THE RETURN OF THE INVESTIGATION, INCOMPETENCE AND THE PARTY ORDER CAUSE THE PROSECUTION TO REACH WRONG CONCLUSIONS
The court must once again order the return of the NANO case for further investigation. The file went through procedural criminal irregularities committed by the Tirana District Prosecutor’s Office in the investigation of the criminal case against Fatos Nano.
PËRPARIM SANKXHAKU, lawyer
Apart from the legal reasons arising from the Tirana District Court, which, with decision no. 12, dated 6.1.1993, did not bring the judicial review to an end, instead sending the case back for further investigation, there were also criminal procedural violations whose consequences render null and invalid the Tirana District Prosecutor’s Office decision of 26.01.1993 to dismiss the criminal case against Fatos Nano.
It is not difficult to understand what ignorance or professional incompetence, at best, or submission before a party order, at worst, caused the prosecution to reach wrong conclusions. It is enough to compare these with the Tirana District Court’s decision of 31.01.1993 concerning the prosecution of this case.
What stands out, and stands out immediately, is the fact that the dismissal decision of 26.01.1993 was taken without questioning the accused person and without gathering the necessary materials. The decision contains no full analysis of the evidence collected, nor of the complaints and claims submitted. On the contrary, there are clear departures from procedural obligations.
In this sense, the file should have been returned for a full, thorough and objective investigation. The preliminary investigation had not clarified essential circumstances of the case. Necessary actions were missing, as were questioning of persons with knowledge, expert examinations and confrontations that were required. Instead of correcting these deficiencies, the prosecuting authority rushed to dismiss the case.
This way of acting is contrary to criminal procedural law and to the principles of the administration of justice. Any such decision, based on an incomplete investigation, is vulnerable and must be set aside. Consequently, the court must once again order the return of the case for completion of the investigation.
If the prosecution had correctly applied the law, there would be no room for doubts about its objectivity. But the way this case has been handled, as well as the haste to close it, creates the conviction that, in addition to professional incompetence, there was also the influence of a political order.
Therefore it is essential that the case be reconsidered seriously and that all procedural actions be carried out in accordance with the law. Only in this way can a fair decision based on evidence be guaranteed.