Explanatory arguments for Meta’s trial

The College composed by Majlinda Andrea, Gani Dizdari, Guxim Zenelaj and Arjana Fullani, with Ardian Dvorani as chairperson, gives the explanatory arguments for all sessions, since 9 May 2011, when the Prosecution sent the case to court.

But which are the strongest points on which the Penal College bases the decision? The first one is the authenticity of the video in which Meta is seen with Dritan Prifti, in what the Prosecution considered a corruption affair.

The Court says that after taking a scientific opinion by Albanian experts, who found no traces of the Meta-Prifti conversation, but that of another material, which led the court to the conclusion that:

“Based on the expert conclusions, the Judge Panel ruled that the audio visual materials that underwent the inspection were not authentic. The tests proved that there was a high probability of manipulation, due to unexplainable anomalies. Meanwhile, its audio-visual quality is under understandability levels. Based on this data, the Judge Panel comes to the conclusion that this material, in which witness Dritan Profti claims that there is a conversation between him and the defendant Ilir Meta, has no valid traces and doesn’t fulfill the legal criteria for being considered as an evidence. On the other hand, the quality of the video doesn’t allow understanding the claimed circumstances.”

As for Dritan Prifti’s claim that Ilir Meta had asked favors for the hydropower plant concessions, the court says:

“The Penal College assesses that based on the investigations and evidence that were administered in this trial, there is no proof that the defendant Ilir Meta has made the illegal offer of 700.000 EUR to Dritan Prifti, and 7% of the “Vellezerit Tola” shares, in order to favor this subject in the public tender for the Egnatia-Shushica hydro-power plant concession.”

As for the sale of 30.000 tons of oil from Albpetrol, and Meta’s intervention for favoring in this tender the “Halilaj Holding Group” society, the Supreme Court notes that Prifti is the only one who raises these claims, and explains:

“The Judge Panel assesses that based on the investigations and evidence that were administered in this trial, there are no evidence asserting that the defendant Ilir Meta has asked illegal favors for the Halilaj Holding Group in exchange of 1 million USD to share with Dritan prifti. Given the evidence analysis and the evaluation of the above mentioned evidence, the Judge Panel considers that, to come to the conclusion of the case, it is the case to analyze the specific provisions of the substantive law of criminal procedure applicable in criminal proceedings subject to this judgment. Consequently, the Penal College releases the defendant Ilir Meta from his charges, because the facts do not prove to exist.”

But what does this judge panel mean by “the facts do not prove to exist”?

“The Penal College assesses that it is the case to specify the clear distinction between the motive ‘facts do not exist’ and ‘facts do not prove to exist’. With ‘facts do not prove to exist’ is understood that with the given evidence, we cannot verify the existence of the fact as a criminal act”, the argument says.

Dvorani’s different “Decision”

Besides the explanatory decision, to the verdict is attached the concurring opinion of the Chairperson of the Judge Panel, Ardian Dvorani.

Dvorani declared that he voted in favor of Meta’s release of charges, but he has different stances for many issues, such as the expertise, the video authenticity, etc. Referring to the intermediate decision against, when the majority decided to reinvestigate the evidence and reject the expertise of the US Glen Bart, Ardian Dvorani says that “as a judge in minority, I think that the assignment of foreign experts is a regular procedure, and the acts provided by them were valid. The expert had a long experience in the US and UK”.

“In conclusion, the US expert gives affirmative answer and doesn’t mention any possible anomaly or inability to reach the truth”.

Dvorani’s opinion was also different for the procurement of evidence. Dvorani insists that this change finds no logic or judicial support.

In the intermediate decision, Dvorani is against the majority for assigning Albanian experts. Dvorani underlines that Artur Rrahmani was in the conditions to be excluded from the procedure, since he worked in the same studio with the expert Dritan Zoto, and their director had already given his opinion for a media outlet. This makes Mr. Rrahmani inappropriate for his duty as an expert. Dvorani says that the Albanian expert group was unable to explain what happened and why, but they only identify a probability.

“For this reason, based on the above adduction, unlike the majority, I believe that a new expertise was necessary. Unlike the majority, I believe that the court should hold a session for hearing the audio-video registration and have a transcription of the Meta-Prifti video, based on the video file that was administered as evidence”.

“As regards the conclusion of the case, based on the evidence that were allowed to be taken under evaluation, the only final conclusion is declaring Meta as innocent, because in these conditions, since the Constitutional principles and norms sanction that every suspicion favors the defendant, the court must declare him innocent”.

“I find that if the Court would not have declared as invalid some procedural acts, and if it would have not excluded some evidence that were valid, the Judge Panel would have reached a complete trial and as consequence, there would be sufficient evidence for a verdict for either suspending the case, finding the defendant innocent or guilty”.

Top Channel