FLASH
Shkruar nga Mero Baze
This practice of SPAK seems to have also affected the GJKKO, which has now entered into a "competition" with SPAK, recommending the formulation of charges - and perhaps for the first time in the history of justice in the world - a court recommends to the prosecution sentences beyond those it requested.
From the face-to-face debate in the Constitutional Court between the lawyers of journalist Elton Qyno and SPAK prosecutors, on the journalist's right to preserve sources of information, two problems are clearly visible.
The first problem has to do with the prosecutor's professional level before the Constitutional Court, his uncertainty about each case he undertakes to defend, and his familiarity with violating the law.
All three of these elements show, in fact, the disappointing professional quality of SPAK.
What is truly worrying about the professional quality of SPAK prosecutors is the fact that the established “tradition” of news reporters asking SPAK whether or not secret files should be published is called an “ethical norm.” And if journalists do not comply with this “ethic,” SPAK intervenes and seizes their equipment, as happened in the case of journalist Qyno.
So, he ignores the fact that there is no legal basis for this action.
This has happened before with the editorial staff of Lapsi, when it published the Socialist Party's database for the elections, and for which there is a Strasbourg decision against SPAK.
In the debate with the President of the Constitutional Court, when she mentioned the Strasbourg decision banning the practice of seizing journalists' work tools, the prosecutor admitted that that decision should be implemented - as easily as it is violated.
The second problem is that all the concern raised over the years about the leak of secret materials to the press from the Prosecution Office now has a clear address: SPAK itself.
The established practice where SPAK uses the media as a tool to smear its subjects of investigation, initially judging them in public and then framing the charges according to "public opinion", is now a verified model.
This explains why selected parts of investigative files are leaked to the press, taken out of context and thrown out like "dog food" - with the aim of publicly penalizing the people under investigation, before there is a real trial.
This practice of SPAK seems to have also affected the GJKKO, which has now entered into a "competition" with SPAK, recommending the formulation of charges - and perhaps for the first time in the history of justice in the world - a court recommends to the prosecution sentences beyond those it requested.
The clearest example of propaganda against a defendant is a paragraph in the disclosure of the decision on Veliaj's detention, where Judge Pëllumbni writes:
"In this context, the court notes that the cooperation of the persons under investigation Erion Veliaj, Ajola Xoxa and Elman Abule has the characteristics of a special cooperation - that of a structured criminal group, despite the fact that such a form of cooperation has not yet been attributed to these persons under investigation and, consequently, will not be taken into consideration at this time by the court in determining the security measure, as otherwise the principle of non-aggravation of the defendant's position (non reformatio in peius) would be violated."
When the judge himself says that something should not be taken into consideration because it violates the defendant's position, why does he write it in the decision?
So, the judge admits that he has no authority to make such an assessment, and admits that that assessment harms the defendant – and again includes it in the decision, adding: "you don't take it into consideration, but I'm saying it anyway."
This is the essence of justice propaganda – using public filth as a strategy to defend poor legal decisions or flawed investigations.
The confrontational session at the Constitutional Court clearly showed that in the new justice system, illegal norms of action are being created, which are justified by "public support", because public opinion is sold propaganda instead of evidence - while people under investigation are lynched as prematurely convicted.
Lini një Përgjigje