NOVEMBER PROTESTOSCOPE / The elder of the DP follows every gathering of people, Rama receives news from the government

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

The Constitutional Court is not the KPK or the KPA! Why is it allowing former foreign vetting observers into the decision-making chamber?

2026-11-06 18:00:58Pikëpamje SHKRUAR NGA FLAMUR VEZAJ

The Constitutional Court is not the KPK or the KPA! Why is it allowing former

The Constitutional Court makes a decision that raises serious doubts about its independence. Seven judges vote to allow former international vetting observers to enter the deliberation room, where the judicial decision is discussed and formed. But who gave them this authority? The Constitution or the judges themselves who are supposed to protect it?!

An unprecedented and deeply worrying decision for Albanian justice!

The Constitutional Court, the highest institution that guarantees respect for the Constitution, adopted a regulation on November 2 that opens the doors to international observers of the International Monitoring Operation (IMO), even in the deliberation room.

What are these internationals looking for in the room where constitutional judges discuss and make decisions?!

The International Monitoring Operation was established for the extraordinary vetting process, to monitor the re-evaluation of judges and prosecutors in the Independent Qualification Commission (IKC) and the Special Appeals Chamber (SAC).

Not to sit in the deliberation rooms of the Constitutional Court!

The mandate of the KPA ended on June 17, 2026. The vetting process was closed. But now, through an internal regulation, the Constitutional Court recognizes the former observers of this process the right to see the files, submit opinions and be present during the deliberations of the judges.

This is not an ordinary administrative issue. It is an issue that directly affects the independence and authority of the constitutional judiciary.

Where does it say that former vetting observers must remain in the Constitutional Court's deliberation room? Which article of the Constitution expressly recognizes this right?

Can an internal regulation expand the powers of an international mechanism whose mandate was linked to an interim process?

And above all, why do seven constitutional judges consider the presence of foreigners in their internal deliberations necessary?

What are they afraid to decide for themselves? To whom should they be accountable for their opinions?

The discussion here is not about whether or not internationals have helped the justice reform. It is about whether the Constitutional Court can create, through a regulation, a procedure that raises questions about the limits of monitoring and the confidentiality of judicial deliberations.

The absurdity becomes even greater when we remember that this very court will review cases of judges and prosecutors who claim to have been harmed by vetting decisions.

So, former observers of the process that controlled and monitored the vetting may be present in the room where objections to that process are considered!

But where is the guarantee of impartiality? Who protects former judges and former prosecutors from any influence, even indirect, of persons who were part of the vetting monitoring mechanism?

It is said that internationals do not have the right to vote. But the independence of a judge does not begin and end with the vote. It also includes the freedom to discuss, to object, and to form a legal opinion without the presence or influence of outsiders.

The decision was approved by Fiona Papajorgji, Sandër Beci, Genti Ibrahimi, Ilir Toska, Marsida Xhaferllari, Asim Vokshi and Marjana Semini.

Only judge Sonila Bejtja voted against!

Why did the other seven judges approve this procedure? What is the legal necessity? What is the limit of the role of observers and what happens if a judge does not want them present during the deliberations?

The Constitutional Court must answer these questions, because it is not enough to say that internationals only monitor.

A court that upholds the Constitution cannot treat the confidentiality of counseling as a formality that can be changed by regulation.

Albania cannot remain indefinitely in a justice system that needs the presence of foreigners even when its constitutional judges are closed to discuss decisions.

Anyone who has doubts about the competence and integrity of constitutional judges should address them through legal mechanisms. But if the judges themselves consider this presence necessary, then an even more serious question arises: what does their independence mean?

The Constitutional Court is not the KPK. It is not the KPA. It is not an office of the ONM. It is the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania!

And precisely for this reason, its decision requires a public, clear and constitutionally reasoned explanation.

Because international monitoring cannot become a permanent reason to relativize the independence of Albanian institutions.

If the Constitutional Court fails to guarantee its own independence and the confidentiality of its deliberations, who will guarantee the Constitution?!

This is the question that the seven judges must answer to the Albanians.

And until then, a serious doubt will weigh on this regulation: is constitutional justice being protected, or is an extraordinary monitoring mechanism being extended beyond its mandate?

The greatest disaster for justice is not when internationals seek to monitor. It is when the very institution that is supposed to protect the independence of the judiciary does not convincingly explain why it opens the door to the consulting room to them. /Mashqip.com


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×