The «Nano» case in focus before specialists, the public and international opinion By Dr. Fehmi Abdiu, Member of Parliament The legislation of every country establishes the legal obligation of judicial bodies to be impartial and objective in investigation and trial. Therefore, Article 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that, on the basis of the principle of legality... the court and the investigative authorities, applying the same rules on an equal basis for everyone, conduct investigations objectively, fully and comprehensively, so that no guilty person evades responsibility and every citizen is protected from unjust prosecution and punishment. It is in fact impossible to speak of an objective, complete and comprehensive investigation in the trial of the case concerning defendants Nano and others. The lack of impartiality and the presence of bias in this proceeding are evident in many respects. They can be identified in their entirety once the case file is complete, which is no longer the sole preserve of the judiciary but today also of the prosecution [unclear fragment]—matters that are more evident to everyone. 1. A trial with open doors but closed gates It is now a rule established in Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that criminal cases are heard in open court. An exception to this rule is also recognized, as set out in Article 135 of the Code, which specifies the cases in which the court may decide to hear a case behind closed doors. Since this case is far from falling within those cases, we point out that no such decision has been made in this instance. Legally, therefore, the trial is open to the public. Yet, although it is an open trial, not everyone can attend, since attendance is by invitation. This practice, which is not in fact provided for by law, may not be a bad thing, as judicial practice recognizes it as a way of ensuring the proper conditions for a normal trial. But, surprisingly, despite the high demand to attend this trial, very few invitations were issued. Indeed, so few that we can say that about 10 family members of the defendants, 10 SHIK employees, 10 journalists and a few other invited people attended the trial. Thus the courtroom is almost empty, even though many people have requested invitations. In these circumstances, one can hardly say that the trial is being held with open doors when its gates are effectively closed by police barriers. 2. It is not the court that decides, but the presiding judge 3. The spokesperson of the District Court? An unlawful participant in the proceedings The requirements of procedural law defining the participants in criminal proceedings have been made widely known... on the basis of... It has now become customary to see the judicial panel, the prosecutor, the court clerk, the defendants and their lawyers at a trial, and sometimes the civil parties as well. The rights and duties of each of them are expressly defined by law. They may also be expanded to accommodate new dimensions of the proceedings. In Nano’s case, another participant has also been introduced: the presiding [unclear], an unlawful participant, because nowhere in our legislation is the right of courts to have their own spokespersons established. The spokesperson—what is this? In administrative practice, it is now rightly accepted that every state body or state administration appoints a spokesperson to communicate with the mass media and publicize the main areas of its work. To make their work transparent, they have begun to adopt the practice... (Continued on page 3) Because the Port of Durrës had at that time been declared a military zone and offered greater guarantees for the protection of the aid.

— Interview with the Chairman of the Socialist Party of Albania, Answers: — Witnesses who were brought by member of the People’s Assembly Fatos Nano, given in the courtroom to Xhevdet Shehu, Tirana correspondent of «Voice of America», excerpts of which were broadcast on 19 March 1994. Question: Mr. Nano, the position you chose to take during this trial has been interpreted as a lack of evidence on your part to defend yourself against the accusations made against you. How do you interpret this? Answer: It is not my fault if my procedural position, whether logical or not, regarding the accusation and the agreement it has made with me so far, is misinterpreted. Silence does not indicate a lack of evidence; it is a strike against the violation of the law by the prosecution, and, more seriously, by the court, which has sided with the prosecution in its elementary violations of the defendant’s rights, bringing the judge into the proceedings without giving him the right to examine the substance of the accusation. In essence, I have all the arguments and evidence needed to prove the truth of my innocence, but it is the court that has prevented me from taking part in my own trial. Question: Regardless of the political events you have brought into this trial, as a former prime minister, do you see irregularities or corruption in connection with the Italian aid in 1991? Answer: The witnesses who brought the generally authentic atmosphere of those days into the proceedings also presented, as Mr. Çollaku said, one of the leading figures in foreign trade and economic relations at the time; they also presented their idealism and the signing of their contacts with the West. So, if you have noticed a certain calmness in me or in my colleagues, who have all been lumped together in one basket, it is only because we cannot understand from this trial what we are supposed to have got our hands on, or what we are supposed to have stolen. Question: Your lawyers have said that what you are not doing in this trial, you will do in the Court of Appeal—that is, you will speak. How should we understand this? Answer: I am a legal party to these proceedings and, as such, I respect the law. It is not my fault if the court of first instance does not recognize me as a party by failing to create the legal conditions for me to participate in the proceedings, learn about the accusation and defend myself with the arguments at my disposal. If the second-instance court creates these conditions for me, then I will overcome all the legal and procedural obstacles preventing me from participating as a party in the proceedings. So far I have been denied recognition as a party during the investigation, and I am being denied recognition as a party at the trial in the first instance. Thus, despite my desire to put an end to this chain of trials, the current state is not helping. I will speak to those who want to listen.

— Protest by the Association of Professional Journalists of Albania Sent to the International Federation of Journalists, Brussels The Committee to Protect Journalists, New York; Reporters Without Borders, Montpellier, France; Article 19, London For the attention of Messrs. Alush Dragoshi, Prosecutor General Zef Brozi, Chairman of the Court of Cassation Dear Sirs, On 21 March, the Court of Appeal in Tirana dismissed the charge of «Disclosure of state secrets in complicity» against the journalists of the independent newspaper «Koha Jonë», Martin Leka, who had been sentenced on 28 February by the trial court to one and a half years’ imprisonment. Even though the charge was dismissed... ...they shifted from one charge to another, and completely distorted the truth about the article published on 21 January in the newspaper «Koha Jonë». 2. The change in the charge and the upholding of the same sentence for Martin Leka demonstrate that all limits of so-called subjectivism in the interpretation of the law have been exceeded. This subjectivism does not exist. ...

