A comparison of SPAK files for Ilir Meta, Erion Veliaj, and Belinda Balluku reveals similarities in the criminal charges, but also differences in the security measures applied to them.
All three face charges of passive corruption, money laundering and violation of asset declaration obligations.
While Meta and Veliaj were arrested during preliminary investigations, lighter security measures were applied to Balluk.
But there is an important procedural difference. SPAK has also requested Balluk's arrest, turning to the Assembly for authorization of a more severe security measure.
The request was rejected by the parliamentary majority, and after the communication of the final charges, no new request has been filed.
However, the similarity of the charges does not necessarily imply the application of identical measures.
The law requires that any security measure be assessed based on the specific circumstances, the risk of deportation, the impact on evidence, the possibility of recidivism, and the principle of proportionality.
Consequently, the differences in the procedural treatment of the three cases do not in themselves prove different standards from SPAK.
They require a comparison of the prosecution's reasoning and the court decisions, also taking into account the role of the Assembly in the Balluku case.
The question remains as to what concrete circumstances determined the security measures in each file and how these decisions were legally justified./ Vna