- THE INVESTIGATION CONFRONTED WITH ITS HALF-FINISHED WORK - -The investigation divides the case: “perpetrators of the killings” and “abusers of office.” -On the afternoon of 2 April, would it have been better to send the investigators from Tirana immediately? -Witnesses not summoned by the investigators. Witnesses who may be held criminally responsible. -Who brought the tanks to the square? Engjëni. -The victims’ families are asking for a defense lawyer. After three days of hearings, on the fourth day, the judicial panel in this case decided to return the case to the investigative authorities for further investigation, in order to clarify the criminal responsibility of the accused or of other persons connected with the case. The court issued this decision after hearing the views expressed in the courtroom by the public, the prosecutor and the defense lawyer. By taking this action, the court has placed the investigation under scrutiny and some of its members, if they deliberately narrowed the scope of the investigation, may themselves be held criminally responsible. In the interest of holding a trial and calming public opinion, which is waiting for the guilty parties, the hearing of the case must not be allowed to begin with anything less than the full truth. Otherwise, the judicial panel, familiar with the materials and the volume of the investigation and convinced (or having been convinced) that there is concrete responsibility concerning the question of who the killers are, should have called this trial a preliminary hearing or simply a proceeding in which the accused are questioned in public. The investigation is now publicly confronted with its half-finished work. Its responsibility is great, particularly because the investigation began late and this is now very difficult to rectify. But even after the investigation began, it focused more on who had organized the demonstration (and, if there were no organizers, they had to be found) than on who fired or gave the order to fire. To evade responsibility for its poor work, it divided the case into two parts: “perpetrators of the killings,” who, according to the investigators, it is not known when will stand trial, and “abusers of office.” These are the people currently on trial. Who can understand how these can be separated when the crime is one and the same? Despite all the time available, the investigation has not followed through on many issues important to the case. Ballistic tests have still not been conducted on all the weapons held by the DPB; as a result, it is still not known which pistol (the forensic examination could establish this) fired the shot that struck Bujar Biskajnat. The caliber of the bullet and the weapon with which Arben Broci was hit have still not been established. Why has the investigation not determined whether it was possible to move around at the outset amid the catastrophe that had unfolded? Likewise, the trial should not have begun without all five arrested policemen being present, at least as witnesses. What prevented a full examination of the victims? Why did the group of medical experts, together with the investigators, omit the position of A. Broci during their examination? For the sake of the transparency being claimed, ZP should answer these questions, which naturally arise from reading its editorial. 1. Does the PS also have among its ranks former senior party officials or members whose names appear on the list of scandalous abusers? 2. Does it consider former Party leaders such as A. Çarçani, H. Lleshi, J. to be members of the PS parliamentary group, although they have been identified as leading abusers? If so, does it intend to remove their parliamentary mandates, and when? 3. Since the list of former senior party leaders who scandalously abused their positions also includes the name of R. Alia, what is the PS’s opinion now of the president, who was proposed by the PP (today the PS) and approved just one hour before the funeral, without any work having been done? Does this mean that in the first days the investigation was merely going through the motions? These and other known facts show that the events of 2 April were caused by a monist mentality, and that someone thought things would be handled as before: people would be killed and nobody would be held to account, as happened when, among many others, four young men were killed at the border and people were driven through Shkodër in a car, massacred, in the hope that this macabre spectacle would frighten people. Was 2 April also approaching with this aim? Gramoz Ruci let slip in the Shkodër trial that he had made two reports to the Presidency on 2 April. The demonstration was therefore known in Tirana, among the leadership. The dead and the many wounded were also known about. Given this, instead of sending the tanks from Tirana, would it not have been better to send an investigative team to Shkodër urgently? Why, instead of such a team, were armored personnel carriers sent to the square that same day? It is still unclear, from the questioning of both the accused and witnesses Gramoz Ruci and Hajredin Shyli, who ordered or requested that the tanks be sent. The Minister says that, in response to the head of the branch asking, “Can I send the armored vehicles?”, he replied: “That is within your authority.” A former head of the local branch says the tanks were sent at the request of the police chief, Gjekë Çelaj. The latter says: “I know nothing; I only saw them in the square.” What are we to make of this? Does responsibility for the killings, like responsibility for the armored vehicles, pass from one person to another until the smallest official is blamed, while the real person responsible remains untouched? Fine, the former minister said, “That is within your authority,” but was it not within the minister’s authority to issue an unequivocal order not to send the tanks? Was it not within the head of the branch’s authority to firmly reject an improper request from the deputy police chief? Absolutely. So, in a sense, the minister also approved the killings—and why not? Since the sending of the tanks was not opposed, they could have killed even more. Qemal Lame, head of the General Investigation Directorate, was dismissed from his post. It was not made clear why: because of the expansion of the investigation, or perhaps because he had sent it in the direction that led to these deaths? This is supported by statements he made to the press. He says there were many obstacles during the investigation. What were they? He, as head, and the deputy head of the investigation have also been summoned by the court as witnesses. The judicial panel also asked whether they could say precisely where they had been, but wherever they were, they should have appeared to testify before the judicial panel and the Shkodër public; otherwise their public statements are just “smoke,” which does more harm than good. The investigators have often said that Shkodër residents are not testifying, although they witnessed the events. On the other hand, during the days of the trial, it emerged that witnesses who knew (or claimed to know) details about 2 April had not been summoned by the investigators. The categorical point about these “witnesses” is that some of them, especially officials of the Shkodër PP Committee or the Ministry of Internal Affairs, rather than being called as witnesses, could be held criminally responsible. How can this be substantiated? Since the first secretary of the PP Committee, Xhemal Dymylja, “had no knowledge of what was happening,” and the head of the DPB assured him that “all the necessary measures had been taken,” why did he ask the division for help? Or did he know something more about the organization of this operation? If the division commander had sent the requested assistance from the “commander of the defense headquarters”—a position held by Xhemal Dymylja—and more blood had consequently been spilled in the streets, would Xhemal Dymylja have accepted that he had discussed the use of force with the division and was responsible? If Hajredin Shyti declares in court that he avoided using force and had only sent unarmed schoolchildren to disperse the crowds, then why did the “specialists” from Tirana arrive armed, even accompanied by “sniper” rifles? This fact is known both to him and to his superior, Gramoz Ruci; they were asked for help, and they sent it. It is the investigators’ duty to clarify the status of these categories of witnesses. It is also the witnesses’ duty, for the sake of the truth, not to unfairly accuse and slander everyone; there must be justice for those who have testified, those who will testify, and others who know about the events. No one should escape justice. Those present in the courtroom, as well as those who may return tomorrow, have been asked to follow the trial with decorum, so that the court and the other justice institutions can work in conditions that allow them to judge fairly. This is a trial marked by grief, and there is no place for cheering. Nor is there any reason not to grant the victims’ families’ request to have their own defense lawyers, even though the prosecution is brought by the state.

When you travel past the fields of the plain of Tirana, Durrës, Kavajë, Lushnjë, Fier and farther on, you are struck by how few people are working in the fields. You see more people at particular spots along the road, selling seasonal produce. Another, very different picture appears in the fields as soon as night falls. And the darker the night, the more people there are in fields planted with watermelons, sunflowers, corn and alfalfa, and in orchards or vineyards. Road traffic becomes difficult at night because of bicycles, heavily laden carts and people carrying sacks on their backs. This, brothers and sisters, is collective theft. It is unnecessary to say that all this is the consequence of, and a reaction to, the half-century of theft committed by the dictatorial regime against the wealth, sweat, blood and conscience of our people. It is the consequence of destroying the sacred sense of work and property. But, putting all that aside, and setting aside all the evils of this shameful phenomenon—which may bring us even greater economic and spiritual impoverishment tomorrow—I would like to put one or two questions up for discussion: -Isn’t the time right to think a little harder and understand that what is being taken anarchically at night is the farmers’ own sweat and labor? Now that the cooperatives are collapsing and have in practice been dissolved, isn’t