The case involving composer Adi Hila has been transferred to the Tirana Prosecutor’s Office, where, following the draw, the file has been assigned to prosecutor Julian Xhengo. Alongside the complaints filed by the parties, another element that could complicate the investigation has also come under review: damage to the hard disk of the camera that allegedly contained footage of interest to the case.
The draw assigns the prosecutor who will handle the case file
According to publicly released information, the draw at the Tirana Prosecutor’s Office assigned the case to prosecutor Julian Xhengo. At this stage, the file is linked to the complaints deposited with the police and to the preliminary actions carried out so far.
The official version is that, after the documentation is formalized, the file may be delegated again to the police for further investigative actions under the direction of the prosecution. This is a known procedure, but the real weight of the case will depend on the evidence that remains available for administration.
Two complaints with opposing claims
Two complaints have been filed with the police. Adi Hila claims he was the target of hacking, while singer Eli Fara has filed a complaint over violation of privacy.
Based on these claims, the case includes several possible criminal offenses. On one side, unauthorized computer access is being mentioned, while on the other, the illegal interception of computer data and misuse of computer devices are also being cited.
Monika Lubonja’s complaint also enters the case file
Another development is the criminal complaint made public by actress Monika Lubonja against Adi Hila. Up to this stage, no further details have been made public about the full content of this complaint or its procedural impact on the case file.
This increases the number of claims the prosecution must verify in a case where the parties’ versions do not match and where every technical piece of evidence takes on decisive importance.
Suspicions also over obstructing the discovery of the truth
Beyond the initial complaints, the prosecution has also added to the investigation the criminal offense of actions that obstruct the discovery of the truth. This element is linked to the way evidence considered important to the investigation was handled.
According to publicly released information, police attempted to inspect the hard disk after seizing it, but found that it was damaged. Regarding this circumstance, Adi Hila has stated that he destroyed the hard disk himself, arguing that he was not sure where the intrusion was coming from and that he feared further remote access.
At this point, the case is no longer only a clash of claims over privacy and computer interference, but also a test of the ability of investigative institutions to preserve and administer key evidence.
What remains to be seen is whether the investigation will manage to clarify the chain of events through verifiable evidence, or whether the damage to the hard disk will make it more difficult to fully clarify the case.