The 10th hearing in the trial taking place at the Tirana Court, concerning the scandal over Italian aid to Albania, began yesterday at 9:00 a.m. • First, the presiding judge noted that at the previous hearing the participants in the proceedings had been asked to submit new material evidence, and defendant Gjini had submitted evidence. Hallko and Nano submitted no evidence, and, at the same time, “de facto,” neither did the defence of S.Plaka. Meanwhile, attorney Meta’s request to admit certain documents, which he had in fact not submitted, was rejected by the judge on the grounds that, under the law on advocacy, the attorney had had the opportunity to obtain them earlier. Nevertheless, according to the presiding judge, the panel had sufficient documents in respect of the matters raised in the attorney’s request. —An expert examination once again confirmed the violations— The trial then moved to the final stage of the judicial investigation: the examination of the documents conducted by the two experts, both of whom were present in the courtroom. Prosecutor Gjokutaj read out the expert report. First, all the documents used to prepare the report were read, along with the procedure followed, the decisions and laws on which the report was based, and the points examined: the route taken to appoint Lev Co, the composition of the goods, their receipt and distribution. The report once again revealed the violations committed throughout the process of moving the aid. Thus, the documents confirmed that Lev Co had been appointed by the Ministry of Trade, and that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been assigned a role in moving the aid “on F.Nano’s instructions, according to a personal note by Sh.Cani.” The violations in the way the composition of the goods was determined were accompanied by findings of abuse in the prices of the goods. As regards the prices, the experts used the wholesale prices of goods in Milan as a basis for comparison (Milan is one of the most expensive cities in Italy, ed.’s note), and found that Lev Co’s prices were at least twice as high. The examination of the documents also confirmed the unlawful manner in which R.Gjini and H.Hallku were appointed to take receipt of the goods. The order for this had also been issued by F.Nano, while the relevant authorizations under that order had been made by former ministers A.Ylli and S.Brokaj. The violations were reconfirmed in the procedures for receiving and distributing the goods. Exact figures were presented for all the losses resulting from the above violations, amounting to 9 billion and 541 million. It was also found that the company Lev Co still owed 3.3 billion lire in aid in the form of medicines. —33 questions from Nano and his first bluff at yesterday’s hearing— During the investigation, Nano had asked to put several questions to the experts in the case. His request had been accepted, and yesterday the 33 answers to those questions were read out. In this way, Nano somehow became “active” in the proceedings. Prosecutor Gjokutaj pointed out that Nano claims he was not familiar with the case file or the case as a whole, yet at the same time he put not just a few, but a full 33 questions to the experts, concerning elements of these proceedings. This fact once again exposes Nano’s bluff and his deceit. Taken aback by Prosecutor Gjokutaj’s observation (it should be said that this is not the first time he has left those trying to deceive speechless), Nano immediately stood up and claimed that he had based the questions on his knowledge of the rules governing relations between the EC and other countries in such cases. This claim was merely an empty, groundless excuse, since the questions were detailed and related specifically to Italian aid to Albania.

After the expert reports and the answers to Nano’s 33 questions had been read, the presiding judge, in accordance with procedure, gave the defendants and the defence the floor for suggestions, comments and supplementary questions. After thanking the prosecution for excluding the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from financial responsibility in the matter, S.Plaka put forward a series of questions. Then the attorney for defendant S.Plaka took the floor. Strangely, instead of asking questions or making comments, the attorney began talking about procedural violations. In his view, however, it was not a procedural violation that the Prosecutor’s Office had rejected, by a decision, his request to add other experts to the expert panel. At this stage, these claims had not been raised. It was not clear why attorney Meta began shouting about “violations and injustice,” but one thing was obvious: his conduct was entirely analogous to that of Nano’s defence so far, and had just one purpose—to create the impression in public opinion (through “ZP”) that grave injustices were being committed in the proceedings by provoking incidents of this kind. But this too would turn into a major bluff for the attorney who was supposed to defend S.Plaka, but who so far has harmed him more with his conduct. After attorney Meta sat down, the presiding judge, since defendant Plaka had not made such a complaint when he spoke, asked him whether he agreed with his attorney’s request. S.Plaka answered quite clearly that he had no such claim—in other words, he did not agree with the complaint made by the attorney who was supposed to be his lawyer. This moment completely exposed Ali Meta as a bluff, in the role of Nano’s attorney’s ally. It thus confirmed what had already been established: S.Plaka is defending himself, while his attorney appears to have made an agreement to carry out, like attorney Sanzhaku of Tirana, the defence of Nano. Apparently, Nano pays better. —The other defendants ask questions— R.Gjini had many questions, but his questions, those of his attorney, and those of Hallku’s attorney mainly sought to clarify their position: they claimed they were not financially responsible, contrary to what the expert report stated.

