The President of the Supreme Court, Sokol Sadushi, has raised the issue of one of the most sensitive issues of criminal justice in Albania: the way in which the security measure "prison arrest" is determined.
Through an interim decision, Sadushi has initiated the procedure for the partial amendment of the unified practice of 2011, a decision that for 15 years has served as a guide for courts in cases when they decide on detention.
Essentially, the Supreme Court’s idea is that time has brought new developments, both in criminal procedural law and in the standards of the European Court of Human Rights. According to this reasoning, it is no longer enough for the court to simply say that “prison arrest” is the appropriate measure, but must specifically explain why lighter measures are not sufficient.
Sadushi asks the United Colleges to review three essential points. The first relates to the obligation of courts to realistically consider alternative measures to detention. The second concerns whether dangerousness can be inferred solely from the nature of the criminal offense or from the severity of the sentence. The third touches on the burden of proof: who must justify the need for “prison arrest” and whether the defendant must bring positive evidence to obtain a more lenient measure.
So, in simpler terms, the Supreme Court is saying that detention should not be automatically imposed just because the charge is serious. According to the new logic being discussed, any decision to deprive a person of their liberty must be based on concrete and personal circumstances, not on standard formulas.
This does not mean that the old practice has been overturned. Sadushi has simply opened the procedure and referred the matter to the United Colleges, which will have the final say. The hearing is scheduled for April 9, 2026.
If this practice changes, the impact could be direct in many criminal cases, especially in those where pre-trial detention has become the most used measure. For this reason, Sadushi's move is expected to be followed with great attention, because it touches on one of the most delicate balances of justice: the relationship between the need for investigation and personal freedom.
