E fundit!

10:45 CRIME

Killed a police officer and injured another/ Who is the author of the incident in Maliq?

A serious incident occurred this Thursday in Lozhan, Maliq...

Sadducee Movement/Prejudiced Decision of the United Colleges

2026-04-09 10:44:00, Opinione CNA

There is a subtle irony in the way Albanian justice occasionally reveals principles that it has always had at its disposal. Today, there is talk of the need for “further development of judicial practice” on security measures, as if the exceptional character of detention, proportionality and concrete risk analysis were innovations of recent years. In fact, these are the foundations on which the Code of Criminal Procedure and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights were built from the beginning.

So, why this sudden institutional mobilization?

Why a new unifying decision, a new debate, a “reinvention” of the standard? When a legal system feels the need to solemnly reaffirm what the law has long said, the problem is usually not the lack of a norm, but the lack of its implementation.

It is difficult to avoid the perception that this exercise does not stem from calm doctrinal reflection, but from the pressure of a concrete context. When justice moves with great energy to clarify well-known principles precisely at certain moments, the legitimate question arises: is a general standard being constructed, or is a general justification being sought for a particular case?

Because, in essence, nothing has ever prevented the court from seeking concrete evidence of risk, from realistically analyzing proportionality, or from avoiding stereotypical formulas. There has been no legal vacuum. There has been, in many cases, simply a lack of will to apply the law rigorously. And this is a problem that is not solved by a new unifying decision, but by a different judicial culture.

The danger of this initiative lies not in its content — which in itself is fair and indisputable — but in the message it conveys.

Instead of acknowledging that the standard has always been there and that the deviation came from practice, the system chooses to present the situation as a need for “further development.” It is an elegant way to avoid the more difficult question: why has what has long been known not been implemented until now?

In a climate where every move in the justice system is also read politically, this initiative risks being seen not as an improvement in the system, but as a reaction to a specific case. And in justice, perception is as important as reality. A standard that is reaffirmed only when the system needs it, and not when the law needs it, loses some of its credibility.

In the end, the question remains open and uncomfortable: if the law has always been clear, why does it take such a huge judicial exercise to say the same thing again? And most importantly — will it really change anything, or will it simply change the way decisions are written?/ CNA