THE IRONY OF THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE “VICTORY” — A day before 22 March, two journalists are sentenced to prison solely for the “crime” of free thought. On that same day, Fatos Nano, in the dock, spoke more and better about Albanian democracy than President Berisha did in his greeting. Amid all this commotion being experienced under the so-called “regime” of Berisha, it seemed like a subtle joke when we heard that the “festival of democracy” would be celebrated. Because to call it a celebration when there are still political prisoners, I believe, is a serious, cynical, absurd matter. Today’s government, or as it has otherwise been called, the “Berisha regime,” seeks to drown its gloom in tasteless, ridiculous celebrations. It is the government itself that struck a pickaxe to 22 March and turned it from a “day of democracy” into a day that reminds a large part of the people of their regret: their vote was exploited, albeit unintentionally. How can 22 March be celebrated when journalists are sentenced to prison the day before? How can 22 March be celebrated when the political trial of Fatos Nano is continuing these days? This government is trying to turn attention back to itself. For a long time it had begun to be forgotten: television talks about Nano’s trial, newspapers write long pieces about him, interview Fatos Nano, and, in his shadow, the president, the prime minister and everyone else in turn seem eclipsed. Today they feel the fear of losing power; they count the days: 730, 729, 728... This government is left with nothing but uncertainty about the future. But the greatest irony of 22 March is that it calls on us to embrace a new 22 March, to bring about change. While some have not understood this democracy, it has been proclaimed with great fanfare. Can 22 March be celebrated, while someone in Shkodër reopens the wound of a person struck down by the political crime of 1 [unclear] that was committed against the tribunes on 22 March? What can 22 March be, presented today as a “celebration,” a [unclear] overturning to hold on to power by every means, and with political crime built on money earned through the rampant corruption of construction companies, phantom firms and illegal privatizations? Today this people feels disappointed by 22 March; perhaps they have forgotten it and could mistake it for some religious holiday, one of those holidays that the people in power hold most dear. What can the supporters of 22 March say about young people—unemployed students; about [unclear] and hopes driving around in BENZ cars; about criminals and rapists who become property owners and profit from this by gaining power? In the newspaper pages this government is indirectly saying: “We are,” and everyone agrees: “We are too.” All these celebrations, where you cannot feel what is yet to come... and then take it up again, BEM? But in this case, looking at... 22 March, it seems these “victories” of lawful corruption are expressed through...

The problem is not merely theoretical in nature, but above all practical. We have said this because the issue has been discussed, and continues to be discussed: whether or not the Court of Appeal (the second-instance court) has the right to worsen the position of the accused when it examines a case following an appeal or protest. Moreover, discussion has also turned into action, with decisions worsening the accused’s position being deemed right and lawful. This is the only way to explain the fact that in some cases the Court of Appeal has increased the sentence, added a charge that had been dismissed, declared guilty someone whom the court of first instance had acquitted, and so on. Do these cases have a legal basis, and could they tomorrow become judicial practice? I think not; they have no legal basis. To make this concrete, let us refer to the law: 1. Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states: “A change in the classification of the offence to one carrying a more severe penalty, or to an offence of a more serious nature, as well as the imposition of a more severe type or measure of punishment, is not permitted.” Furthermore, examples are given in a paragraph of this provision: a) A-a has been convicted by the district court of serious intentional [unclear]. The Court of Appeal may not alter this article by classifying the act as [unclear] intentional. b) B has been convicted of negligence in the performance of duty. The Court of Appeal may not change the legal classification to murder, which was [unclear] for negligence, even a lesser one. c) Ç has been fined. The Court of Appeal may not sentence him to imprisonment, etc. The matter is different when the prosecutor files a protest to challenge the charge. In that case, under the second paragraph of the above article, even if the accused’s position is worsened, the Court of Appeal annuls the decision and sends the case for reopening or retrial; as is clear, even in this case it does not itself have the right to worsen the accused’s position. 2. There are opinions that, following the adoption of Law No. 7574, dated 24.6.1992—“On the Organization of Justice and Certain Amendments to the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure”—Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be considered repealed. How should this issue actually be understood? Why do we need to refer to the law? This is what the second paragraph of Article 3 of Law No. 7574 says: “At the request of the parties or on its own initiative, the Court of Appeal repeats the examination or partially conducts the judicial investigation of the court of first instance, observing the rules set out in the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure.” Thus, as is clear, this paragraph concerns the Court’s powers: when it considers it necessary, it repeats the judicial investigation and trial of the first instance, in whole or in part, but always in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this paragraph too does not repeal Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioned above. The second paragraph of Article 4 of Law 7574 deals with the situation in which the prosecutor has filed a protest and it appears that “the legal classification of the offence must be changed, thereby worsening the position of the accused, or that the accused must also be charged with another criminal offence.” What should be done? As this article states, the Court of Appeal “orders the decision to be quashed and the case to be sent to the prosecutor.” Is there a contradiction between Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 4 of the above-mentioned Law? On the matter in question, there is no contradiction. Both provisions require the Court of Appeal to quash the decision. The difference lies only in the fact that, whereas under Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the second-instance court sends the case back for reopening or retrial, before the court for crimes [text becomes garbled: “Ramiz Alia, Manus Myftiu, Aranit Çela etc.). In Albania: post-communist there was no Nuremberg,” he said, “but those responsible for the national tragedy must be held accountable and punished as criminals.” What is striking about Butka’s words is that all the people he mentioned, or those connected with them, are either currently silent or have not been brought to trial for a long time. (Continued on page 4)

