DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Lawyers Ylli Manjani and Gurali Brahimllari public clarification after Altin Duman's interview on RTSH!

2024-11-23 11:42:55Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Lawyers Ylli Manjani and Gurali Brahimllari public clarification after Altin
Altin Dumani

The lawyers of the defendants of the "Metamorfoza" file reacted after the interview of the head of SPAK, Altin Dumani, given the day before on RTSH.

Full reaction:

From: Lawyers participating in criminal case no. 09/2023 ( known as Metamorphosis -1 )

Ylli Manjani,

Braimllari gravel,

We listened with great attention to the statements of Mr. Altin Dumani, head of SPAK, in the broadcast of journalist Alban Dudushi.

We are glad that finally a prosecutor of SPAK, even more so its leader, agrees to comment in the media about a concrete case such as what is known by the public as Metamorphosis -1.

As is known, until today the trials in this matter have been held behind closed doors, therefore transparency on the content of the data and the debates in the judicial process, from our side, has been completely limited by not giving the right answers on some aspects that "justice Popular" with "transcripts" extracted from the file and from the context, with dubious identification and with distortions of their content, has judged, declared guilty and sentenced all the persons suspect in this case.

Prosecutor Dumani's media statements on this matter are welcome as he claimed that SKY ECC data cannot be the only ones in a judicial process and the Special Prosecutor's Office used these data to find procedural evidence.

In fact, in the metamorphosis file where we serve as defenders and find ourselves on opposite sides but in front of the Court, it is difficult to find any physical evidence, dactyloscopic traces, film footage, document evidence or witnesses, to prove, independently of the content of the wiretaps, the charges are based solely on conjectures of conversations obtained from SkyECC wiretaps.

On the other hand, we are glad that the head of SPAK admits that there is a procedural debate between the parties about the legitimacy of the method of obtaining SkyECC data from the French authority and their value in relation to Albanian legislation. Yes, there was and still is a debate about this.

In order to clarify the public opinion, we want to specify some moments, for which we share different positions with the Prosecutors of the case, one of whom is Mr. Dumani himself:

It is true that all three trial levels have decided to detain suspects on the basis of SkyECC data, but those decisions were all based on the claim of the Prosecutors totally ASSUMED that Sky data is DOCUMENTS, found and seized on the servers of the SkyECC platform. So the courts have refused to consider the transcripts resulting from the interception of telecommunications, therefore they have not questioned the legitimacy of the data obtained from the interceptions in relation to Albanian legislation and all accepted international principles (including the jurisprudence of the ECHR).
For a long time, the Special Prosecutor's Office did not present in the process the content of the French court decisions that allowed the interception or authorized the extension of their deadlines, preventing the verification of these data in relation to the Albanian legislation. The courts of all three levels agreed with this imposing position of the Prosecutor's Office and continued to detain the suspects with unverified conjectures and assumptions.

For 15 months, the Special Prosecutors have only maintained the imposing position that the transcripts are "evidence" received by letter. Only when the case was presented by us to the Constitutional Court, the Special Prosecutors changed their position: In their submissions dated 16/09/2024 submitted to the Constitutional Court, for the first time it was accepted that the transcripts are the results of wiretapping and that the value of theirs is conditioned by the content of French and Albanian legislation.

So the special prosecutors have practically accepted that the decisions of the three levels of trial for keeping in custody have fallen, because they are all based on the "imposing" presumption that the SKYecc data are documents or . "proof the document"; "cold evidence" or "digital evidence". Prosecutors today admit that those data are the results of wiretapping. The truth is that the capture and acquisition of those data was carried out according to the changes that were made in the French Criminal Code in the years 2013-2019, but which are not foreseen by the Albanian legislation.

Albanian legislation and the current jurisprudence of our Constitutional Court and the ECtHR do not allow the use of the results of mass surveillance or those carried out by the secret intelligence, or based on its methods. Therefore, the Constitutional Court must give its position, which must state whether the results of massive wiretapping, carried out in violation of the Albanian procedural law, constitute data collected illegally, as provided for in Article 32 of the Constitution?

We hope the Constitutional Court will also express itself regarding the mandate of our judicial authorities to use transcripts for the investigation and trial of criminal offenses other than drug trafficking, because the French authorities have been very clear on this point.
Regarding the invitation that Mr. Dumani gave us to present "a single decision from foreign courts", we would like to point out that we have presented not one, but several decisions of foreign courts:

The decision of the French Constitutional Council and its accompanying documents, which is also a basic decision by the highest judicial authority of the country of origin of those data that defines obligations to respect due process of law and the right of defense.

Decisions 3 and 4 of dt 29 February 2024 of the United Sections of the Court of Cassation in Italy that has unified the legal position on the nature of transcripts as results of wiretapping and the need for their legal test, with the content of domestic legislation.

Decision of the Court of Strasbourg, on the case of Turkish applicants accused of terrorism sprouted the basis of communications on the encrypted platform BY Lock.

The decision of the Strasbourg Court on the "Big Brother Watch" case, which classifies mass wiretapping carried out by secret intelligence, unusable in criminal proceedings.

The decision of the ECtHR dated 24/03/2024 of the English applicants in which important definitions are also given for the illegality of the identification phase of Enchro Chat subscribers as well as the unusability of the content of the transcripts

The decision of the Luxembourg Court dated 04/30/2024 which exhaustively defined the transcripts as interception of telecommunications, that they must respect local legislation and international principles for the implementation of interceptions and has given guarantees for the right of protection for their recognition and opposition, with the consequence of exclusion from the booklet if these protection rights are violated, clarifying once and for all the legal status of these data giving effect to the law of the country where they are used

We inform the public and anyone interested that these decisions together with the relevant explanations are in the court file even before the Constitutional Court.

We do not ask for anything more than what these foreign decisions argue, as well as what Mr. Dumani said in his submission to the Constitutional Court that those data are the result of wiretapping and their value must be conditioned by the content of French legislation and to the Albanian one, without allowing any inferior attitude and humility towards any decision that does not comply with the procedural and constitutional legislation in the Republic of Albania.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×