Speaker of the Assembly,
Members of Parliament,
As can be seen from the work report of the High Inspector of Justice Office for 2022, the institution I head results to have had a very dynamic year, in terms of verifying complaints against judges and prosecutors, disciplinary investigation and thematic inspections, which have been the focus of our work, also in relation to the recommendations of the resolution approved by the Assembly for the past year, but also the cooperation with institutions or organizations inside and outside the country.
Avoiding a rhetoric based on figures or analysis, as they are reflected in details in the report, I would like to take this opportunity today, through this reporting process, to share with you, not only some issues many of which I believe have been a strong point of the HIJ activity during the past year, but also some reflections which can and should find solutions in the future.
During 2022, the High Inspector of Justice has continued his work by handling the inherited documentary practices or complaints with the view to reducing the backlog created as a result of the transitional period of establishing the new justice institutions. Also during this period, HIJ has handled the new complaints which were filed with the HIJ Office from both citizens and public institutions.
The verification of these practices (documentary practices part of the backlog as well as new complaints) is carried out in accordance with a methodology based on the principles of legality, equality and efficiency. The application of this methodology was intended to avoid the culture of forgetting and impunity among magistrates in relation to old complaints submitted by citizens to previous institutions, as well as meeting their expectations in relation to new complaints.
Special attention has been paid to the unification of the acts drafted by the HIJ both in form and content. The main goal has been and still remains the application of the same transparent standards during the verification of complaints or claims made public and the conduct of disciplinary investigation against magistrates. The HIJ aim has also been to promote best practices in the interpretation and implementation of the legislation. In the absence of a consolidated administrative and judicial practice, the institution of the High Inspector of Justice has played an important role regarding the interpretation and implementation of the new legislation on the disciplinary liability of magistrates.
At the same time, the HIJ aim during 2022, was to exercise its authority in the most complete and professional manner with the aim of creating an accountable, functional justice system based not only on the standards of accountability or liability, but also on the ones of independence. This is a very delicate important process and it has not been easy, since the system of liability and accountability of magistrates must work by maintaining a fair balance between the public interest to be familiar with the administration of justice by judges and prosecutors and the independence of these magistrates.
The liability or disciplinary system must first of all play a preventive role through the identification of any problems with the functioning or not of the justice system, as well as the approval of recommendations for their improvement. This control system should never serve as a means of pressure on the work performance of magistrates, but as an important tool to measure the efficiency and quality of their work performance, professionalism or as a help to increase the quality of decision-making of magistrates.
Within this spirit, the institution of the High Inspector of Justice has also carried out its activity. In addition to handling individual cases, through conducting disciplinary proceedings, which have been applied only in special cases and as exceptional tools related to the activity of magistrates, an increased attention has also been paid to the preventive approach and the supportive role that the HIJ can play to increase the capacities of the judicial power. The institution of the High Inspector of Justice during 2022, has given special importance to the conduct of thematic inspections and their planning. This process of thematic and institutional inspections is continuing this year as well. This process has brought concrete and measurable results. Conducting thematic inspections, or initiating disciplinary proceedings in certain cases, has resulted in an increased responsibility of the magistrates to correctly apply the legislation or institutes of law and therefore has increased the quality of their decision-making.
However, I deem in advance that there is a lot to be done! 2022 has been a year during which the High Inspector of Justice has widely exercised his authority to increase the efficiency of his role and consequently the one of the judicial powers. The standards established during the process of handling complaints, conducting investigations and disciplinary proceedings; conducting thematic inspections; increasing international cooperation in the field of judicial inspection; organizing national and international activities to exchange experiences in judicial inspection, are some of the solid foundations of the work, in my view, that the Office of the High Inspector of Justice is building, giving priority to a long-term solution to the problems of the justice system and not to immediate problems or interests
In order to achieve the goal which, the justice reform was conceived and approved for, so as to make it possible to live with the values of constitutionalism and the rule of law, all of us must cooperate. Without a doubt, what I am saying is not only in the broad sense of the word, of cultivating law as a social and political value, cultivating law as a standard and not a statistic but also in a narrower sense, of analyzing and coordinating altogether the methods of control and evaluation of justice institutions.
This should be done through periodic meetings; exchange of experiences; the unification of methods and best practices in accordance with the standards of democracy and the rule of law; creation of legal, administrative or practical mechanisms of cooperation between justice bodies. In this context, the HIJ, during 2022 has continued the cooperation with the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, the Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Justice, civil society organizations and international partners. On the other hand, this requires a coordinated consultative process and the application of a broader coordination approach or oversight mechanism, analysis and an action plan for each institution at a systemic and strategic level
During 2022, the High Inspector of Justice has continued to maintain transparency with the public as a stable priority, by interacting with citizens, through the data enrichment of the HIJ website and the engagement of the Legal and Complaints Office. The HIJ, within the framework of evaluating the information made public in the media, denunciations made by the public or even data provided during the exercise of its authority, has played a proactive role in evaluating and handling cases of alleged disciplinary violations by magistrates.
