THE NEW CRIMINAL CODE AND THE JUSTICE WE WANT FOR ALBANIA – I SUPPORT THE PRIME MINISTER’S REFORM, BUT THE REFORM MUST ALSO REACH THE COURTS
By Flamur Buçpapaj
I support the new Criminal Code and the comprehensive reform of Albania’s justice system. As a specialist in the field and as a citizen who has followed for years the way the rule of law functions, I believe Albania has reached a point where we can no longer be satisfied with partial changes. We need a modern, European criminal justice system that is clear and applied equally to everyone. For this very reason, I support Prime Minister Edi Rama’s initiative for a new Criminal Code and for further reform of criminal legislation.
In July 2026, the Council of Ministers decided to take measures for the drafting, consolidation and finalization of the new Criminal Code, amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure and other criminal-law legislation, within the framework of the European integration process. On September 30, 2026, the New Package of Procedural Guarantees in the Code of Criminal Procedure was also presented. According to the government, the package aims to strengthen defense rights, judicial oversight, the presumption of innocence, the rules governing security measures, and accountability for procedural violations.
When we speak about a European Criminal Code, we must be precise: there is no single Criminal Code of the European Union that applies in the same way in Italy, Germany, Belgium or other countries. Italy has its own Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure. Germany has its Strafgesetzbuch and Strafprozessordnung. Belgium has its own criminal legislation. However, these systems operate within a European legal space in which certain fundamental principles are shared.
One of these is the presumption of innocence. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union establishes that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law, and that respect for the rights of the defense must be guaranteed.
Therefore, when a person is released from pre-trial detention or has a security measure replaced by another measure, this does not mean that the person has been declared innocent. Pre-trial detention is not a punishment. Punishment is imposed after a judicial process and a final judgment.
But this does not mean that the state should be weak in the fight against crime. On the contrary, the state must be very strong in investigations, evidence gathering, criminal prosecution and the enforcement of final sentences. What we must avoid is treating a person as if they were already convicted before they have been convicted.
This is not weakness toward crime. This is the rule of law.
In European countries as well, pre-trial detention is regarded as a measure that should be used only when necessary. The EU recommendation on procedural rights in pre-trial detention establishes that detention should be a measure of last resort and that, where possible, alternatives should be used. In Italy, for example, the Constitution establishes that an accused person is not considered guilty until a final judgment.
European systems also place emphasis on periodic review of pre-trial detention, reasoned judicial decisions, the right to be heard, legal assistance and the possibility of appeal.
Therefore, Albania should move closer to Europe not by mechanically copying Italy, Germany or Belgium, but by adopting European standards of justice: a state that is strong against crime, but fair toward its citizens.
It is not enough to have a modern Criminal Code if a citizen, when entering a courtroom, does not feel that they have been heard. I say this also based on a personal and concrete experience I have had with administrative justice.
In a case involving my company, Nacional, I was involved in judicial proceedings about which I have very serious objections. Judge Klidiana Veizaj, according to my experience and the way I personally experienced and documented the proceedings, conducted the trial without summoning us in the manner I considered necessary, without hearing our defense and without giving us a real opportunity to present our position and evidence.
In my view, a security measure was issued that affected our contract, and the decision favored the state party, while we did not have the opportunity to be properly heard.
For me, this is a very serious problem.
Because the question is simple: how can a process be considered full justice when the party directly affected by the decision believes that it was not heard and that its evidence was not examined?
When an administrative court decides on a contract, a business, property or a citizen’s rights, the parties must have a real opportunity to be heard, to defend themselves and to present their evidence.
For me, this is not simply a personal dispute. It is a debate about the rule of law.
I support independent judges. I do not want judges who obey the Prime Minister. I do not want judges who obey the opposition. I do not want judges who obey business interests. I do not want judges who obey the media. I want judges who answer only to the Constitution and the law.
But independence must not mean a lack of accountability. Judicial independence must be accompanied by accountability.
If a judge issues an independent decision against the state, that is not a problem. That is precisely why an independent judiciary exists.
But if a judge does not hear a party, does not examine evidence, does not provide reasons for a decision, or violates procedural rights, then there must be real mechanisms for professional oversight and accountability.
This is not interference with judicial independence. This is accountability in a democratic state.
Vetting has been an important process for Albania. But passing vetting should not mean that a judge can never again be examined regarding the way they perform their duties.
We need a continuous system of professional and disciplinary evaluation of judges and prosecutors.
Not political vetting.l Not a mechanism for revenge. But professional, transparent and lawful oversight.
Because judges can also make mistakes. That is precisely why appeals, judicial review, inspection and disciplinary accountability exist.
Therefore, I say: let us adopt the new Criminal Code. Let us make it more European. Let us strengthen the fight against crime and corruption. Let us protect innocent citizens. Let us respect the presumption of innocence. Let us use pre-trial detention only when required by law and when it is genuinely necessary.
And at the same time, let us reform the courts as well.
Because we cannot have modern laws with outdated implementation. We cannot have a European Criminal Code with the administrative mentality of the past. We cannot have an independent judiciary without accountability. And we cannot have the rule of law if citizens believe that a decision can be made in court without hearing them.
When I say that such a practice reminds me of communism, I mean it as a strong criticism of the way decisions are made, not as a legal characterization of a judge or a court.
Today, Albania must be the opposite of that period. The state must face the citizen before the law on equal terms.
That is democracy. That is Europe.
This is why I support the reform of the new Criminal Code and the effort to bring Albania closer to European standards.
But the reform must go all the way: from Parliament to the prosecution, from the prosecution to the courts, and from the courts to the citizen.
Above all, we must build a system in which neither the government, nor the prosecutor, nor the judge, nor the businessman, nor the citizen is above the law.
Italy has its own standards. Germany has its own standards. Belgium has its own standards. But all must respect the European principles of the rule of law, the right to defense and a fair trial.
Albania must enter Europe not only through its economy and institutions, but also through a culture of justice.
This is the state we must build.
This is the European standard.
And this is the justice Albania deserves.
By Flamur Buçpapaj
