Composer Adrian Hila testified for around three hours at Tirana Police in a case that has raised serious questions about privacy, the use of cameras in indoor spaces and the leaking of videos on the internet. After giving his explanations, he was released, but the investigation against him is continuing.
What Hila told police
According to the version given by Hila, the cameras had been installed back in 2022 and, according to him, the purpose was not to record intimate moments but to protect against theft and wrongdoers.
He claimed that several unsolved thefts had taken place in the area, while in his office the absence of an item of modest value had also been noticed. For this reason, according to his testimony, it was decided to install cameras inside and outside the premises.
What police have established so far
From the checks carried out at this stage, it appears that the cameras were basic and visible to the naked eye. Likewise, the camera placed in the bedroom also appears to have had sensors.
As for the camera’s placement angle, Hila told police that it had been determined by the company that carried out the installation, with the explanation that there was easier access to the power source there.
Under investigation over privacy, but not only
After being questioned, Hila was released, while he is under investigation for the criminal offense of “unlawful interference in private life.”
At the same time, police are also primarily investigating three other criminal offenses: illegal interception, interference with computer data and misuse of devices. This shows that the case is not being treated only as a debate over the placement of cameras, but also over how the footage was managed and distributed.
Suspicions of hacking and the women identified in the videos
Based on Hila’s statements, in which he suspects that the materials may have been obtained through hacking, police are trying to determine from what source the videos ended up online.
On the other hand, police have also contacted the girls and women identified in the footage. According to the official version, they said they were not aware they were being filmed and that they would cooperate to fully clarify the circumstances.
The case has highlighted not only the unclear boundary between private security and the violation of personal life, but also the gaps that emerge when such materials end up in public.
It remains to be seen whether the investigation will stop at technical and procedural explanations, or whether it will fully clarify who recorded, who managed and who circulated the videos.