By Fadil Paçrami
The third part
Memorie.al / What is prison? It is the place where those who have been sentenced to deprivation of liberty are kept, we would say by reading any dictionary. But that is little. Prison and freedom – two opposites. Previously: what is freedom? In short: to be free means to do what you want, to think and act as you wish in the exercise and fulfillment of your freedoms and rights, as a person and as a citizen, but always without harming and violating others. . Again: to think and act. We are talking about democratic freedoms, from those of speech, press, assembly and organization in various parties and associations, ensuring the conditions where ideas, requests and human wills can find expression and concretization, from those of the biological-related plan with the being itself, to those of the social plan, related to the ways of living.
Continues from last issue
FROM THE DEFENSE TO THE COURT
This scheme was prepared for the defense in the trial that took place on March 28-30, 1977, but which was not allowed to take place; only a few words were said at the end, for about 15 minutes, which was my allotted time to speak. No matter how much I protested, they didn’t let me go any longer, they interrupted me (the trial took place with many irregularities). Here, too, I am giving it abridged – parts extracted from notes on scraps of paper, which I was able to save. The aim of the defense is this: there are no legal bases for the accusations and the punishment. Before the court proceedings begin, I have the following issues to rise:
- As soon as the investigative process was closed, I went upstairs with a letter, where I called for the case to be dismissed, since the investigation did not prove anything, regarding the accusations that were made against me and led to my arrest, so they have no legal basis there is no trial, no punishment.
– Are you aware of this?
– If not, allow me to present the reasons here as well. (If this is not accepted, I will post the second one)
- On what charges have I been arrested?
– Read the first arrest warrant (October 21, 1975), it should be in the file. – Articles 64 and 73 of the Criminal Code should also be read, which constituted the first charge of the arrest.
– Also read the second decision (of January 1977), which replaced the first charge, for cooperation in a conspiracy against the state, that is, high treason. In conclusion: if the first accusation, of participation in a criminal organization, (we are talking about the group of putschists’ in the Army and saboteurs in the Economy, as I have been told, was not proven, there was nothing true, from this there was nothing to prove), so it was dropped:
– I say that the case should be dismissed.
– Accusations of participating in the conspiracy were dropped (Article 64), and that of agitation and propaganda in the service of the conspiracy (Article 73).
There is therefore no criminal case here.
– The issues criticized by the 4th Plenum, of the Central Committee of the PPSh, in June 1973, did not constitute at that time, nor do they constitute now after 4 years, a criminal case,
– There is nothing new that could constitute any additional charges. During the investigation (see file), nothing of the sort was mentioned. What was raised as new about the coup plot – saboteur, as it was called, was not true for me, the investigator was convinced of this, so she gave up.
Therefore: I ask that what I raised above be examined, before the judicial process begins (I believe I have been clear), cutting the way for something that should not happen. (If this is also not accepted, I will add the third)
- Before the court process begins, I request:
– To be given the Criminal Code and that of Criminal Procedure, I want to act here based on the laws. (I asked for them several times during the investigation, but they were not given to me, I was told to ask for them in court).
– To assign me a legal consultant, because I do not know these matters of courts and judicial procedures. It seems to me that there is such a rule. (I also made this request during the investigation, but it was not fulfilled?!).
– To be given and recognized as material evidence, my works (dramas) and other writings, which were taken from my home on the day of my arrest, to argue and reason based on them, for some issues that have been reflected in indictment, in relation to Article 73, for agitation and propaganda.
– To separate my process, with that of Dashnor Mamaqi, with whom I have nothing to do. There is no reason for this connection, neither logic nor legal basis. I see here something malicious, but not well thought out, not appropriate even as a method. (If this is also not accepted, then I will make the following statement).
- Since what I submitted was not accepted, I declare:
– I am sorry that they were not accepted and no solution was found for the issues I raised. This puts me in an unwanted situation which I wanted to avoid.
– I am saying it from the beginning: I defend the truth, asserting that the accusations have no legal basis, I try to clarify the issues and convince the judicial body of this. As far as possible, I will avoid these two issues: 30 years in the party and creativity, because both of these come out the framework of the judicial process. Therefore, I call it necessary to make this clarification: if I ever need to touch on such issues, I do so only because the indictment talks about them, as well as to clarify any misunderstandings.
