The hearing at the Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime (GJKKO) in the “Partizani” case, in which Sali Berisha is a defendant, did not take place and was postponed until September 28. The stated reason was a boycott by lawyers, in a clash that once again highlighted tensions over operating rules inside the court premises.
The hearing was postponed until September 28
The proceedings scheduled at GJKKO for the “Partizani” case were interrupted without entering normal review and were rescheduled for September 28.
In this case, Sali Berisha appears as a defendant. The latest postponement keeps the file on hold at a time when public attention on it remains high.
Lawyers’ boycott blocked the proceedings
According to reporting from the hearing, the reason for the postponement was the lawyers’ boycott.
Their objection is linked to GJKKO’s regulation, which does not allow the use of phones inside the court premises. The clash, therefore, was not related to the substance of the criminal case, but to the conditions and rules governing the proceedings.
Questions over equal enforcement of the regulation
Although the regulation, according to the official version, bans phones for everyone, during the hearing it was observed that the panel of three judges had phones.
This detail raises questions over the standard for enforcing the rules inside the court: if the ban is general, it remains to be clarified why it was not applied in the same way to everyone present.
Procedural debate is taking the place of review of the case file
The postponement of the hearing shows that the process is facing not only the political and public burden of the case, but also procedural disagreements that are diverting the focus from the file itself.
Instead of a hearing focused on judicial review, attention shifted to the internal regulation and the way it is applied in practice.
For now, the case remains postponed until September 28, while the debate over the rules and the standard of their enforcement has moved to the forefront.
In a process of high public interest, any lack of clarity over the equal treatment of the parties only adds to doubts over the administration of the hearing.