—Rapporteurs to come to Albania appointed— Yesterday morning, the Committee on Relations with Non-Member Countries, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and the Committee on Political Affairs decided to send rapporteurs, who will draft the report on Albania’s admission as a full member of the Council of Europe. In accordance with the procedure for admitting non-member countries, the rapporteurs are sent after the report prepared by the jurists appointed by the Council of Europe has been submitted to the aforementioned committees, and that report has been accepted by those committees. The report was prepared last year by Messrs. Makarcik and Lukaidhis, and is based on constitutional and legal reform, and on the functioning of democratic institutions and the implementation of human rights in Albania. The Committee on Relations with Non-Member Countries gave a positive assessment to the report prepared, thus finally paving the way for the rapporteurs to come to Albania during March or at the beginning of April. The rapporteurs are: 1—PHUL (Germany), Committee on Political Affairs. 2—Kolumberg (Switzerland), Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. 3—Kalcermans (Belgium), Committee on Political Affairs. The decision to send the rapporteurs marks a major step toward Albania’s admission to the Council of Europe. Press and Information Department of the DPA (Received by fax from our delegation in Strasbourg)

—Interview given to the BBC by investigating magistrate Evelina Canale— Question: Was this trip effective for her mission? Answer: The trip was particularly useful, since the Albanian authorities offered me greater cooperation and gave me the opportunity to hear from many officials, government members and political authorities, such as former ministers. Question: Did you uncover anything that might be useful to your investigations? Answer: I managed to establish that the choice of “Levante Compani” to transport the aid was dictated by Albanian government circles, and particularly by Ramiz Alia. Question: Specifically, whom did you hear as witnesses in Albania? Answer: I cannot say whom I heard; I can only repeat that I heard senior government officials and political authorities of that period who knew the facts well. Question: Does it appear to you that “Levante Compani” carried out regular shipments, or were there also violations in these shipments? Answer: I found numerous violations, particularly regarding shipments of medicines—medicines that had not been requested by the Albanian side and were unnecessary for Albanians at that time. Also, as regards food products, goods that were not needed were delivered. Question: To commit such a violation, there have to be two partners. Who on the Italian side was involved in these violations? Answer: In the investigation I am conducting, the accused include the deputy minister, the director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as senior officials of the directorate general for cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Question: As you know, the leader of the PS, Fatos Nano, has been in prison for five months over this matter. Have you found any involvement on his part? Answer: I cannot give you a specific answer on this point. Question: The trial of Nano will take place shortly. What do you think—can the charge withstand scrutiny by an impartial court? Answer: As far as the Albanian authorities are concerned, they are not on trial in Italy, but in Albania. The Albanian authorities can answer that. Question: But didn’t you yourself have an opinion? Answer: No, I absolutely cannot make a prediction. Certainly, I believe there will be incriminating evidence. We are talking about people who have been in custody for a long time, and for that reason I think incriminating evidence exists. Question: What is the future of this investigation? Answer: The investigation is now in its final stages, and perhaps it will be discussed in June. Question: Do you expect there to be a trial? Answer: I think there will be a trial for some people. Question: And for “Levante Compani” too? Answer: Well, it is a subject of great interest.

Lifting immunity is a legal requirement Reply by Mr. Pjeter Arbnori to the group of PDSH deputies and deputies Paskal Milo, Gjergji Rakaj, Teodor Keko, Perikli Teta and Gramoz Pashko. Gentlemen Deputies, I received your letter and read it those were the cases of the deputies Azem Hajdari and Ilir Meta But if the deputy ... PJETER ARBNORI Chairman of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly

