Proposals for changes to the Criminal Procedure Code have triggered a fierce public debate, amid suspicions that the intervention could directly affect corruption investigations and the way security measures are imposed on senior officials. Faced with the argument that pretrial detention cannot be used as premature punishment, critics see a dangerous move at a moment when SPAK is investigating the highest levels of power.
The clash: safeguards for rights or relief for officials under investigation?
Two entirely opposing readings of the draft emerged in the debate. One side argued that limiting detention in prison risks weakening investigations, especially in cases involving senior officials and corruption. The other side insisted that a security measure cannot be turned into punishment without a final court ruling.
Erald Kapri linked the draft to the climate created by SPAK’s investigations, raising suspicions that the changes could help people under investigation. According to him, the new approach affects precisely the area where the prosecution has had its most politically sensitive results: investigations into the highest levels of government.
Political accusations against the majority
Arjon Sulo gave the debate an even sharper political tone, reading the initiative as a delayed reaction by the government only after justice has touched important names. According to him, the government has maintained a harsh stance on restrictive measures when opponents were targeted, while now it is speaking about freedom and softer standards.
Along the same lines, he raised concern that detention in prison could also exclude offenses linked to corruption, witness intimidation, and violations of equality in public tenders or auctions. These are precisely the points that make the debate more sensitive, as they directly affect the relationship between procedural reform and the fight against corruption in the administration.
The counterargument: pretrial detention cannot become the norm
On the other hand, Alban Dudushi and Filip Cakuli emphasized a basic principle of criminal law: pretrial detention should be the last resort, not the automatic solution. They opposed the logic that the success of justice should be measured by the number of people placed in cells before a final decision.
According to this view, the real problem begins when a person under investigation remains in pretrial detention for years and in the end faces a lighter sentence than the time already spent in jail. In this reading, limiting detention in prison is presented as an effort to curb abuse of the harshest security measure, not as an obstacle to investigation.
At the center remains the question of the real effect on SPAK
The most debated point remains whether the draft simply restores the standard that detention in prison should be used according to strict criteria, or whether, as critics claim, new barriers are being built for prosecutors in sensitive cases. This point becomes even more delicate when the discussion mentions investigations involving well-known political and administrative figures.
Beyond television rhetoric, the essence of the debate is institutional: is an excessive practice of pretrial detention being corrected, or are the rules being softened precisely at the time when investigations have moved closer to the center of power? So far, that remains the question the draft has not dispelled; on the contrary, it has made it even sharper.
The debate over changes to the Criminal Procedure Code is unfolding not only over legal principles, but also over the political distrust that accompanies every intervention in the rules of investigation and detention.
When proposals touch on corruption, public tenders, and senior officials, the burden of explanation falls on the government and the authors of the draft: to prove that they are not intervening precisely where justice has finally begun to knock.