{"id":31169,"date":"2026-07-06T09:26:54","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T07:26:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ild.al\/?p=31169"},"modified":"2026-07-06T11:00:25","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T09:00:25","slug":"q-a-session-of-the-high-inspector-of-justice-in-the-committee-on-legal-affairs-and-public-administration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/2026\/07\/06\/q-a-session-of-the-high-inspector-of-justice-in-the-committee-on-legal-affairs-and-public-administration\/","title":{"rendered":"Q&A SESSION OF THE HIGH INSPECTOR OF JUSTICE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Now, I will give the floor to Ms. Bylykbashi to present a report on behalf of the committee, with the aim that the issues set out in the report may also come out through the colleagues’ questions.<\/p>

Member of Parliament Aulona Bylykbashi:<\/strong> Thank you, Mr. Chair, honorable High Inspector of Justice. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Public Administration, in fulfillment of its constitutional function of parliamentary oversight, reviewed the 2025 Annual Report of the High Inspector of Justice. The High Inspector of Justice is one of the fundamental institutions in the constitutional architecture of the justice reform. Its role in guaranteeing the accountability, integrity, and professional standards of magistrates is an indispensable component in strengthening citizens’ trust in the justice system. From the committee’s analysis, it appears that during 2025, the HIJ continued the process of institutional consolidation and made noticeable progress in several important areas. In particular, the committee positively assesses the fact that the majority of Parliament’s recommendations for 2025 have been implemented or are in the process of implementation. In fact, out of eight recommendations, seven have been fully implemented, while one has been partially implemented. Concrete steps have been taken to formalize the monitoring of inspection recommendations, to develop analytical reports on the complaints received, to strengthen institutional transparency, as well as to advance the process of digitalizing the institution’s activities. Furthermore, the committee appreciates the increasingly greater orientation of the High Inspector of Justice toward thematic inspections, the analysis of systemic issues, and the use of statistical data as the basis for planning inspection activities. The report shows that during 2025, more than 3,200 complaints were administered, thus reflecting a high level of citizens’ trust in this institutional mechanism. A considerable portion of them relate to procedural delays, the reasoning of decisions, and the quality of the administration of justice, which demonstrates that the main challenges of the system continue to be more structural in nature than individual. At the same time, the committee notes that the activity of the High Inspector of Justice should not be assessed solely on the basis of the volume of cases handled, but above all on the basis of the real impact that its inspections and recommendations produce in improving the functioning of the justice system. And in this regard, significant challenges still remain. Vacancies in the corps of inspectors continue to directly affect institutional capacities and the duration of procedures. The digitalization process, although it has entered an important phase of development, requires further acceleration. Likewise, it remains necessary to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation with the governing bodies of the justice system, particularly with regard to access to electronic systems and the monitoring of the implementation of inspection recommendations. The committee considers that part of the issues identified by the High Inspector of Justice do not stem solely from the activity of the institution itself but are also related to broader challenges of the judicial system, such as the heavy workload of the courts and prosecution offices, vacancies, procedural administration, and case management. Within this framework, the committee attaches particular importance to the development of mechanisms for measuring the impact of recommendations, the use of methodologies based on risk analysis, the strengthening of analytical capacities, and the creation of modern systems for monitoring institutional performance. An aspect of particular importance is also the European dimension of the activity of the High Inspector of Justice. The reports of the European Commission point out that the institution has consolidated its role in the architecture of the justice reform and has actively contributed to the European integration process, particularly within the framework of Chapter 23 and the rule of law monitoring mechanisms. At the same time, international partners continue to emphasize the need to strengthen institutional capacities, fill vacancies, standardize inspection procedures, and increase the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms. The committee considers these recommendations to be important guidance for the institution’s further development. At the same time, the committee considers that there is still room to increase the effectiveness of inspection activities, strengthen the impact of recommendations, and further develop modern mechanisms for monitoring and analyzing performance in the justice system. Thank you!<\/p>

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Yes, thank you, Ms. Bylykbashi. Now the meeting is open for questions. Whoever has questions, or if there are both questions and discussion together, please, but first for questions. Who has questions? We have had reports here in the committee from the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, and the Prosecutor General. Now today we have the High Inspector of Justice. Who has questions and who has any concern? The floor is open. No, Zegjine is waiting for someone else to start first and then take the floor in the middle. You understand? So the opposition is waiting to hear all of us first, and then ask questions, and as far as I can see, there won’t be any questions at all. No, it doesn’t matter, you take the floor.<\/p>

Member of Parliament Aulona Bylykbashi:<\/strong> Actually, I have only one question that is also related to what was observed from the report. A high number of complaints addressed to your institution can be seen, which, as I also said in my presentation, on the one hand shows an increase in citizens’ trust in this institution, but based on the review that you have carried out of these complaints, do we have an analysis or final data from the decisions taken regarding these complaints, which require a solution or a referral through closer cooperation with the other justice institutions in order to improve the judicial process, with the aim of providing faster and fairer justice to citizens? Because it is also evident from the report that this cooperation with the other institutions, with the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, and the Prosecutor General, seems to still be cooperation in formal terms, that is, in reciprocal invitations to working groups, without data. More specifically, what are the results of this cooperation, what are the areas in which you have cooperated? But it is very important that we look at this cooperation within this framework, namely in the context of the data derived from the decisions on complaints, and how these are then referred within this cooperation in order to influence the normal process of judicial decision-making, which is mainly related to delivering justice within due time, within a reasonable time. Thank you.<\/p>

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Yes, Mr. Metani.<\/p>

High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani:<\/strong> Thank you, honorable Member of Parliament. The short answer is no, but in fact I like the idea very much and I had not thought of it in the way you raised it. And it is one of the things that justice institutions should do. So, this kind of reporting, the issues that we raise, first of all should be discussed among ourselves before they come here, in my opinion. So, in other words, even if they are separate competencies, the HIJ, the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, nevertheless we have a common language of values upon which we should come together in order to resolve these situations that we face. Genuine cooperation, what you say is true, is still more formal than organic. This comes from many reasons and there is no need to assign, that is, responsibility either, because that is simply the nature of the relationship. To be fair, it should be acknowledged that all the institutions have made efforts. That is to say, we have always been promoters and proactive in convening joint meetings since 2022, in order to talk about the things that concern us. Several meetings have been held. To be fair, they have not been very fruitful from the perspective of producing findings or reaching a common language regarding the concerns that we have. Nevertheless, the meetings are being restarted, also through the assistance that the European Union has provided through its missions to facilitate these kinds of meetings. But I think that cooperation is not a matter of law or a matter of “either you have it or you don’t.” That is to say, this is something that will require its own time, it will require the right people, it will require new practices; it is something that is still developing. Returning again to your question, one of the things that I think we should do, and perhaps we will now do after this idea that you have given me, at least, is that these kinds of concerns that we have should become part of our discussions with one another. So, if the High Inspector of Justice has concerns regarding its inability to resolve the complaints submitted by citizens about the duration of judicial proceedings, which do not necessarily constitute disciplinary violations, then these are matters for which measures should be taken; they should be listed, or at least addressed to the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, or the Prosecutor General through their respective mechanisms. So, in this spirit, I think it is a very good idea for the institutions themselves to come together and talk about this situation. Thank you.<\/p>

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Yes, any other questions? Yes, Ms. \u00c7aushi.<\/p>

Member of Parliament Zegjine \u00c7aushi:<\/strong> To continue what Ms. Bylykbashi said, it follows that the relationship between the High Inspector of Justice, the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, and the Prosecutor General’s Office is either not good or there is no relationship at all, since it has not been possible even to draft the cooperation protocol. At least, that is how I see it from what you yourself said a little earlier. My second question concerns the complaints. The first question: what kind of cooperation do you have with these institutions? What has prevented these institutions from implementing or drafting the cooperation protocol? Because you said that we have held meetings, but they have not worked and we have achieved nothing from these meetings; at least that is how I understood it. My second question concerns the complaints. Given that most complaints relate to procedural delays and decision-making, what will be the inspection priorities for 2026? My third question: Do you think legislative amendments are needed to make the HIJ’s recommendations more binding? Thank you.<\/p>