The dissidents of pi...lafjit “DISSIDENTS” AND THE “PERSECUTED” S.BROKA Lately, “dissidents” and “persecuted” people are emerging everywhere. Their courage and shamelessness are truly admirable. I mean those dissidents whom the PP “persecuted” by sending them from party secretary on Mars to party secretary on the Moon; those whom they “persecuted” by not allowing them to march on May 1; or those they sent as ambassadors to second-rate countries, despite all their merits. It is enough to drive one mad that these people dare even to write and make such things public. The latest specimen of this kind is the “persecuted dissident, rabid anti-communist” S.Broka. I understand that many people will burst out laughing at such a statement, but ... —S.Broka has joined the ranks of the “dissidents” within the PP with his interview in “KJ”.— I told A.Kasrati, “Don’t write it.” The chairman of the Association put it in my ear in Rome at the moment the statutes were handed over... “Doctor, you haven’t let the secret out.” Be assured that this is no joke; S.Broka gave this evidence of his “dissidence” quite seriously. So, in ’89, when the statutes were being sent to a Worldwide Organization, S.Broka “dared” in complete secrecy to remove the article on Marxism-Leninism. Is there any worse persecution than this? To leave S.Broka for 7 years without assigning him to a central institution in the capital. And what are those who spent 30 years in prison before Broka, or those whose families were executed?! The misfortune is that Broka is being “persecuted” now too, for political reasons. Thus “RD” calls him an Enverist, but the worst thing is that people have probably become acquainted with his actions in the PS Presidium. (According to rumors among journalists, Broka once even served as E.Hoxha’s double.) In addition, “RD” has demanded answers from S.Broka about the French aid (in medicines) that “disappeared” (like Nano’s 9 million), as well as more than 1 million in medicine aid ... medicines that never arrived from Italy. Both cases occurred when S.Broka was Minister of Health. Broka says in “KJ” that “RD” is slandering him for political purposes (a familiar excuse), but he does not respond at all to these facts; indeed, he threatens to sue “RD” for libel. Then let him answer: Is it true that dozens of tons of medicines “disappeared” from the French aid, as discovered by the state audit? Is it true that more than 1 million dollars’ worth of medicines from the Italian aid never arrived? Answer, if you wish, comrade Broka. These were the first deeds mentioned in the interview that took up a whole newspaper page in “KJ”. The second part, which also takes up a whole newspaper page, begins with the anti-communist “KJ” journalist’s question: “You are known as a condenser of the regime.” What follows below needs no comment; all that remains is for Broka to use this interview to obtain proof of his persecution. EDI PALOKA the other one, despite the mentality they had. It is truly enough to drive one out of one’s mind, but these creatures even dare to write such things and make them dissident, the raging anti-communist” S.Broka. I understand that many people will write to the newspaper in response to such a statement, but the fact is that the “anti-communist” S.Broka made these declarations in an interview he gave to the “anti-communist” newspaper “KJ.” But let us see where S.Broka’s dissidence becomes clear. In the very first question, the journalist from the “anti-communist” “KJ” says: “The intelligentsia has always made efforts for independence. As far as we know, you were not outside these efforts either. Is that not so?” So the journalist knew that Broka had long been a dissident, and it is unclear why he asks him. Dissident S.Broka’s answer is: “...the first remains the Albanian Medical Association, established in 1989, whose statute deposited with the World Health Organization does not include the article on support for Marxist-Leninist theory.” The journalist, astonished by such courage, asks: “How is that possible?” And here is the answer that makes Broka the first dissident against the regime (in 1989): “The statute in Albanian... naturally does have this article, but when we printed it in English with the doctor when submitting the statute... the doctor had not revealed the secret.” Be assured that this is not a joke: S.Broka gave this evidence of his “dissidence” in all seriousness. Thus, in ’89, in the statute sent to a World Organization, S.Broka “dared” to remove the article on Marxism-Leninism in complete secrecy. Is this not pure dissidence? It is true that when the statute was discussed in the association, S.Broka did not open his mouth to demand that such an article be removed, lest he be ridiculed, bearing in mind also that it was to be sent to a World Organization. Nevertheless, he removed it from the English copy. Is Broka not the first dissident? Not only that, but it was after this heroic deed by Broka that the changes of December ’90 began. At least that is what Broka implies when, immediately after recounting the above, he adds: “Meanwhile, the events of 1990 developed the idea of pluralism.” So, through his deed, Broka paved the way for the December events, in which the other “dissident,” F.Nano, “threatened” political pluralism (he wrote this too in his interview in “KJ”): “...we have not forgotten what we demanded in December.” So Broka was not only a dissident; he was also “persecuted.” “I lost 7 years before I was able to get started in clinical and scientific work at institutions in Tirana,” says Broka.

I received your letter and read it carefully. I believe that the climate of understanding, respect and tolerance among political entities should not, and has no reason to, be damaged when one of their deputies is accused of offenses with non-political motives. I have publicly expressed my opinion, and I repeat that I have not wished—and it is not right for our country to have—even a single person convicted as a political offender. I do not agree with the view that the actions taken against deputies to investigate the accusations made against them should be called unlawful. You know that the relevant authorities cannot take any action against a deputy to investigate accusations without first lifting his immunity. Thus, lifting immunity is not an end in itself, but a legal requirement; otherwise, no action could ever be taken against them. Such was the case with the deputies Azem Hajdari and Ilir Meta, whom you mention. After the cases against them were examined and investigated by the justice authorities, they are now among us, respected like all the other deputies. Perhaps it would be better for the honesty of any person, or his innocence of the accusations brought against him, to be established by the competent investigative authorities rather than for him to be shielded by immunity, preventing the authorities from carrying out investigations. In this respect, I agree with what several countries of the civilized world have in their legislation: they have not accepted immunity. There are no charges of political offenses against deputy Fatos Nano. His immunity was lifted, but the People’s Assembly could not, when making its decision, also rule on the security measure. At the time the decision was made, it knew the type of offense and the necessary details to form the conviction that an investigation should be conducted; in other words, it concluded that the way should be cleared for an investigation. Once immunity has been lifted, any action relating to the investigation is undertaken and assessed by the relevant authorities, according to and on the basis of the evidence and the needs of an objective investigation. If the investigations conducted so far have established that continued pretrial detention is no longer justified, the accused or his defense, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, have the right to ask the court to change the security measure. Respecting the separation of powers, we cannot impose such a thing on them. In this regard, the fact that Mr. Fatos Nano is a politician does not give his investigation and trial a political character, because the charge against him is not for political offenses.

