The Court of Appeals decided on January 3 to reject SPAK's request to return to "house arrest" the leader of the Democratic Party, Sali Berisha, by imposing the security measure of "compulsory appearance".
According to this decision, Berisha will have to go to SPAK to appear before the judicial police officer, twice a month.
On Thursday, the Court published a summary of the reasoning for the decision, saying that the preliminary hearing judge simply reassessed the elements that had already been taken into consideration by the preliminary investigation judge, without adding any new elements, which is not permitted as it constitutes res judicata.
Clarification of the decision
1. Regarding the special conditions for the determination of the personal security measure, nothing has changed since the decision of the preliminary investigation judge, and the preliminary hearing judge has not brought any new elements that indicate the absence of special conditions such as the risk of flight and the risk of damage to evidence.
The decision of the preliminary investigation judge (regarding the imposition of the personal security measure "Obligation to report to the judicial police") has passed all three levels of trial, including the Constitutional Court, and has been confirmed.
Meanwhile, the security measure "House arrest" was imposed not due to increased security needs but due to the breach of the obligations of the previous security measure, that of "Obligation to report to the judicial police".
The applicant Mr. SB has previously attempted to file a request with the preliminary investigation judge to terminate the personal security measure, where such a request was rejected by a decision confirmed at all three levels of trial.
As a result, there is no room for the extinguishment of the personal insurance measure.
The preliminary hearing judge, in making his decision, simply reassessed the elements that had already been taken into consideration by the preliminary investigation judge, without adding any new elements, which is not permitted as it constitutes res judicata.
2. Regarding the replacement of the personal security measure from that of "House arrest" to "Obligation to report to the judicial police", taking into account:
- the fact that the applicant had been under house arrest for a year,
- the fact that the non-implementation of the obligations related to the security measure "Obligation to report to the judicial police" was based on an alibi for the unconstitutionality of this measure, already overturned by the Constitutional Court,
- age and other circumstances that were taken into consideration by the preliminary investigation judge, but already assessed in relation to these other circumstances,
- and taking into account the fact that we are in the period before the election campaign and the applicant has also been considered by the Constitutional Court's decision as the leader of the opposition, or the chairman of the main opposition party,
It was concluded that the security measure "House Arrest" was no longer necessary.
By means of this measure (“House arrest”), the applicant has in a certain way atoned for the consequence given by the legal provisions for the non-implementation of the previous security measure “Obligation to report to the judicial police”, and consequently this security measure had to be replaced, giving the applicant once again the opportunity to respect the obligations related to the new security measure “Obligation to report to the judicial police”.
If the applicant does not comply with the obligations related to the security measure "Obligation to report to the judicial police", then the prosecution body will have the right to request the replacement of this security measure with a more severe security measure. (A2 Televizion)
A2 CNN Livestream
MUND TE LEXONI GJITHASHTU
