FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The Constitutional Court, in a full justification of the decision, considers the security measure of "house arrest", which was imposed on former Prime Minister Sali Berisha, at the request of SPAK and left in force by the judiciary, to be excessively prolonged. But Berisha stated that it took the Constitutional Court 8 months to issue this decision, while adding that despite this, the Court does not repeal what they consider to be unconstitutional.
"The Constitutional Court was not concerned at all by this fact, because for it the opposition is the enemy and this Constitutional Court, as an organization of the criminal party, has no connection with the rule of law, nor with the political freedoms of the individual."
Does it make sense that the decision is declared unconstitutional but not overturned?
They have declared Irena Gjoka's decision unconstitutional, but they are not repealing it.
"Look at what charlatans," said Berisha.
Mr. Berisha, the Constitutional Court ruled that the detention measure against you was excessive. How do you assess this decision and the time in which the court expressed itself?
Sali Berisha: Now, this decision, to make it clear to all citizens, has to do with my encouragement of the fourth due diligence, due diligence in their language, in their vocabulary, is called the evidence, facts, documents that prosecutors are obliged to present for the case every two months.
Based on these documents, positions are adapted by judicial bodies.
According to the law, the prosecution must report every two months and the first instance court reassesses the arrest measure two months after it is imposed.
My lawyers have filed 4 such complaints to date.
The latest appeal also included a request for the complete revocation of the house arrest measure, as the reason for which it was imposed was illegal.
The measures of obligation to appear and not to leave the country were executed in complete abuse of the law by SPAK because they had not become final and SPAK applied them without becoming final.
No word on this case because this court has nothing to do with the law, but with orders.
It took the court eight months to review the request for due diligence four, while the legal deadline is three months, while the requests of ministers are reviewed in two weeks.
Why? Because for this court, an organization of the criminal party, the opposition is the enemy.
What difference did the fourth request make from the third or second request?
No difference, zero because SPAK did not receive any new evidence in investigation two, three, or four, where Berisha was mentioned.
So, in every lawsuit they've filed, they don't mention my name at all. Not at all!
We have appealed this after every decision up to the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court was not concerned at all by this fact, as for it the opposition is the enemy and this Constitutional Court, as an organization of the criminal party, has no connection with the rule of law, nor with the political freedoms of the individual.
Does it make sense that the decision is declared unconstitutional but not overturned?
They have declared Irena Gjoka's decision unconstitutional, but they are not repealing it.
Look at these charlatans.
They don't repeal it by claiming that it doesn't exist, but that decision has produced consequences and its consequences exist.
Its consequences are the measure of compulsory appearance, it is an indirect consequence of that SPAK position and those judicial interpretations.
But, here, they must first defend.
They are Irena, they have Irena's face, morals, character, and they want to defend Irena's decisions, a delinquent with three criminal offenses on the job.
On the other hand, with this decision, they have paved the way for support for Lubina and the ministers, who could be convicted of monstrous crimes and corruption.
So, you understand that at first glance it seems like they have done justice, in reality they have shown themselves to be a political section of the crime party, as they are.
Shameful, shameful!
A decision that still has its consequences today for the individual against whom an unconstitutional measure was taken.
They are not abolishing it to protect the honor of Irena Gjoka, in fact, of themselves because they are Irena.
Irena indeed has a record of three criminal offenses, but that court-martial thief doesn't have a lesser one, etc., etc.
Shameful hostages who make such decisions.
Decisions based entirely on ideological grounds.
Lini një Përgjigje