Memorie.al publishes an archival document extracted from the fund of the former Central Committee of the ALP that deals with the discussion of Enver Hoxha held at the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Albanian Labor Party on September 6, 1966, where the Ministry of Justice, which had been established since the end of 1944 with the coming to power of the Communists, was discussed and decided. But what is further stated in the report kept by Enver Hoxha regarding that problem, who were the lawyers that he mentioned as the worst example and how did he argue the suggestion of the Ministry of Justice ?!
“Who does our lawyer protect?” In essence, in our country, it is foreseen that the people’s justice will protect the interests of the people, without forgetting the interests of the one who is being tried. When that is the case, why should we leave lawyers like Suat Asllani or Koço Dilo who, contrary to the evidence, the law, the interests of the Party and the people, call for a trial that the thief is “honest”, that the killer is innocent ” !? What kind of justice do such people need? In the West it is different, the lawyer there protects people who are politically and economically oppressed by the bourgeois power. Everyone knows that the Party solves issues, even the most important and delicate issues, without a lawyer. So, while in our courts we have Party organizations and people, determined and conscientious, fair and objective in enforcing popular justice, why is it necessary to have lawyers? The latter, a criminal, for example, even when his guilt is proven fourfold, try to acquit him. So they don’t act right. When it is time to consider mitigating circumstances in an act committed, or when the evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt, this is done by our own people’s court, our people of justice, who, judging the case by heart, party and with a clear conscience, can decide to give a lighter sentence to a man or to acquit him when the evidence is not convincing. Then why should we hear in our courts the voice of lawyers, including those I mentioned? This was stated, among other things, by Enver Hoxha at the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the ALP, held on September 6, 1966, when he decided to close and suppress the Ministry of Justice, which had been established since the end. of 1944, when the Communists had just come to power. What is further stated in the report kept by Enver Hoxha regarding that problem, who were the lawyers that he mentioned as the worst example and how did he argue the suggestion of the Ministry of Justice. This is what this archival document that Memorie.al is publishing is about.
Enver Hoxha’s discussion at the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Albanian People’s Party
THE ACTIVITY OF OUR JUDGES REMAINS FROM THE PARTY AND THE PEOPLE
September 6, 1966
We are discussing today whether the Ministry of Justice should exist. As a socialist country in dynamism, based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the experience we have gained, for the Ministry of Justice, we have today reached some conclusions that we consider fair, based on which we will have to take measures. relevant. Based on the competencies of this ministry and the tasks it performs in our socialist order, we judge whether we should keep this department or not. And if it should be suppressed or maintained, it should be well-argued. If we decide to abolish this department, it does not mean that we reject the past, that is, its positive side.
We have the constitution and the administration of justice in our country based on fair principles. If it is accepted that the Supreme Court can make decisions, but no one else can intervene in its judicial activity, because only the Ministry of Justice can lead justice, then it turns out that this ministry, which is an integral part of the Government, must have competencies in this regard. I think that such an issue raises our legislation, attacks the laws and even the principles of the Constitution. The Ministry of Justice, during its existence, of course, has played its positive role and this is not because it was headed by one or the other, but because the bodies of our popular justice have implemented the straight line of the Party and the aspirations of the people, who have been synthesized and make it up, because, like any sector of state activity, the judiciary has always been led by the Party.
The Ministry of Justice had the right to conduct inspections and draw conclusions about the activity of the courts when it saw that this or that work did not work. In such a case, she was obliged to suggest to the President of the High Court with facts that the law in this or that case, in this or in the decision taken by the court has not been applied correctly. But again only the president of the Supreme Court would decide whether the decision to attack the ministry should be overturned or upheld. According to the instructions of the Central Committee of the Party, all doors have been and are open to any person or state and social body to go to the Party to complain, raise problems, give opinions on the work of staff and various institutions.
