FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The lawyers of the mayor Erion Veliaj have reacted on yesterday's questioning by SPAK and the way in which the information distributed in relation to this investigation was managed.
The defense of Veliaj, in eight points, considers the investigation as malicious, intentional and contrary to the law.
SPAK reported in a media today that the mayor is being investigated for 4 criminal offences, but according to the lawyers, SPAK has launched an investigation for 4 criminal offences, but the case is still registered without a name of a person under investigation. According to them, the mayor was called to SPAK as a person who has knowledge about the case under investigation and there is no charge against him.
Erion Veliaj's Defense Arguments:
Malicious, intentional and unlawful investigation
1. Initiation of the investigative process beyond reasonable doubt
• The investigative process was initiated on the basis of an anonymous report and alleged (fictitious) data, without sufficient evidence or evidence being presented to create reasonable legal suspicion.
• The criminal offense for which EV is reported or suspected is not clearly understood.
• If the report was made specifically in the name of EV, the prosecutor had the legal obligation to register his name in the register of criminal offences. From that moment, the calculation of the six-month investigation period had to start.
2. Hiding the fact that EV and his family were placed under investigation
• EV and his family have been put under factual investigation since March 2024, but this fact has been kept secret by the Prosecutor's Office, with the claim that the investigation was being conducted "for the criminal offense" and not "against the person".
• However, the investigative actions carried out were really focused on specific persons, creating the situation of a substantively individual investigation against EV (and others), without officially announcing this status.
3. Request for checks and seizure of phones without warrant
• The prosecutor's office requested checks and seized phones, in the absence of a special court order (mandate), violating the legal procedure in force.
• The phone was taken not only without a court decision (the court did not even accept the prosecutor's request), but also without the user's consent. It was not seized as an object with which a criminal offense was committed, but for the purpose of seeking information that could be used in an alleged offense. In other words, it was a seizure in search of an offence, not of evidence for a defined offence.
4. Intimidation and aggressive violence against those called as "persons in the know"
• Persons called with the designation "persons in the know" have faced threatening approaches and "security"-style violence, being forced through pressure and intimidation to testify against themselves.
5. Misuse of the "person in the know" setting for EV and AX
• Although EV and AX are de facto under investigation, they have been summoned by the Prosecution as "persons in the know" in order to compel them to testify against themselves or family members, thus depriving them of the mandatory right to a defense lawyer .
6. Exceeding investigative deadlines
• Investigative deadlines have been exceeded. According to the law, the six-month period of the investigation must start from the moment when the specific investigative actions against EV and AX have started, and not later.
7. "Fishing expedition"
• The investigation seems to be aimed at an individual, not for a specific criminal offense, but for the person himself (EV), with the aim of necessarily catching him in a violation, whether criminal or administrative.
8. Release of information on the investigation to the media
•Various information related to the investigation was broadcast in the media, creating space for malicious and derogatory interpretations of the mayor's figure. This has fostered a public perception of EV's guilt, undermining the principle of presumption of innocence and undermining the equality of the parties in the process.
•Such an action may constitute a serious violation, whether through intent or negligence, as it constitutes mismanagement of the investigation and damages the integrity of the criminal procedure.
Lini një Përgjigje