Meta reacts again from prison/ "My arrest, in violation of the law and the standards of the ECtHR"

2024-10-30 19:16:00, Politikë CNA

Meta reacts again from prison/ "My arrest, in violation of the law and the

The chairman of the Freedom Party, Ilir Meta, has again reacted to his arrest from prison.

Meta declares that his arrest was not carried out by the BKH, but by the State Police.

He describes this as a violation of the law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The head of the PL states that he was not informed of any court decision at the time of his handcuffing, was not informed of his rights and was not allowed to call his lawyer.

Thus, Meta claims that the continuation of the security measure "Arrest in prison" is in open contradiction with the standards established by the ECtHR.

Full statement:

According to published videos and eyewitnesses, on October 21, several private cars without any police inscriptions surrounded the car in which I was driving and dozens of people with masks and heavy weapons blocked traffic on the highway, violently handcuffed the driver of the vehicle, Artimis Peca, a political functionary of Freedom Party (without any court decision so far), while I, Ilir Meta, was violently kidnapped and dragged from the vehicle in the public, with a criminal and degrading treatment without any court decision being communicated to me and without read the rights that belong to me, according to the Constitution.

In two statements, SPAK and BKH denied that they had carried out the execution of the decision of GJKKO, while the police admitted that they had carried out the execution.

No evidence has been published by the police that the legal procedures, which are defined in Article 28 of the Constitution, have been clearly respected.

Article 28/1 of the Constitution provides that:

"1. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty has the right to be notified immediately in the language he understands, of the reasons for this measure, as well as of the charge against him. The person, who has been deprived of his freedom, must be informed that he has no obligation to make any statement and has the right to communicate immediately with the lawyer, as well as be given the opportunity to exercise his rights."

This is what the European Convention of Human Rights expresses, in its article 5, in paragraph 1 and other sub-paragraphs, which provides equally that: "the arrest must follow the appropriate procedures and every arrested person has the right to be informed immediately for the reason for the arrest and his rights include the right not to incriminate himself and to request a lawyer".

The case of October 21 clearly showed that neither I, Ilir Meta, nor the other person, Artimis Peca, were communicated any court decision, we were not informed about our rights, we were not allowed to call the lawyer, even the violent persons in masks they didn't even agree to identify themselves and when we presented them and asked for a legal act or document, they started screaming and using violence.

Violation of all rights, as shown by the evidence and film footage testify to an illegal and thuggish arrest.

The full investigation of this matter and the respect of constitutional rights are essential for maintaining the rule of law and democracy in Albania.

The numerous precedents set by the European Court of Human Rights clearly show that an illegal arrest has serious consequences for the integrity of the justice system and the entire process in question, which is clearly unconstitutional, illegal, police-like and political.

The entire legal framework, which has been openly violated, shows that the execution of the order of "Arrest in prison", which was carried out by the special police forces, issued by SPAK, is illegal, denigrating, degrading and in flagrant contradiction with the requirements provided by the Albanian legal framework is in serious violation of the Constitution and in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights and international standards.

The scandal that leads all this illegal arrest is the very order of the three SPAK prosecutors, Dumani, Kraja and Kllapi, who have based their order for the arrest of Ilir Meta on a law repealed 4 years ago.

So they have based the legality of this Order on law no. 8331, dated 21.04.1998 "On the execution of criminal decisions", while this law was repealed four years ago, with the approval and entry into force of law no. 79/ 2020 "On the execution of criminal decisions".

This new law, announced on 16.07.2020 by the President of the Republic, entered into force on 05.08.2020, replacing the law, which SPAK refers to unintentionally or intentionally.

The legal act receives its force and validity, only through the law of the time when this act is issued.

So we are in the conditions where the Order for the execution of the decision to set the security measure "Arrest in prison" is based on an act that has not been in force for 4 years.

Administrative acts, orders of bailiffs, orders of the prosecution are valid and enforceable as long as they are supported on a certain legal basis, which must be in force at the time of issuing the act.

Consequently, the Order issued by the Special Prosecutor's Office and any action carried out by the police agents, who executed this order based on Law No. 8331, dated 21.04.1998 "On the execution of criminal convictions" should be considered invalid, that from their beginning.

The next scandal is that the Court has ordered the Special Prosecutor's Office, the National Bureau of Investigation and the General Directorate of the State Police to execute the decision and not people with masks, later identified by the Minister of the Interior, as the Operational Force.

From the footage itself, it is clear that the Order for the execution of the security measure against the person under investigation, Ilir Meta, was not implemented by BKH officers or State Police officers, but by troops with masks and no distinguishing badge, who are claimed to be the Force. Special.

This is in clear contradiction with the provisions that define the operational goals of the Special Forces.

In the order of the Special Prosecutor's Office, in its point 3, it is foreseen that "With the execution of points 1 and 2 of this order, the Judicial Police of the General Directorate of the State Police, which has a functional duty, is charged", a function that the law no. 108/2014 gives to the Special Forces.

In this context, it is clear that the Special Forces violated the law and not only them, but also the authorities who ordered them for an operation outside their legal powers, so these actions are invalid.