The Ministry of Justice has also had this right for the courts and its work has yielded positive results for some time. So, not only the Ministry of Justice but also any other state body, the Party and the Government advise to look carefully at how this or that law has been implemented, why the socialist property has been damaged, for example, in the saw of Puka, how the courts have stood. to this case, etc., etc. If it is thought that the Ministry of Justice was being suppressed, the dictatorship of the proletariat would be weakened, which means that it is not clear what the functions of one and the other body are in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Ministry of Justice is not the headquarters of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This headquarters consists of the Party, the Congress and its Central Committee. These have given directives to the Politburo, the Government, the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice, etc., to act on their basis. So, the leading head of the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country is the Party Congress and the Central Committee elected by him, so there is no reason to weaken any link of this dictatorship if we suppress a body of state administration such as the Ministry of Justice. To think that the basic courts and the Supreme Court are independent of anyone and to say, on the other hand, that they should be dependent on the Ministry of Justice, is to deny the direction of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly on the Court of Highly and, worse, to deny the role of the Party in directing the correction of decisions taken by the court, when they are not fair, to deny, therefore, the role of the Party and the Presidium of the People’s Assembly in running the justice sector.
How do we understand the competencies of the Politburo, the Presidium and the People’s Assembly? If the Politburo receives, for example, a report on errors in the activity of the Supreme Court, it would require that the case be brought before the state, since we have a state and are based on laws. Therefore, in such a case, the Politburo, after examining the case, charges its members, who are also members of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, who, when they come to the meeting of the Presidium, after having previously spoken about The decision of the Politburo with the President of the Presidium, who is also a member of the Central Committee, on behalf of the Bureau, to raise the issue in the Presidium, where the relevant decision on the work of the court is taken, it is the Presidium of the People’s Assembly that has the right to call the heads of the High Court in the report and to hold them accountable for their work, for the cases when the laws have been violated by them, etc.
The Presidium also has the right, if it deems it reasonable, to convene a meeting of the People’s Assembly, to which it reports that the Supreme Court has violated the law, thus violating the interests of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and, depending on the degree of error, has the right to propose to the Assembly that appropriate measures be taken. The decision is then made by the People’s Assembly. Based on the spirit of the Party and the Constitution, the laws of the socialist people’s power, and benefiting from Lenin’s teachings and the experience of Stalin’s Soviet Union, these bodies, namely the Basic Courts and the Supreme Court, the law has given competencies, which they are entitled to and are obliged to implement. We have sanctioned in the Constitution and this is the right for the courts to be independent in the decisions they take to adjudicate concrete cases.
But it is known that the Supreme Court is elected by the People’s Assembly, just as its other bodies are elected. Even the basic courts have not been elected by the Ministry of Justice, but by the people, so it cannot be said that the courts are independent and irresponsible even from those who elect them. None of us is independent before the Party and the people. The constitution has rightly resolved the relationship between the electorate and the electorate. Without the care of the Party, the courts can easily become repressive bodies against the people. We know how to make the laws that the judiciary is obliged to enforce. In the actions of the courts one cannot interfere in unjust ways, but the principle of independence of the courts must be understood correctly. Even these bodies are always under the control and direction of the Albanian Labor Party and are inspired by it.
This means that our courts are under the control of the laws of the state and the Party, so their activity does not depend on the Ministry of Justice, it does not depend on any other body, but on the whole Party and the people. We say the line of action above all, the opinion elaborated by the Party above all. The decisions of the courts are no exception to these principles. If the Party did not understand this correctly and did not do so in practice, then the principle of the line of action would remain only a dry, worthless expression. District and basic courts are not independent of the Party line. The judge, when he deems it necessary, may and should be summoned by the party secretary, or the chairman of the district executive committee, and they may explain to him, for example, the situation he has created in the Party and the people of the district. the bitter crime that may have occurred and what is the opinion of the Party and the people about this event. It can never be imagined that our courts, the people of the people and the Party will not be influenced by public opinion, by the opinion of the Party, that they do not live outside society. As long as the judge agrees to hear the voice of a witness in our courts, and this is mandatory by law, then even more so these bodies are obliged to listen, first and foremost, to the voice of the whole mass and, above all, the voice. of the Party. It is based on this sound opinion that the judge can and must decide directly and revolutionary. This means that the judge hears what is being said and at the same time takes into account the laws, which are generally fair, and which in our country do not protect other interests than those of the working masses. It is not ruled out that any law may not be complete, but the judge must prove this shortcoming precisely with the opinion of the Party and the measures.
