FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The submission for approval to the High Council of Prosecution, KLP of the draft ethical and professional evaluation reports for four prosecutors, was accompanied by debates and disputes in the plenary session on Tuesday, October 8, mainly related to the lack of reasoning in the magistrates' assessment.
The loud discussions and debates among the KLP members made the hall hum like the premises of a noisy bazaar, almost for half the time of the plenary meeting which lasted for about five and a half hours.
The members who raised concerns about the scoring method carried out in these draft reports, emphasized the fact that the ethical-professional assessment that is being carried out according to the regulation of the new methodology is a new practice, which must be developed carefully and in accordance with the legislation in force. , to perform a real evaluation of prosecutors and placing them in equal and objective conditions.
The prosecutor member of the KLP, Moisi Duda, was the first who, in the capacity of relator of the draft report for the ethical and professional evaluation of the prosecutor Elsa Miha, concluded that this report drawn up by the previous relator, former member Nurihan Seiti, did not is in accordance with the law and regulation. He pointed out that no reasoning was done regarding the scoring and asked the council to return the project report to the relator to complete it or to draft a new project report.
Member Zeqir Hoda said, among other things, that this draft report was signed by a member of the KLP, despite the fact that he no longer held this position and that it could not be changed.
However, Duda's proposal was supported by the majority of KLP members. Member Erind Merkuri, who comes from the ranks of prominent lawyers, who also found that in the presented project reports there are findings that are not analyzed. He asserted that it is difficult to understand how the points set by former rapporteur Seiti were reached. "There is no justification," Merkuri said, and emphasized that there was no justification before the act, and therefore it should be returned to make it understandable and objective for the assessment.
Even the prosecutor member Sokol Stojani found that maximum evaluations were given without verifying the cases. He requested that they return to the Career Development Commission and set standards in the way of evaluation. "We have to be serious in what we do. Let's not pave the way for mediocrity", declared Stojani and emphasized that all four draft reports have problems as they have no justifications.
The chairperson of KLP, Mirela Bogdani, said that it is reasonable that the draft reports be returned for review, as they must be justified according to the law and regulation.
She underlined that these are the first draft reports that will serve to create practice in evaluating the ethics and professionalism of prosecutors for the following period, from which the scoring methodology will be enabled.
The ethical-professional evaluations that have been carried out so far by the KLP have been accelerated, for the needs of the transfer of prosecutors or their appointment as leaders. In some cases, previous assessments of KLP have been overturned by vetting institutions.
The evaluations that will be carried out in the future are periodic and in the future they will be the only ones that will check the professional and ethical aspect of the prosecutors.
Bogdani put to vote the approval of three draft acts drawn up by Seiti for the professional ethical assessment of prosecutors Elsa Miha and Blerta Hamza, as well as prosecutor Gëzim Çopa. Two of the members of the Council, Vatë Staka and Zeqir Hodo, voted for the passage of these draft reports drawn up by Seiti. Staka stated that he did not agree with the proposal for the return of the draft reports.
"We cannot say that the previous councilors did not work well, that we can also say that the decisions taken by them are not right", stated Staka, among other things.
Merkuri observed that in Seiti's relations, it is not evident why he takes away the points from someone and leaves them to the other. According to him, it seems that the assessment subjects were not treated equally. He emphasized that he is unable to defend the report of the previous rapporteur and asked to redo it.
"We have a constitutional obligation and it is the first practice that the evaluation should be done with equality," Merkuri said.
"I am not able to understand why he marked them this way or that," he emphasized, while adding that "he did not give reasons".
With the votes of the majority of the KLP members present at the meeting, it was decided that the draft reports should be returned to be drafted from the beginning by the new rapporteurs, with the analysis and justifications of the relevant findings.
Former KLP member Nurihan Seiti could not be reached for comment until the publication of this article.
Next, the draft report for the evaluation of the prosecutor Elfrida Bregova was presented by the relator Zeqir Hodo. He noted that 16 cases selected by lottery and 6 others chosen by Bregova himself, belonging to the period 2017-2019, have been verified. Two of the findings had to do with the fact that prosecutor Bregova had not had direct contact with the witnesses, victims or defendants of the cases she had investigated. Also, it was found that in the verified files, in no case did she mention or analyze the unifying practice of the higher courts, as well as the Strasbourg Court.
Hodo said that from the assessment procedure it was established that Bregova had a workload. But, when the member Erind Merkuri asked him how much this prosecutor's workload had been, Hodo said that it was found in the accompanying tables, but did not manage to give an answer. At one point, Hodo left to secure the data required for Bregova's shipment.
Merkuri observed that the prosecutor claimed that the working conditions had not enabled her to have direct contact with the subjects of the investigation.
Member Moisi Duda concluded that Hodo had reduced four points in the first report due to the lack of contact with the subjects of the investigation, while in the second he had not done so. Hodo defended himself by stating that he had followed the evaluation according to the new methodology the second time.
While Stojani brought to attention that the vetting has affected the prosecutors of the first degree from 2020 onwards and not in the period under evaluation.
"There is no responsible prosecutor who does not work with the witnesses, with the victims of the defendant. The investigation is dynamic. It must be verified how dynamic the prosecutor is", said Stojani.
In the following, there was a debate regarding the prosecutor Bregova's non-use of references from the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Strasbourg Court. Stojani pointed out that there are many prosecutors who use them.
Later, there were debates between prosecutor members Zeqir Hodo and Moisi Duda. Hodo told Duda that he "is not a prosecutor even today". But Duda hit back at Hodo, saying that when he was in the system, he was a teacher. Likewise, Duda described Hodo's assessment as hypocritical, a position that was also supported by Stojani. "It's a joke," said Stojani, among other things.
Hodo said he only did the assessment, but there was no trickery involved.
Member Vatë Staka intervened asking that the debates be held with microphones on so they could be recorded. He said that he will no longer be present at plenary meetings if this rule is not implemented.
When Duda and Hodo were debating about personal aspects between them, the member Arta Mandro left the hall worried and expressing herself. "Big shame! Big shame".
However, Blegora's rating was excellent and in the end, after the votes of the majority of the members reduced her by six points, from 395 points, she was left with 389 points.
Based on the evaluations presented in the draft reports, member Olger Eminaj raised a question about how those prosecutors who perform their work really well and flawlessly, who perform active actions and analyze and reason based on will be evaluated in the jurisprudence of the higher courts.
Due to prolonged debates and discussions, the KLP meeting was postponed until the following day, Wednesday at 11:00./T CH
Lini një Përgjigje