When the presiding judge gave defendant Nano the floor, the latter launched into the same routine he has been repeating for more than two weeks in this trial. He spoke of procedural violations and a prejudged trial. Indeed, the former prime minister of the PP, the darling of the Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studies, the man who, according to the teachings of “Babel” in his published work, “prevented” China from “becoming a superpower,” loudly declared that the accusation was based on communist concepts. Carried away by euphoria over his “oratory” and “prompted” at just the right moment by the presiding judge, Nano blundered, confirming his previous bluffs and statements as a secret agent who knows what goes on in villas and where A.Bendo will go to get his visa after the trial. When Mr. Bendo asked Nano to make one of his “humorous” remarks, Nano, carried away and playing 007 with the confidence that “characterizes” him, recalled that he knew of a route out of Albania that Bendo would take. He did this to remind everyone of what he had said earlier, but here came the bluff: when he had made those statements some time ago about this matter, Nano was convinced that A.Bendo was preparing to get a visa for France. With the same “certainty,” he repeated this claim, but made a “small” mix-up this time: instead of France, Bendo was apparently going to Italy. It seems Nano’s memory has failed him too, which is why he was left embarrassed when Bendo reminded him that he had changed countries. So it would be no surprise if one day Nano mixed up the villa numbers as well. With these “blunders” by Nano, the hearing ended

As the defendant Nano announced, with “solemnity” from the dock, he had “given permission” to his attorney to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Union. From the way Nano stated this, it seemed that Sanxhaku’s attendance at that Union would also determine his acquittal. What Sanxhaku might say (if he speaks) is well known and has already been made clear by their conduct during the trial. Sanxhaku will say that terrible violations continue to be committed against them, that the trial is prejudged, and it would not be surprising if he even said that it is the presiding judge who will not let Nano speak. (Doesn’t that happen during the investigation hearings as well?) The only problem is that, beyond all this, it seems rather difficult for Sanxhaku to defend his client, since he cannot do in Europe what he failed to do in the trial: defend a man whose crimes are coming out of his ears. Perhaps attorney Sanxhaku would do well to wait and take the complete case file with him, since with only their “secret” file he will not be very convincing with the lies he will tell. SO THAT YOU MAY GORGE YOURSELF

on what the expert report was based, as well as the points that had been treated as the route followed for the appointment of Lev Co, the structure of the goods, their receipt and distribution. Reading the expert of delivering the aid. Thus, on the basis of the documents, it was reconfirmed that Lev Co had been contracted by the Albanian side “on F. Nano’s orders”. The violations committed in connection with the management of the competent bodies were also reconfirmed. During the investigation, Nano requested that the experts in the case be presented with several questions. His request was read out. In this way, Nano became “active” in the proceedings to some extent. However, what is “interesting” at this point is the fact that he also pointed out the issue and put forward a series of questions. Then the floor was taken by the defendant S. Plaka’s lawyer. Strangely, instead of asking questions or making observations, this lawyer began speaking about procedural violations; according to him, it was not a procedural violation that the Prosecution had rejected, by a decision, his request to include other experts in the panel of experts. The presiding judge clarified to lawyer Meta that they were not at the stage of preliminary requests, and that they were not even at that stage… R. Gjini had many questions, but his questions, those of the lawyer, and those of Hallku’s lawyer mainly concerned clarifying their position, since they maintained that they were not materially responsible, as presented in the expert report. With these “qyrfe” of Nano, yesterday’s hearing came to a close. The next hearing begins on the 22nd at 9:00, with the answers to be given by the experts. EDI PALOKA

