By Fadil Paçrami
The sixth 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, requirements and human wills can find expression and concretization, from those of the biological-related plant with the being itself, to those of the social plan, related to the ways of living.
Continues from last issue
– The witnesses were also treated badly and shamefully. Completely contrary to the law (Article 19), presenting me their testimonies in 2-3 variants, according to the needs of the investigation; even from the way of wording and the same language, it was understood that it was the same hand – that of the investigator who had drafted them. But in the trial, the statements of these “wretched witnesses”, who were nothing more than puppets in the hands of the investigator, were completely destroyed one after the other, when I asked them only these two questions: the first, “did you understand anything hostile in the conversations , my discussions and writings, before”?
(Everyone’s answer was: “no”. And this is understandable, because in fact, there was not. Otherwise, they should have been in the same dock, with me; the second; “have you ever criticized me before, about what you say now, when and how? (“The answer was again; “no”. And this is understood: in fact it had not happened). This is how it was played, for crying and laughing, to their shame and to them that brought them, it could not be otherwise, as long as they were all fabrications of the investigation.
– The law says: “The defendant enjoys the right of defense throughout the criminal process.” (Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) But this did not happen and no action was taken. On the contrary, everything was done in the opposite way. I asked to be given the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of that time, but they were not given to me; I asked to be provided with a legal advisor, but he was not brought to me either. In the end, when the indictment was delivered to me, and I was going to present it in court, I asked to be given at least the full texts of Articles 72-73 of the Criminal Code, with which I was accused, so that I could defend myself in court but they were not given to me either. And all this, contrary to the law (Article 14) and others.
-All of a sudden, at the end, only when the indictment was handed to me, I found myself united as a group, in the same indictment, that is, in the same judicial process and similar charges, for “collaboration” and “collaboration”. , in committing the same “criminal acts”, with Dashnor Mamaq, with whom I have never had anything to do; even in recent years, since 1969, I didn’t even speak to him, as many others are aware of. What about this?!
The investigator needed this game, in the macabre dance, at the same time grotesque and, for laughs, where he was introduced and somehow he had to succeed: he had to get “group” out of me. And since the “group”, for my side, was not coming out (it hadn’t been, it wasn’t coming out), they attached this tail to me from behind, to connect me, by means of this link, to other groups, for which I neither knew, nor had I ever had anything to do with them, as it was said at that time, in the wake of those already clear fabrications, why and with what goals they were made. The fact is that the jury could not prove anything from Article 13 of the Criminal Code, which states.
“Collaboration is the commission of a criminal offense by two or more persons, with an agreement between them, by an organized group, by an armed gang, or by a counter-revolutionary organization”, because no “agreement” was reached, in between me and him, while we were also in such relationships, as mentioned above; no “organized group”, or “a counter-revolutionary organization”, where I was a part, which was excluded during the investigation, when Article 64 was removed from me, for “treason against the Motherland”.
– In violation of the law (Articles 74 and 111), I was appointed as an investigator, one named R. Hodo, for which in a meeting of the basic organization, where he was a member and delegated by the Party Committee of the district of Tirana, it was me who took a serious party measure and decided to be removed, together with several others, from the Internal Affairs bodies, due to a serious violation of the platform for these bodies, and was sent to work in his village , nor a simple cooperative, or in any other work. And what guarantee for; “impartial”, could there be in this case from this investigator?! None.
There was even room, as well as pat, for malice, mistreatment, etc., on his part. The question is asked: who else but him, was dissatisfied with the measure that was taken in that case, because less than a year passed and he was appointed deputy head of the Department of Internal Affairs in Lushnje. They also put me as an investigator, knowing full well what I explained above?! Of course, these were the actions of those who were not only against that measure, but also did not let their people go, they also knew how, when and where to use them. That investigator was, therefore, a puppy, even quite trusted.
– During the entire time that the investigation continued, no one from the prosecution appeared, nor was it ever present. Only on the night of 27.3.1977, the deputy general prosecutor of that time, A. Brati, who was also appointed prosecutor in my judicial process, which started the next day, arrived. He sat for only 3-4 minutes, without telling me who he was; he just told me that; have you received the indictment? And ran away. Well, in Article 17 of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania (No. 6295 dated 27.3. 1981, I could not find the previous one, but there – there should be the duties) it is expressly stated:
“The prosecutor has the right to be familiar with all the material of the investigative case at any time, as well as to be present in the investigative actions. The prosecutor exercises control for the implementation of the laws in the places where the detained, the arrested and the convicts”. But it was not done like that at all. Why?!
