The Constitutional Court lacks seriousness and correctness in exercising its functions as an institution that should guarantee the implementation of the constitutional laws With a letter dated 7.10.1995, the Constitutional Court responded to the appeal submitted by LDSH entities concerning the Law on the Sale and Purchase of Land. The experience so far [text continues outside the frame] so far had cemented the conviction that the Constitutional Court, as a blind instrument of power, would reject the above request, but it was of great interest to see the way in which it would justify dismissing the request in question. The Constitutional Court’s reply, addressed to Mr. Hysen Selfo, Sabri Godo, Kurt Kola, etc., making some acrobatics among the articles of the constitutional provisions, considers it appropriate to teach the gentlemen named above that “natural and legal persons may set the court in motion only when they claim that their fundamental rights provided for by the constitutional laws have been violated.” And according to the reasoning of Mr. Rustem Gjata, “since the request does not claim that constitutional rights have been violated, but only raises general issues, then this matter cannot be referred for adjudication.” It is difficult to find an answer drafted in such absurd and amateurish language from a legal point of view. First of all, this is not about the violation of the rights of Hysen Selfo, Sabri Godo, Kurt Kola or anyone else, but about the violation of the most fundamental right of more than 260 thousand people who have signed—

To the President of the Constitutional Court, Mr. Rustem Gjata In your letter No. H - 3, dated 07.10.1995, it is stated that the Constitutional Court may be set in motion only when natural and legal persons claim that their fundamental rights provided for by the constitutional laws have been violated, and that in our application we do not claim that these rights have been violated. In your letter No. H - 3, dated 07.10.1995, it is stated that the Constitutional Court may be set in motion only when natural and legal persons laws have been violated, and that in our application we do not claim that these rights have been violated. With this reply, you have decided to close the lawsuit we filed on 10.08.1995 and not to refer the case for trial. Mr. Chairman! Our lawsuit is based on the petition calling for the prohibition of the Law on the Sale and Purchase of Land, a petition signed to date by 260,000 citizens with the right to vote. Land is the basis of all property, and tampering with its redistribution constitutes the most blatant violation of property, that is, the violation of the fundamental human rights enshrined in the package of constitutional laws. If you do not accept this fact and refuse to hear the case, you strip the Constitutional Court of its legal functions and powers. First of all, viewed in this light, your reply is a legal absurdity with which we cannot agree. We ask you to reconsider the matter and refer it for trial as soon as possible. Otherwise, we will be obliged to turn to European institutions and the Court of Strasbourg, something we do not wish to do, because it is better for us to resolve our affairs as a Nation and as a state ourselves. Respectfully, Hysen Selfo Sabri Godo Kurt Kola Text in the document: ... refer it for trial ... European institutions and the Court of Strasbourg, since our affairs as a nation and as a state ... ourselves. Respectfully, Hysen Selfo Sabri Godo Kurt Kola

On 7.10.1995, the Constitutional Court replied to the appeal request of the of Land. The experience up to that point the manner was of great interest. The reply of the Constitutional Court, and performing some acrobatics through the articles of the constitutional provisions, deems it appropriate to teach the gentlemen mentioned according to Mr. Rustem Gjata’s reasoning, “since the application does not claim a violation of constitutional rights, but raises only general issues, this case therefore cannot proceed to trial.” It is difficult to find a reply point of view. First, than 260 thousand people who have signed— (continued on p.2)

LDSH appeals to the presidium of the People’s Assembly P. 2

P. 3

P. 5

Mr. Gjata, review the case: Our lawsuit is supported by 260

“The request does not claim that [text continues outside the frame]

Republic of Albania Constitutional Court No. H - 3 Mr. Hysen Selfo Mr. Sabri Godo Mr. Kurt Kola In reply to your application, we clarify as follows: Under Article 24, point 9, and Article 25, second paragraph, of Law No.7561, dated 29.04.1992, “On Certain Amendments and Additions to the Law ‘On the Main Constitutional Provisions’”, persons, both natural and legal, may set the Constitutional been violated, but only raises general issues, mainly concerning the Law “On Land”. Under these circumstances, the case cannot be referred for trial. The President Rustem Gjata