Since Fatos Nano was unable to refute the accusation, was not capable of defending himself and proving his innocence, and the lawyers chosen for this task likewise proved powerless in the face of the facts, documents and numerous concrete testimonies of dozens and dozens of witnesses, the party’s Lion (Rama) is vainly attempting the impossible, to the point of absurdity, by taking upon himself this entire burden of crime, fraud, theft and forgery, and declaring it unfounded—in other words, portraying Fatos Nano as guilty without fault. In fact, what they have achieved is a drop in the ocean, or, at most, an expression of solidarity among professionals or simply people who have usurped the “trade” of stealing. In yesterday’s “ZP”, Luani reveals that “nothing should be alleged—that Fatos Nano stole, or that through his actions and omissions he facilitated other people’s theft; or, more precisely, that of the Italians who brought aid”. Facsimiles of documents have already been made public in the Albanian press, conclusively proving that Nano’s signature facilitated the “loss” of 9 million dollars in Italian aid to Albania. Luani does not want to know about these documents, nor about the testimonies. He does not mention the disappearance of 9 million dollars at all. Why? Because this “loss” or disappearance is a fact, and this fact has an explanation; it has an author. Rama does not like this because the authors were not in line. Luani is interested in putting the problem in a different light. According to him, “all the efforts being made were by the Italians, who donated aid to Albania, and then it was stolen”. Using Luani’s own language, since he is the only one there, and in order to ridicule this claim, on what file or accusation does he base this conclusion of international proportions?! In Enver Hoxha’s volumes, the enemy was accused of the vilest deeds. Luani, it seems, is consistent over time and keeps falling into the same errors while trying to create transparency. He is trying in vain to create transparency. They are trying in vain to create transparency. Historically, the Italian state has been thanked several times for its generous assistance to the Albanian people at a very difficult time bequeathed to us by “the two lions of the world”, Enver Hoxha. These two lions have been dead for years, but the junior lion still will not leave us in peace! In his article published in “ZP”, Luan Rama uses as “arguments” in Fatos Nano’s favor several statements by Xhani De Mikeli and others who were involved in the transfer of Italian aid to Albania or who had knowledge of its delivery. Rama quotes De Mikeli as saying that “Levante Co” was chosen partly on the basis of a recommendation from Albania, which also suggested the structure of the goods.” It is well known that Levante Co was recommended by Albania—or, more precisely, by Fatos Nano—because today, with the matter out in the open, the testimony has shown that there is no doubt about Levante Co. As for the goods and their types, “RD” has published documents more than once showing that the Albanian side had ordered goods to meet other needs, but different goods were delivered; the Albanian side had placed its order, but Levante Co supplied something else, according to the residents’ accounts and so on. Further on, Luan Rama quotes De Mikeli more fully. Regarding the goods, he says: “More or less, I don’t remember; it was a suggestion by the Albanian side, but in the end it was decided by a joint commission, also taking into account what could be found easily.” This statement by De Mikeli confirms what has been said so far about Nano. De Mikeli is not categorical in his statement; he does not remember clearly. Nevertheless, he remembers a joint commission—that is, approval from Tirana for changing the list—and remembers that what was brought to Albania was not what was needed for the emergency, but what was easier to find: juices and surplus jam. How can Nano be defended with these statements by De Mikeli? They are admissions that support the accusation and prove it. Luan Rama is trying in vain to manipulate the facts. Rama then refers to several statements by Perniola, who, according to him, acknowledged having had contacts with all the representatives of the authorities in Albania, including former president Ramiz Alia. He admits that he met with Arben Alia, with Nano, and also in Rome and Bari. And finally, another statement by Perniola, according to which the prices of the goods “were not higher”! The fact that Perniola met with them, as he himself says, gives no reason to claim that Nano is innocent. These meetings even prove that the Alia-Nano-Levante Co mafia had close ties, and that Ramiz Alia’s son, Arben Alias, was also implicated in these ties. If we consider the meetings normal official meetings, there was no reason for him to get involved at all, since he was not an official responsible for the aid issue, etc. The involvement of family members in official duties occurs only for improper motives: personal gain, keeping secrets, and so on. This raises the question: from whom? From the Albanian state? Alia and Nano represented it. Then from whom? The secret apparently had to remain within the Alia-Nano circle, whose actions gravely violated the interests of the Albanian state and people, and this was being concealed. As for prices, whether they were higher or not, Luan Rama has no reason to take Perniola’s word for it. Perniola could not give another answer; otherwise he would be incriminating himself. One cannot expect such admissions from Perniola, just as one cannot expect them from any robber, however “merciful” he may be. There are documents on this, and if journalist Rama wishes, he can refer to them and learn the truth, if that is what he wants… (Continued on page 4)