High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani:<\/strong> Yes, thank you, Ms. \u00c7aushi. Regarding your first question, perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly, but I did not mean, nor is it the case, that the cooperation does not function. The cooperation should be more effective, because this distinction is very important. So, we fulfill the legal obligation, we meet, we discuss, but the issue is that beyond this legal obligation there is also individual motivation, which I do not always find expressed in meetings or through the form of cooperation that these governing bodies should have. This is not an issue of the justice institutions; it is an issue of ours. Now we also have to be aware of what is happening. That is to say, this is a characteristic that does not apply only to those who work in the justice institutions. Certainly, the meetings should have been more effective, but the fact that the institutions meet, the fact that they also solve things, shows that it functions but it should have been much more effective, viewed in relation to the needs of the system, in relation to the needs that society has today, and in relation to the new institutional culture that the institutions should produce, that is to say, not only the justice institutions. But this goes beyond that. This is my opinion on what we are discussing.<\/p>

Secondly, regarding the inspection priorities, we have determined them in the annual plan that was approved in January 2026. I would like to explain to you how we select the inspection topics. First, we select them based on the analysis of the subject matter of the complaints addressed to the High Inspector of Justice, that is, what citizens complain about the most. Secondly, we also take into account the information that comes to us from the courts and the Prosecution Offices, periodic information that we request from the courts and the Prosecution Office in order to see the issues they encounter. Thirdly, through other sources of information, including from other institutions, that is, when they propose thematic inspections, as has been the case with the councils, the Prosecutor General’s Office, or if there is a complainant who raises an issue or a phenomenon within the system, we again discuss it in meetings with the inspectors, and taking into account the human resources that we have, the time, the type of inspection, we arrive at the calendar, which is publicly available on the website. This year the calendar provides for nine thematic inspections, which, from our point of view, affect the foundation or the essence of the concerns that citizens have, from the duration of proceedings to the scheduling of court hearings, the effectiveness of magistrates’ work during hearings, and so on.<\/p>

Regarding the continuation of your second question: is there a need for legislative amendments to make the recommendations binding? In fact, this has also been mentioned in previous discussions. Personally, I think not, because a recommendation is a recommendation. That is to say, it relates to what I said at the beginning, namely that beyond the legal obligation, institutions must also have the motivation to do things, and not everything is solved through obligation, not everything is solved through force. Things are solved through trust in each other’s work and through proper human institutional relations, because we also have to consider the inverse, namely whether the recommendations produced by the institution of the High Inspector of Justice themselves could be problematic. So, in other words, the process of recommendations issued by the High Inspector of Justice should be a process of consultation with the institution that implements the recommendations. It should be a dynamic process of completing them or even changing them if the institutions find reasons or difficulties in implementing them. In other words, it is something for which it is difficult to make the implementation of the recommendations issued by the institution of the High Inspector of Justice legally binding, in my personal view. Nevertheless, perhaps this requires a deeper analysis, but that was my initial reaction to this question.<\/p>

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Colleague Komici has asked for the floor for a question.<\/p>

Member of Parliament Olsi Komici:<\/strong> Thank you, Mr. Chair, honorable Mr. Metani. Now, the nature of the complaints that come to your institution is understood to be diverse. There are complaints concerning corruption, concerning unjust decisions, which in a way overlap with one another. So, where there are allegations of unjust decision-making, a considerable percentage is also related to corruption. Likewise, there are also complaints of nature that different court decisions are issued in writing with delays for various reasons, whether of an objective nature or also of a subjective nature. First of all, I would like to know your perception or your opinion, whether institutional or personal, based on the considerable experience you have in the field of justice in various state institutions. That is to say, have you conducted any analysis regarding this relationship, namely complaints concerning corruption or unjust decision-making, in relation to your own decisions? And what interests me most is how the balance of public perception develops, that is, the restoration of public trust in the justice system\u2014how does this relationship stand? In other words, what is the public perception, in your opinion, based on the analysis or the decisions that you have made regarding complaints of this category? \u2026my second question concerns the backlog, which in fact is a chronic problem in the justice institutions, both in the Prosecution Office and in the judiciary. I raise this in connection with the issue of issuing written decisions. I would like your opinion on how action could be taken, or whether there is any procedure or any supporting element, based especially on your experience, that could help reduce the backlog. Thank you.<\/p>

High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani:<\/strong> So, regarding the first question, according to the law, every decision of the High Inspector of Justice may be appealed before the councils, before the High Prosecutorial Council if the complaint concerns a prosecutor, or before the High Judicial Council if the complaint concerns a judge. The High Inspector of Justice has carried out a very broad awareness campaign for two things: first, it has asked everyone, every citizen, institutions, and everyone interested in justice matters to submit a complaint. Why? It is important that a complaint be submitted because only by going through this process does the complainant have the right, first, to receive information about what is happening within the office of the High Inspector of Justice regarding the handling of the complaint, and second, the complainant acquires the right to appeal the HIJ’s decision if dissatisfied with the decision of the High Inspector of Justice, because this is the only way to make the institution subject to oversight.<\/p>

And I note with satisfaction that the number of complaints filed by citizens against the decisions of the High Inspector of Justice, in the sense of appeals submitted to the Councils, is not a small number. At the same time, I am also pleased that, on the other hand, in no case have the Councils, as I pointed out above, nor the Appeals Chamber when it has had the opportunity, nor the European Court of Human Rights, in those cases where it has conducted a review, overturned procedures carried out by the High Inspector of Justice as incomplete, unprofessional, or involving double standards\u2026and for me this is the most important thing. Out of more than eight thousand complaints processed by the High Inspector of Justice over these six years, there is not a single case showing that the High Inspector of Justice has applied double standards in case X or case Y.<\/p>

\u2026. this is also related to the continuation of your question, namely the issue of public perception regarding the High Inspector of Justice. I do not know exactly what you had in mind\u2014whether you meant public perception regarding the High Inspector of Justice, or perhaps I misunderstood? Ah, okay!<\/p>

Regarding the justice system, this is also something that requires a mechanism, a methodology, and certainly other institutions that carry out this process. For me and for the inspectors who work in the office of the High Inspector of Justice, it has been and continues to be important, from day one until today, to fulfill the obligation that we have. That is, the obligation established by the constitutional framework and the law. Whether this mechanism chosen by the legislator, through the adoption of the constitutional and legislative amendments, will then translate into increased public perception is another matter. But the High Inspector of Justice is rigorously implementing the obligation established by the Constitution and the law, and perhaps this requires an earlier analysis as to whether it will necessarily produce greater public perception or not regarding the work of the justice system.<\/p>

Nevertheless, in any case, if I may elaborate on the question, because it is very important, the accountability system has two very important components: answerability and responsibility. Answerability relates to elements concerning the appointment of magistrates, the initial training of magistrates, the verification of their assets, the role of the higher courts in supervising the work of judges and prosecutors, and the guarantees they should have or the integrity checks carried out through the respective institutions. So, once this entire system of answerability is functioning, if somewhere it fails and does not work, then we move to the system of responsibility, and responsibility is civil, criminal, and administrative. The Constitution and the law have provided mechanisms that activate these three types of responsibility but we cannot seek to resolve situations, or the malfunctioning of one part of the answerability system, necessarily through the disciplinary responsibility of magistrates. This is very important to me, and that is why I say that the relationships between institutions should be more flexible, in order to understand precisely this role that we have and to contribute as much as we can, because not everything depends on the work of the justice institutions. It also depends, I would say, on infrastructure, which requires another kind of cooperation, including with the Government and with Parliament. So, in other words, this entire process is complex. That is why it is very difficult, in my view, to measure public perception, because the situation is what it is, but there is a very large mechanism that must function as a whole in the best possible way. If one link fails to function, it affects the entire chain of the work of the other institutions. Thank you.<\/p>