Reports from Shkodra about the hunger strikes in the villages of Ashtë, Bushat and Ças, whose purpose we made clear in an article published in yesterday’s issue of the newspaper, point out that the strikers’ health is in a very serious condition. According to the health committee, [garbled text] were selected and the strikers’ health is very serious. According to the blood [commissioner?], his support, and blood pressure. Their condition is among those strained and irregular [unclear], and they are determined to continue the strike until their demands are met. They also made their determination known to senior officials of the Ministry of Public Order, who met with the strikers during the night before last. The officials told the strikers that they considered the strike illegal, since it had been decided that there should be no strike until the judicial proceedings against Fatos Nano were over; they had also announced this decision in a television notice. But, according to the report, the strikers rejected all these claims, including that “the strike was organized by left-wing extremists—or that Fatos Nano had incited them.” They disputed this assertion, saying that they had organized themselves and were genuinely fighting to meet their lawful demands, without being manipulated by any political force. Indeed, they pointed out that many members of the party in power were also participating in the hunger strike. The strike is consolidating its support for the law and for parliamentary consideration of this issue, in order to carry out agrarian reform. Over the past two days, state authorities have been seen making efforts to enable the strikers’ demands to be met. But the strikers have little faith, since they say this has happened to them before. So, if it has been left for something clear to happen during the daytime hours, the strikers’ council has stated that “this evening, in addition to the representatives of the strikers, other senior officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Public Order will also [meet]. We hope that this time the strikes will go all the way to the end of the land distribution process and its conclusion.” But the above report also draws attention to statements by senior officials of the Ministry of Public Order that it had been decided that the strikes should not be held until Fatos Nano’s trial was over. And even worse, they made this known publicly on television! We have the right to ask in this case: on what legal basis was such a decision made, who made it, and where was it publicly announced on television? In fact, television broadcast the Ministry of Public Order’s statement aimed at preventing the peaceful protests of the Socialist Party. Is this a sign of its [unclear] and the [unclear] of the individual? And does it not mean that union strikes defending their lawful interests are also being banned? But one might ask: should people not raise their voices about their grievances until the trials are over, since it seems that the series of trials will continue for a long time yet? It seems that the key strikes have themselves been suspended in a justifiable situation. But so far nothing of the sort has been announced about the situation. Then why should measures suited to a state of emergency be taken, when the situation is stable, ordinary and even under control? MUSA KURTULAJ

Yesterday, while parliament was discussing its work programme, Baleta also took the floor. He asked for an interpellation with the Minister of Justice to be added, at which the minister would answer Baleta’s questions. Yesterday, while parliament was discussing its work programme, Baleta also took the floor. He asked for an interpellation with the Minister of Justice to be added, at which the minister would answer Baleta’s questions, as well as Kaluka’s, who want to know why the deadline for approving the Right-Wing Democratic Party has been breached.

Deeply impressed by the “success” achieved in the trial against Fatos Nano, those in power are trying to find new trials. Deeply impressed by the “success” achieved in the trial against Fatos Nano, those in power are trying to find new [trials]. (A matter comes from the trials; others go to trial / as we wrote above.) For a long time he [unclear] in the dock through a statement. He called for “a trial at which the dictatorship, the bloodthirsty fifty-year regime in Albania, would be legally condemned.” “Butka demanded that the people’s executioners, Enver Hoxha, Shefqet Peçi, etc., be brought [before the court], as well as all those before the court for crimes: Ramiz Alia, Manus Myftiu, Aranit Çela, etc.). In Albania, in the post-communist period there was no Nuremberg,” he said, “but those responsible for the national tragedy must be held accountable and punished as criminals.” What is striking about Butka’s words is that all the people he mentioned, or those connected with them, are either currently silent or have not been brought to trial for a long time. BEQIR SKRELI

