TIRANA, Dec. 2 – A newly published report on the progress of the vetting process from January 2017 to June 2018 by the Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC) – one of the oldest civil rights organizations in Albania – expressed concern over the government’s slow progress in implementing the justice reform.
At the published report the AHC highlights that delays in implementing the reform and the accompanying slow vetting process have created a domino effect that risks undermining the fundamental human right of Albanian citizens to have access to a functional justice system and an effective judicial process.
The AHC also writes that the lack of judges at the High Court has created nearly 24,000 cases which are past their deadline.
This problem will most likely remain unsolved for some time, as the High Judicial Council is yet to be formed, although local media reported last week the process for finally establishing the HJC and the High Prosecutorial Council is expected to shortly begin now that the vetting process of judges and prosecutors is almost over.
The functionality of these two institutions puts in motion the mechanisms for other bodies foreseen by the Justice Reform. The establishment of the HPC opens the way for the election of the new General Prosecutor, as well as the establishment of the Special Prosecution Office (SPAK), from which the National Bureau of Investigation will also depend – the two legal bodies expected to mark a turn in the fight against corruption and organized crime.
the HJC will replace the role played so far by the High Council of Justice, restoring the judiciary back to normal.
In addition, the HJC is not the only legal body foreseen under the country’s justice reform whose functionality is facing difficulties. The Constitutional Court also remains paralyzed as a result of the ousting of four members and the resignation of three others.
“The delays created at the Constitutional Court are extremely worrying and have completely paralyzed the functionality of this institution with important constitutional functions for resolving constitutional disputes and the final interpretation of the constitution, and in particular the complaints for non-compliance of the laws with the constitution as well as complaints of individuals against any act of public authority or judicial decision that violates constitutional rights and freedoms,” the report states.
The effects of this situation have been particularly felt in the controversial appointment of temporary General Prosecutor Arta Marku, the easy passing of the “special law” regarding the construction of a new National Theatre as part of a high-rise building complex in Tirana’s centre and the PM-President conflict regarding the appointment of Sander Lleshi as the country’s new interior minister.
The AHC report emphasizes the lack of a Constitutional Court kept it from playing a decisive role in resolving these issues, thus causing political conflict.
The AHC, in turn, recommends “immediate and priority vetting” of the members of the Council of Appointments in Justice in order for new Constitutional Court judges to be appointed. However, a new problem that has come up in the past days regarding the CAJ is the lack of qualified candidates for 2019 – this mean that, legally, the CAJ cannot be established before 2019.
The AHC also identified some problems with the vetting procedure itself, claiming that some magistrates did not receive a full assessment of all three criteria as provided by the Veting Law, but were evaluated only on the basis of the wealth criterion.
“Regarding the decisions of removals so far, it has been noted for some of them that the IQC has decided to go through the entity’s re-evaluation process only based on the property criterion, not including and not taking into account the investigations on the criterion of reputation assessment and that of professional skill,” the report said, adding the Albanian constitution foresees that a successful vetting is conducted based on all three criteria.
Failure to follow proper procedures can lead to unnecessary complaints, the AHC points out, which would further slow the vetting process.
Lastly, although the AHC does value the overall transparency of the vetting process, it criticizes the function of the International Monitoring Operation (IMO), whose function it argues remains unclear.
“The International Monitoring Operation’s transparency of activity is a controversial aspect of the process, as the public and media are limited to obtaining information during the hearing session, when IMO observers have questions about vetting subjects.”
Moreover, the IMO’s recommendations are often not even reflected in the IQC’s decisions.
“It results that for all the IQC reasoned decisions so far, the IMO’s recommendations have not been reflected in the decision. What is noticed in these decisions is that the trial bodies mention whether IQC experts have given suggestions or not, but in some of them not even that is reflected,” the report highlights.
The report says that in no place do the IMO’s recommendation nature or content is revealed, making the work of the IMO not transparent to the public eye.