POLITICS AND PEPPER One thing caught our eye on 22 March. The celebrations really did feature games. The games were attended by the leading figures of the DP and the DP-state, rather than rallies, as had been the DP’s tradition. We do not know the exact reason, but we have heard several versions—in a word, we have heard a whole range of explanations. The first says that all that remains of these celebrations are the old women. The DP was the first to take part in the movement; the first militants are, without a doubt, all now directors, officials, shop owners and businesspeople, so they no longer feel like sitting beneath the old women. The two things they used to raise to count with back then are being counted too, poor things. The second explanation says that the people are busy with their free work and can no longer gather at rallies. That must be true, since at yesterday’s celebrations there were schoolchildren and young people, while few people of other ages had taken part. But if all these people are busy with their work—which is understandable—why don’t the unemployed gather at rallies? Instead, they leave the old women to gather and [unclear]. The third comment lays the blame on the police, as if the police had set up the commissariats, approved the rallies and prevented the DP from meeting the requests of its branches. This claim is circulating in all the districts. I do not believe it, because when they came to power, on 4 March the commissariats played the same game for three days running [unclear], filling up with police to gather and keep people away, but the police have no choice, because they are always on duty. That is enough about the celebration committee; [unclear] cursed rallies, celebrations.

Gavrosh Pogaçe testifies in the courtroom Witness Gavrosh Pogaçe. Chairman: You have been called to testify about the Italian aid. Gavrosh Pogaçe: From the first aid shipment, on 19 March, until the resignation of the Nano government, I served as inspector for trade and tourism at the Office of the Council of Ministers. About a week before the first aid shipment arrived, when the government decision on aid was issued, Prime Minister Fatos Nano directly assigned me the task of closely monitoring aid-related issues in general at the offices and institutions that would be handling the aid. Question: What was your role? Answer: I was an inspector for trade and tourism. Regarding the aid, I assisted the Office with coordination, support and information, and informed the Office and the Prime Minister about it. When the Prime Minister assigned me in this way, during the first phase of the aid operation I was given responsibility for all the measures involved in receiving the aid and for closely supporting the Citizens’ Commission, which was established by a government decision to carry out this task. The commission consisted mainly of citizens who had worked previously. After taking up the assignment, we went to Durrës, to the port, having been informed that the aid would arrive through the Port of Durrës, in order to verify the actual arrival of these shipments. The first time—I do not remember the date—I went with Robert Glini, because he had been appointed director and head of the Albanian side responsible for this aid. After carrying out checks in Durrës with the Executive Committee of the Durrës district, we assessed the available storage capacity and concluded that, given the situation in Durrës at the time, as a site for the exodus, it would be best for the aid to be received inside the Port of Durrës. This was protection of the aid. At the same time, there were rumors that there would be an exodus, and we thought that it could turn into an attack on the trucks transporting the goods. We thought it would be better to store the aid inside the Port of Durrës. We also looked at which body would be best placed to receive the aid. I suggested all of this to the Prime Minister: the aid should be received inside the port because of the situation, and the most suitable body to handle its receipt at the time was 101-K, that is, the state reserves, because it was an established structure; at that time it had no stock of goods, had a fully staffed administration, and from a technical point of view it was better for the sender to be separate from the administrator or distributor and from the subsequent handler of the goods. I made these recommendations to the Prime Minister, who instructed us to prepare a meeting in Durrës to settle the practical aspects of all the procedures to be carried out when the first shipment arrived. I do not remember the date, but under the chairmanship of Fatos Nano a large meeting was held at the Executive Committee of Durrës. Several ministers and deputy ministers took part, along with the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Durrës district, representatives from the 101-K enterprise, Al-bkontroll [as printed], and a number of enterprises and institutions that would be assigned direct duties in handling the aid. There were, of course, representatives from the Ministry of Public Order and the Ministry of Defense, because of the exodus and the transportation issues at the port as a military zone. The main duties concerning public order were specified, while the goods were to be received and stored by 101-K. Question: Where was it decided? Answer: We suggested it there, and it was decided there that

In the name of reform, the management of the chromite concentration enterprise in Laç recently cut its workforce by about 40 percent. Workers placed on assistance, especially those from the enterprise’s sorting section, come every day in organized groups and knock on the doors of the district council and the city municipality. The workers are protesting the enterprise management’s violation of the law in placing them on assistance, since no legal standard or criterion was applied. “We are not against reform,” say the workers Mihane Berhata, Liri Cela, Zenep[e] Karanaxhi, Rahim Sheku and dozens of others, “but the legal criteria must be applied when deciding who is placed on assistance, especially when the section—the department where we work—has been among the most efficient in production.” The reform, they thought, would be implemented by the management, according to the relevant instructions, and the enterprise was supposed to take measures to encourage the enterprise [unclear text]. They believed that the enterprise should carry out such actions in coordination with the commission at the enterprise. In one instance, she says, some workers from Crel and the assembly department came to the enterprise, while others were being given the «vesën» [unclear]; among them were also some demonstrators. Meanwhile, the enterprise’s inspection office and the district state inspectorate remain silent. Similar cases in enterprises ... BEKTASH ZENELI

presiding judge The law stipulates that important cases are to be heard by a judicial panel composed of one judge and two assistant judges who have the...