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Thank you, Mr. Metani. Mr. Bylykbashi!<\/p>

Member of Parliament Oerd Bylykbashi:<\/strong> Thank you, Mr. Chair! Thank you for the report, honorable High Inspector of Justice.<\/p>

Mr. Metani, in less than a month, it will be 10 years since we adopted, with 140 votes, the justice reform, the constitutional amendments, because afterwards the justice reform deviated from what was adopted. Even what was adopted has its problems, but nevertheless it received the consensus that it received at the time, and I believe there is no ambiguity here. Starting with the Chair, we were on the same Justice Reform Committee, but also others who have followed my public positions over these 10 years know this.<\/p>

My main criticism has been directed at the architecture of the system, specifically at the fragmentation of the justice system. At the beginning, in fact, the number of institutional acronyms was such that even the best expert would forget them along the way and could not make it to the last one, but some of them were eliminated. So, the system would have been even more fragmented than the one we have today.<\/p>

And one of the problems that it would produce\u2014you could see it sitting at the table, looking at it on paper\u2014was that these institutions, if they did not come into conflict, would need time to find common ground with one another. Where do I have my competence, where do you have yours? When one sends something, will the other implement it or not? That is another matter.<\/p>

And from what you report\u2014and this is not the first time but the umpteenth time\u2014and also from the answers that you gave, one understands a certain kind of, let’s say, frustration in exercising, and in the need to exercise, such an important duty. So, practically, you are one of the key elements of the system. The debate about the inspector being outside, that is, being a separate institution, is very old, much older than 2016, the removal from the Ministry of Justice of that part, remaining within the magistracy system in order to be more independent. But here we are.<\/p>

So, you issue recommendations and afterwards others decide whether they will implement them or not. You say there is cooperation, but it remains at the formal level, and afterwards there is no follow-up. So, I also agree with what you are saying. There are two things. It is not only internal, it is not only that you are obliged to cooperate at such high constitutional levels, but it is also an honor to exercise that function, and part of that is to be active so that this system functions even better than what has been written. That is what I believe, and that was one of the hopes that, despite a poor constitutional design of the justice system, general goodwill and individual goodwill would fill the gaps.<\/p>

Apparently, here we are, and we have this situation.<\/p>

Likewise, I agree with what you are saying. Perhaps it is not necessary to change the law, because we constantly find changing the law to be the recipe. There is a saying that is very old, around 25 years old, from another institution\u2014not about this but about other issues\u2014which said: “Changing the law is not a recipe for replacing the lack of goodwill.” No matter how much we write, we will still end up with terrible laws that go beyond even the most detailed secondary legislation. We cannot do this. It becomes fragile, unenforceable, and so on.<\/p>

Nevertheless, there is a very high number of complaints that come to you and perhaps when you do not provide answers\u2014well, part of what I am saying is discussion, these are observations\u2014I will say that we can ask questions continuously from one reporting session to another and nothing happens.<\/p>

I want to understand is how much of these complaints that come to you\u2014you filter them, you analyze them\u2014are complaints about the way the justice system functions, and how many are because, in the end, the system\u2014not the justice system, but the system, let’s say, the administration, the state\u2014has forced people to collide with a system that ultimately remains a bottleneck.<\/p>

The judiciary, as it is, at least because of the procedures, is more constrained; it is not that agile in solving problems, otherwise it would make mistakes. So, people have been forced to go there and collide with a system that becomes more and more overloaded, and in the end they no longer even understand where their real problem lies.<\/p>

So, from this kind of volume, how much do you understand? You said there have been 8,000 complaints over six years, while at the same time you referred to another number of over 3,000 for this year. So, over six years there have been more than 8,000, and around 3,000 are the most recent. So, the numbers are very high.<\/p>

The solution cannot be found at the HIJ, nor is it solved in the judiciary by sending everything there. So, people collide with the judiciary and then look for where to take their grievance. At one time they looked for it through the vetting process. They filed complaints seeking a solution, they looked for the solution in vetting. Afterwards, now it is at SPAK. Perhaps next it will be the High Inspector of Justice. Everywhere, the focus will always shift. The problem, in fact, is somewhere else.<\/p>

So, people are forced to go to the judiciary. They receive a very simple fine and cannot find a solution. The possibility to appeal is not easy; the burden is difficult. There is also the terrible perception. Entering the justice system is like the inscription in Dante’s Inferno<\/strong>: “Abandon all hope, you who enter here.” Your story is over. It is very simple.<\/p>

If someone calculates that today it takes 16 years to complete the process\u2014and last year it had improved by 16 days, now perhaps it has improved by a few more days, so it may have gone down a little\u2014anyone who thinks they can find a solution regarding money, property, another injustice, a contract, loses hope.<\/p>

Around two-thirds of the backlog consists of civil and administrative cases, the greater part being civil and administrative, while the remainder consists of criminal cases, and SPAK is only a fraction. We all talk about SPAK, but in fact the problems are elsewhere.<\/p>

Now, all those people are involved in civil proceedings where the parties are two individuals who have nothing to do with the state. When they think that the issue they have will be resolved after 16 years, they are horrified.<\/p>

Of course, this will also lead to even more complaints coming to you because, in the end, one party thinks that an injustice has been committed against them, and the other thinks the same, and that is what happens.<\/p>

But we have a deterioration of the system, of the system’s performance.<\/p>

I do not know whether you are in a position to answer this, but certainly what interests me is to understand why, out of all these cases examined, more than 1,600 cases examined by you, there have been only 13 disciplinary proceedings and only 8 magistrates referred.<\/p>

I understand that often there is no evidence; sometimes people simply cannot bear the injustice they are suffering any longer. We do not have an endless number of judges.<\/p>

The solution is not\u2014at least that is how I understood you\u2014that it is only the most severe disciplinary measure. Judges should also understand that they may need to change course, eventually, and prosecutors as well. But the number is small.<\/p>

Is this also because you find that your recommendations are not effective, because the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council do not respond to you? Because if this fragmentation of the system that I mentioned earlier causes this\u2014you do it once, twice, three times, year after year you see that it has no effect\u2014then perhaps we should think of another solution at the constitutional level, or perhaps not, I do not know.<\/p>

But we need to understand from you whether these small numbers are because there really is no evidence, or because, in the end, the system produces nothing.<\/p>

Is it worth constantly confronting a system like this? In the end, you will cooperate with one another, and one hand will wash the other. No one escapes that. It comes as a result of this design, for which you are ultimately not responsible.<\/p>

You are a body, a single-person institution that has an administration, that has experienced people and other professionals within it, but in the end you are faced with all these complaints, and in the end this is all that is produced.<\/p>

People who look at this report from the outside say: “So, the mountain labored and brought forth a mouse?<\/p>

\u2026. And this is a matter of perception. We cannot place this on the High Inspector of Justice. It belongs to the whole system, the justice system as a whole.<\/p>

We are facing almost a \u201cChronicle of a Death Foretold\u201d. All these things were said.<\/p>

Since we insist on learning things the hard way, by banging our heads against the wall, with around 200,000 cases in the backlog\u2014the polite Albanian term is “a mountain of cases”\u2014everyone loses; they no longer understand where they can find justice within that system.<\/p>

I do not know what the HIJ can do about this issue, but nevertheless it is absolutely necessary that, for better or worse, if the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council\u2014in the end they are the ones who will decide\u2014disagree with you, then you, on your part, should put that aspect under the greatest possible pressure.<\/p>

So, if their level of compliance is such that they prefer not to achieve results, you should do your part.<\/p>

Of course, part of the flawed solution is the fact that the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council have a very delicate balance between magistrate members and non-magistrate members. Six to five\u2014the margin is very easy to cross, to be under Parliament’s control, consequently under political control, rather than under the control of the professional corps. It is very simple. And afterwards, that can influence what the final decisions will be, including regarding your recommendations.<\/p>

