The deputy chairman of the SMI, Luan Rama, has also reacted to prosecutor Bujar Sheshi, as a member of the KLP. Rama emphasizes the fact that the double integrity of the Justice Reform is a falsity of the Vetting process and, according to him, a flagrant violation of the law, which is trying to be covered up with ignorance.
"Despite the comments and the labyrinth of sentences in the statement, which seem to defend him, in fact, it sells out the prosecutor who became the cause of this debate by leaving the responsibility to him, while the law recognizes only the Prosecutor General as the responsible authority (Articles 109 and 297 of Law No. 115/2016 "On the governing bodies of the justice system"), one thing is clearly evident: the dubious integrity of the justice reform and the falsity of the vetting process!", says Luan Rama.
Full reaction:
The Authority for Information on Documents of the Former State Security has announced a decision, Decision No. 12, Date 22.01.2019, according to which it is proven that one of the members of the KLP (High Prosecutorial Council), elected from the ranks of prosecutors, turns out to have been a collaborator of the State Security. Although I personally have a different approach regarding the stance towards former collaborators of the State Security, as long as the law excludes them from the right to be involved in the governing bodies of the justice system, we cannot do the analysis otherwise, but only by referring to the law.
And the law clearly states: “Not to have been members, collaborators or favored by the former State Security before July 2, 1991 within the meaning of the law “On the right to information on documents of the former State Security of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania” (Law 115/2016 “On the governing bodies of the justice system”, article 105, letter dh). However, paradoxically and grotesquely, through a press statement, the prosecutor who performs the duty of the Prosecutor General, tells us that “… verification in the AISSH was not one of the criteria provided for in the law”. Does the lady with a temporary mandate elected to perform the duty of the Prosecutor General really think so?! Does she really not know that the law prohibits a former collaborator of the State Security from being elected to the governing bodies of the justice system?! Or is she pretending not to know?! Maybe she really doesn't know.
And I want to think that I don't know. Because on the contrary, if he knows and states that "it was not one of the criteria provided for in the law", we find ourselves before a scandalous case of violating the law and attempting to hide it through ignorance, which is not always as innocent as one might think!
Despite the comments and the labyrinth of sentences in the statement, which seem to defend him, in fact it sells out the prosecutor who became the cause of this debate by leaving the responsibility to him, while the law recognizes only the Prosecutor General as the responsible authority (Articles 109 and 297 of Law No. 115/2016 "On the governing bodies of the justice system"), one thing is clearly evident: the dubious integrity of the justice reform and the falsity of the vetting process!
