FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The High Court considers the decision of the Special Court of Appeal to be correct for the repeal of the compulsory appearance measure for journalist Elton Qyno by the Special Court of First Instance, at the request of SPAK.
The decision clearly states that despite the fact that the Special Prosecution Office and the Special Court of First Instance have presented a series of telephone communications between the suspects as members of a criminal organization, which also mentions journalist Qyno, the evidence or verified acts, up to this stage, do not support the suspicion that the suspect Elton Qyno has committed an act contrary to his duty as a journalist.
Likewise, the Special Prosecution Office and the Special Court of First Instance cited various articles and news published by the audiovisual media, where Qyno practiced his profession.
The Supreme Court says that the news referred to by the prosecutor and the court of first instance, have been published and convey information on certain criminal events, for which the Special Prosecution Office has not claimed that they are false or untrue. These news items show facts, places, names of suspected or involved persons, which are not contested by the prosecution as false or as news that does not reflect the truth, which is essentially the mission/duty of a journalist.
From the entire presentation of facts by the prosecution and the court of first instance, the Supreme Court assesses that well-founded suspicions may be raised of a violation of the journalist's professional ethics, but this is not enough to legitimize the initiation of criminal proceedings or the imposition of a security measure.
The College concludes that a personal security measure cannot be imposed on the person under investigation Elton Qyno, but the investigation against him can continue. Of course, in the continuation of the investigations, the Special Prosecution Office must carefully verify every data in relation to the person under investigation, avoiding any unjustified interference with his rights as a journalist, arguing whether or not the security needs exist in relation to the suspected criminal fact. Transcripts of interceptions obtained through the use of SkyECC or other platforms must be carefully verified and analyzed to see whether or not they match other evidence that can confirm their authenticity.
In the case of the news cited by the prosecution and referred to by the court, there is no proper analysis of whether journalist Elton Qyno interfered in this news, published false information, or whether after receiving improper benefits as alleged by the prosecution, the news was deleted or partially or completely changed.
In this regard, the Panel considers the reasoning of the Special Court of Appeal to be correct, that "the suspicion of the benefit of amounts in euros may constitute another direction for conducting investigations related to the exercise of criminal prosecution, a possibility that is assessed by the Special Prosecutor himself who leads the investigations (Article 277/2 of the CPC) and that the impossibility of determining a security measure is not an obstacle to carrying out the necessary actions related to the exercise of criminal prosecution, even for the same criminal offense".
In conclusion, referring to all the grounds raised in the appeal presented by the appellant, the Special Prosecution Office, the Panel concludes that decision no. 01 (87-2025-10), dated 24.01.2025 of the Special Court of Appeal for Corruption and Organized Crime should be left in force. The Panel assesses that the court of appeal has correctly applied the criminal law, both substantive and procedural; no violation or incorrect application of the procedural law has been found, resulting in the invalidity of the decision; and it does not result that the appealed decision is contrary to the practice of the Criminal Chamber or the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court.
Lini një Përgjigje