What Albania urgently needs was awaited: a constitution. The draft submitted to the deputies for approval marks a clear success compared with the 1976 Constitution. Thus, compared with that constitution which was propagandized as the «miracle» of the PPSH, with which we would do everything by our own strength, because we publicly condemned aid and loans, because we were the only state in the world without churches or mosques and, naturally, the only «democratic» state performing miracles; therefore, the capitalist-imperialists and revisionists were supposed to learn from us so that they would fall into «decay». But very soon (because a constitution being proved for one or two decades is constitutional evidence) the fog of propaganda lifted, and our country, forever the poorest in Europe, that is, the most backward, sank deeper and deeper into suffocating stagnation. That model constitution of the PPSH played no small part in this. The party’s request for changes to this basic law governing the state is a positive step. The idea was taken further with the first new draft, while in the second, following pluralist discussions, the improvements were commendable, representing clear steps forward. Nevertheless, the opposition, through its deputy Genc Ru-Ruli, who was the first to speak (and then many others), rightly insisted that we should not rush to approve the draft constitution in principle, because it still contains important matters that need correcting. The point is not that it was drafted by a committee of specialists assigned that task by the monist assembly, but that its spirit needs to be made even more democratic, so as to respond to the rapid changes taking place and to our future on the road to Europe. But how could the problem be resolved when the need to unblock the activity of our state is so urgent? Should the country be left in this state? No, under no circumstances. The opposition proposes a package of necessary laws until the pluralist commission, at some future point deemed appropriate, presents the new draft constitution for approval. What was the reaction of the PPSH deputies? Would those who had always been accustomed to never rejecting any such important document, and to that much-repeated ritual of raising their hands, agree? First Mr. Lefter Xhuvelli and then Mr. Namik Dokle (followed by several others) began calling for the draft constitution as submitted to be approved in principle. In other words, the old refrain: whatever it is, let’s approve it and then see what we can do. No, gentlemen! A constitution cannot be approved in principle, but must be approved article by article, because it is the basic law governing the state’s activity and our lives. And should the opposition rush simply because our economy cannot wait, and, for the sake of the situation brought about by socialism and the PPSH, should we make another mistake that may cost us tomorrow? The matter is not simple. Everyone bears a heavy burden of responsibility. And because consensus is of such importance, the parliamentary groups of both sides were appointed to discuss the issue and find common ground. And they succeeded. Well then, a historic consensus in Albania’s first pluralist parliament. Thus, the submitted draft was not approved, should be improved even further in the opposition. But we need that change. own standing and truly be pluralist, and we should not look to the discredited parties to represent its interests. The leaders of the PPSH know this well. In this way, a necessary and constructive historic cooperation is emerging in Parliament. It was a particular pleasure to watch the dialogue between deputies of the Labour Party, the Democratic Party and «Omonia»: in the overwhelming majority of cases on Thursday and Friday, they supported one another and chose the best option. Deputies Ismail Lleshi, Shane Korbeci, Ahmet Kamberi and their colleagues supported the opposition gentlemen, while the latter, like those mentioned earlier, supported the communists. I mention Sali Berisha, Gramoz Pashko, Neritan Ceka, Azem Hajdari, Genc Ruli and so many others, all gentlemen of reason and sound judgment, and, above all, united by Albanian hearts. Naturally, sometimes they debated a particular point or issue, even when there was no need, but that comes from a lack of experience, not from a bad intention to oppose something merely because it had been proposed by opponents. This is a success. If we continue like this, Albania will have nothing but good things ahead. They themselves felt this spirit, as did the guests. When one considers everyone’s serious commitment, the deputies’ workload exceeds the ordinary limits. They spend hours under great nervous strain, jointly revising even a single sentence in the laws they discuss. This is all the more so because there are so few lawyers among them. A clear shortcoming of our Parliament is that it has many agronomists, chairmen of agricultural cooperatives and doctors, when the work calls for more lawyers, economists and politicians, without excluding others. Nevertheless, the level of education is high, and the work is being done responsibly and competently. But did things continue this way until late Friday? No. Unfortunately not. When the opposition proposed that the People’s Assembly be convened not only at the request of one third of the deputies, but also one fifth or one quarter, so that not only the Labour Party but also the opposition would have this right, the consensus suffered a rift. suffered a tear in the

