The High Inspector of Justice gave an interview for Klan TV, on conditional releases, which has been the first decision of Mr. Metani since he took office, due to the high public sensitivity after the releases of several criminals that were well known for the justice. In addition to the verifications of the proceedings of special cases, the High Inspector of Justice Office has conducted a thematic Inspection on handling the requests with object “Conditional Releases”, in all district courts and prosecution offices as well as appeal courts for the period 01.01.2017 – 31.01.2020. Due to the large volume of work and documentation to be evaluated, the inspection was carried out by 6 inspectors assisted by 12 assistant inspectors.
Question: Mr. Metani, two years ago some decisions which were reported in the media, created the perception that there were abuses with court decisions regarding requests for conditional releases. Soon after you started an inspection on these decisions. What are the conclusions of this inspection? What is the seriousness of this problem?
High Inspector of Justice: The inspection was carried out in 15 courts and the prosecution offices in the country. 2514 practices on conditional releases were analyzed. There were found problems, and consequently, judges and prosecutors in several courts and prosecution offices of the country have been sent for measures. Actually, the verifications still continue, even after the inspection was completed, because of its conclusions. And the inspection concluded that there are some cases of suspected violations, such as wrong assessment or violation of the criteria that must be applied in cases of conditional releases requests; there were violations, or serious or repeated non-compliance with procedural and criminal legislation and there was non-compliance with the unifying decision of the Supreme Court regarding issues which the Inspector deals with in general.
Question: Which courts, part of this inspection, had the most frequent violations?
High Inspector of Justice: Even from the practices that we have sent to the Councils, it was the court of Kruja, the court of Elbasan, the court of Korça. But as I previously mentioned, due to this inspection findings, the High Inspector of Justice has to carry out further verifications for some judges and prosecutors, even in other courts and prosecution offices of the country, to see whether the suspicions we have, constitute disciplinary violations, or not.
Question: What were the most frequent violations found regarding the decisions on conditional releases and were there any cases where the same judge gave different decisions for the same circumstances?
High Inspector of Justice: The violations are related to what I previously said. There were violations of the law, regarding the criteria provided for in article 64 and 65 of the criminal code, the criteria that the offender must meet in order to benefit from the early conditional releases. Secondly, violations which have led to serious or repeated disrespect of material and procedural legislation in cases of early conditional releases. Thirdly, non-compliance with the unifying decision of the Supreme Court regarding this matter. What I must point out or emphasize, is the fact that the institute of early conditional releases, is an institute provided for in article 64 and 65 of the Criminal Code. Article 64 makes a general assessment or forecast of this institute, or the criteria that must be met by convicts to benefit from early conditional releases – criteria which are evaluated by the court; and secondly, it is article 65, which gives a detailed description regarding prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, who cannot benefit from early conditional releases. Both these provisions were found to have been wrongly applied, contrary to the Code and therefore we referred the magistrates cases to the Councils.
Question: How many cases were referred for administrative investigation?
High Inspector of Justice: 5 cases, while now the duty the High Inspector of Justice has, is to verify 9 more cases for judges and prosecutors.
Question: Was article 65, which provides for prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, the most problematic one, or the most misinterpreted article by the magistrates, if I can consider it a misinterpretation?
High Inspector of Justice: There were a number of factors, so it is not a process based only on a specific investigation, or on a specific violation. Before referring a magistrate to the Councils for disciplinary proceedings, we must verify a set and complex legal factor which oblige the High Inspector of Justice to take such an extreme step, which is the request for dismissing a magistrate from duty, so it is what I previously mentioned, that the violation must be a very e serious one, or a repeated one.
