An important step towards improving the Albanian judicial system has been taken by the Supreme Court .
The court has decided to unify the procedure for determining the security measure " prison arrest ".
This decision is expected to create a clear and predictable standard for judges, increasing legal certainty for citizens.
Justice experts consider this initiative a victory for transparency and equality.
"Standardizing procedures will reduce arbitrariness and strengthen citizens' trust in the judicial system," says a legal expert.
The unifying decision emphasizes the balance between the interest of the investigation and respect for the rights of the individual, ensuring that every decision to arrest in prison is made based on clear and uniform criteria throughout the country.
Citizens and lawyers are expected to benefit from this more transparent approach, as there will be clear guidelines for procedures, avoiding previous uncertainty and misunderstandings.
For judges, the decision serves as a reliable reference that facilitates making fair and consistent decisions.
In practice, the reform of the Supreme Court is a strong signal for equal and predictable justice, bringing a step closer to a reliable and modern judicial system for all Albanian citizens.
"Burden of proof" why prison is not necessary
The third and final point concerns the continuation of detention.
According to the unifying decision of October 2011 by the Supreme Court, it is stated that in order to determine inappropriate detention, the accused must provide the argument why.
So it should be the accused who says why he shouldn't stay in prison.
So the burden of proof is placed on the accused and not on the court or prosecution.
This is contrary to Western practice, therefore, according to the head of the Supreme Court, this requires change.
The ECtHR states categorically in the decision "Hysa v. Albania" that "Justification for any period of imprisonment must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities."
"Therefore, the jurisprudence of the ECtHR in the cases of Hysa, Gëllçi and Muçaj imposes these fundamental theses: (i) reasonable suspicion is not sufficient, alone, for the continuation of detention; (ii) the risk must be concrete, individualized and provable; (iii) the abstract importance of the offense does not, in itself, justify detention; (iv) alternative measures must be considered realistically and not formally; (v) the burden of justification remains on the authorities for each period of restriction of liberty; and (vi) the justification for detention must remain current, proportional and controllable over time," says the head of the Supreme Court in his decision.
Opposition leaders were quick to criticize the initiative, with Gazmend Bardhi, chairman of the DP Parliamentary Group, accusing Sadushi of serving Rama and calling on him not to be used politically.
We recall that a little over a month ago, Council of Europe experts submitted a 60-page document proposing legal changes that would establish clear criteria and conditions for when a security measure of imprisonment should be taken, legal changes that would define a number of criminal offenses for which pre-trial detention cannot be imposed, the obligation of courts to consider alternative measures as a priority, etc.
At the end of 2025, there were 4,503 behind bars in Albania, of whom 2,569 (or 57%) were in pre-trial detention. That is, under security measures, without a final decision.
These figures rank Albania at the top of European countries for the number of detainees, raising alarm in the country.