but rather a package of laws or constitutional legal provisions, until the Constitution is approved. But what compelled the PPSH deputies to make this compromise, when they could have approved the submitted draft through the voting mechanism? Did this party (meaning its top leadership) change so quickly, when it failed to make the commission pluralist after the other parties had been formed and it was decided to revise the draft Constitution; when it disregarded the opposition’s demands regarding the electoral system; when on April 2 in Shkodër it opened fire on the peaceful population, a massacre was carried out, and afterwards there was complete silence and an attempt to protect the killers? I would say that, more than their own reform, it is the wretched state of the economy that compels them; and besides, the developed world would not provide aid to Albania with a parliament that was not only monist in its numbers, but, above all, in its actions, disregarding the opposition’s legitimate voice. Yet we need that aid. We must show in practice that the opposition has its place and its weight, and that the Constitution and every law we approve are made together with it. In other words, Albania must truly be pluralist, and we must not look to parties that are sinking ever deeper to represent its interests. It is regrettable that, in the end, some deputies from the PD and «Omonia» left the chamber in protest. It was close to midnight. At that moment, either through exhaustion or because of the deeply rooted, half-century-old notion that the PPSH should have its way in everything, this mindset reared its head. The voting mechanism was used, and this just demand was approved. The reaction was immediate. Mr. Neritan Ceka reminded them that they had agreed on consensus and that this action meant... Mr. Fatos Nano seized on the moment astutely; that afternoon he had been among the most active and rational. Although Article 18 had been put to a vote and passed, he prevailed in asking his colleagues from the Labour Party to put the article to a vote once more, in the spirit of mutual understanding. The speakers Gramo Ruci and Leontiev Çuçi supported him. Mr. Nano insisted that it was in Albania’s interests for the opposition to be respected, to play its role, and to have an equal right to convene Parliament. The deputies were tired. It was midnight, and the matter was left open for discussion again in the morning. Let us wait until Friday. There was enough time to think things through so that Saturday’s session could begin in a spirit of full understanding. The parliamentary groups had reconciled their differences and consensus had been reached. Everyone felt relieved. Article 18 was approved, stating that Parliament could also be convened by one quarter of the deputies. Thus, the opposition won a right to which it was entitled, proportionate to its strength. May it continue this way! And, generally speaking, the whole morning proceeded in that manner, with mutual respect and understanding, except for one definition concerning the right of a specified number of voters to submit draft laws for discussion. This right should belong not only to the President, the Council of Ministers and a deputy, but also to the people. It was not clear why the communist deputies initially hesitated to approve the proposal of Mr. Sali Berisha and another PD deputy, when their request expressed the concentration of the well-known principle of the mass line, which the PPSH had adopted as its guiding compass. But on this point, too, after the outcome of the vote was witnessed, there was reflection once again, and, following an improved formulation by Mr. Shkëlqim Cani, this important right of the people was also approved. In the atmosphere of cooperation that was clearly evident, as in the discussion of a specific article or the status of Radio Television and ATSH, which were to be answerable to and overseen by the People’s Assembly, respected gentlemen from both groups stood out. They made you feel as though they did not belong to different parties, even when they disagreed with the previous speaker from their own party. In other words, Albania was seen. Deputies such as Blitero Agolli showed great democratic ability and inclination. Nor was this lacking among the others, even among someone whom monist leadership and the times had shrouded in conservative fog, but whom the democratic spirit had helped reshape into a new personality. Twenty-two articles were approved, opening the afternoon’s discussions on the office and duties of the President, a major and highly important item.

* * * Enough time to

Only a Constituent Assembly can discuss and approve the new Constitution The concern that prompts me to write this article is: which legislative body has the right to discuss and approve a new Constitution? Worldwide constitutional experience shows that a Constituent Assembly is convened to approve a new Constitution; it emerges from free general elections and is intended to represent all sections of the population through the parties and political organizations taking part in those elections. Let us also recall our own constitutional experience: to approve the 1946 Constitution, the Constituent Assembly was convened, having emerged from the elections of December 2, 1945. Today, the widespread view is that the current People’s Assembly is the body that should approve the new Constitution, that is, it should simultaneously be granted the powers of a Constituent Assembly. But can it have these powers? Let us present the arguments before answering. First, the commission’s mandate was only to make certain changes to the 1976 Constitution; in other words, the elected deputies were not elected with the powers of those who approve an entirely new Constitution. These deputies may be the most suitable people to defend the electoral interests of their constituencies for this legislature, but they are not necessarily the most capable of discussing and approving a Constitution with a proportional system. Someone might call this excessive bureaucracy, but, considering that the activity of the state has now been unblocked by the current Assembly and that this Constitution’s credibility in domestic and international public opinion is extremely important, I would call it a legally entirely justified step. After this argument, a question may naturally arise: will today’s People’s Assembly continue to exist after the Constitution is approved? Looking toward the future, which we all want to resemble Europe, we can say that its current structure is far from European. European parliaments consist of two chambers: the chamber of deputies, whose members defend the interests of the regions they represent, and the senate, which defends broader, national interests that take precedence over regional ones. The existence of two chambers in parliament is regarded by all democratic European states as a basic condition of genuine democracy. I believe the drafters of the new Constitution will bear this fact in mind. Seen in this light, today’s People’s Assembly can be considered a provisional parliament belonging to a transitional period such as the one we are going through, with the historic task of laying the foundations for a stable state governed by the rule of law on the European continent. The 1976 Constitution, that is, the elected deputies did not receive votes with the mandate to adopt during these legislatures, but they are not the most qualified to discuss and approve a new Constitution, which concerns receive votes with the mandate to adopt to discuss and approve a new Constitution, which leads to the conclusion that, to discuss and approve the draft of the new Constitution, which is expected to take place toward the end of the year, Parliament should convene a Constituent Assembly, which would emerge from free, general and direct elections. This Parliament is the same constitution that may be different in Parliament by only 30 percent of the seats. These arguments lead elections. EDUARD ZALOSHNJA

