Suspicions of preferential treatment in prisons returned to the center of debate in the special parliamentary committee on internal affairs, where questions were raised about transfers, unrecorded meetings and cells with extra conditions. The answers given by penitentiary system officials did not settle the questions; on the contrary, they left some of them open.
Questions over Veliaj’s transfer, answer remained procedural
Possibility Party MP Erald Kapri sought clarifications from the General Director of Prisons about Erion Veliaj’s transfer to Fier prison and the procedures followed in this case.
On this issue, the official response was that the questions should be submitted in writing, with the argument that only in that form could a full clarification be provided. In practical terms, no concrete explanation of the procedure followed was given during the session.
Claims of special meetings, it was acknowledged that meetings took place in meeting rooms
Kapri also raised the issue of allegations about special meetings between a high-risk prisoner and his partner, meetings which, according to the claims, were not recorded, and also asked whether there had been an investigation into this case.
On this point, the floor was given to the director of prison police, Paulin Rajta. According to the version he gave, these were not “special rooms,” but meetings held in meeting rooms. He acknowledged that the prisoner and his partner had met and added that “the law has loopholes, and they try to exploit them.”
Suspicions of a “hotel” at Peqin prison
In the same session, the question was also raised whether at Peqin prison there is a facility described as a “hotel” inside the institution. On this point, no direct clarification was given that would close the debate.
Rajta linked the discussion to the circulation of a video involving a crime figure who was alleged to have extra conditions in his cell. According to him, there had been some modifications and some equipment, but no prohibited equipment; he described them as “excess items.”
Customized cells and the prison police response
In his statement, the director of prison police said that for those convicted of serious crimes with sentences of more than 15 years in prison, some degree of cell personalization is accepted in other countries, on the grounds that they spend many years there.
However, he underlined that local conditions are not such and that the prison police have reacted. According to him, the environment in question no longer exists in the form that was denounced, and the convicted persons are serving their sentences according to court decisions, regardless of cases when any excess or prohibited item is found.
The session highlighted not only suspicions of privileges inside prisons, but also the lack of complete real-time answers on issues affecting the treatment of convicted persons and security standards.
When officials themselves acknowledge meetings that “should not” have happened in that form and speak of cells arranged with additional items, the burden of clarification remains on the penitentiary administration and institutional oversight mechanisms.