We could talk endlessly about this issue, but I wanted to focus on those elements where you think you may be able to give me an answer. I would welcome it.<\/p>

But I wanted to highlight one fact: we are 10 years later.<\/p>

It is true that reforms take years, but if we need another 10 years, and all of us have at most another 10 to 30 years of active professional life, people cannot wait indefinitely for a system to function, nor can they begin today thinking that they must leave as their inheritance the way a case will be resolved, or how it will eventually be resolved, because they themselves will never live to see the end of it, even though they are the complainants.<\/p>

Thank you.<\/p>

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Yes, thank you, Mr. Bylykbashi. Mr. Metani, you have the floor to respond to those points that you consider to be questions from Mr. Bylykbashi.<\/p>

High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani:<\/strong> Mr. Bylykbashi, in fact, gave an overview both of public perception and of his personal views regarding the architecture and the situation in which the justice system finds itself today. There was also politics in it\u2014not in the negative sense, but there was policymaking, there were constitutional issues, constitutional law, and there were personal opinions. So, it is difficult to summarize everything that he said, but on two or three points that I managed to retain, on some I agree with Mr. Bylykbashi, and on some I personally do not.<\/p>

For example, I think that the architecture of the justice system is the best that we could have designed, precisely for the separation and balancing of powers through the justice institutions. Many institutions were created, and perhaps this is where measures should have been taken, because those institutions needed to be staffed with people, but that is another issue from my point of view. I am speaking about the architecture in the constitutional sense. It is an architecture that does not allow any institution to become more powerful than another. Everyone oversees everyone else’s work, and for me that is very important.<\/p>

Secondly, the situation, perhaps viewed from the outside, may appear as you described it\u2014that, so to speak, the mountain labored and gave birth, from 1,600 complaints it produced 8 disciplinary proceedings. However, that is not the case. That is why I gave the presentation. First of all, 1,600 complaints were processed, they were verified. Verifying complaints means that 1,600 case files were reviewed, 1,600 letters were sent from the Office of the High Inspector of Justice to prosecutor X, Y, and Z, requesting their case files, informing them that they would be monitored, in accordance with the constitutional framework. On 1,600 occasions, prosecutors and judges have felt that their work is being reviewed. And for me, whether there will ultimately be grounds for a disciplinary investigation or subsequently for disciplinary proceedings depends on the available evidence and on the nature of the complaint.<\/p>

For me it is important\u2014and this is also emphasized in the international reports\u2014that we believe the system, or the mechanism, for reviewing the work of judges functions, because it also functions constitutionally.<\/p>

For me it is very important that the High Inspector of Justice, as a single-person institution, is a delicate institution which, in my opinion, requires a very high degree of democratic and policymaking maturity, not only in its relationship with Parliament but in relation to society as a whole, because it is an institution in which one person, one individual, has the authority to decide whether or not to initiate a disciplinary investigation.<\/p>

Surely you agree with me that a disciplinary investigation initiated because of public pressure, but contrary to the Constitution, becomes an instrument of intimidation against prosecutors and judges. And this is the important balance that we are trying to maintain, even at the cost of bearing criticism.<\/p>

Even regarding what you said, that the mountain labored and gave birth to a mouse, whereas in reality it is not so. Those are the numbers: 1,600 procedures.<\/p>

But I would like to share something with you, because this is the moment when I can speak freely, to tell the truth, because we are not doing politics here; these are also personal reflections that come from six years of experience.<\/p>

Look, every day we have debates with one another, individual emotions regarding a case. And when I speak about pressure, I do not necessarily mean political pressure, I do not necessarily mean media pressure, and so on. There is also pressure against oneself, but also pressure in the broader social sense of the word, regarding a case where you understand that you have no possibility to intervene because the Constitution does not allow you to, even though you know that the judge’s or prosecutor’s decision might have been different in nature.<\/p>

And this is the greatest guarantee that we are trying to provide to judges and prosecutors: that the High Inspector of Justice, delicate as an institution, is trying to preserve this important constitutional balance\u2014not as a benefit for you judges and prosecutors, but so that you may feel free to exercise your duties, naturally free not only from politics, but also from other interests, financial interests, and so on.<\/p>

Consolidating this mentality within the judiciary is not only about exercising powers; it is also a matter of social maturity, something that judges will achieve over time, because it is a process, and here we are.<\/p>

To be a good judge, in my opinion, it is very difficult for judges to understand that they are judges 24 hours a day, not 8 hours a day. Being a judge or a prosecutor is a way of being, a way of thinking; it is not merely a profession.<\/p>

But that is something that I think, and perhaps you think, and perhaps all of us here think together, but not everyone thinks that way. Imposing this kind of mentality through disciplinary proceedings would produce the opposite result: it would turn the High Inspector of Justice into an instrument of intimidation.<\/p>

For me it would be very easy\u2014and to be honest\u2014that out of 8,000 complaints, there could have been 8,000 disciplinary investigations. Perhaps I would have achieved better public perception, but I would have turned the institution into an instrument of repression, not only for myself, but also for those who come after me.<\/p>

For me, standards are extremely important\u2014not only for the work that we are establishing today, but also for those who may try to dismantle it tomorrow.<\/p>

And that is what I would like this committee to assess regarding the work carried out by the High Inspector of Justice. Because certainly, if we look at it only from the perspective of public opinion\u2014you handled so many complaints, the battle is lost\u2014since the situation does not speak in favor of the justice institutions, not because of their fault, or not necessarily because of their fault.<\/p>

We go and inspect judges and prosecutors for exceeding deadlines in issuing written decisions, and when we go there, we do not even have a place to sit because there is no space. There are files everywhere. And then, even from a human perspective, how can I initiate disciplinary proceedings when I can clearly see that the person simply does not have the human capacity to issue the written decision? How can I? I do not know.<\/p>

And this is what we are trying to do. If we see negligence on the part of a judge or prosecutor regarding delays in issuing written decisions, then we intervene firmly. We have referred a considerable number of magistrates for dismissal, even though the Councils concluded that dismissal was not warranted. But in no case have the Councils stated that the disciplinary proceedings themselves were unfounded. That sends a message to magistrates that these kinds of violations will have consequences.<\/p>

Can more be done? Yes, yes, yes, certainly more can be done. That is why, in 2022, I requested a greater role for Parliament. Yes, monitor our work, but we also need to talk. We need to share. We need to coordinate with one another.<\/p>

And this committee, or another committee elsewhere, or another mechanism, could be the best instrument through which we could express these concerns\u2014not in the sense of demanding accountability, because accountability is another process\u2014but by sharing these concerns and discussing how we can help one another.<\/p>

Because everything begins with trust in one another: that the work you do here and the work they do there rests on a common foundation\u2014honesty and respect for the law. Only that can move things forward, both in terms of cooperation among the justice institutions and in terms of cooperation between the justice institutions and Parliament.<\/p>

Yes, it is a very long issue, as you yourself also said.<\/p>

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Yes, thank you, Mr. Metani.<\/p>

Member of Parliament Oerd Bylykbashi:<\/strong> Please allow me to add one final point. I understand, and I agree, that the reason this kind of architecture was created was to establish checks and balances within the system. But it went beyond what was necessary.<\/p>

The system is more divided and more balanced than it should be, thereby weakening its relationship with the other branch of government, namely the executive, and that has exposed it.<\/p>

So, if you are an internal balancing element, I would spare\u2014in no case would I sacrifice\u2014the High Inspector of Justice, but I might sacrifice one of the two Councils: a single Council, one supreme body of magistrates, standing face to face, on equal footing, at the same constitutional level, and with the same institutional authority that a constitutional institution has, in relation to the other branch of government, whether Parliament or the executive, which has always been the major issue.<\/p>

In that respect, this has also led to the situation where the administration is no longer afraid of the judiciary because nothing happens to it anymore; nothing comes back against it. It simply creates injustices.<\/p>