-I know from experience that you can explain and convince others, only on the basis of the truth and only for what you yourself are convinced of. These remain my two starting points and points of support, even today here, in front of the jury.
– I have been trying to clarify the issues for 18 months (either with the investigator or with anyone who came and met me, even the Minister of the Interior Kadri Hazbiu), for which I have been accused, without legal basis. I will do everything in my power here as well. If I did not succeed, here I am telling you: this does not mean that you are right, but that you are afraid of the right.
– I am prepared to speak at length, to give the clarifications that may be requested, putting facts, evidence, arguments here before the jury.
I have only one request: to have the patience to listen to me, and this not only because I care, I am a person, and the issue of making decisions, right or wrong, exceeds the dimensions and limits of an individual, whoever he may be.
– Whatever you do, I tell you openly: after reading the indictment, I have a feeling of fatality, because of how such things can be said, untreated, untreated, even during the investigation, as can be noticed, even from a cursory look at the investigative process.
-They say that when the stone is played from the ground, everyone gives it a push, until it sinks to the bottom. Should this be the case with man? I say no!
Regarding the indictment
No, I do not accept the indictment. Why don’t I accept it?
– Because the accusations made against me, affect the spheres of art and as “mistakes”, if they are such, which I came to believe, were analyzed once, 4 years ago, in the 4th Plenum of the Central Committee , disciplinary decisions have also been taken, in party ways – that’s it, and they don’t go any further, they remain party matters.
– Because I think that issues related to the thoughts and aesthetic tastes of a creator, such as a dramatist, cannot be the object of criminal prosecution and a judicial process.
– Because the indictment contains issues; “collaboration with persons and groups”, about which I know nothing, were not proven even during the investigation and are not true.
– Because in my work and life, there are no malicious acts against the country, there is no enmity or anything else, says the indictment.
- What attracts attention?
– The investigative process deals with another thing, while the indictment reflects another thing. If it led to the dropping of the first charge, that of arrest, the indictment continues to adhere to it (Article 64 is not mentioned, but it is there). There is a striking contradiction here.
– The issue is put like this: has the first accusation, Article 64, fallen or not? Until it has fallen (as I was informed by the investigation, which changed the charge from Articles 64, and 73, to Articles 72, and 73/2), then, what do all those “cooperations” that are mentioned in the indictment include?! Or it didn’t fall, then why was it removed, why aren’t facts, evidence listed and Article 64 not mentioned in the indictment?! One of the two. The judging panel must be clear about this.
– And to be precise, I am clarifying the idea to the end: I was arrested for 2 years or so, after the party measures that were taken against me, for months, after the attack of the “putschists” in the Army and the “saboteurs” in the Economy , what are they called, with which the investigator, no matter how hard he tried, could not find facts and evidence to connect me, then why was I arrested and what is the need for this trial?! It is clear that the purpose is: to complete the framework of the conspiracy, in the Army, Economy and Ideology. But let’s put it bluntly: a failed attempt? Regarding Articles 72 and 73/2, with which we are required to be punished
- At the end of the indictment, as a summary (page 31), this formulation is made:
“It is accused that as an enemy element of the party and popular power and in cooperation with… the group of putschists in the Army and saboteurs in the Economy, has hit the ideological front, agitating and propagandizing, for undermining and subverting the power in the RPSH and sabotaging the implementation of party directives and government decisions in the art-culture sector and the socialist economy, crimes that are foreseen in Articles 72 and 73/2 of the Criminal Code”
– To tell the truth, a more contradictory and illegal wording, it is difficult to think, what proves the best, all the falsity of the accusations, as well as the difficulties in which the investigator encountered, at the end of the investigative process, to formulate the accusation.
-This wording sheds light in the clearest way, that since the first accusation was made; “for participation in a criminal organization”, (Article 64), Articles 722 73/2, on the basis of which, I am required to be punished now, have been found why it was necessary, even breaking the laws, and not with one, but with two articles, in order to achieve the amount of punishment determined. The investigation entered this path, but will this happen, even with the judicial body? The mind loves it, doesn’t it?
