17.07.2021 – 21:50
The Special Appellate Panel will finally decide on July 29, 2021 on the fate of the Tirana prosecutor, Besim Hajdarmataj. The decision to dismiss or confirm as prosecutor the ‘hot’ files, which have involved the political camps in Tirana in controversy, will be taken by a panel composed of Rezarta Schuetz, Ardian Hajdari, Ina Rama, Albana Shtylla and Sokol Çomo . Besim Hajdarmataj managed to pass the first degree of Vetting controversially on October 16, 2019. But, the decision was opposed by the US-EU representatives in the International Monitoring Operation, who on December 4, 2019, through a detailed report, recommended to the Public Commissioner appealing the decision to the Special Appellate Panel, requesting the dismissal of Besim Hajdarmataj.
And so it happened. On December 20, 2019, Public Commissioner Darjel Sina accepted the IOM’s recommendation, requesting the Special Appellate Panel to remove Hajdarmataj from office, mainly for closing drug and gambling files. The trial of the case of the former head of the Serious Crimes Prosecution, Besim Hajdarmataj, ended yesterday at the Appellate Panel. In the last session, the Public Commissioner, Darjel Sina, presented this document with conclusions provided by Report TV, through which he stands by the request for dismissal of Hajdarmataj from office, arguing that he has closed 5 files of drugs and gambling suspiciously and in conflict of interest, that it does not justify a part of the property and that as a whole has violated the public trust in justice. Hajdarmataj is also accused of friendship and air travel with a character from the underworld, part of the gambling business, to whom he has closed one of the files.
“From the review and judicial debate of the facts and circumstances resulting from the assessment of five (5) criminal cases, it resulted that the subject of re-evaluation, sometimes in the capacity of prosecutor in charge of representing the prosecution, and sometimes in the capacity of the head of the Prosecution , presents shortcomings in terms of legal knowledge, shortcomings in the interpretation and proper implementation of substantive and procedural criminal law, in support of investigations, as well as in terms of logically undertaking an exhaustive and complete criminal investigation. In the capacity of the Head of the Prosecution, the subject of
reassessment has failed to use the appropriate legal instruments in terms of the responsibility, supportive and supervisory role of the guiding powers of the Head of the Prosecution. These shortcomings are observed in more than one case, for some criminal cases, which, by their nature, represent importance and high impact on the trust that the judiciary should enjoy by the public.
The subject of the revaluation did not prove that, with the legal income of him or other related persons, to cover the expenses and savings declared in the periodic annual statements and those declared during the administrative investigation, by not proving the opposite of the reasons për The circumstances arising from the process of revaluation of the subject are sufficient to assess that the subject of revaluation failed to pass the test of not violating the public trust in the justice system “, it is stated in report.
For his part, Prosecutor Hajdarmataj and his lawyer Romina Zano challenged all the conclusions of the Public Commissioner as unfounded, unfair and disproportionate. In conclusion, Hajdarmataj asked the Appellate Panel to confirm him in office. But it will be the Vetting College, which will decide whether Besim Hajdarmataj will leave or come to serve in justice. The decision of the College is final and has immediate effect.
The five files that endanger Hajdarmataj
During the process in the Independent Qualification Commission and especially in the Appellate Panel, Besim Hajdarmataj is accused of suspiciously closing some important files in his possession, by not conducting investigations, misinterpreting the law, avoiding responsibility, etc. . The closure of the files is also the basis of the recommendation of the International Monitoring Operation for the dismissal of Besim Hajdarmataj. Prosecutor Hajdarmatajt, for each case, has always found an alibi, to close it or send it to another prosecutor.
1. In 2010, when Besim Hajdarmataj headed the Kurbin Prosecutor’s Office, according to the IOM and the Public Commissioner, he closed the file of a group operating in the field of gambling, because the prosecutor had connections and friendship with the head of the group. The group of 15 people stopped and threatened 5 employees of the Gambling Supervision Unit, forcibly seizing 5 APEX machines. For almost 1 year and 3 months, Hajdarmataj did not conduct any investigation and finally closed the file, arguing that “in this case, after investigations have been made, it has not been possible to prove the existence of the fact and, for these reasons, criminal proceedings can not continue, but the case must be dismissed. But, according to the IOM and the Commissioner, the prosecutor has made a wrong definition in the registration of the criminal offense, has not performed sufficient investigative actions, the defendant has not been questioned, has not made verifications for other activities of the group leader, has not verified telephone records, etc. . Not only that, but ONM claims that Hajdarmataj was related to the main protagonist of the gambling file, a character with significant legal problems and scheduled for several criminal offenses. When asked about this character, Hajdarmataj stated that “I explained to him that I have no connection with this citizen, I do not have any social relations and I have not had family or other relations, I just know him as a person.” But, the investigation has shown that the prosecutor has exchanged messages with the problematic character who closed the file, they had even traveled by plane.
