What sins of his weigh most heavily? Will he ever answer for them? According to well-informed sources from the former Ministry of Internal Affairs and the former Central Committee of the PP (now PS), during the time he was a minister, and especially after being relieved of that duty, the party entrusted Comrade Gramoz with the «historic mission» of murdering the history preserved in the secret archive documents. And it was no accident that this task was assigned to Gramoz. He had demonstrated his ... in practice on 2 April 1991 as a ruthless and unrepentant killer of living people. As for the dead letters and documents in the archive files, he would be many times more unrestrained, and more at ease in his conscience about the crimes he committed, the responsibility and the consequences he would face sooner or later. And it must be said that he deserved and fully justified the great trust placed in him by the party, personally by Comrades Ramiz Alia and Fatos Nano. At the head of a hand-picked team of inquisitors, he purged the archives of many documents that were highly incriminating for Enver Hoxha, Ramiz Alia, the other members of the Bloc, and their era, reducing them to ashes in the flames of «spon- (Continued on page 4)

— Fatos Nano has denied them on every occasion. — According to Mr Perniola, they talked only about women, wines, etc. Several statements by Mr Xhuzepe Perniola, made during a telephone interview with the journalist of the weekly «Dita - informacion», now incredibly complete the circle of relations among some of those chiefly responsible for the misuse of the generous aid provided by the Italian people and government during the first half of 1991. The previously unknown segment of personal relations between Fatos Nano and the head of «Levante Co» is now added to that entire dismal procedure, reflected in letters and documents and leading to the familiar catastrophe, although the idea that such relations existed was highlighted two years ago in several well-known articles in the newspaper «Sindikalisti». Mr Mentor Nazarko, director of «Dita - Informacion», in his interview published on 13 August 1993, as can be seen from the questions addressed to Mr Perniola, frames the matter on the basis of a statement by journalist D. Kokonozi concerning a possible meeting between Nano and Perniola in Bari and the great interest their conversation held. Mr Perniola, who, it appears, was fully informed about Kokonozi’s statements, hastened to say that «during lunch, as a matter of etiquette, we do not talk about business or politics, because the meeting had to be ...». He then says they talked about beautiful women, food, wines, etc. The interview becomes even more interesting when Mr Perniola states that he is not a member of the Italian PS and, consequently, did not attend its 40th Congress, held in Bari in June 1991; therefore, he says, the lunches and dinners were not hosted by PSI. With this, he seeks to find contradictions in D. Kokonozi’s statements. In fact, Kokonozi said that Perniola’s lunches and dinners with Nano took place during the days of the 40th PSI Congress, where Nano, as was said at the time, was the only foreign guest invited to Bari, and not in the halls where the congress was being held. While nervously acknowledging that he hosted lunches and dinners for Nano, Perniola rejects the latter’s mixed-up claims and his denial that he had ties with members of the Levante Co board. This was said at his press conferences and was also emphasized in the pages of «ZP», thus continually repeating the egocentrism of one of the neuralgic parts of a process that says so much to public opinion on both shores of the Adriatic. Trying to emerge unscathed now that the ship is sinking, Perniola hastens to state that he is not a member of PSI and, consequently, did not attend its latest Congress, thereby forgetting that he is putting his boot on the head of his friend Nano, who is trying to stay afloat. Setting aside the meetings and dinners held during the stay in Bari, his statements, which have often turned out to be a bubble, are being used as an unwashed lunch. Fatos Nano, the former and future Albanian prime minister and later secretary of the PS, the party that played its role in Albania, as well as another lunch and dinner with the president of one of the largest aid-transport companies—which, given the scandal, the country ...? Admitting that it was over lunch and dinner that the newly elected chairman of the PS in Albania and his host spoke only about «men’s business», the question is: were these conversations held only before and after this ...? The denial by Nano of any kind of connection with Perniola—doesn’t it make these meetings truly shocking? «D» Correspondent