- Why were two articles raised: both 72 and 7 3/2?! It is clear: all those big words, thrown in that way about “hostility”, “collaboration with the putschists in the Army and saboteurs in the Economy”, “undermining and subversion of power”, etc., needed two supports, to be maintained somewhat on foot. But here, it is the Achilles’ heel, which rejects the whole act-accusation, thoughts and certain aesthetic tastes, as creators and literary works, have been called both propaganda and sabotage, extending the latter from the sphere of economy, what the law talks about, even in that of ideology, what the law doesn’t talk about. Something really strange!
But without any basis or legal support.
- A few words about Articles 72 and 73/2. I am saying from the beginning that they have only been read to me once (what seems to be the reason of the investigator, that when I asked him to give them to me, or to read them to me a second time, he refused, despite my insistence ), so I find it difficult to argue, as I would, with all that, I will say a few words, as far as can be remembered, from a reading of the other, quickly and quickly, and suffocatingly… !
- In conclusion: everything speaks of the futility of the arrest, the violation of procedures during the investigation, the lack of evidence related to the accusations made against me, and irregularities in the trial. There is, therefore, no basis to maintain the indictment. Articles 72 and 73/2, as well as Article 64, were not maintained. It has come out openly from the procedures and the laws themselves, so any decision that can be taken to punish me is illegal. There is no place, therefore, for a criminal case, nor for a trial, there no place for punishment either.
I talked about how the punishment began and ended, first from the party, then from the court. Why, what connections do these have between them, how can they?! Here they have it. This is another phenomenon of the time of monism, of the party-state. The same as in the Middle Ages, that of the church-state, with the inquisition.
Then, how did they prepare each other and how did they connect?
In the early 70s, something started to go wrong with us. The path followed had aggravated the country’s situation. Dissatisfaction grew, people expected and demanded something. Enver Hoxha felt this; he was worried and didn’t stay with his hands tied. For a while it relied on Belgrade, then on Moscow, in recent years on Beijing, but now, even with China, it seemed that it would not last long, where? The only option was to open up to the world. This was the demand of the time, and the will of the tired people of this land, from that long and difficult ordeal, through which they had survived with great difficulty.
However, how could he accept this?! In all three cases, he was the protagonist, came out unscathed, and strengthened his position. What about now? The pot goes once, twice, three times, to the kroi, comes one day, breaks it. He had gone through difficult times in the country as well: Berat, ’48, ’56, ’60, but he overcame them, thanks to the dexterity of the hilars, charging and liquidating others. And how long? This terrified him, maddened him. And it blew his mind. He had hit right and left, according to the occasion and as he saw fit: right in Berat, left in ’48, again right in ’56 and in ’60, now from, which was the turn?
The extreme left, which had been his stable support for years, had served him in the path he had followed and where he felt himself powerful, but something he did not like about it, because it seemed to him that it had strengthened, as much as it could it became dangerous for him. The right with its liberalizing ideas had been bothering him for some time. So he thought, so he decided, to strike on both sides, first on the right, then on the left. He did that at the beginning of the 70s. In fact, he had prolonged it a little too much this time, without hitting as he was wont to do.
This is how he divided it: the first danger, being the intellectual thought and the demands of the youth, would fall to them first, as; “liberalism”; the second, came from the military, with the possibility of using violent means, such as “putches” with guns. In ’73, it fell to the former who were challenging him more openly and after a year, in ’74, to the latter, to squeeze him hard. This also remained: the blame had to be placed somewhere, for the economic difficulties of the time, and of those that were to come, therefore before the year had passed, in ’75, bureaucratism fell hard in the state economic organizations.
If he was really a master, in the strikes he undertook, as well as in the preparation of the measures that preceded and accompanied them. In the direction of liberalism, as he called it, I felt this since the year ’71 entered.
– In February, he invited me to his home, on the occasion of a family celebration, which had never happened before! The day before, he caressed me separately, saying: this is how I love you sometimes, energetic and young, in thoughts and actions. What was this? Where do you beat? I already knew some of his features and toys.
– In April of the same year, since my wife was seriously ill and had undergone surgery for the second time, this time in Rome, with his “care” and order, as I was told at the time, I went to see her there. To my surprise, one of the embassy’s cars was put into service to move me r where I wanted you. This, as it was explained to me, because I was the president of the People’s Assembly. But after returning, within a few days, I found out that the driver who had accompanied me had withdrawn from there. When I met him one day by chance on the street and asked him why, I noticed that he didn’t know what he was stuttering about. It burned me.
