The court must once again order the NANO case returned for further investigation. Several criminal procedural violations committed by the Tirana District Prosecutor’s Office in investigating the criminal case against FATOS NANO. PERPARIM SANXHAKU Lawyer The Parliamentary Group of the Socialist Party has addressed the President of the European Parliament, Mr Egon Klepsch, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Mr Martinez, and the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva, setting out the latest procedural violations concerning the Nano case. Attached to these is also the material prepared by his lawyer, Perparim Sanxhaku, whose full text we are publishing. In addition to the violations of the law committed by the Tirana District Prosecutor’s Office from the beginning of the criminal case against Fatos Nano, dated 6.5.1993, until it was sent for trial to the Tirana District Court on 9.10.1993, of which you have been informed, this body has committed a number of other violations, which I will now [cut off]. I will explain them in general terms and with reference to the essential requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. The basic principle of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Albania is that: «by applying the same and equal rules to everyone, investigations are conducted objectively, fully and comprehensively, so that no guilty person evades responsibility and every citizen is protected from unjust prosecution and punishment». I consider it appropriate to clarify this, since investigations are conducted secretly by the Prosecutor’s Office. The accused and his lawyers are excluded from participating in the investigation of the case; the accused’s own statements are not made known to them, nor are they informed of the other evidence gathered unilaterally by the investigators. They are, however, entitled to examine the case materials under Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Criminal Procedure Code ordered that the materials in the criminal case against Mr Fatos Nano be sent to court, charging him with abuse of office and falsification of official documents under Articles 106-13 and 110 of the Criminal Code. But the accused had not been allowed to examine the case materials. We challenged the prosecutor’s decision to send the case to court before the District Prosecutor, since such a decision contravened Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for the accused’s right to examine all the case materials and submit claims requesting further investigative actions. The prosecutor, after [unclear] justifying the reasons by letter No. 151 dated 14.10.1993 [continues outside the frame], allowed us to examine them in court. On 15.10.1993, we wrote to the Tirana District Court, pointing out the serious violations of the law committed by the Prosecutor’s Office and requesting that, under Articles 128 and 130 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the case be heard in a preparatory session and then returned to the Prosecutor’s Office because of violations of criminal procedural rules. On 26.10.1993, the Tirana District Court examined the case in a preparatory session and decided to return it to the Office (Continued on page 3). ... by the Tirana District Prosecutor’s Office from the outset of the criminal case against Fatos Nano, dated 6.5.1993, through to its referral for trial to the Tirana District Court on 9.10.1993. As we have informed you, this body committed a series of other violations, which not only infringe the procedural guarantees granted by law to the defendant, but also cause the investigation to reach an erroneous conclusion, with serious consequences for the accused and for justice. We are convinced that the violations we have identified were intentional. I say this because both his lawyers and Mr. Fatos Nano himself informed the District Prosecutor’s Office, the Prosecutor General of the Republic, and the Tirana District Court of them, verbally and in writing. Dear Sir, in order to give you as clear an idea as possible of the procedure for investigating a criminal case in Albania, we ... ... investigations are conducted by the prosecution authority in secret. During the investigation of the case, the defendant and his lawyers, apart from the explanations provided by the defendant himself, are not informed of the other evidence collected unilaterally by the investigators. They are informed of the case materials pursuant to Article 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates: “When it is considered that the evidence is complete for referring the case to trial, the prosecutor is required to notify the defendant that the investigation has concluded, give him the opportunity to examine all the case materials, and ask whether he requests that additional investigative actions be carried out, recording this in minutes. When the defendant requests the performance of actions that are relevant to the case, the investigator is required to accept them...” Now I will explain what actually happened: On 9.10.1993, the Tirana District Prosecutor’s Office, pursuant to Article 105

- The letter from the President of the Albanian Parliament, Pjetër Arbnori, to the President of the European Parliament is full of untruths. - Its text was approved neither by Parliament nor by the Presidium of the People’s Assembly. - A lawsuit against PJETËR ARBNORI is expected for «falsification of official documents». SHAQIR VUKAJ Deputy President of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, declares: «I am not aware that any [cut off at the end]»

Deputy Mehmet Loçi was a member of the Albanian delegation that visited [the country] from 8 to 12 February 1994. Our editor put the following question to him: Question: On Friday, TVSH broadcast a report on your visits to Bulgaria. Among other things, referring to an answer to a question asked by Mr Pjetër /Arbnori, it said that the Bulgarian delegation had not been unanimous on the motion made concerning Fatos Nano. Could you explain specifically how this issue was discussed? Answer: The first parliamentary group our delegation met in Bulgaria was the Socialist group, since it was the largest group in the Bulgarian Parliament. I also spoke at that meeting. In my speech, I conveyed to the Socialist group the friendly greetings of our group, and through them I conveyed the greetings of our Party and leadership to the Bulgarian Socialist Party and leadership. I thanked in particular MPs Botkov and Ganev, who were two of the 26 deputies who signed the motion calling for Fatos Nano’s release. the Socialist group, since it was also release. (Continued on page 2)

An investigative team has now been set up to verify the work of several customs offices ... Particular attention is being paid to whether there have been suspicious cases during inspections of ... It is thought that the inspection ... may open the files of a ... of prominent people. There are ... the customs offices that ... ... an investigative team ... these inspections are to be carried out. They are the country’s three largest customs offices: Durrës, Tirana and Shkodër. An investigative team has also been formed. It consists of four investigators: 2 from Tirana, 1 from Korça and 1 from Durrës.