Those injustices go to the judiciary, people complain, and the burden is placed on the justice system as well.<\/p>

That is the logic I was referring to.<\/p>

Thank you.<\/p>

Chairman of the Commission Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Are there any other questions? I have one question before I say a few words about the report, Mr. Metani. Do you publish the results of thematic and individual inspections on the official website of the High Inspector of Justice? And secondly, the large number of complaints that came out here, which has a relatively considerable number of carried-over complaints, but also new ones, and that Mrs. Bylykbashi said that it can also be taken as an indicator of increased trust in the High Inspector of Justice, but you can also look at it from the other point of view; the systemic problems. So, you can look at the increase in the number of complaints from both sides of the medal. I am curious to know, based on individual cases made public in the media that have to do with one of the causes of the complaints, which are delays in the reasoning of decisions, and I have also seen reasonings, decisions reasoned after such a long delay that even a judge would find it difficult to comprehend. What do they say, when you have inspected them? I am very curious to know, apart from the fact that they have no working conditions because they have nowhere to sit, that is also problematic for the system. What do they say when they are interviewed by your inspectors as to why a decision is reasoned with an 18-month delay or with a one-year delay, for example? It is reasoned that in order to pronounce it, they pronounce it on time; that much they do manage. I am very curious to know this, a justification, even a human one. Those are my two questions, then I will say a few words about the report.<\/p>

High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani:<\/strong> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well then, the website, that is, of the High Inspector of Justice, is very rich with the information that you mentioned. So, every completed thematic inspection is found on the website of the High Inspector of Justice, together with the recommendations, findings, and so on. Institutional inspections as well. Individual inspections are not found there, that is to say, the handling of individual complaints, because they are confidential, but as regards the complaint process, on the website of the High Inspector of Justice there is a mini-commentary, let me call it that, which guides citizens regarding the admissibility criteria and the types of decisions that the High Inspector of Justice issues, illustrated with models, in order to explain to citizens in which cases the complaint is admissible or, on the contrary, is archived. In any case, the website of the High Inspector of Justice has every piece of information that anyone needs to obtain from the institution without having the opportunity or the obligation to contact the Office of the High Inspector of Justice. I think that it is one of the most transparent websites that the justice institutions have, at least.<\/p>

Secondly, regarding the number of complaints, I also agree that the increase in the number of complaints does not necessarily indicate an increase in trust, nor does it necessarily indicate what you said, because on the other hand it may indicate that, due to the increase in the number of judges, the number of judicial proceedings also begins to increase, meaning that more complaints are produced. So it is very difficult to measure the reasons why the number of complaints increases, and we are not going to enter into that kind of reasoning.<\/p>

With regard to the drafting or the delays, to answer your question, one sentence is: workload. We are delayed in drafting decisions because there is workload, there is a heavy caseload, and so on. The distinction that we make is that we try to understand where there is a normal workload and where there is negligence, both in the planning of court hearings, in the conduct of judicial procedures or hearings, and in the delayed drafting of decisions by judges. And in those cases where we believe that there is negligence on the part of the magistrate, which undoubtedly has also brought discredit to the image of the judge or prosecutor, we have proceeded with disciplinary proceedings. For this reason, I also declared before this Commission two years ago about a thematic inspection that we conducted at the Tirana Court. This is precisely what I want to explain to you, the mechanism of how we function, how we try to analyze negligence and the real workload that judges and prosecutors have.<\/p>

At the Tirana Court we conducted an inspection, I believe two years ago, on the duration of the drafting of civil decisions for a four-month period, because we wanted to take a snapshot of that moment, so for four months what happened at the Tirana Court with this process, the process of drafting judicial decisions, and the results came out. We measured the number of judges at the court, the number of decisions that these judges drafted over a certain period of time, and according to that analysis it turned out that, for a certain period, the delay in drafting decisions started from day 21, that is, one day after the deadline provided by the Code had passed, up to 1,700 days.<\/p>

The fundamental question is where you will start the investigation. Will you start the investigation for all judges who have gone beyond day 21 and thus end up putting all judges under investigation? But naturally you have to strike a balance, because even if you wanted to, you do not have enough inspectors to place all judges under investigation for exceeding the deadline for drafting judicial decisions by one day.<\/p>

And we made the analysis of how much time the majority of judges draft their decisions, and according to this it came out to 120 days. That is, the majority of judges, almost 90% of the judges of the Tirana Court, for the period of time that we measured, had drafted their decisions approximately 120 days after issuing the judicial decision. And we said that only for this period of time, for the judges whom we found beyond the 120-day deadline, that is, beyond the average deadline, we would refer them to disciplinary investigation, to see why they had drafted them with delay. Those who had drafted them within this period were within the logic that there had been a workload, because it was the majority of judges who had drafted their decisions. And after we carried out this investigation, we proceeded with disciplinary proceedings against judges.<\/p>

I am saying this to show how it functions, how we think, and how we try to approach the workload that judges have, but also in relation to the obligation that they have, because after all, citizens, I agree with Mr. Bylykbashi, citizens no longer want to know about the workloads that the system has or about the delays of the system. They want the judicial decision.<\/p>

Finding this balance is very difficult, and that is what we are trying to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.<\/p>

Chairman of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Yes, thank you, Mr. Metani. In fact, as you yourself said, this is the sixth year of your reporting before the Committee, but this time, unlike the previous reports, you have the Deputy High Inspector of Justice, who, after six years, was finally appointed. This too has been one of the problems in the implementation of the justice reform\u2014the filling of a very important position in your institution, even though you are a monocratic institution. Now, we have had them here, and both the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council have reported, as has the Prosecutor General. On the 3rd, if I am not mistaken, we have also scheduled the head of SPAK, but no matter how you turn the problem around, no one is holding the “hot potato” of the real problems that the justice system has had during these ten years of implementing the reform. We are not holding it either\u2014not even we, who have been elected by the people and who are members of this Committee and of the Assembly of Albania in order to address some of the concerns that the system has. We are not holding it, and I want to begin with the composition of the councils.<\/p>

I do not think that politics has a hand in the non-magistrate members. I do not share that opinion, because if politics had a hand in it, we would have found a way long ago to elect the non-magistrate members as the Constitution and the law require. Instead, we have left it to the hand of God, and the non-magistrate members who are in the councils, whether in the High Prosecutorial Council or in the High Judicial Council, say: “We are here by the hand of God, by the lottery balls.”<\/p>

Now, the issue is this: are the best candidates and the best capacities coming from the legal profession, from academia, and from civil society going to the councils? Certainly, the best capacities are not going there, and we have\u2014not that I would say we have hesitated\u2014we have refused to cooperate on this point in order to increase the capacities and the quality that the councils should have, because the prosecutors and the judges elect themselves. They have their own mechanism: six prosecutors and six judges elect themselves. But at least regarding the part that we send, for years\u2014I do not know how many times the councils have been renewed; I think twice\u2014in both cases they have been chosen by lot. And this is so true that, believe me, there are people who are in those councils who themselves cannot believe that they are there. They do not believe it.<\/p>

I do not want to dwell on a meeting we had not long ago in Durr\u00ebs, among our three countries: Romania, as a member state of the European Union; Moldova, as a candidate country; and Albania, which is somewhat one step ahead; and among the respective councils\u2014the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council of Moldova, and the Superior Council of Magistracy of Romania. It does not do us any honor when the representatives of these councils themselves say that they are there because God chose them, because the lottery ball picked them, instead of speaking honestly about the concerns that the system has, because the system unquestionably has concerns.<\/p>

And I want, since I began with myself, to say that first of all we too, when we speak about the system, should assume the responsibilities that belong to us\u2014the responsibilities entrusted to us by the Constitution and the law, after all\u2014because nobody is asking anyone to go into the courtroom. You said it, but it does not even need to be said that there is a lack of concrete and continuous cooperation among the institutions of the justice system. It is obvious. I know it from experience, but it is also obvious from the reports.<\/p>

