THE PROVISIONAL ANTI-ALBANIAN ALLIANCE Durrës was bringing yesterday, openly and triumphantly, the vehicle in which the chief state prosecutor, Pirro Gjika, the man of the incomprehensible secrets of a democracy in agony, the man of wonders who has spied on pluralist Albania, was laughing carefree. He was arriving from Durrës and heading to the executive committee, to the office of the communist agronomist, who also had the function of a policeman. He climbed the stiff stairs with a feverish face and gray calm. Meanwhile, in civilian traffic, the luxury car was carrying the man who holds in his hands the darkest files of the state. He was trying to enter yet another meeting with other people tired of responsibility. An explanation for this unexpected visit could be sought in the hot climate of recent days. He had come to set an old mechanism in motion. The city was under a silent pressure. Minor officials ran from one office to another, while people in the streets listened anxiously for the news. A provisional alliance, brewed in corridors and office tables, was taking on an anti-Albanian form. In this climate, there was talk of scenarios set up against the democratic movement, against young people, and against those who had taken it upon themselves to defend rights. Public arguments were lacking, but secret actions were increasing. Meetings were held without witnesses, unwritten orders were given, and silent links were created among people from the old power structure. This alliance was not merely political; it had a vengeful spirit and an open contempt for the national interest. In the name of order and the state, measures against freedom were being prepared. And that was the heaviest part: the use of institutions to prevent society from breathing. Albania could not enter a new future with old guardians. For this reason, every citizen had to understand that behind the administrative language there was fear of change. This temporary union of dark interests, this provisional anti-Albanian alliance, had to be exposed by name and with responsibility. Silence would prolong its life. Free speech, by contrast, remains the first weapon of the citizen who refuses to turn back.

We continue to stand on the side of facts and citizens, not on the side of fabricated reports. The official truths emerging from offices tasked with investigations and justifications are every day colliding with testimonies, lived experience, and public reason. The state cannot rely on shaky and temporary versions, while the citizen is forced to remain silent. The citizens of this country have seen enough. They know how alibis are built, how files are moved, how events are rewritten. And precisely for that reason, no one can demand reconciliation with an imposed truth. A democratic society begins where the citizen has the right not to accept deception as an explanation. Today there is an attempt to silence those who ask questions, those who demand accountability and transparency. Names of institutions are being used to cover the responsibilities of individuals. But words written on paper cannot replace lived truth. If we want a state governed by law, we must accept that truth is not produced by decree. Therefore, we cannot accept their truth. Not because we want conflict, but because without truth there is no justice, without justice there is no trust, and without trust freedom cannot be built.

The court, having examined the request and the attached materials, decided to accept the disqualification request submitted and to order that the case be transferred for review to another panel. The reasoning states that the circumstances created do not provide sufficient guarantees for impartial treatment, because of the links, statements, and preliminary actions made public. The decision notes that public confidence in justice is as important as justice itself. If the case falls under a shadow of doubt, then the trial must be removed from any influence. The party’s request was deemed supported by arguments related to the standard of impartiality and the need to preserve due legal process. In conclusion, it was ordered that the file be transferred to the competent body and that the parties be notified according to the law. The decision enters into force immediately.

The leadership of the Democratic Party continues its discussion on the latest political developments, relations with the institutions, and the situation in several cities across the country. Sources from the meeting report that a firmer stance has been requested against violations of press freedom and against pressure on activists. Meanwhile, among citizens there is growing concern over shortages and insecurity. In several distribution points there have been long queues, while in public places the role of the law enforcement bodies has been widely discussed. autori[?], Tirana (continues on page 3)

Suddenly, new doors open for ZP to explain to readers what democracy is, what responsibility is, and how facts should be read. With an old-fashioned tone that recalls the party school, the newspaper tries to moralize and give lessons in places where it is itself steeped in propaganda. It is not the first time that "ZP" has chosen to distort issues, to mix fact with insinuation, and to build a ready-made opinion for the reader. But every time it speaks about freedom, it reveals its limits; every time it speaks about pluralism, it reveals its fear of it. Instead of giving answers about its own past and the responsibilities it carries, it settles for labels and smirks. This way of writing is not philosophy; it is a lack of knowledge dressed up in a lofty tone. And when knowledge is scarce, the noise becomes louder. The reader today can see better than yesterday where argument ends and political insult begins. Therefore, the more «ZP» philosophizes with little knowledge, the more clearly its own limits become visible. (continues on page 6)

(continues from page 1) Through swollen language filled with self-confidence, yesterday’s provocateurs try today to present themselves as arbiters of truth. They hide behind loud tones, vague accusations, and delayed morality. But the scale of this performance can give it neither seriousness nor authority. In every appearance of theirs, the same goal is visible: to create smokescreens, to distract public opinion, and to preserve certain positions that history has already brought down. The more visible change becomes, the more comically tragic become the efforts to stop it. It is no surprise that the public greets them with irony. The provocateur who speaks like a savior usually ends up betrayed by his own language. His words grow larger, his reasons shrink, and everything takes on the appearance of a comical-tragic bloom. (continues on page 7)