Report from the People’s Assembly INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND CARE IN FOCUS —The amount of economic assistance is set at no less than 50% and no more than 100% of the family’s income— —Income of up to 4,000 lekë per month is exempt from tax— —Pensioners are exempt from personal income tax— Yesterday the People’s Assembly held its final plenary session of the week. As there was some uncertainty regarding the draft law “On the ratification of the Loan Agreement for the Rural Development of the Northwestern Zone between the Republic of Albania and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),” it was returned to the Government. The draft law “On amending Law No. 7710 of 18.5.1993, ‘On social assistance and care’” was then approved. Under it, the amount of monthly economic assistance must be the family’s income. Thus, one person benefits ... is exempt from the family. This amendment enters into force immediately and its effects apply from 1 January 1994. There was then extensive discussion of the draft law “On the level of personal payments.” In the end, it was decided that the law on personal income would retain the planned level of Furthermore, in this draft law. That is, income of up to 4,000 lek per month is exempt from personal income tax. Pensioners are also exempt from this tax. The income tax rates will be as follows: 1. For income from 4,000 to 10,000 lek per month, the amount over 4,000 lek is taxed at 10%. 2. Income from 10,001 to 20,000 lek per month is taxed at 600 lek plus 15% of the amount over 10,000 lek. 3. Income from 20,002 to 30,000 lek per month is taxed at 2,100 lek plus 20% of the amount over 20,000 lek. 4. Income from 30,001 to 40,000 lek per month is taxed at 4,100 lek plus 25% of the amount over 30,000 lek. 5. Income over 40,000 lek per month is taxed at 6,600 lek plus 30% of the amount over 40,000 lek, while income from creative activities will be taxed at 5%, and other types of income at 20%. The approved draft law defines concealment of income as a violation of the law and imposes a fine of up to five times the amount of tax concealed. With that, the session concluded the Assembly’s proceedings, which will resume on Monday afternoon. P.S. At the afternoon session the day before yesterday, the People’s Assembly, in addition to the draft law “On an amendment to the decree on checks,” also approved the draft laws “On approval of the draft agreement between the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Slovenia on the reciprocal protection, promotion, and encouragement of investments,” and “On ratification of the agreement between the Government of the Republic of Albania and the Government of the Republic of Poland concerning taxes on income and capital.” CORRESPONDENT OF “RD”

The insistence by some PAD leaders, who were the very instigators of the events of January 14 in Shkoder, on giving them “political colors” is more than a plainly absurd claim; it brings to mind the thief’s cry, “Stop the thief!” When judging things that happen in our everyday lives, two approaches are used, depending on one’s interests. “Cool logic,” which avoids all subjectivity, and “hot-headed logic,” which leads down a dead-end road and gives things entirely subjective explanations. The PAD leaders who organized the meeting in Shkoder were aware that the course of events leading up to the crime had been sparked by insults, slurs, and unfounded accusations against the nation, Albania, the PD, and the President—things that caused an argument in the hall. (Such political debates have not been absent from any of the meetings organized by PAD in various cities.) There were also the threats that followed. But the people of Sokrrak, the PAD leaders, faced with such a situation in Shkoder, driven by heated passions, threats, and hatred toward the PD, chose, for their own base purposes, to declare the crime committed that day a political crime perpetrated by the PD. Their only aim there was to defend themselves by accusing others. In this way they exploited the misfortune of the unfortunate for political capital and journalistic business. It is well known how all the anti-democratic and anti-national links mobilized in the January 14 affair. In this way, PAD created a situation favorable to PS and “ZP,” opening a new front for accusations against the PD, the Government, and the President. The people say that “every bad thing has something good in it.” The absurd politicization of this event, the accusations, insults, and hysterical slander against the PD and its government have one good side: the PAD leaders are the equivalent of the PS leaders. It is good, too, that once again we have the opportunity to see their true faces behind their masks—as Enverists or Ramizists. Who are they? It is enough to say “a current leader of PS or PAD” to mean the Dokles, Rucis, Brokajs, Cekas, Imamis, Pashkos, Tetals, and the other hangers-on who move according to the instructions given by comrade Ramiz Alia and comrade Fatos Nano, in the spirit of the PPSH. MENTOR SHEHU

Fatmir Zanaj asks the Minister of Defense for forgiveness —Nevertheless, one year of imprisonment, suspended (From notes taken in the courtroom) Fatmir Zanaj asks the Minister of Defense for forgiveness “I CONSIDER THE CALLS I MADE TO THE OFFICERS FOR REVENGE A MISTAKE” —Nevertheless, one year of imprisonment, suspended (From notes taken in the courtroom) Fatmir Zanaj, accused of the criminal offenses of insult and defamation on account of his official duties, offenses provided for under Articles 118 and 186 of the Criminal Code, appeared before an open-court hearing on 18.1.1993. The trial should have taken place earlier, but because the defendant Zanaj failed to appear, it was held on this date. Regarding the anonymous piece (Observer) entitled “Zoi Zhulali Cleans Out Telephones,” published in “ZP” on 13.11.1992, Mr. Zanaj states: “It is not my nature to insult the subject.” But the prosecutor found this statement an appropriate reason to ask a question: “So what can (continued on page 4)