FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
These paradoxes also occur in Albania. Ilir Beqaj, one of the most talked about names for massive abuses, dubious concessions and endless violations in the health sector, has come out publicly to give lectures on human rights and due process. The reason is a complaint that he is not allowed electronic access to court files while in detention.
Through his lawyer, Beqaj complains that for years the Special Court has been conducting trials with thousands of pages, while detainees have not been able to read the files in electronic format. According to him, this constitutes a serious violation of the right to defense. A deeply human concern, coming precisely from a character who for years was not at all concerned about the law, transparency or the dignity of citizens.
In the long letter, the former minister explains in detail regulations, articles of the law and legal interpretations, suddenly appearing as a defender of European standards of justice. The irony lies in the fact that for years, while thousands of citizens faced degraded health services and abuse schemes, Beqaj did not find time to denounce any violations. Today, when the files are in front of him, the system is suddenly “unfair”. Beqaj is also the one in prison for stealing EU funds.
Beqaj goes further, alluding that the institutions are deliberately tiring the defendant, to force him to accept a summary trial. An interesting thesis, especially when it comes from a former official who used power for years as private property. In the end, the former minister demands a reaction from the National Chamber of Advocates and speaks of a “lack of protection,” as if he himself had not been the symbol of a system that protected corruption and not the citizen.
Beqaj: Clearly, neither the law nor the regulation prohibits the use of a computer without internet. Any claim to the contrary is a misreading, misinterpretation, or avoidance of responsibility.
Meanwhile, someone might say that the Regulation does not actually speak literally about "computers" but that today's computers are also "transmission and communication devices" and the latter are discussed in the General Prison Regulation.
True. Today's computers can be transmission and communication devices, but they also cannot be. There are many computer devices that do not have a network card and with which you can only read electronic documents of the court file, but you cannot transmit any messages or communicate with or without access to the Internet. But these devices are not offered either to be brought to the Penitentiary Institution by the accused themselves, or to be purchased by them at the commercial unit of the DPGJ, nor for the Penitentiary Institution to keep them in a specific and monitored environment, nor for the detained accused to use them at specific times.
The same can be said about televisions. Even they can nowadays be considered devices that transmit and with which you can communicate because they are smart. But pre-detainees are allowed to buy a non-smart television online at the DPGJ commercial unit and have it in their room. But why is it so impossible to do the same for computers without internet?
If a defendant in custody were to attempt to find a solution to this problem through the prosecutors or judges of the case, he would be faced with a variety of different responses that are essentially unrelated to any legal prohibition and also ignore and do not attempt to provide a solution (perhaps even willingly) to a basic right of the defendant in custody in a judicial process.
In one of the court sessions in the Special Court, when questioned by the Court, the Prosecutor of the case stated that: “devices such as USB, hard drives, etc. are not allowed”. Meanwhile, in another court session, also in the Special Court, another prosecutor regarding another case of mine, when questioned by the Court, stated that: “there is no objection, but that it is a matter for the General Directorate of Prisons.” Meanwhile, in another court session, also in the Special Court, the Court itself stated that it does not have the authority to order another institution, such as the General Directorate of Prisons, to provide the defendant with such a computer device without internet access. The above are my personal experiences.
So even when they speak, they speak not in accordance with the law, and no one is held responsible for a judicial process that does not respect a fundamental right of the accused in detention and what is worse, all of them want such a process to continue and move forward and any claim by the detained accused to read these electronic documents is considered his attempt to delay the process and a false claim.
But why all this disregard for the legitimate and basic request of the detained defendants? Is it intended to tire the defendant, to demoralize him, to accept the summary trial without knowing his file? Is it intended to reduce the quality of the defense by turning it into a formality? Perhaps. Because there is no other legal and logical explanation.
The law is blamed for a ban it does not foresee.
Institutions avoid responsibility.
The court is hiding behind a finger.
And so, a fundamental right is eroded every day, without a sound.
Then who can a detained defendant turn to for a fundamental right that is silently ignored every day?
It is time to end processes that do not guarantee the accused real access to their file.
I hope the National Chamber of Advocates reacts. If it too remains silent, then the problem is no longer just the lack of access of the detained accused to his court file, but also the lack of defense itself.
Lini një Përgjigje