web counter
LEXO PA REKLAMA!

SHKARKO APP

App Store
Google Play

E fundit!

x

Beleri, GJKKO letter/ Order the violations

2023-11-22 16:16:00, Aktualitet CNA
Beleri, GJKKO letter/ Order the violations
Illustrative photo

The elected mayor of Himara, Fredi Beleri, has accused the judicial body of GJKKO of violating the constitution regarding the questioning of the witness Arsen Rama, which was done behind closed doors.

Beleri has addressed a letter to the Special Court listing his complaints and the violations he claims have been committed.

According to Beler, the hearing should have been public and regarding the claims that his life is in danger, the prosecution had not taken protective measures against him.

Beleri said that another violation of the constitution is the fact that GJKKO did not allow the defense to question the witness Arsen Rama.

Beller's full statement:

First: You accepted the request of the prosecution, to question the witness Arsen Rama behind closed doors, in open violation of Article 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus violating the Constitution, which provides that court hearings are public. The prosecution did not present any evidence that the safety of the witness Arsen Rama was compromised. The allegations of the prosecution, that sometime in June, the girlfriend of the citizen Arsen Rama, on a public road in Vlora, was scratched, does not prove that the safety of the witness is in danger. Maximi, the girlfriend of the citizen Arsen Rama, who is neither subject nor object in this trial, may have a dispute with the service station, or with any other vehicle that could have occupied the parking lot or the road, etc.

If it had taken this risk seriously, the Prosecution would have continued with securing the evidence of the witness, or would have taken measures for his protection, according to special laws, which did not happen. The prosecution did not defend the witness outside the courtroom for several months, but asked you to defend him in the courtroom, and this request, although unfounded, was not questioned by you, violating my right to a public hearing. The Special Court not only defended the citizen Arsen Rama but also his girlfriend, I refer in this setting to the statements that this citizen and his girlfriend gave the day they found the scratch on the vehicle on the road.

You also accepted the prosecution's request to contradict the statements of the witness Arsen Rama, who was the prosecution's witness, with two minutes, where there was no statement about what the prosecution wanted to contradict. As long as the prosecution requested it, and from you, every request is accepted.

Second: As I have been informed, based on Article 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the direction of the court session is conducted by the President of the trial body, who disposes by means of orders, which according to Article 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be justified. Last session, during the questioning of the witness Arsen Rama, Your interventions, apart from being unjustified, were not based on Article 361/6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which "During the questioning of the witness, the chairman can ask questions and, when case, intervenes to ensure the order of questions, the authenticity of answers, the accuracy of questions and objections, as well as to guarantee the respect of the person".

According to the law, you, in the capacity of the President, can intervene when the witness is questioned by the party that requested the question, which in this particular case was the prosecution, to prevent suggestive questions. The prosecution asked many such questions, but there was no intervention from your side. Meanwhile, during defense questions, according to the law You can intervene, only to ensure the truthfulness of the answers, the accuracy of the questions and to guarantee the respect of the person being questioned. Your interventions have not been in any case of the nature recognized by the law, but you have prevented the defenders from asking the questions they have assessed, often preventing the witness from answering, or you have given the answer. Considering that with the way you conducted the last session, my right to defend myself was limited according to my assessment, I make this statement, in exercise of my rights according to Article 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. / CNA





Lajmet e fundit nga