On 22 March, near the bakery in the “Dërgut” neighborhood, a shot was fired from an automatic weapon. Fortunately, there were no harmful consequences. Some residents called this act a demonstration of force, pressure being applied to someone in this neighborhood for unworthy motives. They say this is the second such case within a few days, and at the same place. Cases are becoming more frequent in this city in which people in vehicles shoot firearms and drive away without waiting to see who [unclear]. A few hours later, several more shots once again shattered the citizens’ peace, ending in a tragic event. In the “Liria” neighborhood, 28-year-old Lulzim Bezdari was killed. The fact that the killing was carried out with an automatic weapon, and that the victim’s body was riddled with many bullets, [unclear]. The Public Order Commissariat has still not provided the necessary explanations or the motive for this terrifying act. The perpetrators of this murder also followed the example of others: rather than wait for the police to catch them, they fled in an unknown direction. Vëzhguesi

The truth versus television manipulation: Witness Aleksandra Çollaku, a personality [sic], said she had heard of Ilir and the aid for the first time from “Iliria Holding”-Bari. In a letter that “Iliria Holding”-Bari had sent her, in a letter sent to her by the port of Bari in Italy, to arrange loading at the port in [unclear], it is not clear here in the file what the letter is; we have kept another one, but that letter was first presented at the court hearing to show what it was. It was precisely there that it was managed that she had with “Iliria Holding,” as the witness heard: At that time Petrag Gramo was the head of “Iliria Holding” in Albania. The executive director of “Iliria Holding” was suspected in terms of leaving [unclear] at “Iliria Holding”; “Tregtari” above had aid in Albania. So this is the opinion, as it should be near the ministry? Witness Shane Korkut, who was responsible for transporting the sums, testified here about “Iliria Holding”... By this logic, in these matters, the prime minister... The journeys for billions, [unclear]... Answer: The verbal note was to confirm the movement of goods that were at the Port of Bari. It was accompanied by an explanatory letter saying that, as per your verbal instruction, we are preparing these notes. Question: So a verbal note was received by hand? Answer: A verbal note was received by hand from our minister at the time, but I do not know where he got it from. In fact, we sent that note to Minister Muhamet Kallapalli and Shkëlqim Çali. The verbal notes were intended to confirm to the Italian parties the movement of goods from “Levante-Co.” The only change we made was that the verbal note was to arrange for “Iliria Holding” not to take [the goods], but for “Agroeksport” to take them; it depends on us—our view is that Agroeksport is the enterprise that handled that work and the transport of foodstuffs. At that time, when the note was received, I don’t know, at the moment [unclear]... Earlier, not... We did not send the note. Question: What goods were in Bari? (Continued on page 3)

I happened to travel on the “Tirana-Athens” bus route, and every long journey, along with the fatigue and monotony, brings pleasant surprises too. After 5–6 hours on the road, you got the impression you were not on a passenger bus; rather, it seemed like [unclear], because of the communicative atmosphere established among the passengers. Some of them were going to meet their families, whom they had not seen for years; someone was going to see a husband, while someone else was returning to Greece after visiting family and relatives. The individuals’ stories were different, while other things were repeated. Would they return to their families in Albania? Would they find work and income? Would an agreement ever be reached between Tirana and Athens on the legal status of Albanian emigrants in Greece? Would the political revanchism ever finally end, and so on? I heard these concerns from almost dozens and dozens of Albanians I met on the route, people visiting friends and relatives. These concerns sparked a debate about how to understand [unclear] the buses. I wanted someone to leave the conversations; I heard a toll, unfamiliar to me, and there had been a journey of the Lord, in Greece, in Busha e Pakës, when I worked in [unclear] and bullets. The Public Order Commissariat has still not provided the necessary explanations or the motive for this terrifying act. The perpetrators of this murder also followed the example of others: rather than wait for the police to catch them, they fled in an unknown direction. ... the Fierzo-Koman high-voltage line. Once I had seen his work up close, at his company, truly heroic work on the slopes of Bajramit. Tmugut, Berisha, etc. And now, after 15 years without ever meeting again, I was travelling with him towards Athens. I will return soon, while he will not be there, and [he would] return to London in Greece with his wife and two sons, qualified engineers who worked in [unclear]. He spoke with a kind of pain and sorrow. In that [unclear] he had built the high-voltage line... (Continued on page 4)