High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani gave an interview to journalists Denis Minga and Lorenc Vangjeli for the “Contrast” show on Report TV, about the work and challenges of the HIJ institution during the first three years of its operation.
Asked about the result of his first public promise, since taking office, about the phenomenon of premature releases of convicted persons sentenced to life imprisonment, Mr. Metani said that he considered it a mission accomplished, because of the standards set and the caution that magistrates should exercise related to it, which was also confirmed by the HJC, HPC and Appeal Chamber.
“At that time, as Mr. Vangjeli rightly pointed out, it was a disturbing phenomenon in the courts and the prosecutor’s offices, or in the political, public and media environment of that time. I think that it had to be the first important intervention of the High Inspector of Justice. Today I am very optimistic about the work done, proud of the work of the inspectors of the High Inspector of Justice Office, because not only did their work withstand this pressure, but it also found the right balance between withstanding this pressure and controlling the work of the prosecutor’s offices and courts. This control, this procedure followed by the High Inspector of Justice has already been confirmed by the Councils, by the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, about the findings that the High Inspector of Justice has brought before them, but also by the Appeal Chamber, which is the constitutional body or constitutional chamber, in which every decision of the High Judicial Council or the High Prosecutorial Council is appealed. Many cases were sent to the Appeals Chamber and the Appeals Chamber has confirmed the right procedures followed by the High Inspector of Justice and the relevant Councils. Even this fact has undoubtedly made judges and prosecutors more careful in implementing the law.”
Asked about the two parties’ lawsuits in the Democratic Party now on appeal and whether the HIJ could have a way to move this process forward faster, the High Inspector of Justice replied:
“For the High Inspector of Justice, this is a case like any other. There is no particular emotion on how much excitement can this issue present to a part of the public compared to other cases. In the High Inspector of Justice Office there are complaints with perhaps even deeper problems, which are not so public. There are people who complain about unsolved murders, about poor work of the prosecutor’s offices and the courts, and I don’t want to compare the cases here, but this is to show why there is no emotion in the work of the High Inspector of Justice in handling complaints. This is a case like all the other and what is important to emphasize here and for everyone is that the High Inspector of Justice does not interfere in court proceedings, does not make acts, take actions that make the impression that he can affect the future decision-making process of the courts or prosecutor’s offices. Once the judicial process ends, then the High Inspector of Justice has the right to investigate, based on complaints, whether there was a violation or not, the behavior of a judge or prosecutor, but not to affect the decision which is given by the court and the prosecution. This is to emphasize that there is no act or action of the High Inspector of Justice, not only in this case but in no other case, that can speed up or slow down judicial processes, or interfere with them. Every complaint, if any, every case will take the path provided by the law, at the end of the judicial process. So I want to emphasize that the High Inspector of Justice does not replace judicial bodies.”
Asked if the HIJ can do something about the concern raised by SPAK prosecutors, that they are not properly protected by the HPC in the face of political statements against them, Metani said that justice cannot be done or improved with statements and that each of institutions should deliver results not statements.
“There are political statements about the work of the judicial system every day, and of course the institutions cannot make statements for each of them, this is not their duty. What is important is that the new institutions of justice do not reflect or their independence or become independent by making statements, but by their acts. What is important to emphasize, in terms of the HIJ work, is that there are over 80 magistrates investigated today and about 30 disciplinary proceedings, neither the HJC or HPC nor the Appeal Chamber or even the media have broadcast a single message that these magistrates have been investigated politically by the High Inspector of Justice, or that the High Inspector of Justice was set in motion to investigate these magistrates for political reasons, or because of political interference. Every intervention has been legally justified and this is confirmed both by the Councils and the Appeal Chamber, and this is important to be emphasized as a working standard. I do not put emphasis on this because of the work done by the HIJ inspectors or even the Councils, but to highlight the fact that the justice reform starts from these guarantees which we must give to judges and prosecutors, and that the judges and the prosecutors must be insensitive to the pressures that comes from the media or from politics. The only institution that can intervene politically, use the legal tool to interfere politically in the decision-making process of judges and prosecutors, is the HIJ and in no case, I would like to emphasize it once again, there is no evidence of this kind of intervention by the HIJ, and this is the biggest guarantee that I and my colleagues can give to the system. I would like to restate it once more that it is important that judges and prosecutors feel free, because as you said, there have been statements that judges or prosecutors may have felt intimidated; however, such statements can be present. The issue is do we feel intimidated, how much are we affected by this pressure and I don’t think that judges and prosecutors in the Republic of Albania have any reason to be legally intimidated, I’m saying they have no reason to think that the HIJ Office or even the Councils can be misused politically, which is a great guarantee for their work.”
Following the journalists’ insistence on the relationship of mutual distrust between the justice system and the media, the High Inspector of Justice observed that “every aspect, every dimension of the work of every public official must be controllable by the public, and the media is the strongest voice of the public. On the other hand, we also have an important principle, which is the principle of independence of judges and prosecutors. Both these are principles embodied in the constitution, found in the constitution, and none of them has precedence over the other. They both have special functions, special duties and special protection.”
“I have often heard the expression that court decisions are not commented, but implemented. In fact, I do not completely agree with this. I would say that the decisions should definitely be implemented, because this is the basic principle of the rule of law, not because we decide to implement the decisions of the judiciary, but because this is what the rule of law says, the constitution says, but it is also important to comment judicial decisions. The decision is a public act, it is the decision of a public official and it can obviously be commented on. It is definitely related to what we said about the limits, the contours of the political discourse on a judicial decision, it is related to the political culture, it is related to the legal culture and the democratic health of a society. This must be cultivated. But, judicial decisions nowadays, decisions of the American Supreme Court or decisions of the European Court of Strasbourg, or even other decisions are discussed, but this does not matter. What I want to emphasize here is that the work of judges and prosecutors or the battle of judges and prosecutors and new justice institutions is not with the media. Our battle is with transparency. Our battle is with the truth. The clearer the judges and prosecutors are, the clearer, without equivocation, without distortions their judicial decisions are, the decisions of our institutions, the clearer is the journalist who will report it as a chronicle and undoubtedly also the comment of to the journalist about this chronicle. And it will be the public who will evaluate the decision, the journalist’s comment, the politician’s comment, anyone’s comment. And, therefore the battle with transparency is the battle with truth. The evaluator is the public, the evaluator of our work, of the journalist’s work, and of the politician’s work. There is a specificity here, for the sake of the truth, because obviously in the media and in politics you also hear statements that are not true…”, said Mr. Metani.
Metani për deklaratat e politikës ndaj drejtësisë