Why should a legal analysis be done for the Gjici-Kaçi case

2024-02-09 11:33:00, Opinione Juristi

The court recently issued the verdicts on the punishments of 2 people, Safet Gjici and Alma Kaçi. One was sentenced for abuse of office, the other for prostitution.

From the point of view of the criminal provisions that the court referred to, it seems as if these 2 never met each other and the 2 trials were unrelated.

Article 248 of the Penal Code provides that: "Intentionally performing or not performing actions and omissions in violation of the law, which constitutes regular failure to fulfill the duty, by the person exercising public functions, when they have brought him or other people benefits unjust material or immaterial damages have harmed the legitimate interests of the state, citizens and other legal entities, if it does not constitute another criminal offense, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to seven years."

From the interpretation of the provision, it can be concluded that the provision focuses on relationships related to the regular fulfillment of duties, the implementation of laws, regulations and orders issued on the basis of and for the implementation of the law, as well as the protection of rights and interests. legal of citizens.

These relationships have been assessed by the provision as important legal relationships, which are specially protected by criminal legislation.

This is a provision called a "white provision". As such, in the identification of the concrete violation, case by case reference should be made to other legal and by-law acts, which regulate the work of the person exercising public functions.
In the specific case of Safeti, which law or bylaw that regulates Safeti's duties as mayor, did Safeti violate when he had sex in the office??

- for the legislator, the violation of those relationships explained in the provision, is considered a criminal offense provided for as such by article 248 of the Penal Code and not any deviation of the public official.

According to the provision that was used to punish Safeti, for a criminal offense to exist, it must:

• the object of the criminal offense must exist, ie. to prove the violation of the rules established by the legal or by-laws, which regulate the duties of the state or public servant. So, in addition to the "Blanket" provision of the Criminal Code, in Safeti's case, reference must be made to the Law and the provisions violated by Safeti when he had sex in the office. Safeti, former mayor! Which of the duties stipulated by the law for the mayor has Safeti violated?
In the case against Safeti, Safeti's actions must have been in violation of any of the provisions that regulate the performance of the mayor's duties.

• from the objective point of view, the defendant with active actions or illegal omissions must have brought consequences to the detriment of the state or citizens, which consist of material, financial damages, or violations of the basic rights of citizens (life, health or their property), or unfair, material or immaterial benefits for themselves or for third parties.
As in any criminal offense, in order to hold the suspect responsible for the offense, there must necessarily be a direct causal link between the action or inaction of the defendant and the occurrence of the criminal consequence, which in this case could be:

1- damage to various physical and legal entities or/and the state;

2- unfair material or non-material benefits for oneself or for a third party.

- If there is "abuse of duty", there are provisions of powers violated by issuing illegal acts, as well as there are beneficiaries of illegal acts.

- What is the interest of citizens or legal entities affected by Safet's sex?

How and how much has this interest been damaged? Damage caused to the state cannot be a moral issue. Damage is a concrete thing!
With the logic of the prosecution, will the alienation of the destination of the office for sexual relations result in concrete harm?
Let's face it! But this alienation is measurable! To perform sexual intercourse in a closed environment, Gjici would need e.g. a hotel room and he would pay 2000 to 5000 ALL for that. Did anyone save hotel money? Used the office as a hotel room? The amount of the damage is equal to the lek you saved for the hotel room.

- If we look at the damage caused by the incident (sexual act), to the tangible property of the Municipality, this damage is immeasurable.
Safeti didn't even give coffee to that maid. She even had the coffee with her!

- If we do the reverse analysis!
I mean the analysis with the damage suffered by the state from the benefit of Safet!
Safeti received sexual service without paying the consideration (5,000 ALL) for the service.
(No matter how you measure the "damage" it does not exceed 5,000 ALL). But the state had hardly calculated "Alma's sexual services" as services to the municipality, and Safeti annexed these services, not letting the municipality mate with Alma!!!

- If you want, we can analyze the decision from Alma Kaçi's point of view.

Alma Kaçi is punished for prostitution! She is not a prostitute! We can call her a spoiled woman, but she does not offer sex for a reward, as a profession. Alma Kaçi did not go to Gjic's office as a prostitute, for prostitution. He went to have sex and film the act.

How is it possible that the court has MANIPULATED THE EVENT???

And you don't punish Alma Kaçi for the true motive for which she committed!? All of Kaçi's explanations show that she wanted the video. He didn't want 5,000 ALL for sex! How is the essence of the criminal investigation hidden? There is a criminal provision for blackmail. Which in the case of Safet was carried out in cooperation. Left in the attempt.

- On the other hand, the criminal offense of prostitution always involves 2 or more people. If there is "prostitution practice", there is "prostitution exploitation"... or even "pimping".

Where are these others? If Alma when she had sex with Safeti was a "prostitute", then Safeti who had sex with Alma should be punished as an "exploiter of prostitution". But he did not make this use, (he could not) violating the law that regulates the functions as mayor. If the court says that Safeti abused his duty in this case, he should have read us the article that prohibits Safeti as mayor from having sex in the office. Safeti cannot have misused his duty by using prostitution. Because exploitation of prostitution is a separate criminal offense of the Criminal Code.

And the provision of article 248 says "...it is considered abuse of duty.....when it does not constitute another criminal offense..."
On the other hand, Alma did not go to Safeti's office as a prostitute and Safeti did not wait for her in the office as such!

- If Safeti has violated the code of ethics of the municipality (if the Municipality of Kukes has a code of ethics), the Court should have administered that Code and seen the sanction for violation of that Code. That not every action that goes against the regular reversal of duty is a criminal offense.

If the new justice system has made a mess of such a simple and banal issue as this, just imagine what trouble Albanians will have to seek justice from now on. /CNA