– When the investigation ended, I should have been given to see the entire investigation file (Article 102), but it was not given to me. The investigator showed it to me, saying: “This is your file, we have bound it like a book” and handed it to me. I remarked that she was quite fat and he added that; was linked together with Dashnor Mamaqi’s file. I asked to read my part, but he wouldn’t let me by calling:
“Who has time to stay here with you, a whole day, then, what’s the point?” That’s all, all this lasted 10 minutes, he took it and left no matter how much I protested, but where did he go? Did he know? What investigative file it was, it is enough to take a look at it, to see that from the beginning to the end, it was the hand of the investigator, from the way he spoke and wrote. This can be easily understood by anyone, even without being an expert. Furthermore, towards the end, when the investigation was being closed, the charge had to be changed, from Article 64, to Articles 72 and 73/2, on the basis of which the act would be built – charges, more than 30 pages from the investigative processes were replaced and when I refused to sign them, this investigative team said cynically: “Yes, so that we don’t get late, because you didn’t sign them”. In a word, they did as they wanted, as in other cases: they didn’t give an account to anyone and they didn’t think that a day might come when they would answer for their actions, like the ones I mentioned!
– The indictment was handed to me at my feet, without giving me the glasses, to take a look. When I went to the cell, I saw that it was with Dashnor Mamaqi. I protested and wanted to take it back, but as usual they didn’t listen to me, they even made fun of me. I read it, apart from that it was a rare example of fabrications and accusations without legal basis, but it was noticeable that there was much left over from what was planned, for article 64, grafted with some appendices, towards the end, especially for the articles 72. and 73/2. Surprisingly, both the prosecutor and the jury accepted it as such; it could not be done otherwise, who asked about laws?
..The trial was held behind closed doors, although there was no reason, preservation of state secrets, etc. (contrary to Articles 133 and 135), until the end, work remained on the issues of literature and arts. But it happened that way, because they wanted to do as they wanted in the court, as well as in the investigator, as well as out of fear, that they would be exposed to the unwashed of a false process, from beginning to end, with the most serious violations flagrant and banal laws, from the Code of Procedure, to the Criminal Code and to the Constitution itself.
-Also, in the trial, almost none of the articles for the development of the judicial process (Article 136, etc.) were respected, even from the formal side. The president of the trial body did not “explain” anything of the “rights and duties” of the defendant, etc. (Article 141), he did not even allow me to speak at the end, to defend myself, for only 15 minutes, in flagrant violation of the law (Article 148, etc.) and at the end, he read a non-printed and regular decision, but in pieces of paper, a whole mess.
I believe that they are enough. I emphasize that all the lines above are like this, that I have not added anything, except what I have left in the hands, that some things may seem impossible, but they are true and I am ready to explain and complete them, with data before anyone). And in the end: these are illegal, what was that kind of investigation, what was that trial, or was it simply criminal: can a court decision, taken under such conditions and with such violations of the law, still be upheld ?!
“Other data” in addition to the trial dismissal.
From the date 30.3.1977, when I was convicted, a lot of water has flowed and “other data” have come to light, which make it legal to overturn the decision taken, and a “request for the protection of legality” is also possible. I directed you almost 3 years ago, to the president of the Supreme Court, who exercised this right, which is assigned to him by the law, in the most defined way: “Against the final decisions of the definitive form, when it is ascertained or when other data come out, which show that the decisions are unfounded, a request for protection of legality is exercised. The President of the Supreme Court and the General Prosecutor has the right to exercise the request for protection of legality.” (Article 179, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was in force).
What is this “other data”? – Everything I listed above, related to the non-legal interpretation of Articles 72, 73, of the Criminal Code, with which I was convicted, as well as serious violations of a number of articles of the Criminal Procedure Code, as I tried to I explain, as far as I can from here, in the conditions I am in.