— Nano is not being proven to have taken even a single dollar—the logic his associates are trying to promote — Proven: Levante Co was selected by Alia and Nano — How was the profit divided? A question for which no answer can be claimed. The trial of the four people accused of being implicated in the Italian aid scandal continues. The days on which hearings are held are days for examining evidence, which shows that 9.4 billion lire did not disappear through “carelessness”—nor through “rapid activity”, as this was excused by the emergency. “I am surprised because it is not being proven that Nano appropriated even a single dollar.” By expressing himself in this way, Ndre Legisi, who follows the court hearings, whether intentionally or not, puts himself in the position of a naïve person. Because this gentleman apparently came to court to learn which document bears Nano’s signature and what amount that signature authorized. Such narrow-minded reasoning is not characteristic of this deputy alone. It is a way of reasoning that Nano’s loyalists have tried to pass on to ordinary people as well—precisely those people who, in 1991, were deprived of 9.4 billion lire. The newspaper “Zeri i Popullit” is also trying to create this atmosphere. It keeps beating the drum: Nano is innocent. But to understand and judge whether Nano is guilty or innocent, it is not enough to be vigilant about counting how many times his name is mentioned during the judicial investigation. By now, many facts have been clarified that compel us to identify Nano as guilty. Let us add them up so that we do not leave the reader at the mercy of strained reasoning, which serves up facts indiscriminately. In 1991, a man came to Albania who became very well known to Albanians. This was Hajdin Sejdini. Hajdin Sejdini did not become a public figure because of his promise to turn Albania into a flower garden. The former government officials of that time made him one: former Prime Minister Nano, through the exclusive privileges they gave him and the financial and fiscal preferences they created for him. And if a finance minister is pressured to grant such favors by violating the law, then it is natural to ask what material benefit was behind this insistence. The accused person’s answer—that this was done because goods were scarce in the market, or because Sejdini had 10 million dollars’ worth of goods in Bari—is nothing other than a revealing example of his method of applying pressure. Nevertheless, let us not rush to judgment. Eager to stem the exodus, the Italian government granted emergency aid of 10 billion lire, which was later increased to 30 billion lire. As emerged from the questions of the interrogating committee, the witnesses accused of the same matter in Italy—Xhani De Mik[e]lis, Alta MUrra, Enriko De Mai—prove that they were not left free to apply their rules and procedures in every instance. We are pleased to confirm to you that our preferred firm for supplying the goods is Levante Co—this is the refrain that the Italians often heard at that time from Plaka and Nano. And, naturally, they did not “spoil” their pleasure. Why this insistence? Why this persistence in favor of this company, when its unsuitability was plain to see? Hajdin Sejdini, who claimed that in Bari he had a friend and partner, Xhuzepe Pergnola, testified about the former director… (Continued on page 4)

THREATS AGAINST JUSTICE [cartoon illustration: figure with a gun; writing on a piece of paper: “prosecutor”]