The residents of Selitë e Vogël, Farkë, Shkozë, etc., villages under the Sauk commune in the jurisdiction of the Tirana District, have not received social assistance for two months. Muhamet Myftari, a resident of the village of Selitë e Vogël, brought this concern to the newspaper’s editorial office; according to him, he had been «politically persecuted for five years by the previous system». He says that a meeting was requested with the area’s deputy, Mr Shaban Memia, but, in his absence, another person directed them to the Sauk commune, whose chairman is Mr Ibrahim Shagjiri. «The council was supposed to meet on 3 January», but we did not receive [the payments]. They told us the paperwork would be prepared and that we would receive them on 17 February without delay. The day came and we still did not receive them. Then they postponed it until 21 February, but again nothing. I am in a difficult financial situation, Muhamet continues. I have gone into debt to the village shopkeeper because I have to pay later for the food I have bought. But it’s not just me; there are many others. The other villagers, including Kustum Çilallari, say the same. We looked into this problem (Continued on page 2)

“I am not aware that any meeting of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly was held at which the text of the letter addressed to the President of the European Parliament was approved.” “The letter was sent in the name of the Chairman of the Presidium, and not in the name of the Presidium or the People’s Assembly. But is that really so? Or, to put it plainly, has Pjetër Arbnori lied? To answer this question, we must refer to the facts. And the facts do not favor Mr. Arbnori, even though he is the Speaker of Parliament. On Sunday, February 20, 1994, despite it being a day off, Mr. Pjetër Arbnori took the trouble to write to Mr. Egon Klepsch, President of the European Parliament, replying to the latest Resolution adopted by this high-level forum concerning Albania, which, among other things, called for the release from prison of the opposition leader and People’s Assembly deputy Fatos Nano. However, in his haste to save time following the letter that Namik Dokle, deputy chairman of the PSSh and leader of its parliamentary group, sent to the President of the European Parliament, three falsehoods also slipped into Mr. Arbnori’s letter. We therefore have the right to ask: Has Pjetër Arbnori lied? RTV broadcast the letter in question in all its bulletins, reading what Mr. Pjetër had written. That is: “First, allow me, on behalf of the People’s Assembly that I chair, to express (the word Republic has been omitted. Editor’s note) to you, etc.” As can be seen, it is clear: on behalf of the People’s Assembly. But the People’s Assembly did not meet to discuss this matter. I do not believe that the television or radio announcer could have so quickly and on his own removed this phrase just to please Mr. Pjetër, who, even after hearing it on RTV, did not issue a correction. Perhaps the special working group that drafted the letter mixed this up. Perhaps, but people have no way of knowing that. In the end, it is Pjetër’s word. And Pjetër is not likely to have signed it blindly. So, did he lie? But «Rilindja Demokratike» also goes against Pjetër. It supports him and tries to be a little more careful, but it cannot avoid the question: “Did Pjetër lie?” «RD» begins Pjetër’s letter this way: “First, allow me, on behalf of the Presidium of Parliament, which I represent...” But the Presidium of Parliament did not meet to deal with this matter. Where did «RD» get its text? Not from television, because the full text of the letter, which we have on tape, shows that Pjetër Arbnori addressed the European Parliament on behalf of the Albanian Parliament. The newspaper «Rilindja», published in Tirana, also prints the same version as the television recording, on the same day as «RD». And after all this, did Pjetër Arbnori lie? If it turns out that he did, then he could be charged with “Forgery of official documents,” as provided for under Article 110 of the Penal Code. Let us recall here that PSSH chairman Fatos Nano was also charged and arrested for “Forgery of official documents,” because, as the prosecutors’ statements put it, he signed a decision in the name of the Council of Ministers without convening it. Pjetër, too, did not convene either Parliament or its Presidium for the letter he signed in their name. “There are three court rulings that have deemed this measure justified,” Pjetër Arbnori writes in his letter when discussing Fatos Nano’s arrest. But what is the truth: 1. The Constitutional Court ruling does not state whether Fatos Nano is or is not guilty. You should know this, Mr. Pjetër. You cannot confuse these matters. The Constitutional Court stated that, by granting permission to prosecute Fatos Nano, Parliament had at the same time also authorized his arrest. The Constitutional Court cannot rule on his guilt or innocence. This is also borne out by the fact ... 2. Regarding Tirana District Court ruling No. 18, dated 7.10.1993, we clarify: The request to revoke the arrest measure was submitted to Tirana District Court on October 6, 1993, and was filed with that court at 9 a.m. that same day. On that very day, Judge Andi Çeliku was assigned to the case; he had little experience, having worked for only a year and a half. On that same day, a panel of judges was also formed ... prosecutor. Two hours later, on that same date, the court examined the case, an entirely unlawful act, because Article 15 of the law “On the Organization of Justice” and certain amendments to the Criminal and Civil Procedure Code state that such requests must be adjudicated within 7 days. In this case, too, the court did not decide whether Fatos Nano was guilty or innocent. As for the Tirana District Court’s decision to return the case to the prosecution, we emphasize that this was requested in writing by Fatos Nano’s lawyers. Mr. Arbnori, you should know how to read and understand that this was a decision to return the case to the prosecution for further investigation, not to establish the guilt or innocence of the Socialist Party leader and People’s Assembly deputy. You, Mr. Pjetër, are not accurate when you say that this ruling accuses Fatos Nano of more serious criminal offenses. You are thereby deliberately deceiving and misinforming people. The ruling in question says that, after the additional investigations have been carried out, a conclusion should be reached as to whether the offense is abuse of office or some other criminal offense. In this discussion, you, Mr. Arbnori, make another blunder when you say, “As for his release until the court decides on guilt, etc.” The court does not decide any person’s guilt. It is the body that administers justice, Mr. Speaker of the Albanian Parliament. But the way you have put it presents the matter as you wish and compromises the judicial body. And when you speak about the local-government elections on July 26, 1992, you, Mr. Arbnori, are deliberately not telling the truth. I believe you remember the results, but since you do not want to make them public, let us remind you. On July 26, 1992, in the local-government elections, the Socialist Party won around 54 percent of the local-government seats. More specifically: Of the 36 district councils, the Socialist Party won a majority in 24. Of the 43 municipal councils, the Socialist Party won 25, while it won 22 of the 43 mayoral positions. Likewise, of the 314 communal councils, the Socialist Party won without the permission of the DP and Pjetër. So, Mr. Pjetër, that is the truth of the matter. Of course, you are not interested in accepting it, but it imposes itself and cannot be concealed, not even by your letter to the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Egon Klepsch. That is why there is nothing we can do when the question arises again: Has Pjetër Arbnori lied?

