During his four terms in power, Edi Rama has shown that he is not only Prime Minister and head of government. He has often taken it upon himself to speak on behalf of other institutions. This time, he appeared almost as a spokesperson for the State Police.
In an attempt to support his thesis that it is not just students who are behind the violent episodes of the protests, Rama published photographs, initials, ages, and data on the criminal records of a number of people escorted or arrested after the protests.
The Prime Minister publicly labeled them as people with “criminal precedents,” listing for each criminal offense for which, according to him, they had been previously prosecuted or convicted. The list made public included data on narcotics, theft, violence, forgery, resisting police, and even alleged convictions outside Albania. Friday’s reports confirm that Rama released such images and information during his statement.
But beyond the political and propaganda battle, another question arises here: where did the Prime Minister get this data and did he have the right to make it public? Because data on a citizen's criminal history is not simply material for a political statement.
Law No. 124/2024 “On the Protection of Personal Data” expressly defines as “criminal data” personal information related to criminal convictions, criminal offenses and security measures. This law also establishes as basic principles that the processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent.
The issue becomes even more delicate if the information published by the Prime Minister came from State Police databases or materials.
The law makes a clear distinction between a person arrested, detained, under investigation or accused and a person convicted by a final criminal decision.
And this is precisely where the problem arises with a "public trial" conducted from the Prime Minister's podium.
If there are still ongoing proceedings against the publicly exposed individuals, their responsibility for the protest events cannot be considered proven just because the Prime Minister presents them as individuals with precedents. Guilt for a specific offense is determined by justice, not by a political conference.
What does Article 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code say?
Another point that requires clarification is the origin of the published materials. Article 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Prohibition of publication of the act”, provides, among other things:
"The publication, even partial, of secret acts related to the matter or even their content through the press or mass media is prohibited."
In point 2, the provision goes further and prohibits the publication, even partial, of non-secret acts until the completion of preliminary investigations.
While for minors, the protection is even stronger: point 4 prohibits the publication of generalities and photographs of minor defendants and witnesses, with the exceptions provided for by the law itself.
This is particularly important, as the list publicly presented by Rama also includes a 17-year-old person.
Who gave this information to the Prime Minister?
If they come from the State Police systems or from criminal proceedings materials, on what legal basis were they made available to the head of government for subsequent use in public and political communication? And if it concerns information from an ongoing investigation, were the restrictions imposed by the Criminal Procedure Code respected?
The Law on the Protection of Personal Data specifically sets out rules for the processing of data by competent authorities for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences and for public security.
Prime Minister or Police Spokesperson?
Edi Rama may have every political right to condemn the violence in protests, defend the State Police, or argue that among the protesters there were people who were not students.
But it's another thing to take data that may come from state structures and use it to publicly expose certain citizens.
In a state governed by the rule of law, the police investigate, the prosecution charges, and the court decides on guilt. The prime minister is none of them.
Therefore, after the publication of the list of protesters, the issue cannot be closed solely with Rama's political argument about who was or was not a student.
There are several questions that require institutional answers: Where did the photographs and criminal history come from? Who made them available to the Prime Minister? For what purpose were these data collected and on what basis were they used for public exposure? Was there among them data that belonged to a criminal proceeding still in progress?
And, above all: is it against the law to provide arguments for government propaganda? Neither the opposition, nor the government, nor the media can decide this.
But it is an issue for which the institutions responsible for the protection of personal data and the justice bodies have reason to provide an answer.
