The President Meta’s statement regarding his illegal and bandit-like arrest
According to published videos and eyewitnesses, on October 21, several private cars without any police insignia surrounded the car in which I was driving and dozens of people with masks and heavy weapons blocked the 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 Metaj, was violently kidnapped and dragged outside the vehicle, in sight of many people watching, with a criminal and degrading treatment without any court decision being communicated to me and without being read the rights, according to the Constitution.
In two statements, SPAK (Special Anti-Corruption Structure) and BKH (National Bureau of Investigation) denied that they had carried out the execution of the decision of GJKKO(First Level Court of Corruption and Organized Crime), 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 be carried out with 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 Metaj, 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 evidence and film footage testify to an illegal and thuggish arrest.
The full investigation of this matter and the respect for the 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 “detention 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, it 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 Metaj on a law abrogated 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, decreed on 16.07.2020 by the President of the Republic, entered into force on 05.08.2020, replacing the law, which SPAK refers to as result of ignorance 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 “detention 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 based 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 from the very 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, not those people with masks, later identified by the Minister of the Interior, as the Operational Force.
From the video footage, it is clear that the Order for the execution of the security measure against the person under investigation, Ilir Metaj, was not implemented by the BKH officers or by the State Police officers, but by masked persons without insignia, who are claimed to be the Special Forces.
We have a clear case. This is also in clear contradiction with the legal provisions that define the operational goals of the Special Forces.
In the order of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, in its item no. 3, it is foreseen that “The Judicial Police of the General Directorate of the State Police is charged with the execution of items 1 and 2 of this order, which is part of its functional duty “, 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 by 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 defined standards for legal security and the rights of the subjects involved.
This constitutes a clear case of exceeding the powers, which leads to the invalidity of the actions performed on 21.10.2024 regarding the arrest.
The other scandal is the illegality of the Court’s decision, but as stated by the Head of SPSK: “they always decide as required by the SPAK”, therefore, the investigation that was initiated illegally, which was followed by an illegal “detention in prison” order, and that was executed in an illegal way, could not be concluded with a legal, objective and non-discriminatory trial.
Article 228, point 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the measure of personal security is enforced:
- 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 escaped or there is a risk that he will escape.
- 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 “detention 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 ECHR (European Count of Human Rights)
These standards, closely related to the penal principle of presumption of innocence, give special importance to the protection of individual rights and due legal 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 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 determination and continuation of the security measure due to the criminal offense and the heavy punishment 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 “detention in prison” for my person is discriminatory, in relation to other persons under investigation, bearing in mind that GJKKO has not offered specific arguments.
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 myself 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 “detention 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 submit 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 has the obligation to justify the decision on the assignment of this measure based on Article 228, point 1, letter a.
What evidence can Ilir Metaj destroy 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 proof can Ilir Metaj destroy 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 in its disposal.
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 Ilir Metaj’s former associates falling into the SPAK’s net 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.
