The government is putting forward a new package of changes to criminal procedure, promising greater safeguards for personal liberty, privacy and investigative standards. At the center of Edi Rama’s announcement was one point with direct impact: phones and electronic devices, under the version he presented, could not be searched without a court order.
Government aims to limit detention in prison
According to the prime minister, one of the main changes concerns the way security measures are determined. Rama said the court should begin its assessment from freedom and from the lighter measures, not from pretrial detention as an automatic solution.
He said that for criminal offenses punishable by up to three years, no coercive measures would be imposed, while for those carrying less than five years, there would be no detention in prison. Along the same lines, he claimed that the nature of the criminal offense should no longer be enough to justify a security measure without a concrete and current risk.
Rama added that if the court copies the prosecutor’s arguments without conducting an independent assessment, the decision would be considered invalid. Likewise, according to him, the need to continue a security measure would be reviewed periodically, and the prosecutor would report every month to the court on the existence of the reasons keeping it in force.
Phones and electronic devices under judicial filter
One of the most sensitive points of the package announced by the government concerns the seizure and search of phones, computers and other electronic devices. Rama said that seizure by the police or prosecution would no longer automatically imply the right to open and examine the entire contents of the device.
According to him, access to the contents of a phone or electronic device would require a court decision. Even in urgent cases, the intervention, under the official version presented, would subsequently be subject to judicial review.
The prime minister also said that any material extracted from the device that is unrelated to the investigation must be destroyed. The same safeguards, according to him, would also apply to wiretaps, with limits on the use of materials unrelated to the subject of the case.
Audio and video recording for questioning
The package presented also provides for changes in the way questioning and key procedural actions are documented. According to Rama, these actions would be recorded with audio and video.
He said that statements obtained under pressure, through inappropriate conduct or violence, should have no procedural value. At the same time, according to the changes presented, the official record must include materials related to the investigation, including those that may be in favor of the person under investigation.
Notification of proceedings and filtering of cases before court
Another point that the government presents as a procedural safeguard concerns informing the person against whom criminal proceedings have been registered. Rama said the person has the right to know about the registration of the proceedings and that secret investigations for long periods should not become routine.
He also said that the prosecution must assess the evidence before a case is sent to court, claiming that only files with a real prospect should go there. In this package, according to him, strengthening the presumption of innocence beyond the courtroom is also included.
Rama acknowledges problems in justice reform
During the presentation, the prime minister linked the package to the 10-year balance sheet of the justice reform. He repeated the majority’s political assessment that the reform has changed the system and struck at impunity, but at the same time acknowledged that distortions and failures have also emerged during these years.
This acknowledgment comes as the government is trying to reformat some parts of criminal procedure with the argument of protecting freedoms and privacy. It remains to be seen how these announcements will translate into a concrete legal draft and how many of these safeguards will remain real in the practice of the police, prosecution and courts.
For the moment, the changes have been presented as political proposals by the head of government and not as a proven balance sheet of the system. Their real weight will be measured in the legal text, in public debate and above all in implementation on the ground, where criminal procedure has often functioned differently from the declared principles.