The High Inspector of Justice, Mr. Artur Metani, participated in the roundtable “ Improving the Safety and Protection of Journalists. Sharing best practices and addressing ongoing challenges ”, organized by the Council of Europe and the European Union within the framework of the project on freedom of expression and media freedom in Albania.
Mr. Metani was part of the institutional panel where the discussion was held on “ Challenges and solutions for local authorities to meet international standards for the protection of journalists .”
In his speech, Mr. Metani praised the way the meeting was organized, bringing together the media and institutions, with communication and public interest as a common denominator. "Of course, we may not agree on everything, but it is very important to communicate, addressing concerns in institutions, but also through meetings and round tables, which also help mutual information on certain issues. And by taking into account the constitutional principles on which our entire professional life and not only is organized, I believe that the situation of solutions becomes faster and more efficient", said Mr. Metani.
In his speech, Mr. Metani referred to statistics on media interaction with ILD in the 5 years of the institution's operation, mainly as initiators of verifications, as complainants and as informers of public opinion. "In 5 years of operation, there have also been accurate indications received from the media, on which the High Inspector of Justice has mainly initiated 12 disciplinary investigations. These 12 investigations have been initiated for 13 subjects: 6 judges, 6 prosecutors and 1 member of the Council. 11 magistrates have been sent by the ILD for disciplinary proceedings to the KLGJ and KLP and for 2 other magistrates, the disciplinary investigation has been closed. Of the 11 magistrates sent for disciplinary proceedings, in 7 cases the ILD has requested the disciplinary measure "Dismissal from duty". The Councils have accepted the ILD's request in 5 cases, so the magistrates have been dismissed. In one case they have decided "suspension from duty for a period of 6 months", while the other case is suspended, as the decision of the KPA is awaited. In 4 cases, the ILD has requested the disciplinary measure "Public reprimand" in the Council. 1 case has been accepted and 3 others have been dismissed.
In the 5 years of operation of the ILD, the media themselves have referred 17 complaints for disciplinary violations. For them, the ILD has taken 11 final decisions, specifically: 2 were archived after the initial review, 7 after verification, 2 after a disciplinary investigation was conducted. 6 other complaints are in the process of review.
Taking into account the fact that creating conditions to obtain the requested information is another element that guarantees the work of journalists and referring to our statistics, the media has interacted directly with the ILD through requests for information in 46 cases. Only in 6 of them, the information has been limited according to the law and this has been clearly explained. I note with satisfaction that in relation to the ILD, the media respect the legal principle of confidentiality of investigative actions, which begin with the initial review or preliminary investigative actions for suspected behavior/violations by judges, as this confidentiality serves to protect the integrity of the process and the reputation of the magistrate, if the accusations prove to be unfounded,” said Senior Inspector of Justice Metani.
FULL WORD:
Dear guests,
Thanking you first for the invitation to this event, I would like to begin my speech with a great appreciation for discussion tables on such topics. Not simply because freedom of expression, the press and the media remain at the foundation of a free society, but because the state of social values today, everywhere and in Albania, needs continuous discussion and honest reflection from each of us, seeing it as a contribution to the democratic consolidation of society in the coming years and not as a daily debate. And in this sense, I see the meeting between journalists and institutions as a good opportunity to share what we can do more and better to increase safety for journalists.
Of course, we may not agree on everything, but it is very important to communicate, addressing concerns in institutions, but also through meetings and round tables, which also help mutual information on certain issues. And by taking into account the constitutional principles on which our entire professional life and not only is organized, I believe that the situation of solutions becomes faster and more efficient.
I followed with great interest the presentations of the first panel on the situation of journalists, regarding the conditions in which they perform their duties, and I would like to congratulate each of the speakers for the overview they provided. It is primary information, but also with personal sensitivity, which cannot be found in the daily public debate and as such has special value.
Personally, I think that the commitment to a safe working environment for journalists should not be seen simply at the level of respecting international conventions or even an indicator that must be met on our European journey. But, if we do not truly value the freedom of journalists to be such, as a shield for a healthy society, and not because we deign to carry out our duties in relation to journalists, then we create an even heavier burden for ourselves for the future.
Of course, among the first public institutions that play a fundamental role in protecting journalists and promoting media freedom are the justice institutions, which have a special role. Reacting decisively against crimes committed against journalists, starting from stigmatization, attacks, threats, or worse, murders, which fortunately is not the case in Albania, is a duty that is both institutional and human. So, institutions must exercise their duty, but on the other hand, they must also have a high sensitivity for the very specific values of society, which the media represent. Each of us is clear that every category and social value is equal before the law, but each of us, in our daily lives, can have a special attention to a category like the media and not to be friends with journalists, but to be friends with freedom of expression, with attention to journalists, both for the specificity of the work, and for what it represents in society, the voice of the public. It is a practice that we follow in the ILD office, i.e. increased attention when we have relations with journalists and within the framework of this roundtable, I had the opportunity to see the statistics of the media's interaction with the High Inspector of Justice, which I will bring to you in three dimensions: as public informers, complainants or even directly engaged, through requests for information addressed to our institution.