A highly partisan judge, after listening attentively to the opinion of the masses and the Party, would always decide in accordance with the spirit of the Party and the interests of the people, even if the law may have any gaps. He would then immediately go to the Party to report on the decision, but at the same time point out some inaccuracies he sees in the law, for which he makes suggestions on how to correct them, and would even turn to the Presidium for this purpose. of the People’s Assembly, even the Government, to make the necessary corrections and would argue his views to these higher instances. This is the first decisive control of the measures that cannot be replaced by the Ministry of Justice, even if it has greater powers, neither the Supreme Court, nor the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, nor even the Central Committee of the Party.
When an act punishable by law is committed, the courts have no way of giving a fair trial for the cause of guilt without examining the case. When the need arises, they also ask the Party, ask for its help and it gives them the opinion on this issue. Even the Supreme Court, while having the right to review the appeal in the second instance, cannot be deprived of the right to go on the basis of controlling, assisting, guiding and inspiring the courts with the Party line. If the Supreme Court has not done so so far, I think it has neglected the tasks assigned to it. The decisions taken by the district courts, in addition to being controlled by the Supreme Court, are also under the control of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, which has the right to pardon a convict with deprivation of liberty, to pardon the life of a death row inmate, and so on. , and in principle this is right.
The Party Congress, the Central Committee, the People’s Assembly and the Constitution have given this great right to the Presidium of the People’s Assembly.
There is the opinion of the Party and the government on the activity of the courts. Requests have been made, even decrees have been changed by the Presidium of the People’s Assembly when they have had to do with the activity of the courts, mistakes may have been made, but it is generally positive that the issues have not remained unresolved. Many of them have been resolved by the Party and the Government without going to the Presidium of the People’s Assembly at all. Then the courts themselves were reasonable. They, acting as revolutionary bodies, did not allow these issues to be resolved in violation of the law, the Constitution. But, without violating the competencies, many issues have been resolved not only by the courts, through consultations with each other, but also by the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, where we are also members who have been elected by the People’s Party and where collegial decisions are made. If from a study conducted by the Party, it turns out that a criminal, a thief or a pest of socialist property, etc., is not hit properly, then we come to the Presidium of the People’s Assembly and ask the justice authorities why these things are happening, why the courts are being soft, and so on. Then the Presidium of the People’s Assembly gives guidance to the judiciary.
Of course, the Presidium should do this better. To this end, we need to give some other staff the necessary competencies. But these competencies should not be such as to suffocate the courts, just as the competencies of the Central Committee or the Government should not suffocate respectively the Party committees and the executive committees of the people’s district councils. Therefore, the Presidium of the People’s Assembly must be careful to preserve the essence of the laws and the Constitution based on the method of control and verification. The Government also has the right to control. What about? When we say Government, we do not mean only the Ministry of Justice, but all members of the Council of Ministers and, in the first place, the Prime Minister. Within the laws and according to the Party line, when the Government finds that judges make concessions, it should not and cannot remain indifferent, it is acting with all the competencies given by the Party, not only as an institution as a whole but also through any its member, separately. It is assisted for this purpose by all employees, starting with the investigator. But that is not enough. The government that has its eyes everywhere, can see that in this or that case the plan is not being realized, that in this or that sector there are these shortcomings or abuses, therefore it raises these problems.
