ISP's analysis of vetting/ 24% of KPK decisions were overturned by KPA

2023-08-13 13:18:00, Vetingu CNA

ISP's analysis of vetting/ 24% of KPK decisions were overturned by KPA

Illustrative photo

The Institute of Political Studies has conducted an analysis of the judicial vetting process over 5 years, from 2018 to 2023.

The ISP states that by July 2023, the Special Appeal Board (SAB) has reversed 49 decisions or 24% of the decisions of the first level of vetting, the Independent Qualification Commission (KPK).

KPA has left in force 156 decisions or 76% of the decisions taken by KPK.

The ISP states that the fact that the decisions were made by majority vote in both levels of vetting shows that the evaluation standard was not the same.

The Institute emphasizes that after 5 years of vetting, it is important to have an analysis by the justice institutions themselves and a professional "audit" through independent experts from the Assembly, to assess the balance, achievements, problems and future challenges of vetting.

ISP's analysis of vetting/ 24% of KPK decisions were overturned by KPA

ISP Analysis:

During the five years of vetting in justice, from the ISP monitoring data, it results that until July 2023, a total of 49 decisions or 24% of the final decisions given by the Special Appeal Board (KPA) have changed the decision-making level first vetting, KPK (Independent Qualification Commission).

The concept of vetting is based on three criteria: professional ability, integrity and asset verifications. The essence of the justice reform and the vetting process was precisely the creation of the same evaluation standards and the removal from the system of prosecutors or judges who do not meet one or more of the three criteria. The fact that a significant number of decisions in the KPK were taken by majority vote, i.e. with two votes in favor and one against, that some decisions of the KPA were also taken by majority vote (4/1 or 3/2), that there were 88 appeals from the side of the Public Commissioners towards the KPK, - it is indicative that the decision-making in the KPK & KPA & IKP have been controversial and therefore, the evaluation / vetting standard does not turn out to have been the same. For more, the fact that in at least 3 cases the Strasbourg Court has given decisions against KPA+KPK+IKP is also an additional indicator of concerns regarding the applied vetting standards. As in cases where decisions deviate from the standards or when they reinforce the standards, the decision-making institutions and individuals themselves in KPK, KPA, IKP, etc., should take the credit (in successful professional cases) or the responsibility (in cases of deviations from good standards) .

During the process, the vetting institutions themselves have negatively evaluated the records of the subjects, when their decisions were overturned in higher instances. As for them, are they ready to accept the same standard of evaluation for themselves, that is, to take credit & responsibility for decision-making that has been confirmed or overturned in higher instances within the country or by the Strasbourg Court? Over the years, there have been cases when members of the KPA or KPK have been investigated, dismissed or are under investigation for violating the law, - what is their legal consequence in the vetting and what is the degree of responsibility that these bodies themselves take, which at the time of creation swore for integrity, transparency, reform approach and delivery of justice in its highest degree? What is the responsibility of the Assembly, as their electoral structure and what is the role of responsible politicians who use the election veto, what is the responsibility of the international institutions that imposed vetting as an exhaustive solution and "forbidden" to criticize? Justice reform is a process and deserves to be treated as a process, but with more transparency and accountability.

The Assembly has decided to postpone the term of the members of the KPK for another two years, it is expected to postpone the mandate of the ONM for several more years. The reform started as an experiment, it was unique in its content and approach, it created new structures, the country remained for more than two years without a Constitutional Court and an effective judicial system, but now the institutions have been created, are functional and have given enough decisions to be read as need their integrity and ability.

After 5 years of vetting, it is important to have an analysis by the justice institutions themselves and a professional "audit" through independent experts from the Assembly, the institution that approved the reform in justice, to assess the balance, achievements, problems and future challenges of vetting carried out or absent. The justice institutions themselves (not the ministry) can contract a professional audit of themselves, a well-known practice of institutions with integrity. An active role can also be played by study centers, such as Faculties of Law, (if they do not have conflicts of interest), as well as the Parliamentary Institute or important international organizations that have public credibility in Albania.

Of course, the Institute of Political Studies (ISP), an organization that monitors democratic processes and the quality of the rule of law in Albania, will include in its program the implementation of this analysis, but mainly with study and reference purposes for the country's progress and debates the same in several countries of the region./ CNA