A statement by the PS Parliamentary Group, addressed to the President of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, Mr Pjetër Arbnori, was published in the newspaper «Zëri i popullit» on 2 February 1994. The substance of this statement contradicts the truth, as confirmed by the facts. Regarding the request by the Presidium of the Socialist Parliamentary Group to discuss the issues raised in three important international documents, the statement says that Mr Pjetër Arbnori did not have the full one-week period to prepare for a free exchange of views and that his refusal to hold this meeting «compels us», etc. We emphasize that the request from the Presidium of the PS Parliamentary Group was received by the President’s secretariat on 16 February. On 18 February, Mr Pjetër Arbnori sent Mr Namik Dokle the following reply: «In response to your request submitted to the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, I invite you to a meeting on Tuesday, 22.2.1994, at 8.30, at the Headquarters of the Presidium». On 18 February, the letter was also delivered in person to Mr Dokle, but he told the courier to hand it to his secretary, who acknowledged receipt by signing the delivery book. On Tuesday, 22 February, it was the Presidium of the PS Parliamentary Group that failed to attend the meeting at the Presidium of the People’s Assembly. As for the claim in this statement that the letter sent to the President of the European Parliament, Mr Klepsh, was signed by you as president on behalf of the Albanian Parliament, etc., the fact is that the letter was sent in the name of the President of the Presidium, not in the name of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly; therefore, there was no reason for it to be [discussed] in the Assembly. PS deputies write whatever they wish in letters and declare whatever they please, but no one has asked them to have their statements approved by the Assembly. These are the truths concerning the lies in the statement published in the newspaper «ZP». We are sending you for publication a photocopy of the letter sent to Mr Namik Dokle and a photocopy of the delivery book, which substantiate our information. Under the law «On the Press», the denial must be published in the same place and in the same typeface. Press and Information Office of the People’s Assembly Tirana, 22.2.1994

After receiving this denial from the Press and Information Office of the People’s Assembly, our editor made inquiries with the Socialist Party secretariat. It emerged that Mr Pjetër Arbnori’s reply to the PS Parliamentary Group’s request for a meeting did indeed arrive at the Socialist Party on 18 February, in an envelope addressed to the Party’s deputy chairman and Parliamentary Group leader, Namik Dokle, [continues in the next column] on the very day he had left for Greece as part of the PPSH delegation. The envelope, registered under receipt No. 261, was found unopened on Mr Namik Dokle’s desk.