– On the other hand, the revelation of the exploits of the “gang” of Mehmet Shehu, Kadri Hazbiu, etc. in many directions of state activity, and in a special way, in the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, also in those of the Prosecutor’s Office and the courts, as they have already become known, even worldwide. Thus, the secretary of the Central Committee of the Party, Simon Stefani, writes and clearly states: “… in 1973, the investigation was unified under the Ministry of Internal Affairs… this fair decision, during its implementation in practice, was sabotaged with the counter-revolutionary intent of the perpetrators, from the enemies Kadri Hazibiu and Feçor Shehu…! These enemies acted contrary to the guidelines and directives of the Party. The 10-year practice, from the time of the concentration of the investigation at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, proved that this attitude, apart from the sabotage that was done by the enemies, did not create conditions for having complete, comprehensive and objective investigations”! (“People’s Justice”, No. 4 1983).
In the same way, the deputy prosecutor general, A. Brati, who was also the prosecutor in my trial, writes: “Under the leadership of Comrade Enver Hoxha, the activity of the counter-revolutionary organization, headed by the police agent, was discovered, convicted and unmasked Mehmet Shehu… who, starting from the counter-revolutionary goal, aimed, indirectly and openly, to liquidate the prosecution, or at least transform it into an additional apparatus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to have the hands of lira, in taking socialist legality for granted” (“Popular Justice: No. 2 1985) thus, even the head of the General Investigation, Q. Lamaj writes:
“…In opposition to the decisions and orientations and directives of the Party, the enemies who were in charge of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, opposed the teachings of the Party and Comrade Enver, worked to turn the investigation into an appendage of the operative sector” (“Popular Justice” No. 2, 1985). I believe they are enough and clearly stated. There must be others.
– As the main witness, or “key”, as they are called in the professional language of the investigation, in my investigative and judicial process. Dashnor Mamaqi has died, there are many others who were in the convict camps with him and today are here in the Burrel Prison (some of them have come out), who show and can testify that he himself said: ” I admitted and said to the investigator, and in the court, the untrue and untrue things that those who “asked” me, as well as “I said when they asked me for things about Fadil Paçram, that you are in vain with him, he has that head, etc. So, he said to the investigator and in the court “those not true and untrue”. These people can be asked who is not one and two.
-Likewise, I am convinced; that they have a lot to say, if those who were brought to me as prosecution witnesses are asked today (and they should be asked): how they were manipulated and forced to give such “testimonies”, to come to court, as well even those employees of the institutions of that time, who were forced to make false statements, for which there is certainty, they are now ashamed.
I believe this is enough, I’m sorry if I took too long and was forced to repeat some things, from what I wrote to the president of the Supreme Court, almost 3 years ago, but when he didn’t want to and won’t listen, I had another way.
Conclusions and last requests.
As can be seen and I believe it has become clear, I raise here the legal aspects related to:
– My punishment; for unfounded legal “Faults”.
– Violation of the Constitution and laws, during the investigative and judicial process.
– Inaction by the Supreme Court, to put the law in place.
(Measures taken on the party road are different, they should not be confused, because the party statute is different and the Constitution is different, with the laws of the state.)
– I am coming to tell you that; I have not committed any criminal offense, any action; or inaction; with guilt provided by the law (Articles 3,5,6 of the Criminal Code), therefore, I also call it that the court that sentenced me, gave an unfounded, arbitrary and illegal guilty verdict, without “proving”, in full and comprehensive, that the criminal offense was committed and this offense was committed by the defendant (as required by Article 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
So I have been accused and convicted of uncommitted, incomplete, fabricated “guilts” for dark purposes, seriously violating the laws. I clarify that; in the trial, I did not accept the indictment, thereby rejecting the entire investigative process and that at the end of the trial, I only asked for justice, thereby rejecting the judicial process.
– I come to request, from the Presidium of the People’s Assembly that based on the Constitution:
“Controls the implementation of laws” (Article 78 of the Constitution) “Controls what is said in the report…! the Supreme Court” (ibid.), take over the work itself, and the right solution of the case, regarding the decision taken by the court, on 30.3.1977, which sentenced me to 25 years of imprisonment, where it becomes clear that:
No crime has been committed;
The elements of the criminal offense are missing;
The defendant did not commit the criminal offense for which he is accused. Memorie.al
The next issue follows
