FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Prosecutors Arben Kraja and Enkeleda Millonai are convinced that they have not violated the Constitution with the security measure against Berisha.
It was Sali Berisha's lawyer, Genc Gjokutaj, who gave details from today's session in charge of the former prime minister. He was today at the hearing regarding the security measure "compulsion to appear" against Berisha, but left after clashes with judge Irena Gjoka.
In a show, he showed his position to the prosecutors for the first time regarding the debate on whether the Assembly should be asked about Berisha or not. Arben Kraja and Enkeleda Millonai are adamant that there is no need to ask the Assembly. In the session, there was over 1 hour of debate on this issue and the prosecutors are convinced that Article 73 of the Constitution was not violated.
" Today at 2:30 p.m., the court scheduled the next session and with its plan, despite the fact that we filed requests with recognition of the documents of the file, it would continue with its own procedure. From the beginning, we had requests for the court, one of them was to close the filing of the written request to give us the minutes of yesterday's court session and the audio material of the session, which finally fulfilled the request for the dismissal of the judge.
In addition to the criminal report that Mr. Sali Berisha did, this fulfilled the request. This request was not rejected by the court.
We also submitted a request to finally close the discussion on whether the measures of 'compulsion to appear' and 'ban on leaving the country', coercive measures are a restriction of freedom or not, because a very large comment has started outside the courtroom, but since this attitude the prosecutors, who today in the session made an apology for their position, have stood by, as they did not consider this part as a removal or restriction of freedom ", he said.
He further stated that they asked him to forward Article 73 of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court for interpretation. According to him, Article 27 of our Constitution, deprivation of liberty and restriction of liberty, provides for the same, up to the cases of imprisonment with the final form of the court, which is Article 27/2 of the Constitution. But the judge rejected it, agreeing with the prosecutors.
The whole debate has to do with Article 73 of the Constitution, which states: " The MP cannot be arrested or deprived of his freedom in any form, or subjected to a personal or home search, without the authorization of the Assembly ". But apparently the two prosecutors do not call the blocking of the passport a "compulsion to appear" and deprivation of liberty.
Lini një Përgjigje