2. According to the IOM and the Commissioner, in 2017, when he headed the Serious Crimes Prosecution, Besim Hajdarmataj sent for investigation to the Përmet Prosecution the file for the seizure of 11,650 kg of cannabis in Përmet. The Vetting Commission found that the Serious Crimes Prosecution had not conducted a proactive investigation to identify the members and leaders of the structured criminal group who were conducting a very large narcotics trafficking operation. But, according to the KPC, Hajdarmataj was the head of the prosecution and as such this evasion of the investigation cannot be attributed. But, unlike the first instance of Vetting, the Public Commissioner concludes that “In the present case, it seems that the subject of the re-evaluation has not responsibly exercised its functional duties and the mechanisms provided by law to monitor the progress and completion of the case, given the importance it’s ”.
3. In 2016, when he headed the Prosecution of Serious Crimes, Besim Hajdarmataj transferred after two years to the Prosecution of Shkodra an important drug file. The First Instance Vetting Commission found that “given the enormous importance of the case in question and the large amount of narcotics found, it appears that the reassessment entity has not fulfilled its supervisory duties, tolerating the initial inaction ( which lasted for two years)… ”. However, the movement of the file, according to the KPC can not charge Hajdarmataj as a manager. But the IOM and the Public Commissioner think otherwise. According to them, no investigation has been conducted for two years. “As the director, the subject, only after a year, has decided to replace the charged prosecutor, arguing that he has found delays in investigations and the need for their progress, although, as he admitted in his submissions before the Commission, has been aware of the seriousness, problems and importance of the case under investigation. The Public Commissioner estimates that the identified, repeated findings are such that enable the assessment on the criterion of professional ability, in the overall assessment of the case, based on the applicable law and the jurisprudence of the College “, it is stated in the complaint file.
4. In 2016, Besim Hajdarmataj sent for investigative competence to the Durrës Prosecutor’s Office another drug file, operating in the same way. The Vetting Commission of the First Instance has concluded that “the decision to declare incompetence and transfer the acts to the Prosecution at the Judicial District Court, Durrës, in 2016, drafted by the head of the Prosecution, Mr. B. Hajdarmataj, has been formally drafted in accordance with the criminal procedural law ”. But, the Public Commissioner thinks differently, who says that “Regarding the amount of seized drugs, the persons involved, the shortcomings ascertained, it does not seem convincing the change of the definition of criminal offenses by the subject of re-evaluation. It turns out that investigations into the financial movements of the suspects have not been documented or their phone calls have been monitored, in order to identify other persons involved or to conclude whether the case was of an international character. The fact that the court convicted the defendants of a criminal offense of lower risk, such as: “Production and sale of narcotic plants”, as argued, among others, by the subject, does not justify the lack of investigation by the Prosecution, as no other element or evidence was made available to the court, on the basis of which it could have decided otherwise ”.
5. In 2013, when Besim Hajdarmataj headed the Durrës Prosecutor’s Office, he removed an important file from a prosecutor, transferring the case to Elbasan, arguing that the distance between Durrës and Elbasan is shorter than the distance between Durrës and Elbasan. Even for the First Instance Vetting Commission, this argument of the prosecutor is weak and does not stand. But the KPC has concluded that “it has no jurisdiction to get to the heart of the matter over what the higher courts have decided”. But otherwise, the IOM and the Public Commissioner reasoned, stating that “The subject of the re-evaluation, taking the case from the charged prosecutor and taking the final decision declaring incompetence, has practically charged himself as the prosecutor of the case, taking over the investigation and its shortcomings. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the subject, in the capacity of the head of the Prosecution, does not appear to have administered a decision to replace the prosecutor, which contradicts the legal provisions themselves imi The reasoning of the subject is incomplete and unclear, in terms of the need for the case to be handled by him, in the conditions when the investigation had already started and the prosecutor who had determined in the meantime and the further steps for their progress. The legal basis referred by the subject in the reasoning of the decision to transfer the case, with that of the enacting clause, is different… Also, the argument that the city of Elbasan is closer to Tirana than Durres, is unconvincing, incompatible with the circumstances and facts, as in the Prosecution of Durrës have been transferred many cases of incompetence of the Prosecution of Tirana with legal basis article 78 of K. Pr. Penal. “Nonsense, this reasoning is applied in the final stage of the investigation.”
Collision with Theo Jacobs
The famous international observer Theo Jacobs, during the penultimate session in the Appellate Panel, told Besim Hajdarmataj that for each case analyzed, he throws the ball to others, to justify the lack of investigation, closure or transfer of cases to other prosecutors, But the international follower said this is not in play. “Prosecutors have been under your supervision and nothing has been done. This is a shame! You have justified it with the independence of prosecutors, but independence is to get the job done. While you use the independence of prosecutors even when they do nothing. You throw the ball every time. This is not a game. The amount of 800 kg or a few tons of cannabis sativa is not a game. “If you could not find the perpetrators, you should look for them,” said Theo Jacobs. Meanwhile, prosecutor Besim Hajdarmataj considered Theo Jacobs’ questions as comments. Hajdarmataj claimed that he had no friendship with the accused for the gambling issue, to whom he closed the file. The prosecutor has asserted that Theo Jacobs and the Commissioner have no TIMS system dates for his trip with this person who closed the file. Hajdaramataj also defended all his actions in relation to the drug file.