it time for the Democratic Party’s sections in the villages to gather the villagers so that the farmers themselves can make a preliminary division of the produce and collectively protect it, in order to ensure its proper distribution until the land is fully divided? Naturally, there may be other ways, which the people themselves will find. The pluralist government now being established at the local level will also find solutions. But one thing is extremely important: this plundering of ourselves must end once and for all. Apart from everything else, it risks leaving us without fruit, since it is being harvested on a massive scale while still unripe, without transport—and, above all, perhaps even without bread. Our village has enough honest and wise men to put an end to this destruction and mass humiliation. N. ROSHI

On Thursday, during the afternoon session, the Minister of Justice presented the general amnesty bill to the Assembly. After the bill was presented, Democratic deputies expressed considerable concern. One of Mr Berisha’s main concerns was whether the drafters of the bill had consulted the Association of Political Prisoners. The Minister also raised concerns that “amnesty, pardon and acquittal” had to be understood distinctly. The Chairman of the PP called for the full and unconditional acquittal of everyone convicted by the dictatorial regime. After the distinction between amnesty and acquittal had been made, deputy Teodor Keko raised a very delicate question: Could the innocence of those convicted of crimes by the monist regime be called into question? In this case, should there be acquittal or amnesty? The deputy also said that the Association of Political Prisoners and the Government should reach an understanding regarding compensation, and then described the difficult situation of those people to the state. Deputy Berisha called for the full rehabilitation of the convicted. He said that this rehabilitation could not be complete unless it was also economic. Agustin Shkalsi said that it was not for us to pardon the convicted, but that they should be asked for forgiveness by us. Deputies Hajdari, Shameti, Vjesiu and others expressed similar concerns. Debate on this bill continued yesterday during the morning session. On Friday morning, the main debate was again about the concepts of amnesty and acquittal. In this case, amnesty falls within the Assembly’s authority, while acquittal falls within the authority of the executive branch (the courts). To avoid encroaching on the latter’s powers, Mr Berisha made a very valuable proposal: declare the article on agitation and propaganda entirely invalid and repeal it. Response by deputy F. Avdiu. ARMAND SHKULLAKU (Continued on page 5)

-From the visit to England and Italy by Dr. Prof. Sali Berisha, Chairman of the DP Steering Commission- Question: From 25 to 28 July you visited two developed European countries, England and Italy. How fruitful were your meetings with European figures for the integration process? Answer: The Deputy Leader of the British Conservatives, Mr Geofrit Pattle, invited me on an official visit to London. There I met Sir Geofrit Pattle, the Prime Minister’s assistant, Mrs Sara Hog, a senior Foreign Office official, as well as many members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Question: How did you present the situation we are going through in Albania? Answer: At these meetings we exchanged views on mutual cooperation. I discussed the grave political situation in Albania; I emphasized that the most pressing issues in Albania today are the dissolution of the state security service and the establishment of a new intelligence service. The Albanian political criminal police (the State Security Service) has committed heinous crimes in the history of this people and therefore no longer deserves to exist. I explained that today they are engaged in a general offensive against the Democratic Party and are largely responsible for the strategy and terror prevailing in Albania today. These discussions also dealt at length with the dire situation of former political prisoners, internees and all those who were ... [?] Question: You also had meetings with Foreign Office representatives. Did you discuss with them the possibility of cooperation between the two countries and other issues concerning foreign policy? Answer: In these discussions, a special place was given to the question of relations between Albania (Continued on page 6)

The creation of the government of stability, which is trying to work and justify itself, was undoubtedly a necessary historic solution. During this period, though short, the government headed by Mr Ylli Bufi has managed to resolve a number of important domestic and foreign policy issues, anticipating the current situation with progressive decisions and draft laws free from the prejudices of the past. Nevertheless, worrying problems are evident in our daily lives. First of all, public stability and public order. In my opinion, the Ministry of Public Order has not justified its existence. Its investigative and striking force has proved weak. I think that those trying to destabilize the situation are primarily those who have lost or are losing their “earthly paradise.” The dark threads are concentrated around