POLITICS

Epicenter of Iranian bombs, Rama calls the President of the United Arab Emirates: I condemn the attacks from Iran!

14:55 BOTA

The Telegraph's analysis/ What does Khamenei's death mean for Russia and China?

14:52 SPORT

Ernest Muçi becomes the protagonist and without scoring, 'Sofascore' includes him in the lineup of the week

14:30 BOTA

Cyprus on alert for possible Iranian attack: fighter jets and frigates

14:24 SPORT

Great joy at Paulo Dybala's house, the footballer became the father of a girl

14:05 BOTA

Avionët amerikanë largohen nga Spanja, qeveria e Madridit nuk pranon përdorimin e bazave të saj për të sulmuar Iranin

14:03 SHOWBIZ

New record: Owen Cooper becomes youngest individual winner at Actor Awards

13:53 POLITICS

DP protests/ "I am against Molotov cocktails", the negotiator for the unification of the opposition comes out against violence: They risk alienating non-partisan citizens

13:53 KOSOVA

Thaçi's defense in The Hague, witnesses have themselves made public the invitation to testify

13:49 HAPPENING NOW

Employees were not given money/ The owner of a hair salon in Tirana and his wife are arrested

13:30 EKONOMI&SOCIALE

How does the Middle East affect the Albanian economy? From machinery, to fuels and minerals! Goods that dominate trade exchanges

13:06 BOTA

Iran reports Netanyahu base hit, Israel responds

Want to read more news