FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
After the majority unanimously approved the establishment of the Special Anticorruption Commission, the US and the EU demand transparency and inclusiveness.
Analyst Kreshnik Spahiu commented on the reactions of internationals on this commission, while also listing 4 secret reasons why it was received badly by the USA and the EU.
The first reason, according to Spahiu, is that the Socialist Party approved the resolution and the establishment of the Anticorruption Commission hastily and without consulting the diplomatic missions.
Spahi also lists the second reason, saying that the resolution was general and had unclear legal aspects.
"The USA and the EU have 4 reasons why they misreceived the unilaterally voted resolution by the socialists. This is due to the fact that there was no full consultation of the socialists with the diplomatic representations. There was a rush. The US is in the process of welcoming the new US ambassador who will be at the vigil of the US Independence Day. The US will take a 10 times more active role than it was now without the presence of the ambassador. This rush looks like a vote was being held without the embassy coming. The resolution was very general and there were unclear legal moments related to the commission", said Spahiu for "Report Tv".
Spahiu says that the third reason why this commission was poorly received by the international community is that there was no consensus with the opposition, as constitutional changes will be needed for which the majority does not have the only votes.
"Third, is that the issue of the legal package that the commission would determine in relation to the anti-corruption reform, for the foreign experts who have been concerned, is that the anti-corruption package requires a qualified vote, that it requires constitutional changes or changes to the codes. It means to intervene in the organic laws, they require 84 votes, or 93 votes, it requires an inter-party union, it cannot be achieved with unilateral votes, it would be a partial reform", said the analyst Spahiu.
In the fourth reason, Spahiu says that there was no consultation with SPAK and according to him, the justice institutions have sent international messages that there may be an overlap of powers. As for Duman's position in the Laws Commission on this issue, saying that the legal framework is complete and there is no need for changes, analyst Spahiu says that underneath the lines it is understood that SPAK is against this initiative.
"The fourth is the fact that SPAK has not received any information and has not been consulted about this. The institutions of justice have sent messages to the international concerned that there may be an overlap of powers. SPAK was not asked about this. Even the head of SPAK has said that we consider that the legal framework is complete and we do not need changes, under the lines I read that SPAK was against this initiative that could affect the activity of SPAK", said Spahiu.
Lini një Përgjigje