Honorable deputies, The Initiating Commission of the Association of Prisoners, internees, deportees and political persecuted persons, together with a group of former political prisoners, internees and deportees, supported by the nationwide opinion of thousands upon thousands of our fellow sufferers inside and outside the country, and in accordance with the human rights deriving from the Fundamental Law of the State governed by the rule of law, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the CSCE Final Act, the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting, the Conference on the Human Dimension, the CSCE Charter of Paris, and other documents of international organizations and forums officially recognized by the Albanian state as well, request: 1 — The establishment of a Special Parliamentary Commission for a comprehensive and thorough study of the tragic, nationwide social wounds suffered by political prisoners, internees and deportees. 2 — The immediate enactment, by the session of the First Pluralist Parliament in Albania’s 46-year postwar history, of the release of all political prisoners who, as a result of the changes, are still serving their sentences, as well as ordinary prisoners whose legal definition of guilt deliberately masks the political content of the criminal offense. 3 — The immediate enactment of legal exoneration for all those convicted politically under articles and charges that conflict with human rights, norms and freedoms, as well as a review of politically and non-politically fabricated and staged trials. 4 — The state should publicly apologize to its victims, because it is not the state that forgives and shows mercy, but the people, the victims and martyrs who suffered, were terrorized, maimed and mistreated, who are seeking humanitarian justice and fully deserve to receive it without hesitation. 5 — We request the immediate enactment of the establishment of a Special Government Commission, headed by the Chairman of the Government, to create as quickly as possible the living conditions of former prisoners, internees, deportees and political persecuted persons, and to provide spiritual relief to the families of the victims within the most reasonable timeframe, including: a — Return as soon as possible to former places of residence, without leaving this vital issue at the mercy of the arbitrary actions of administrative bureaucrats, but placing it under the authority of the highest state body. b — Immediate provision of housing, including by allocating additional funds for Tirana and Albania’s main cities. c — Priority employment according to the relevant specialty, profession and education, both inside and outside the country. d — Granting work, war or disability pensions without any qualification or deliberately misleading bureaucratic interpretation, because they are an exclusively undeniable economic right of citizens, deriving from the individual financial contributions of every worker, including political prisoners, who deserve them through their many years of work, participation in the National Liberation War, or disability, wherever incurred. d — Recognition of the time spent serving a sentence as years of employment. (Continued on page 8)

I am from the city of Elbasan. The thieves forced me to hand this over to your newspaper, thinking that you would help me solve the mystery: the death of my son Arian Boçi, who was doing his military service in unit 5855 in Pashaliman, Vlora. My son died on 26.2.1990. His death has been mysterious to me, because the diagnosis in the medical reports differed. When I went to the hospital in Vlora with representatives of the Ministry of Defense (one of them was also the deputy chief of health services), the diagnosis in the record that was drawn up was Enteritis, whereas in the report they brought me in Elbasan the diagnosis was different: Enteritis, toxic, septic condition. Which of these two documents is true? Both are signed by the forensic doctor. A year has passed, and I have been seeking the true cause of death as a parent, but to this day no one has given me an answer. I have knocked on doors throughout the government; I met the former Minister of Defense Prokop Murra, Kiço Mustaqi, the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General, Qemal Lame at the General Investigation Directorate, and the former Minister of Justice Enver Halili. He told me he would send me an answer by letter within a week, but I never received one. These, then, are the gentlemen of this government, the gentlemen of justice who protect the people’s interests. My heart aches for the son I awaited with such hardship, while the gentlemen are not at all troubled by my distress. Gentlemen of the people’s government, give me an answer! Why did my son die? I am his parent; do I have no right to know? I assure you of one thing, gentlemen: my son, Arlani, was not killed, was not part of the (....) irregularities.