the time of the Hoxha family, whose conduct is a sinister menace. To stabilize the situation, the Hoxha family must be arrested immediately and made to answer for the crimes and abuses it committed at the people’s expense, together with its assistants, and the invisible threads they hold and use to destabilize the political situation must be exposed. Their aim is to discredit democracy and restore dictatorship by spreading the rumor that “it is true that we were poor in Enver Hoxha’s time, but at least we had peace.” “This is one of the basest ways of attacking democracy, so neither Parliament nor the people should fall prey to such talk. I will in no way accept the ransom of insecurity and blood demanded by the overthrown caste headed by the Hoxha family. Therefore, I demand the arrest of N. Hoxha and that she be brought before a people’s court in the name of the 28,000 martyrs who fell for freedom and democracy; in the name of the martyrs of democracy who were imprisoned, tortured, mutilated and poisoned with ...; and in the name of the thousands of honest communists and the Albanian people who were deceived, misled and impoverished for 45 consecutive years. The cleansing of the state must be carried out radically, removing the dishonest people who oppressed and abu- (Continued on page 4)

[?] The audit group that worked at the enterprise Directorate of Reception (Le...), xo Privileges uncovered abuses covered up by the state during 1988–90, which must be punished, involving the 34 families that benefited: 1. Hoxha family 3 033 021 2. » Alia 1 767 113 3. » Çarçani 471 646 4. » Myftiu 244 410 5. » Bekteshi 222 310 6. » Stefani 203 605 7. » Isai 273 033 8. » Çeliku 164 526 9. » Mihali 176 732 10. » Çuko 225 662 11. » Marko 242 220 12. » Murra 200 688 13. » Spahiu 84 684 14. » Çami 210 808 15. » Geprifti 188 980 16. » Kondi 176 535 17. » Mustaqi 59 315 18. » Kapo 205 369 19. » Toska 133 694 20. » Peristeri 110 240 21. » Peçi 96 268 22. » Koleka 232 531 23. » Lleshi 176 667 24. » Asllani 217 653 25. » Miska 221 233 26. » Çërvana 154 648 27. » Gjyzari 2 609 28. » Gjoni 4 141 29. » Nushi 28 728 30. » Guri 36 490 31. » Thoma 47 697 32. » Çami 39 392 33. » Bozo 39 382 34. » Baleka 36 500 Total for 1988–90: 9 650 013 new lekë. This enormous economic damage is nothing compared with the damage caused by their incompetence and disastrous leadership, which brought the country to the brink of death. The state must carry this audit through to the end and punish the guilty severely, with the same severity that characterized them when it came to other people. LLESH DODA

The 1 August issue of ZP carried an editorial that records the criminal scandals and abuses of former senior PP leaders, both party and state officials; as it put it, “the Socialist Party in the fortress of the 10s (rufi?) when were they committed, starting in 1987?” I believe readers would be interested to know how the PS’s position will be clarified. In the name of the transparency it claims to uphold, ZP should answer these questions, which naturally arise from reading the editorial. 1. Does the PS also have among its ranks former senior party officials or members whose names appear on the list of scandalous abusers? 2. Does it consider former Party leaders such as A. Çarçani, H. Lleshi, J. to be members of the PS parliamentary group, although they have been identified as leading abusers? If so, does it intend to remove their parliamentary mandates, and when? 3. Since the list of former senior party leaders who scandalously abused their positions also includes the name of R. Alia, what is the PS’s opinion now of the president, who was proposed by the PP (today the PS) and approved just one hour before the funeral, without any work having been done? Does this mean that in the first days the investigation was merely going through the motions? These and other known facts show that the events of 2 April were caused by a monist mentality and that someone thought things would be handled as before: people would be killed and nobody would be held to account, as happened when, among many others, four young men were killed at the border and people were driven through Shkodër in a car, massacred, in the hope that this macabre spectacle would frighten people. Was 2 April also approaching with this aim? Gramoz Ruci let slip in the Shkodër trial that he had made two reports to the Presidency on 2 April. The demonstration was therefore known in Tirana, among the leadership. The dead and the many wounded were also known about. Given this, instead of sending the tanks from Tirana, would it not have been better to send an investigative team to Shkodër urgently? Why, instead of such a team, were armored personnel carriers sent to the square that same day? It is still unclear, from the questioning of both the accused and witnesses Gramoz Ruci and Hajredin Shyli, who ordered or requested that the tanks be sent. 4. When ZP describes a senior party leader as being in a “two-faced position,” does it also have R. Alia in mind? 5. Will it stand by its promise to the end, “that nothing should be placed above the laws of the state, above the moral standards of an emancipated and democratic society that we are trying to create—even the President of the Republic”? Thank you! FATMIR BERATI