During 2022, the HIJ has also focused on using the information technology to facilitate the process of handling documentary practices as well as the work activity of the HIJ Office, completing the recruitment procedures of non-magistrate inspectors at the Office of the High Inspector of Justice, as well as further increasing the professional capacities of inspectors.
Distinguished Members of Parliament,
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the High Inspector of Justice has been attentive, has studied and referred, solved, completed and set in its objectives for the future, every single point of the resolution which this body has believed and chosen to transmit to us, through an act approved in this room.
Today I am keenly awaiting and fully attentive to your every decision-making, regarding what you recommend as challenges for the coming year. But not only!
I assure you that I am and will be fully attentive to your every discussion, of each of you, in order to be able to understand even more, beyond what you will approve in your resolution, as an act of this Assembly. I believe that each of you, through your own words, or even a debate between you, can contribute to make us understand if there are other issues that can be brought to our attention.
Not only do I consider these sessions in the Assembly a legal and constitutional necessity, but also a great space for debate, a great opportunity to present theses for improving the institution performance. This is because in my point of view, the implementation of justice reform is not and should not be only a battle of justice institutions, but also of other institutions, and then of the whole society. Respecting the principle of separation and balancing of powers must be conveyed to citizens as a fundamental value of the rule of law in a democratic society.
Thank you!
***
MP Albana Vokshi: The first question, the re-evaluation structures have sent the High Inspectorate of Justice a significant number of cases for evaluation, based on the verifications they have carried out against judges and prosecutors. On the other hand, it has been noticed a minimal number of cases reported as completed by your Institution. What are the reasons for this proportional situation between the cases referred to you and the completed inspections? The second question, the Institution of the Public Commissioner has asked the Special Appeal Chamber to initiate administrative action for omission of the High Inspectorate of Justice, for the case of a former judge of the High Court. What is the spirit of cooperation between the two institutions? If there is a clash between the two new justice institutions, does this serve the greater public interest? The third question, the activity of the High Inspectorate of Justice, as well as the High Judicial Council, or any other institution created after the justice reform, are often characterized by a lack of transparency. I want to remind you that all institutions should in fact serve the public and I ask you about different standards that are followed by your institution. In cases of media reports on alleged violations by judges or prosecutors, you publish them, giving information if you have started verifications and inspections, while in other cases you are more hermetic and do not make public any concrete results of these inspections. Why do you treat them differently? Why are they not made public? After all, I repeat, they must serve the public and the institutions must be transparent. The last question, a few days ago the court decided to change the measure of detention in prison for the former minister Sajmir Tahiri. How do you consider this decision? Why is the medical report of his wife, which was taken into consideration for changing the sentence from detention in prison to house arrest, not made public? Has the HIJ started an inspection on this case? If the High Court convicts him as being part of a structured criminal group, what happens to Sajmir Tahiri, because the punishment will be more severe, as a result the decision that took him out of the cell must be rendered invalid. Thank you.
High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani: Thank you for the questions, Ms. Vokshi. In relation to the first question, according to the information I gave in April, 2023, there are 39 cases referred by the re-evaluation bodies, 27 cases processed or handled by the High Inspector of Justice.
Regarding the second question about the Public Commissioner. The spirit of inter-institutional cooperation is correct and in compliance with the law. What I notice is… obviously the new institutions have been established and they are implementing a new constitutional and legal framework and obviously the implementation of these new notions, institutes or concepts will also bring about debates between institutions, in fact it belongs to the reevaluation bodies to produce jurisprudence, to produce opinion regarding these reports or these debates and not clashes between institutions. Without a doubt, there are legal debates on these issues, I see it as a positive thing that serves not only the institutions, but ultimately the public interest, the more legal debates there are between the institutions, not in the media, the better it is for development of the institutions and the spirit which the reform was approved for and the institutions continue to work.
Regarding the third question. Actually, to be honest, I consider transparency to be a strong point of the HIJ and for some of the comments I would have a different opinion, but still to be fair to you and the question, every inspection that has been conducted by the HIJ is on the website from the moment it is approved, the thematic inspections I mean. Any case initiated due to media reports and processed by councils is obviously public because council sessions are public. Each case which the HIJ announced to have started verification for, I believe these should be 4 or 5 cases, only in one case the HIJ did not respond to the findings of the investigations or verifications, in all cases we gave a report on them, on their conclusions, only in this case it was our mistake to be honest, but it was a sporadic case.
Regarding the last question, well, the High Inspector of Justice first operates with complaints, this is the main approach. Any citizen, any public institution, anyone who has allegations of a magistrate’s behavior, in a certain way contrary to the law, can file a complaint with the High Inspector of Justice, and this is in my view, the healthiest way that serves the system, because only in this way can the decision-making of the High Inspector of Justice be controlled, by appealing the decision-making of the High Inspector of Justice to the relevant councils. There is a second way that the law provides, that in special cases the HIJ can be set in motion mainly due to announcements in the media, obviously this cannot be the main part of the HIJ work. The HIJ is set in motion for those cases that the HIJ deems to constitute a cause or material for its work, this is more or less how the HIJ works. In the specific case, there is no inspection initiated by the HIJ, but there is no complaint filed with the HIJ.