I also remembered how at the embassy, since those days they supposedly had not found a seat on the airline to Tirana, it was suggested to me; to travel through Titograd, Montenegro. What was that? What was wrong with me?
– In May, on the occasion of my 50th birthday, Nexhmija came to congratulate me at home. This too had never happened before. He did not spare the best words, so much so that it caught the eye of others present. Mehmet Shehu also came and found him there, who also brought me congratulations from his wife, since she could not come, because she was outside Tirana in those days, telling me that they would come again another day, but to return. We also took pictures together. After lunch, a decoration ceremony was held at the Presidium of the People’s Assembly. What about these?! What was going on?
– At that time, I got hold of a speech by Mehmet Shehu, on issues of culture, literature and arts, which he had held some time before, at a party meeting in Peshkopi, where he vented all his rage against the manifestations of “modernist” tendencies. , according to him, in literary and artistic creativity. The text typed by the Ministry of Education and Culture, which was distributed throughout the country.
I talked about this with Ramiz Ali, saying: what are these, how can you talk like this?! This one had spoken with Enver Hoxha, and this one with Mehmet Shehu, who called me and called me to his office, at the Prime Minister. There I also found the Minister of Education and Culture, with the chairman of the Culture and Arts Committee. How long did we sit around the table, except when he thundered at them, why they had transcribed and distributed that speech of his, apparently without asking him; let’s make them transformations, giving them a ton of remarks, that they didn’t know about the works of culture and literature and arts.
Meanwhile, he did not spare the best words of praise for me, that the results achieved in these fields in Tirana were my merits, not theirs. He told me, even though I hadn’t spoken directly to him. He also moved on to another issue: now, he told me, when you brought it up, it was fast, the time has come to increase the funds for culture, so I gave orders for these. (We had a debate with him years ago, in a plenum of the Central Committee, where I raised the issue that little was done about culture, until then in our country). This too?
With that, without further ado, also for other occasions, this side of a certain flattery ends, like a “honeymoon”, before the storm begins, to say: here, we have nothing to do with you, but you are the one who used situations for evil purposes. Similar to this, they also happened with Todi Lubonja: they brought him from Korça, in the direction of Radio-Television, for special skills and merits, but before long, they started to hit him for foreign influences and tendencies. These well-known forms and practices are those of kulak and krabbac.
“Thus, from the first months of 1972, a vicious thug from the street of Hysni Kapo, made a lot of noise, a trick for one of my relatives, as a lecturer, at the university, by deliberately shooting at me, It made an impression among others, so much so that one of the acquaintances, in those days, told me openly in confidence: what is this, what is wrong with you?
– After two months, at a meeting of the General Council of the Democratic Front, where I was secretary general, when Enver Hoxha passed me, he did not speak to me in front of others, even so that I would not be in the presidium, as the member of the presidency with others gave an order to elect another presidium from the hall, which had never happened before, it was not even regular.
– In December of the same year, after one of the regular meetings of the People’s Assembly ended, Mehmet Shehu asked to meet me there, in a separate room. It was just me and him, when he started talking, unrestrained and angry.
What is done like this? When will you remember, you from Tirana?! Don’t you see that the city was filled with long hair and miniskirts? Women and girls appear on theater stages with half-exposed breasts, or with dresses up to the end of their legs, according to foreign fashions and you never! Listening to him, I thought to myself: is he in his right mind? I tried to explain myself, if he left you, could you get along with him?
– At that time, as usual, in December, the 11th Radio-Television Festival took place, Enver Hoxha, who was on vacation in Vlora, from where he allegedly followed him and scandalized us. Upon arriving in Tirana, in the first meeting he held (this happened at the Presidium of the People’s Assembly on January 9, 1973), he exploded what he had planned: the strike against pro-Western foreign influences, liberalism.
Immediately, a noisy processing of opinion in the party began, about a very serious danger that threatened the country, and this was liberalism, which had taken seriously and that threatened the country and this was liberalism, which had taken on very disturbing proportions, in culture, in literature and in the arts, in the intellectual layers in general and in the youth. This was the first step. Memory.al
The next issue follows