When a member of the Government finds, for example, that some tasks are not being performed, perhaps because the work of the Party is not going well, that there are negative phenomena here and there that become an obstacle, he refers the matter to the Government, which examines the problem. and proposes that measures be taken by this site as well. Both the Government and its members are doing this work day and night, and I think they are doing very well. So they respect the Party line and do not go beyond certain forms, however, who has stopped, for example, members of the Government from coming to speak even socially to the comrades of justice? The Prime Minister may also warn the leaders of the judiciary at a meeting of the Government when any decision taken by them is not grounded. The government also deals with the courts in other forms.
For example, when the investigator finds that the court easily convicts a guilty person, such as five months in prison when he should be sentenced more, then this remark, through its department, informs the Government, which notifies the relevant superior bodies. , that such a judge is not working well. Here, then, is a form of government control over the courts. If he receives a similar report on an analogous case, then the Chairman of the Council of Ministers may address both the Politburo and the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, to which he directly gives his opinion on these cases. Indeed we have not studied law, but we have been dealing with the implementation of the Party’s just policy for 25 years, we also approve laws, so the 25-year-old Party School that we have done cannot be compared to some law faculties.
The connection of the activity of the judiciary with the Government, with the highest executive and ordering body, does not depend only on a formality that conforms with the principle we have established in the implementation and control of our justice. The independence of the courts does not mean independence from the people and the Party, so it does not make anyone close their eyes to the fair application of the laws by those in charge of this work. District courts depend on the Supreme Court, so it has the right to control their every decision. Having the right to review the recourse, she has the right to get involved in even the most detailed cases of the courts. If the High Court needs some staff to enforce this right, then let’s give it to them. As for advocacy, I have long been of the opinion that this institute should be abolished.
Who does our lawyer defend? In essence, in our country, it is foreseen that the people’s justice will protect the interests of the people, without forgetting the interests of the one who is being tried. When this is the case, why leave us lawyers like Suat Asllani or Koço Dilo who, contrary to the evidence, the law, the interests of the Party and the people, call for a trial that the thief is “honest”, that the killer is innocent ” !? What kind of justice do such people need? In the West it is different, the lawyer there protects people who are politically and economically oppressed by the bourgeois power. Everyone knows that the Party solves issues, even the most important and delicate issues, without a lawyer. So, while in our courts we have Party organizations and people, determined and conscientious, fair and objective in enforcing popular justice, why is it necessary to have lawyers?
The latter, a criminal, for example, even when his guilt is proven fourfold, try to acquit him. So they don’t act right. When it is time to consider mitigating circumstances in an act committed, or when the evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt, this is done by our own people’s court, our people of justice, who, judging the case by heart, party and with a clear conscience, can decide to give a lighter sentence to a man or to acquit him when the evidence is not convincing. So why listen to the voices of lawyers in our courts, including those I mentioned? In bourgeois countries, for example, in France, the laws constitute a large forest. The Napoleonic Code is in force there, but there are still many other laws in force that were drafted centuries ago, by those of the 16th and 17th centuries. The defendant in France has no way of knowing how to get out of this dense forest of these laws, to be able to defend himself and escape the accusation.
How different is the situation in our country! We fight, first of all, for the laws to be as simple as possible. For their recognition, to understand the essence of all people becomes great propaganda. We are also trying to raise the political and ideological level of the masses. In addition to all this, the Party also recommends to the court to implement this or that law in a revolutionary way, that is, with full justice in the interest of the people. All these advantages do not exist in bourgeois regimes, where the institute of advocacy is justified. However, we can study this issue as well, but it is logical to judge it in this way. With the abolition of the institute of advocacy, as an institute of professional protection, we do not in any way violate the principle of the right to defense that the Constitution recognizes the defendants. Everyone has the right to a fair trial. As it turned out from the discussions, we all agree that the Ministry of Justice should be abolished, we just need to think about what organization we will create later in the High Court.Memorie.al