The action of the Special Forces is not only inconsistent with the factual situation of the case, but also with the operational measures required by the case in question.

It is obvious that the Special Forces, in their efforts to enforce the security measure, acted contrary to the clearly defined legal provisions, violating the authorization given by the law for their specific functions and powers.

Also, the execution of the decision by masked persons and not BKH, according to the provisions of article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and point 9 of decision no. 125, dated 20.10.2024, of the GJKKO makes the entire execution of this decision invalid.

The avoidance of the legal provisions on the powers of the BKH and its replacement by other structures, which do not have the defined jurisdiction to act in such cases, not only contradicts the principle of legality of administrative actions, but also violates the standards of defined for legal security and the rights of the subjects involved.

We have a clear case of exceeding the powers, which leads to the invalidity of the actions performed on 21.10.2024 for the arrest.

The other scandal is the illegality of the Court's decision, but "almost" they always decide as required by the SPAK, regarding an investigation that was started illegally, which was followed by an illegal "Arrest in prison" order and that was executed in a way illegal, there could not be a legal, objective and non-discriminatory trial.

Article 228, point 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the measure of personal insurance is imposed:

a) when there are important reasons that endanger the receipt or authenticity of evidence, based on factual circumstances that must be specifically indicated in the reasoning of the decision.

b) when the defendant has left or there is a risk that he will leave.

c) when, due to the circumstances of the fact and the personality of the defendant, there is a risk that he will commit serious crimes or crimes of the same type for which he is being prosecuted.

In current conditions, none of the three risks exist.

The European Court of Human Rights in its jurisprudence has consistently emphasized that the reasoning of domestic courts will always be considered inappropriate if it is "abstract" or "based on stereotypes".

The European Court of Human Rights states that a person accused of a crime should be free pending trial except in those cases where the state can show that there are "strong and sufficient reasons justifying the continued detention of the person in prison".

In this context, the continuation of the security measure "Arrest in prison" only because of the importance of the possible punishment and the assumed risk is in open contradiction with the standards established by the ECtHR.

These standards, closely related to the criminal principle of presumption of innocence, give special importance to the protection of individual rights and due process.

The presumption of innocence is not a procedural defense, but a cornerstone of human rights and a constituent principle of criminal law, clearly reflected in international law and in Article 30 of the Constitution of Albania, which clearly defines that every individual is considered innocent as long as his guilt has not been proven by a final court decision.

The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that the assignment of restrictive measures of personal freedom, such as detention, must be based on concrete evidence and an unavoidable need, and not on a vague or speculative risk to public order.

This reasoning comes in defense of the argument that setting and continuing the implementation of the security measure based only on the criminal actions for which the person is accused, would seriously violate the principle of presumption of innocence.

Similarly, the standards developed by the jurisprudence of the ECHR according to the "in dubio pro reo" principle require that any doubt must be interpreted in favor of the defendant as an integral part of the presumption of innocence and emphasizes that any burden of proof falls on the prosecution body.

For these reasons, basing the appointment and continuation of the security measure due to the criminal offense and the high penalty attributed to it is unconstitutional and contrary to international human rights principles.

In the same way, the decision to set and continue the implementation of the security measure "Arrest in prison" for my person is discriminatory, in relation to the other persons under investigation, bearing in mind that GJKKO did not offer a specific argument.

This attitude has created a double standard:

On the one hand, GJKKO has not presented any detailed analysis of how each of the suspects can affect the destruction or disposal of evidence (taking into account that each has exercised different functions from each other) while it has assigned extreme measures to the person my compared to others.

This clearly shows that we do not have a uniform approach but it is clearly discriminatory and for political purposes.

If the security measure "Arrest in prison" is set due to the existence of the risk of the destruction of evidence by the person under investigation, the prosecutor has the obligation to present the evidence or at least the nature of the evidence, which is at risk of being violated by the person under investigation and consequently to the court of arises the obligation to justify the decision-making on the assignment of this measure based on Article 228, point 1, letter a.

What evidence can Ilir Meta risk for the absurd CEZ-DIA case, which has been investigated for 13 years and is based only on fabricated interviews by witnesses who have a problem with justice.

What evidence can Ilir Meta risk when all that SPAK claims are on the mobile phones of my ex-wife and her close group, which SPAK has had for 11 months.

It is clear that this whole process of political kidnapping and all the illegal actions by the Prosecution, the Police and the Court have only one political purpose, the extreme illegal isolation of Ilir Meta, as the President of the Freedom Party, with the aim of hindering the activity of its opposition, but also the favoring of persons who have been caught in violation of the law to act freely at the expense of the mafia regime to harm the Freedom Party in exchange for extenuating circumstances for the illegal actions they have taken.

The illegal and thuggish arrest of October 21 is not only the appearance, but also the criminal essence of an entire investigative process based on political setups, false witnesses and problems with justice and his former associates who fell into SPAK's net for because of their irresponsibility and gullibility, who have become collaborators of the regime to kill the dreams and hopes of those who supported them with idealism.