- Your Excellency Sali Berisha, they are in detention. President of Albania, - Your Excellency. - The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is writing to you to express its deep concern about the future of two journalists from «Koha Jonë», who are in detention. Editor-in-chief Aleksandër Frangaj and journalist Martin Leka were arrested on 31 January 1994 for publishing a state secret. According to the newspaper, Leka has been charged with «slander and publication of false information». Both charges arise from an article by Mr. Leka concerning a document signed by the Minister of Defence. In the message and in accordance with Albanian law, before someone is (Continued on page 2)

«THE NANO CASE» in the spotlight of international forums: - Democratic Europe reacts forcefully against the violation of human rights and political freedoms - «THE NANO CASE» in the spotlight of international forums: THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF FATOS NANO — AN INDISPENSABLE CONDITION FOR ALBANIA TO BE ACCEPTED INTO THE FAMILY OF CIVILIZED NATIONS - Democratic Europe reacts forcefully against the violation of human rights and political freedoms - The Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva is examining «THE NANO CASE» closely and calls for the problem to take a positive turn, so that it will not be forced to raise the issue at the Paris meeting as well INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION OCT 1 2 5 COMMITTEE ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENTARIANS Case No. AL/01 - FATOS NANO - ALBANIA Extracts from the confidential decision adopted by the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians at its 64th session (24-27 January 1994) on the case of Mr. F. Nano, from Albania (...) 2. Recalls that immunity is designed to protect parliamentarians from politically unfounded prosecutions or accusations which may be politically motivated; that the lifting of a parliamentarian’s immunity is therefore a serious measure that must be taken in due legal form by the competent body under law, which must ensure that the parliamentarian in question enjoys all the guarantees needed for his defence and to enjoy a fair trial; 3. Notes that there are contradictions between the allegations of the source and the information from the authorities concerning the lifting of Mr. Nano’s parliamentary immunity, and wonders about the conditions in which this was dealt with and decided; 4. Recalls that the preventive detention of a parliamentarian is a serious measure, one of the consequences of which is to prevent him from carrying out the mandate conferred on him by his electors, who are thus deprived of representation; 5. Notes that Mr. Nano has been imprisoned since 30 July 1993, that the gravity of the crimes of which he is accused and the fact that he is seen as «a danger to society» are used by the judicial authorities to justify his imprisonment; 6. Hopes to receive confirmation from the Albanian authorities that the investigation into the management of the Italian aid covered only the period during which Mr. Nano was Prime Minister and, if this is the case, wishes to know the reasons for this choice; 7. Doubts that the indictment accuses Mr. Nano of misusing Albanian law by abusing power and falsifying documents, but wonders about references in the indictment to the provisions of Italian law which were allegedly broken by his actions; 8. Wishes to know what the damage consists of and how the amount of the loss was calculated; 9. Wishes also to know precisely what concrete facts are used to support the accusation of abuse of power and falsification of documents made against Mr. Nano and the evidence in support of those accusations; 10. Wonders, in the light of all elements on file, about the exact consequences of the administrative acts performed by Mr. Nano, and more especially about the cause-and-effect relationship between those acts and the alleged losses for which he is held to be criminally responsible; 11. Does not see in the circumstances how the notion of «danger to society» could be invoked; 12. Doubts, in the light of all the above considerations, that there are sufficient objective grounds for keeping Mr. Nano in preventive detention; 13. Decides to continue studying the case at its next session (20-24 March 1994), hoping that the affair will constrained to bring the case before the Inter-Parliamentary Council in a public report together with a draft resolution. The findings and concerns of the Committee are being sent to the Albanian authorities for their reactions and comments. The Committee will resume its study of the case at its forthcoming session (20-24 March 1994) to be held in Paris on the occasion of the 91st Inter-Parliamentary Conference, and would therefore be most grateful if you would keep it informed of any further developments on this case. May I ask that you forward any such information to this office as soon as possible and preferably before 10 March 1994. In the meantime, I remain, [signature] [printed name/title indistinct]

[It] will be compelled to raise the issue at the Paris meeting as well [It] will be compelled EXCERPTS FROM THE DECISION OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION COMMITTEE ON THE NANO CASE Draws attention to the fact that the purpose of immunity is to protect parliamentarians from possible unfounded criminal prosecutions or accusations which may have political motives. Therefore, the removal of parliamentary immunity is a serious measure that must be taken in an appropriate legal form by the competent body under the all the guarantees necessary for his defence as well as a fair trial; Finds that there are contradictions between the source's allegations and the information from the authorities concerning the removal of Mr. Nano's parliamentary immunity, and notes the circumstances in which the removal of parliamentary immunity was considered and decided upon. Draws attention to the fact that the pre-trial the consequences of which is to prevent him from exercising the mandate given to him by his electors, who are thereby deprived of representation; Finds The seriousness fact that he is described authorities to justify his imprisonment; They express the wish into the administration of Italian aid covers If so, the Committee also wishes to know why only that period was chosen. Points out that the indictment charges Mr. Nano with abuse of office and falsification of documents, but the accusations refer to provisions of Italian legislation allegedly violated by his actions. Wishes to know what the financial damages are and how their value was calculated. Also wishes to learn precisely what concrete facts are used to support the accusations against Mr. Nano of abuse of office and falsification of documents, as well as the evidence supporting these accusations; In view of the information in the file, is surprised by the consequences arising from Mr. Nano's administrative acts and, in particular, by the cause-and-effect relationship between these acts and the alleged losses for which Mr. Nano is being prosecuted; Does not understand, given the specific circumstances, how the concept of «a danger to society» can be justified. In the light of all the considerations mentioned above, questions whether sufficient objective grounds exist for keeping Mr. Nano in pre-trial detention; Decided to continue examining that this matter will take a positive turn so that the Committee will not be compelled to bring the case before the Inter-Parliamentary Council by means of a public report and a draft resolution. The Committee's conclusions and concerns are being sent to the Albanian authorities for their response case at its next session (20-24 March), 91st Inter-Parliamentary Conference. It would therefore be greatly appreciated if you would inform it of any further developments concerning this case. I would ask you to send preferably before 10 March. PIERRE CORNILLON Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union