Criticism of the Constitutional Court/ Zaçaj: It is not up to politics to decide how to implement decisions

2024-03-29 21:23:19, Aktualitet CNA

Criticism of the Constitutional Court/ Zaçaj: It is not up to politics to

The President of the Constitutional Court of Albania, Holta Zaçaj

The President of the Constitutional Court of Albania, Holta Zaçaj, says that it is not up to politics to decide how to implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court, as it is the Constitution that determines the necessity of their implementation.

She spoke in an interview for the Voice of America, during a visit of a delegation of members of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court to Washington for meetings at the Department of Justice and the Department of State.

Mrs. Zaçaj said that the non-implementation of her decisions by the institutions shows the level of democracy in the country. She rejected accusations that the court is biased.

Voice of America: First, let's talk about the purpose of this visit here in Washington. What was her objective?

Holta Zaçaj: This visit was a scheduled visit between the two courts and justice reform partners, with the Department of Justice and the Department of State. We also had a visit to the American Bar Association and Georgetown University.

Voice of America: Let's now move on to some of the topics of Albania and the work of the Court. In Albania, some decisions of the Court are not being implemented by the Parliament or are being delayed in time, such as the case of the mandate of MP Olta Xhaçka. It is an unusual situation. In the absence of a mechanism to implement these decisions, what is done? It is a disturbing situation...

Holta Zaçaj: It is a question, in fact, repeated for the Court and for me personally in my appearances in the media. It is really an unusual and impossible situation to happen in a democratic state. I have mentioned it other times - the decisions of the Constitutional Court must be implemented and the implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court constitutes, in fact, the implementation of the Constitution itself. So words are too much to convey a message beyond what I just said. Every decision must be implemented. There is no other way, there is no other mechanism, and the reason why there is no other mechanism is because it is impossible to imagine that the decisions of the Constitutional Court will not be implemented, so there is not much left to interpret at this moment.

Voice of America: But the reality is that some of these cases are dragging on...

Holta Zaçaj: The court, apart from what I just expressed, I cannot make another statement. Undoubtedly, the institutions, which are charged with implementing the decisions of the Constitutional Court, must behave in a constitutional manner. This is the message I have.

Voice of America: Another decision of the Court has to do with the vote of immigrants, which it seems will not be able to be implemented in the next elections. Do you see this as a lack of political will in the country and will its non-implementation affect the legitimacy of the upcoming elections?

Holta Zaçaj: I believe that I answered this question. That is, the fact that we have one decision or another does not change the approach of the Constitutional Court regarding the implementation of its decisions. The Court speaks with decisions, the Court's decisions must be implemented, the Court's decisions are not equivocal, it is not left to the price of politics to decide how and in what manner the decisions should be implemented. Decisions are self-enforcing. So any action that does not coincide with what was said in the decision of the Constitutional Court, I believe that it is not the right decision or it is not the right action.

VOA:Does this show a lack of respect for an important branch of government in Albania?

Holta Zaçaj: It is definitely an indicator of the type of democracy we have and the state of democracy we have.

Voice of America: The opposition has criticized the Court several times for taking the side of the government for some decisions that had a close conclusion, such as the one for the Rama-Meloni pact. How do you respond to these criticisms?

Holta Zaçaj: We greatly appreciate the freedom of expression and the right to speech, which is one of the most important freedoms in the Constitution, but definitely what allows all actors to give their opinion and opinion. The Court's decision is the one given and we as judges do not comment beyond that. Undoubtedly, in every decision of the Court, there are parties who remain unsatisfied, as happens in every other decision-making of every judiciary. So we see the part of criticism or different opinions as a value of democracy in relation to the implementation and respect of the right to express oneself. But beyond that, the court's decision has its arguments, as there are also arguments of the judges who are in the minority on one issue or another. Beyond that, it is impossible for us to comment. Of course, we respect the different opinion that comes from the public, but as an opinion that belongs to the public. The court, mind you, operates hermetically. It has been fought to have a hermetic court and independent judges or an independent court. So the rest of how the public thinks about a decision of the Court, which is based on the Constitution and should have been based only on the Constitution and the law, is actually just an achievement of the right to express. Beyond that, the Court has spoken.

VOA: Although the court operates in a hermetically sealed manner, the members' vote, or what they think, is made public. Some of the decisions were made 5 to 4. Do these very close results undermine the authority and credibility of the court?

Holta Zaçaj: No. I think this is a sign of democracy. And the fact that the court and the judges operate independently, the fact that we have 5 to 4 decisions, 6 to 3 decisions, it only shows that the judges are independent, they do not act under pressure, there is no internal pressure within the court to having, so to speak, false unanimity. So we see it as a sign of the internal democracy of the institution, but also of the independence of the institution in general. This happens often. It happens in this country too. It also happens in many other countries, where the judges are divided. The fact that the procedure in Albania allows minority judges to express their opinions is another way of showing, or an instrument of some kind of accountability to the public, to express how everyone thinks about an issue, but beyond that this does not affect the decision-making itself.

Voice of America: For another specific case, which was also unusual, for Butrint, because the government did not provide a UNESCO document, the unusual step of reopening this case was made. This highlighted the very fact that the government did not provide a document that it should have provided. How do you rate such a thing?

Holta Zaçaj: The opening of the judicial investigation is actually a procedure which is provided for in the court regulations and in the law. And it is something that happens in the ordinary judiciary as well. So it happens only when a certain piece of evidence, which was not possible to obtain during the normal development of the judicial process, becomes known to exist and for this reason, due to the request that the parties have for this matter, the court definitely has to duty to take it into consideration.

Voice of America: ...I meant that in this case it could not be taken because a document that should have been given was not given. It was an obligation to be given.

Holta Zacaj:I want to explain something to you, that the trial at the Constitutional Court is definitely based on the documents and the parties who testify and provide information bear their responsibilities. But it is not a criminal trial. So, the constitutional trial has different characteristics from the criminal trial. Until that moment, government representatives said they did not have this report. And then it turned out that it was sent at a certain time by UNESCO. For the court, it is important that the constitutional judgment and constitutional decision-making be based on all possible evidence. And we therefore used that procedural instrument that allows us the regulation and the law, to get closer to the truth, about what this evidence is worth. Beyond that, each body involved in the process bears its own responsibilities and this is my comment on this issue./ VOA