The government has put forward a broad package of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, affecting a sensitive part of the mechanisms for investigation, pretrial detention and the publication of investigative materials. In the version presented by Prime Minister Edi Rama, the emphasis is on procedural guarantees and increased judicial oversight over the actions of prosecutors and police, while the government itself insists that this does not mean softening the crackdown on corruption and organized crime.
The package affects one-fifth of the Code
According to Rama’s presentation, the new package includes 105 articles and affects about one-fifth of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prime minister said the draft was prepared with the involvement of 19 academics and magistrates from Italy, France and the Netherlands, together with experts from the Council of Europe, while the Albanian side played a coordinating role through the technical secretariat.
The provisions aimed at increasing guarantees for people under investigation or on trial are especially linked to pretrial detention, the right to defense, the manner of questioning and the handling of evidence. The government presents this intervention as a correction to a system that, according to figures cited by Rama, relies heavily on pretrial detention.
What changes for detention in prison
The package presented provides that for offenses carrying a maximum sentence of less than five years, detention in prison will not be imposed. Rama also said that for offenses carrying a maximum sentence of up to three years, as a rule, coercive measures will not be imposed.
According to the version presented by the government, the court must independently justify the need for the security measure, and the gravity of the criminal offense alone will no longer be sufficient. The package also provides for periodic reporting by the prosecutor to the court on the continuation of the conditions that justify restricting liberty.
Phones and wiretaps face stricter court filtering
One of the most sensitive points of the package concerns phones and wiretaps. Under the proposed changes, the police and the prosecution may seize the device, but opening, copying or processing its contents will require prior authorization from the court.
Likewise, for wiretaps it is envisaged that only communications related to the investigation will be transcribed, including those that may be in favor of the person under investigation. Any data obtained outside the court’s authorization, according to the package presented, will be unusable.
Limits on publishing investigative materials
The package also sets new rules on the presumption of innocence and on the publication of investigation materials. The proposed amendments include restrictions on publishing the content of wiretaps, identifying data of victims and images of persons under physical coercive measures.
Rama said that responsibility for disclosing investigative secrecy will not fall on the media, but on the person who has the legal duty to preserve it. This is one of the points expected to be read carefully, as it simultaneously affects the transparency of investigations, the right to information and institutional control over file leaks.
The government says the fight against corruption is unaffected
The prime minister insisted that the package does not strip the prosecution of its powers to wiretap, search, seize, investigate assets or cooperate internationally, but changes the way those powers are exercised and strengthens court oversight over these actions.
According to Rama, special regimes will remain in place for corruption, organized crime, terrorism, trafficking, crimes involving weapons or serious violence, and cases of the Special Court. The government presents this as a guarantee that the package will not be used to soften the criminal front in the most sensitive case files.
The real debate over this package is now expected to shift from the presentation hall to the text of the articles and the way they will be applied in practice. Experience has shown that changes on paper and guarantees publicly proclaimed do not necessarily produce the same result in investigations, in courts and in the relationship between the state and the citizen.
It is precisely there that it will be measured whether this is a serious correction of procedural abuses, or a package that seeks to preserve political balances around justice while packaging it as a European standard.