If a joint meeting is held between the two councils, where the High Inspector of Justice, or the Prosecutor General, or the Minister of Justice is invited, that joint meeting\u2014even if it is held only twice a year\u2014is held because the recommendations of the Assembly’s Resolution have to be fulfilled, whereas in fact it is a legal obligation. But it does not matter whether you meet or not, because you can even meet five times a year formally. The issue is what you said: when the constitutional actors of the justice system meet, is there a real discussion and a real concern for the system? Is there discussion and accountability on the part of each actor in responding to the systemic problems and not only to the 140,000 backlog cases?<\/p>

This is a problem that we have today because of the well-known reasons related to the vetting process, to the shortage of judges and prosecutors in the system. But this cause too will disappear by the end of 2028. We will have 341 prosecutors and 408 judges. Although it was said here that there will never actually be 408 judges, because 25 of them, by operation of law, are in other institutions\u2014they are in the High Judicial Council, in the High Prosecutorial Council, now I am speaking about both, they are in the High Inspector of Justice to complete that number that is there, they are seconded to the Ministry of Justice. So we have far fewer judges and prosecutors who actually handle cases in courtrooms.<\/p>

This cause too will disappear. But will the problem we have be solved?<\/p>

And I agree with you when you say that being a judge or a prosecutor is not an eight-hour job. It is a responsibility, a responsibility of a completely different level from other kinds of responsibilities, because you have been entrusted with the mission of delivering justice between two parties who have come to the court seeking a solution to a problem. But if the case that has come into your hands, the matter that has come into your hands for you to administer justice, you see it as something foreign, as something external, then the drafting of the judgment will take 17 months, and it will also take two years, because you do not care.<\/p>

And I am convinced\u2014you carried out that thematic inspection at the Tirana Court\u2014but I did not want to prolong it with questions, because within the files you reviewed, I am convinced that there are judges who, when they wanted to, drafted the judgment within the procedural deadline, and when they did not want to, they justified themselves with the workload and only started on the twenty-first day, and then it went on for as long as 17 months.<\/p>

I also agree with you when you say: if we take this performance indicator of judges, we will dismiss all of them. But that is not the solution. What concerns me is why they draft some judgments on time while another part of the judgments they do not draft on time, because there is always a reason why. And once again, it comes back to conscience.<\/p>

Discipline at work\u2014I have raised this issue even when I had the representatives of the Councils here. I agree that the Government must do its part regarding infrastructure, providing at least the minimum conditions for people to work, but today no one controls discipline at work. What is discipline at work like? Because it comes down to the response mechanism. The prosecution office is next to the court. The judge, when he has his hearings and a judicial panel has been formed, agrees there: they leave Monday and Tuesday, I will even give you Wednesday for your sake, and after Wednesday, until the following Monday comes around, there is no one there anymore. You only find the chief secretary of the court there. You may find the president of the court if he happens to live where he works, because now we have one large court and one large prosecution office, since everyone lives in Tirana.<\/p>

So, while judges and prosecutors should work like every other public official in this country, as you and your staff work eight hours a day from Monday to Friday, at least eight hours, because when there is a heavy workload the job has no schedule, but at a minimum, just as everyone else works, they too should work, because when you do not feel responsible, this is how matters have reached this point. These, too, are problems in themselves.<\/p>

And when they are asked how this issue should be resolved, they say: “Judges are independent.” Well, they are independent in the cases they hear, in the decisions they make and issue, but they are not independent from the law, nor from formal discipline at work. And when they are asked what we should do to address this problem, they say: “It is in the hands of the High Inspector of Justice.”<\/p>

Well then, if the High Inspector of Justice is the one who is responsible for accountability in the system, that is, for supervising the system, you have the decision-making authority. How are we going to solve this issue? Are you the government of the judiciary? Are you the government of the prosecution service? Do you manage the career system of these judges and prosecutors? Then how is it that, with such ease, when they compete for promotion to higher positions that become vacant, these kinds of concerns raised by the High Inspector of Justice, which are written right there in the inspections he has carried out, are not taken into consideration? So they see it as something external.<\/p>

When you ask them what the High Judicial Council or the High Prosecutorial Council is doing in the specific case, everyone washes their hands of it.<\/p>

And there is another concern that has been raised.<\/p>

“Mr. Inspector, here, regardless of the explanations that were given, it is a good thing that the issue of appointing heads of institutions has finally been resolved. Now the problem is that there are no candidates because everyone wants to come to Tirana. They go to the district prosecution offices or the district courts, and whoever meets the criteria to become a judge in the Court of Appeal or in a larger court, when the competition opens there, does not enter the competition to become the head, because everyone wants to come here, to Tirana.”<\/p>

Whereas I am not saying this to boast, but I come from the system. It used to be an honor to be a judge and a prosecutor, an honor for a lifetime.<\/p>

Another thing that concerns me is this: not everything can be solved through inspections or disciplinary measures. And how many years will it take before we reach the level of awareness that you are talking about? So there will come a moment of maturity for the councils and for the other institutions of the justice system as well. But when will this moment of maturity come? Because ten years have passed, and the cases are still there…<\/p>

They have only just begun studying. The High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, taking into account the workload they have, the current number of judges and prosecutors, and the matrix for filling the vacancies by 2028, are carrying out a study on how many prosecutors and judges there should be once the vacancies created by the vetting process have been filled.<\/p>

I would invite you to become part of this discussion as well, and we will encourage you to become part of this discussion, because all the measurable indicators of the system need to be put to use in order to assess whether we should have a larger number of judges and prosecutors or whether we should not. And we should not base ourselves on the backlog. There are European CEPEJ standards established for this, but we have suggested the reallocation of human resources.<\/p>

For example, today the prosecution system has prosecution offices and courts with average or below-average workloads, while the Tirana Court and the Tirana Prosecution Office are operating at twice their capacity. Nevertheless, you should become part of this discussion because you have the data that result from the thematic inspections and the institutional inspections that you carry out.<\/p>

There is… and here I would like to make a suggestion, Mr. Inspector, and I did not ask the question by chance: do you publish the thematic inspections or do you not publish them? Because I know that you do publish both the thematic inspections and the institutional inspections, and I have seen them. I have also seen your website, just as I have read the international reports and the European Union progress reports that assess the work of the High Inspector of Justice.<\/p>

But perhaps, although I do not believe that the person who shouts the loudest is always the one who is right\u2014I do not believe that\u2014perhaps when they neither listen to your requests made in person before the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, nor to the reports published on your website, nor when you submit them to the Assembly, the time has come for you to institutionalize communication with the public, to convey to public opinion what you actually do, the work that you do, because the work is being done.<\/p>

As for whether others choose to present themselves with gimmicks, even when they have nothing to present and simply make noise for nothing\u2014that is another matter.<\/p>

Mr. Bylykbashi says: “Sometimes you have to tear their skin as well.” That is true, because skin tears when there is nothing underneath. You can keep beating it as much as you like until the skin tears.<\/p>

Whereas you, the time has come for these results of the thematic inspections concerning the complaints you handle to be communicated to the people: here is the complaint, here is the inspection, here are the measures we have taken.<\/p>

Not that you have not done it already, but this creates the perception that some institutions, which supposedly shout louder, work more, while others that actually do the work and have chosen the institutional path of dealing with issues appear as though they are not working, even though the figures are there at the end of the day.<\/p>

The figures are there, the reports are there, the judges and prosecutors who have been inspected are there, the measures proposed to the councils are there, the councils’ decisions are there.<\/p>

I am not saying that the dismissal of a judge or a prosecutor should become the norm. The dismissal of a judge or a prosecutor is news in every democratic country in the world. It is not easy for a judge or a prosecutor to be dismissed. But at the very least, this work that is being done to put the system back on track should be made known. It is\u2014and now the time has come! You have enough years behind you at the head of that institution that what you write, what you do, and what you submit to the Councils should also be heard by the public directly from you. Not that they have not heard it, but they need to hear it.<\/p>