As I said, at ILD we try to treat the media as a category with special attention. It is not easy, because the institution lacks human resources, when it comes to disciplinary inspection, but in these 5 years of activity we have tried to do our best, respecting the public's right to be informed about the way justice is administered in the country, a request that comes through the media, since naturally, informing the media by institutions is also part of the security of journalists to freely exercise their mission.
In 5 years, there has been only one case of a journalist who addressed the High Inspector of Justice with a complaint of obstruction in the exercise of her duties, due to the closing of the doors to the media during a court session (it was the Covid period). The case was verified by ILD inspectors and archived, because there were insufficient facts to justify the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. However, the ILD inspectors highlighted in the decision that although in this case there is no room for disciplinary liability, within the meaning of Law 96/2016 “On the Status of Judges and Prosecutors in the Republic of Albania”, the High Inspector of Justice finds it appropriate to emphasize the importance of transparency with the media, since through the guarantees and opportunities that we give and create for journalists to perform their duty, we guarantee not only journalists, but their mission, the right of society to have the opportunity to judge governance, in every dimension of it, including the judicial power. Society is and should be the one that evaluates whether the work of the justice system or a certain media reporting is correct and not the institutions, by limiting information. This, since creating respect for the work of the justice system is an effort that goes beyond the system. It is also a contribution of other factors in society, especially the media, as important liaisons with public opinion, that is, with society.
On the other hand, I consider it important to address the institution and recognize its competences. You can complain to the High Inspector of Justice about actions or omissions that constitute failure to fulfill your duty, or unprofessional or unethical behavior during or outside of the exercise of your function, which discredit the position and image of judges and prosecutors of all levels in the Republic of Albania. This is provided for by law and as an institution we have continuously facilitated the complaint process. All you have to do is go to the website ild.al and there is an online complaint option, which can also be done via mobile phone, in just a few minutes.
On the other hand, the visual media, both written and new media, have been, through publicly provided information, initiating verifications, which have led to investigations and even disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors, since 2020 when the Office of the High Inspector of Justice began work. Of course, there have been cases where the denunciations have not constituted violations according to the law. Such cases have resulted in 9 cases, when the ILD has initiated verification on its own initiative of information made public in the written and visual media. The ILD has verified 14 magistrates, 6 judges and 8 prosecutors, making 9 archiving decisions. As we make clear in our public communications, the actions or inactions of the magistrate, which may constitute disciplinary violations, according to the requirements of law no. 96/2016 “On the status of judges and prosecutors in the Republic of Albania”, as amended, are not only those that are presented on the basis of a public information, but are those that are analyzed by the High Inspector of Justice, or assessed on the basis of a verification process or disciplinary investigation. On the basis of a public information, a set of facts may be presented, which are alleged to have occurred and which constitute a disciplinary violation, but the High Inspector of Justice may make a precise or different characterization of the facts and actions related to the disciplinary violation, without being linked to the determination that may be claimed in this public information.
But in 5 years of operation, there have also been accurate indications received from the media, based on which the High Inspector of Justice has mainly initiated 12 disciplinary investigations. These 12 investigations have been initiated for 13 subjects: 6 judges, 6 prosecutors and 1 member of the Council. 11 magistrates have been sent by the ILD for disciplinary proceedings to the KLGJ and KLP and for 2 other magistrates, the disciplinary investigation has been closed. Of the 11 magistrates sent for disciplinary proceedings, in 7 cases the ILD has requested the disciplinary measure “Dismissal from duty”. The Councils have accepted the ILD’s request in 5 cases, meaning the magistrates have been dismissed. In one case they have decided “suspension from duty for a period of 6 months”, while the other case is suspended, as the decision of the KPA is awaited. In 4 cases, the ILD has requested the disciplinary measure “Public reprimand” in the Council. 1 case has been accepted and 3 others have been dismissed.
In the 5 years of operation of the ILD, the media themselves have referred 17 complaints for disciplinary violations. For them, the ILD has taken 11 final decisions, specifically: 2 were archived after the initial review, 7 after verification, 2 after a disciplinary investigation was conducted. 6 other complaints are in the process of review.
Considering the fact that creating conditions to obtain the requested information is another element that guarantees the work of journalists and referring to our statistics, the media has interacted directly with the ILD through requests for information in 46 cases. Only in 6 of them, the information has been limited according to the law and this has been clearly explained. I note with satisfaction that in relation to the ILD, the media respect the legal principle of confidentiality of investigative actions, which begin with the initial examination or preliminary investigative actions for suspected behavior/violations by judges, as this confidentiality serves to protect the integrity of the process and the reputation of the magistrate, if the accusations prove to be unfounded. In 5 years, the ILD has given absolute priority to transparency towards the public, as a means that helps strengthen public trust in the justice system, but while maintaining the necessary balance between the public interest in the administration of justice and respect for the independence of magistrates. After all, both of these powers find protection in the Constitution, none with superiority over the other, but with clear and separate profiles in a democratic society. Here again I underline as vital, as I said above, the communication between the media and institutions. A strong commitment of all public actors, through a systematic dialogue, not only to monitor what is happening and react quickly, but also to inform ourselves and inform the public about the contribution that we must all make to a safe environment for the media. (A2 Televizion)
A2 CNN Livestream
MUND TE LEXONI GJITHASHTU
