The Constitutional Court has published the full decision regarding the request of former Minister of Health, Ilir Beqaj, to repeal the measure "Arrest in prison". Although Beqaj will remain behind bars, the document reveals a strong clash of principles between the two groups of judges.
On the one hand, the Majority (Fiona Papajorgji, Marsida Xhaferllari, Sonila Bejtja, Ilir Toska, Marjana Semini) dismissed the request, while on the other hand, the Minority (Asim Vokshi and Sandër Beci) came up with a minority opinion, arguing that the applicant's rights have been violated.
Here are the points where the judges were divided "knife by knife":
1. The Need for "Prison Arrest" vs. Lighter Measures
Majority (Papajorgji, Xhaferllari, Bejtja, Toska, Semini):
The majority judges defended the decision-making of the lower courts (GJKKO and Appeal), arguing that the importance of the criminal offenses (corruption, fraud, forgery) necessitated the more severe measure. According to them, "the public interest in the proper conduct of the criminal process outweighs the personal freedom of the applicant" at this stage.
Minority (Vokshi, Beci):
Judges Vokshi and Beci strongly criticized this position. They argued that the courts failed to explain why a lighter measure, such as "Property Guarantee", would not be sufficient. According to the minority: "The measure of detention in prison is an 'extrema ratio' and cannot be imposed automatically without proving the inappropriateness of other measures."
2. Ilir Beqaj's Personality: Former Senior Official or Model Citizen?
Majority (Papajorgji, Xhaferllari, Bejtja, Toska, Semini):
For most, Beqaj's high profile as a former minister and influential official increases his social dangerousness. They assessed that the repeated nature of suspicions of violating the law indicates a tendency to disobey legal norms, which justifies his isolation.
Minority (Vokshi, Beci):
The minority saw another side of the coin. They emphasized that Beqaj had correctly implemented previous security measures (compulsion to appear) in other proceedings. According to them, this fact proved that he had no intention of evading justice. They argued that "the court should have taken into account the mitigating circumstances and the correct conduct of the applicant up to that point."
3. Risk to evidence and investigation
Majority (Papajorgji, Xhaferllari, Bejtja, Toska, Semini):
The majority of judges supported the prosecution's claim that Beqaj's freedom could jeopardize the authenticity of the evidence. Given the complex financial schemes and forgeries involved, his presence outside the cell could affect witnesses or the documentation being seized.
Minority (Vokshi, Beci):
Here the minority raised a rather technical legal point: If the only risk is damage to evidence, the law requires that the security measure have a specific term. According to Vokshi and Beci, ordering detention in prison "indefinitely" was an excess of powers and a violation of the principle of proportionality, since the investigation of evidence cannot last indefinitely by keeping a person in a cell.