Take a thematic inspection, go to the institutions, present it, because you deal with 3,700 complaints a year. Why does everyone wash their hands of responsibility whenever something sensitive appears in public opinion, and then the High Inspector takes it into his hands? And when the Inspector, after one month or two months, presents the results of that inspection, people say: “Oh well, that issue has already passed now, because something else has happened. This one was nothing.”<\/p>

Oh, it was nothing, was it? So the inspectors went there, carried out the inspection, examined the files one by one, looked into all the problems. So this turns out to be something\u2014but only when it happens. Once the matter has been clarified, it is no longer news.<\/p>

This is my suggestion, my own conclusion, which I have reached from all the hearings that I have listened to here.<\/p>

As for the problems you have, of course it is a shortcoming that there are vacancies in the number of inspectors. I hope they will be filled, but I do not think they are absolutely necessary or indispensable for the institution. Nor do I think that the work of the High Inspector of Justice has suffered because of the vacancies, because in the end you have sufficient supporting staff, and with the number of inspectors you currently have at your disposal you are able to respond to the challenges and the needs of the system.<\/p>

Having said all this, I am not saying that the rest of the system is black while the High Inspector of Justice is white, because the system has to be viewed in its entirety, from all 360 degrees.<\/p>

For my part, I have said it before, and here I agree with Mr. Bylykbashi. First of all, this is the level of councils that we have. I do not know how you see it. I am convinced that you too have viewed it with concern, just as we have. It is not good when the public is given messages through that level of debate and discussion within the constitutional institutions of the justice system, regardless of the nature of the debate. At the end of the day, colleagues debate among themselves, and especially lawyers debate among themselves, but the public should receive a different message from the institutions of the justice system.<\/p>

Then, if we go to what you said\u2014that justice, the system, and when I speak about the system I mean the substance of the system, those who administer justice and those who investigate\u2014if the magistrates produced by the School of Magistrates reflect the level of society, yes, of course they reflect it, but I know that being a judge is a profession of the elite of legal thought. Do you understand? And being a prosecutor as well, because society itself has its different strata. At least, that is how I have always understood it.<\/p>

There was an expression that we were told: “The law is a serious matter,” and we took this work seriously when we entered the justice system. That is how it should be.<\/p>

Now, if we have reached this point, we need to look much more deeply into where the defect lies. And here we return to where I began: starting with ourselves, including you, sitting together at one common table\u2014not by looking at the problem as if it belongs to someone else, because that way we will solve nothing.<\/p>

The Parliament, the executive, and the judiciary should sit down and discuss: what are we going to do with the future of the system?<\/p>

Of course, the system we have today is not the one we had before. Much has changed because of the reform we carried out. We have some measurable indicators, especially regarding the specialized institutions for combating corruption and organized crime, but that is not the whole system.<\/p>

If those institutions handle around 700 cases a year\u2014I do not have the exact figure now; I will look at it when they come here\u2014the Prosecutor General told us here: “I have 66,000 cases a year, including decisions not to initiate proceedings, plus new cases.”<\/p>

Do you know what 66,000 criminal complaints submitted to the 13 prosecution offices of general jurisdiction mean? They are Albanian citizens\u2014Albanian citizens who have turned to the prosecution service and who expect answers from that body of prosecutors, while we are looking at the issue from a very narrow angle.<\/p>

In any case, I apologize for speaking at such length, but you represent an institution which, when we designed the justice reform, we said would be: “The guarantee of the system, the guarantee of the system will be the High Inspector of Justice.” That is why we took it outside the former High Council of Justice and outside the authority of the Minister of Justice.<\/p>

Because when we speak about the Minister of Justice, we should not look at matters through the justice reform. The Minister of Justice disclaims responsibility and says that he deals with the policies of the system, although I do not even know exactly what system policies he deals with. He gathers the statistics manually from here and there, publishes an annual statistical report, and represents and defends the budget of the justice institutions. In fact, those institutions negotiate it themselves with the Ministry of Finance, but this task has remained with the Minister of Justice\u2014to defend it.<\/p>

This is the kind of discussion I am in favor of, this kind of discussion, because if you look at the reports, all the justice institutions that have submitted their reports to the Committee\u2014the reports, from the point of view of methodology and the work reflected in the indicators, because the figures do not change. If you have carried out 10 inspections, then 10 inspections are what are written there. I cannot make them 11 or 12, but neither can I make them five. We receive the reports precisely so that we can put our finger on where the wounds of the system are.<\/p>

I expect this kind of cooperation and reflection at the same time, but without pointing the finger at where the guilty party is, because at the end of the day we are all responsible for where we have arrived.<\/p>

So am I, together with Mr. Bylykbashi, because I have been a member of the Justice Reform Committee from day one until today, now that I am the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs.<\/p>

He less so, because he says: “I was involved up until the constitutional amendments and the SPAK law. After that,” he says, “I wasn’t involved.” No, but do you understand? “I wasn’t involved,” he says.<\/p>

Well, you did touch it a little… how can you say you were not involved in all of it when you were involved in those two? In the end, we are even, because he raised his hand for the Constitution, and from there he opened the way for everything else.<\/p>

That is all I had, Mr. Inspector.<\/p>

Member of Parliament<\/strong> Oerd Bylykbashi:<\/strong> If you can, that is, not in percentages, but where do these complaints differ, and in the comment that you may make, if I understood the answer correctly, where does this entire volume of complaints differ? What is the problem that belongs to the judiciary\u2014lack of capacity, laziness, if you like, etc.\u2014and what is it that comes from outside? So, does this entire large number reflect the malfunctioning of everyone because the justice system is being overwhelmed by injustices that come from the way the state functions? So, where does this distinction lie?<\/p>

Chairman of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Look, this would take us back to the beginning of the discussion once again. Look, they are written there. I looked at the typology of the complaints. If you look at them and divide the complaints into groups, that is, group together complaints of the same type, what Mr. Metani said is already known\u2014these are the complaints. But of course, he did say that the infrastructure of the buildings is one of the… it is one indicator, and we too have acknowledged that there are clashes, that the citizen runs into obstacles when he goes to seek justice. But in any case, Mr. Metani, one final word before I thank you and close the meeting.<\/p>

High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani:<\/strong> First of all, thank you to the rapporteur for the work and for the understanding regarding the situation in which the Office of the High Inspector of Justice finds itself, the problems, the challenges, and the achievements it has had. I naturally also appreciate the support of the Committee, precisely for this kind of discussion that we need to have together.<\/p>

Secondly, just one answer for Mr. Bylykbashi. The issue is that this is a perception, and this is an analysis that we do not make. I may have my own opinions on this, and I certainly do have my own opinions, but I refrain from expressing them because they could then become political. And that is something that solves nothing.<\/p>

The situation in the justice system is what it is, but I would ask, with great humility, that we be extremely careful, first, in analyzing the system, and second, regarding the solutions and the choices we make in order to fix and change things. I would not like us to form opinions or make decisions because of the emotion of today’s situation, and for that reason I very much agree with the roundtable that you are thinking of organizing.<\/p>

From day one, I have sought a much closer relationship, as High Inspector of Justice, with the Committee on Legal Affairs, or with anyone else, precisely to resolve these situations or to provide some guidance through ideas regarding the situation in which the justice system finds itself today, which is not necessarily a bad one.<\/p>

I have a different opinion. There are as many problems as you like, but very often the negative overshadows what is actually happening. The justice system we have today is not the one we had before. But now it has fallen to us to solve the problems that we have.<\/p>

At the very least, the system now has greater independence, and for me that is very important, because you mentioned that you removed the Office of the High Inspector of Justice from the institutions that could even have tainted the independence of magistrates, and you made it an independent institution. Precisely that, in my view, is the greatest achievement of the justice reform\u2014that it created it as an independent institution.<\/p>

