Following the response made to the reply “Mr. Nano, the issue surrounding the CEC is being portrayed with distortions and speculation,” published in the newspaper “Republika” on 21 March 1994, the author clarifies his position on the activity of the CEC and the political debate over parliamentary representation. OBJECTIVITY AND SERIOUSNESS ARE LACKING IN THE JUDGMENT By Dr. Refik AVDIU, MP Following the response made to the reply "Mr. Nano, the issue surrounding the CEC is being portrayed with distortions and speculation," published in the newspaper "Republika" on 21 March 1994, I would like to clarify a few matters. There can be no question of the CEC insisting on taking a decision on the basis of the accusations of the prosecuting authority. The CEC is not an independent body, nor is it an instrument for imposing punishment. On the contrary, it is a political body that seeks the revocation of a mandate when its inconsistency with the law is proven. I do not understand how it can be claimed that the CEC acts on the basis of the prosecutor's request, when in fact it reviews the documentation, takes into account the decisions of the judicial bodies, and on that basis formulates its position. What the article calls a “distortion” is in fact a presentation of the facts related to the procedures followed. If there is no final decision, that does not mean that the CEC has no right to express itself about an evident inconsistency with legal requirements. Moreover, the CEC has the right to initiate verifications and request further clarifications. The article tries to create the impression that we are dealing with a political motivation behind the position taken toward the deputy in question. I believe that such an assessment is wrong. I have never supported positions that run counter to democratic norms or to the right to due legal process. But it is equally wrong to hide a legal reality that requires serious treatment under the cloak of formalism. It is necessary for public opinion to be informed of the truth and not of partial interpretations. The debate should not be distorted by political labels, but should be based on the law, institutional responsibility, and parliamentary ethics. In this sense, my response was not and is not against anyone personally, but against the one-sided way the issue has been presented. When it comes to a deputy's mandate, the matter is not private, but public. Therefore it requires seriousness in judgment and objectivity in presentation. Precisely these two elements — objectivity and seriousness — have been lacking in the way the polemic in question has been handled. [Note: parts of the text are difficult to read in the image and have been rendered approximately.]

"I WILL SPEAK FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO LISTEN..." Institutional responsibility, objectivity and seriousness are essential premises in a public debate. In the case at hand, the issue discussed in the polemic over the CEC and the deputy's mandate has been presented in a one-sided way and with unnecessary distortions. The article tries to suggest that this is a wholly political motivation, whereas the essence of the debate is legal and institutional. The right of a body to verify and request clarifications cannot be confused with an intention to prejudge. Such an approach creates confusion in public opinion and does not serve transparency. If we want to hear the truth, we must give priority to facts and the law. Only in this way can we avoid speculation and protect the seriousness of the institutions. [?]

“The trial” of Gazidede's wife proved the failure of the Albanian prosecution Journalist Aleksandri Frangaj and Martin Leka - victims of a political judicial farce - “The trial” of Gazidede's wife proved the failure of the Albanian prosecution Yesterday, in the newsroom of the newspaper “Koha Jonë”, the defense lawyer for the defendants in the case against the wife of Bashkim Gazidedes, the well-known Spartak Ngjela, stated at a press conference that the entire process is a political farce organized with the aim of exerting pressure on the independent press. According to him, the journalists Aleksandër Frangaj and Martin Leka are victims of a set-up, while the prosecution has been unable to prove any real criminal element. Ngjela emphasized that during the court hearings numerous contradictions were presented and that the prosecution failed to bring convincing evidence. He described the trial as a demonstration of the prosecution's professional failure and as an attempt to intimidate critical media. The statement underlined that Gazidede's wife was used as a pretext for a staged process, which in essence had the goal of attacking the newspaper “Koha Jonë” and its leaders. The lawyer called on the public to follow developments closely and to judge on the basis of the facts that emerged during the hearings. According to him, the outcome of this process showed not the strength of the law, but the weakness of the Albanian prosecution and its inability to sustain accusations made hastily. [Note: the text is partially unreadable and has been carefully reconstructed.]

This column presents a text in Gheg Albanian, with satirical and reflective tones, dealing with social and political behavior of the time. The original text in the image is difficult to read in full. [?]

Satirical text/column in dialect, partially unreadable in the image. [?]

3. The electors of the "March Five" government shake the balance in the process Polemical/satirical column. The following text in the image is very faint and cannot be read in full. [?]

POLITICAL AND PRE?? The truth against manipulation fejteviziv [long article in several columns, partially unreadable in the provided image] (Continues on page 3) This article deals with the media and political polemic over the portrayal of a public issue, criticizing distortions, speculation, and the lack of objectivity in certain comments. The author argues that the facts have been twisted and that public opinion has been misled by one-sided interpretations. According to the text, against manipulation stands the need to return to the truth, to the law, and to civic and institutional responsibility. The debate is presented as an example of the tension between political interest and the duty to provide accurate information. [?]

Workers of the chromium transport enterprise “Pushtërronjë” office of power Workers of the chromium transport enterprise “Pushtërronjë” office of power We have received notice that meetings and discussions have been held in the town's cultural hall concerning the problems of the chromium enterprise and the social condition of the workers. The visible text mentions representatives of local government and workers' demands for concrete solutions. For the Association of Professional Journalists was sent Short article/information placed at the bottom of the page, partially unreadable. Chairman PRES ZOGAJ member Tirana, 23.3.94