(The trial of the defendants in the Arsidi case continues) A key witness takes the stand, important because of the significance of his testimony: Governor of the Bank of Albania Ilir Hoti — Yesterday, at around 9:30, the second hearing of the trial of defendants Agron Saliu, Agim Tartari and Wilson Ahmeti in connection with the Arsidi case began. The hearing continued with the questioning of witnesses. Witness Ardian Fullani, Director of the Foreign Department at the Bank of Albania, clarified when the Bank’s Governor Ilir Hoti, Deputy Governor Ardian Xhyheri and other members of the bank’s staff became aware of the issue in question. According to Mr Fullani’s testimony, later confirmed by Mr Kristaq Luniçi, a department director at the Bank of Albania, Ilir Hoti, A. Xhyheri, A. Fullani and K. Luniçi were on official business in the USA at the end of September. It was then that they learned of the matter through a telephone call from bank employee Mr Baholli, who informed them that a payment of 900 thousand dollars had to be made from the Central Bank to the Commercial Bank. Witness Lljana Nana) shed light on the circumstances surrounding the unauthorized payment of 800 million dollars made in favor of N. Arsidi in December 1991. The payment was made on the orders of the defendants Saliu and Tartari, without an urgent [instruction] and by telegram. The final witness at the hearing was the Bank’s Governor, Mr Ilir Hoti, who testified for about 2 hours and 30 minutes. Mr Hoti once again clarified when he and the others were informed of the issue—that is, during their stay in the USA in September 1992—also emphasizing that they had been informed [text unclear] and had asked the Austrian Bank [text unclear]. ... months of delay in transferring the documents from the third floor to the first ... [text unclear] central transactions in Vienna, corresponding in dollars, and the Commercial Bank was to block all payments. Mr Ilir Hoti’s testimony showed that the two payments made to Arsidi, the first in December 1991 and the second in March 1992, were made without an order from Ilir Hoti. In his statements, Mr Hoti clarified that in March 1992 he signed a bill of exchange under which Nikolla Arsidi would be paid 1,600,000 dollars only after the results of his latest work concerning repayment of Albania’s foreign debt had been confirmed—a task Nikolla Arsidi had been assigned by former Albanian Prime Minister V. Ahmeti. According to Mr Ilir Hoti’s testimony, the sum of 1 million and 600 thousand dollars was not paid by the Bank of Albania; rather, in violation of all the rules, it was paid by the Commercial Bank on the initiative and orders of defendants Saliu and Tartari. There was no document of any kind for the first payment of 800 thousand dollars. The payment was made on the order of the aforementioned defendants, who, according to Mr I. Hoti’s testimony, left for Luxembourg two days later. The Governor of the Bank of Albania became aware of the documentation concerning this matter four months after the transactions in question had been carried out, in practice some time after the defendants had been dismissed from their jobs. Regarding when Mr Hoti first met Nikolla Arsidi, Mr Hoti stated that he had met him (Continued on page 4)

“The President put Shkodra’s indirect killers in prison, while he raised the direct killers to power.” I was invited as an expert journalist, and I stated: “If I. Beqiri provides facts and evidence for this statement, Mr. Berisha is a criminal and a murderer. Otherwise, this is not merely slander.” The journalist from “Zëri i popullit” who followed Idajet Beqiri’s trial at the second instance published a summary made up of words cemented together according to the interests and wishes of that newspaper. This may be characteristic of that newspaper, but I cannot allow my words and their meaning to be obscured and exploited in such a crude and clearly irresponsible manner. I want to clarify from the outset that Mr. Ilir Yzeiri and I were summoned by the Tirana Court in the capacity of expert journalists in the criminal case against Idajet Beqiri. As soon as we entered the courtroom, we found ourselves facing psychological pressure of a kind that I do not believe has ever occurred in any courtroom: Idajet Beqiri’s people insulted, cursed and threatened us, even with graves and the burning of our homes. The latter, to be honest, did not unsettle me, because I myself do not have a home, but, all the same, I was shaken by the fact that, in a trial where the defendant was in the dock, we were subjected to this kind of abuse and insults. The “ZP” journalist was there in the same row as me and, strangely, did not write a single word about it in the newspaper. This attitude is explained by the tendentious selection made of my words. At the beginning I stated my difficult position because of the confrontation I had had with Idajet Beqiri in the newspaper. The words “I would not have wanted to meet, under such circumstances, a person with whom I have clashed in the newspaper” (the defendant’s position did not suggest equal conditions) were deliberately omitted by “Zëri i popullit”, while the words “unfair fight” were printed, although I had used them generally about the Albanian press and not about any particular newspaper. As for the second question, which in my opinion was the crux of the entire trial, “ZP” deliberately skims over it. Here is my clarification: “If you use quotation marks, the article would become ridiculous and create the impression that it had been written by a madman. This is because, in the first instances, the article’s author makes the accusation against the President in these words: ‘This accusation may seem serious, but you deserve even worse than this.’ There is no room for any kind of interpretation.” The most important fact, which “ZP” keeps silent about, and which Mr. Beqiri and his lawyer also keep silent about, is this: the article states very openly and clearly: raised the direct killers to power.” As an expert journalist, I stated that if Idajet Beqiri provides facts and evidence for this statement, then is not merely slander. The question is stated there, in effect, as an indictment, and the accused party must answer it—but it remains silent. Finally, the “ZP” journalist, apparently to turn the phrase “Mr. Rakipi did not want to come, but was forced to...” into something else, could have copied it from the experts without rushing. This phrase has been distorted. Mr. Rakipi did not particularly want to come, but, out of respect for everyone, he agreed to do so in order to state only the truth. Such tendentious manipulations do not serve the ethics and morality of a newspaper, all the more so when the message of that trial was the fight against slander, insults and speculation. YLLI RAKIPI, editor-in-chief of the newspaper “REPUBLIKA”

THE RANTS OF THE CRAZIES AND THE CONTINGENTS THAT FOLLOW THEM.