From my point of view, even though it may sound arrogant, it is an institution that is performing independently, precisely in accordance with the mission given to it by the Constitution and by you, who made that constitutional amendment, because very often this is taken for granted, whereas in fact it is not. It is perhaps one of the most difficult duties that any person can have\u2014the duty of the High Inspector of Justice.<\/p>

I am not speaking about myself, because I already explained my own approach earlier, but he is the only person who has the authority to sign off on whether or not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a magistrate. If such proceedings are initiated because of public pressure, that is, contrary to the Constitution, they become a means of blackmail against magistrates, which certainly serves neither the citizens nor the system.<\/p>

Regarding another point, I agree with you: there cannot be one institution that functions while others do not. Either we all function, or none of us functions; either we all deserve it, or none of us deserves it, because this is very important. And this is not simply related to the individual who heads the institution; it is related to the performance of the governing bodies in relation to the citizens. That is why I say that either all of us will perform, or none of us will perform.<\/p>

Regarding discipline at work among magistrates, in fact, about a year ago I had the same perception, and for that reason we conceived a thematic inspection precisely to examine the discipline at work of magistrates\u2014not to interfere with their independence, as magistrates and the Councils often react, perhaps.<\/p>

It is very difficult to measure the eight-hour work discipline of a magistrate as a judge or as a prosecutor, for many reasons. But we launched a thematic inspection on the scheduling of court hearings and the conduct of court hearings in, I believe, nine or ten courts throughout the country, precisely to monitor the discipline of magistrates through the way they schedule court hearings and the way they follow that hearing schedule.<\/p>

This was done precisely to send magistrates, first of all, the message that discipline at work is monitored through a mechanism provided for by the Constitution and the law, without compromising or infringing upon their independence.<\/p>

That thematic inspection has been completed; it is available on the website, and in any case we can make it available to you. We have issued a large number of recommendations, mainly addressed to the High Judicial Council, and of course we will monitor the implementation of those recommendations.<\/p>

So I would say that every concern that appears in public, we try to address. It does not always turn out exactly as it is perceived by the public, because the findings that emerged from this thematic inspection do not entirely support the perception that judges and prosecutors either have discipline at work or have no discipline at all. There are problems, and for that reason we have issued recommendations, but this is something that must be carefully balanced.<\/p>

I very much agree with the public role that the High Inspector of Justice should have in relation to the inspections carried out, not simply to highlight the work that has been done, because the work is there, just as you said. Whoever wants to see it will see it; whoever does not want to see it will not see it. You could even come out beating drums, so to speak. But that is not the concern.<\/p>

Chairman of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> No, no, Mr. Inspector, I have a concern. When I made those suggestions, I think that those who see it and read it, but present it differently, should receive an answer, because that is my concern. That is why I say you should change your approach.<\/p>

High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani:<\/strong> Perhaps, but I am… look, perhaps you are…!<\/p>

Chairman of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> Even though you may tell me that those who do not want to read it as it is will never read it that way, even if you were to say it yourself… The issue is the relationship with the public.<\/p>

High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani:<\/strong> For me, it is important that the activity of institutions be transparent. That is, there is nothing that the High Inspector of Justice does that is not available on the website of the High Inspector of Justice, the website maintained by the Office of the High Inspector of Justice. From every thematic inspection to every activity and every audit carried out on the High Inspector of Justice, by the way, the Office of the High Inspector of Justice has been subjected to every possible audit by the Supreme State Audit, by the Ministry of Finance, by the Civil Service Commission, by every institution that supervises institutional activity, by the Directorate of Archives, by\u2014I don’t know, I can’t remember all of them.<\/p>

And first of all, the audits themselves are on the website, and none of the audits has identified any problems in the activity of the institution of the High Inspector of Justice, which for me is fundamental, because the High Inspector of Justice is not only a justice institution; first and foremost, it is a public institution. It also has a performance as a public institution.<\/p>

Secondly, with regard to the substance of the work of the High Inspector of Justice, there is also on the website an inspection carried out by the Spanish Judicial Council, by experts, by inspectors of the Spanish Judicial Council, regarding the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the High Inspector of Justice. They examined all the disciplinary proceedings carried out by the High Inspector of Justice, analyzed them, and came up with two recommendations: first, that the High Inspector of Justice’s investigative reports in disciplinary proceedings are too lengthy and therefore should be shorter; and second, that the type of sanctions requested is related to the independence of judges. They observed that salary reductions should not be requested as a disciplinary measure because they also affect the judge’s family.<\/p>

So, what I want to say is that the institution is supervised at every stage, at every moment, by everyone who has the authority to supervise the High Inspector of Justice, and all of this is available on the website.<\/p>

Now, as for making this more public, perhaps you are right. I have never wanted to play that role, because it is not the role of the High Inspector of Justice to go around telling people what he has done while others have their own problems, because we too have our own problems, undoubtedly. We too have many things that need to be improved, because the dynamics of the issues we encounter require us to be flexible in changing our work methodology, our working practices, and our prompt response to events that occur. But all of these are part of a balance that we maintain every day.<\/p>

For example, it is true that the number of inspectors has not increased\u2014they are the same inspectors\u2014but the number of thematic inspections has increased. The question is: how is that possible? It is because the professionalism of the inspectors, their training, and the experience they gain make them more capable of carrying out the thematic inspections that the institution needs. So, in other words, one must look at the institution’s dynamics and development.<\/p>

But as for making this more public, we gladly accept it as a suggestion, and personally I will discuss it with my colleagues. My hesitation has always been that I would not want to create the impression that one institution stands apart, because I believe that either all institutions stand together, or none of them do. That has always been my dilemma.<\/p>

Thanking you once again for your understanding, I have made this invitation many times before, and I will make it again. I would like the members of this Committee to come and meet the inspectors themselves at the Office of the High Inspector of Justice, so that they may perhaps also see the dedication and commitment that they have.<\/p>

Chairman of the Committee Ulsi Manja:<\/strong> No, thank you very much, Mr. Metani, also for the invitation to come and see for ourselves. Why not have a visit to the institution that you lead? To tell the truth, as a Committee, because we have been overwhelmed with work here, even though we have the authority to carry out parliamentary monitoring and oversight, perhaps we should begin by doing so with your institution. We will come with pleasure.<\/p>

I would like to thank you today for your report. I would also ask Ms. Bylykbashi that, in the draft resolution we will prepare for Mr. Metani’s institution for the year 2026, we reflect some of the issues and concerns that emerged during today’s reporting. Then, I believe that by July 3, on Friday, we will have the draft resolution ready so that we can adopt it.<\/p>

After that, the work will continue in the Committee on Initiatives, where you will report on the implementation of last year’s resolution, even though it was adopted almost at the end of the year, and on the recommendations that may have resulted from the periodic monitoring and that should become part of the final text of the draft resolution that will be submitted to the Assembly of Albania.<\/p>

I would like to thank you for the work that you do, and I join in everything that was said during this Committee meeting, looking at the justice system as a whole\u2014its achievements, its challenges, and also its problems\u2014as a shared concern. Only in this way can we solve them. Otherwise, if each of us starts looking only at our own part, I am convinced that we will accomplish nothing, except that the problem will remain there without an answer and without a solution.<\/p>

I would also like to thank my fellow Members of Parliament for today’s long working day, and we will continue. We still have an even longer day ahead, because we also have a plenary session.<\/p>

I would also like to thank the staff of the Assembly, who make it possible for us to hold these meetings and ensure that our meetings proceed normally, as well as the public, who I am convinced follow the reports of the justice institutions with great interest. We know this from the surveys we have regarding the reporting of your institutions. The justice system in particular is a very sensitive branch of government.<\/p>

Thank you very much, and have a good day, everyone.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Chair of the Committee Ulsi Manja: Now, I will give the floor […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":31091,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31169"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31178,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31169\/revisions\/31178"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}