The Secret Service had its reserves about the draft-law that allows the Parliament to supervise security institutions.
Visho Ajazi Lika declared that the law should define how the sub-commission will act during the surveillance.
“Article 3.1 is not clear. The purpose and the implementation of the law is not only to verify how the special procedures that are approved by the General Prosecutor are implemented. This would be only one part of the subcommission task, which is more related with not allowing human right infringements. The draft that we have now was made before the amends of law 91 57 for wire taps, and that’s why there are so many discrepancies”, declared the head of the Secret Service.
Almost the same reserve, but with a different formulation, was made by the representative of the General Prosecution. He asked the Parliament to specify if they will control the information or the documentation.
“The law must specify the access of the subcommission. Will it be for the information or the documents? These are very different things”, declared Thoma Jano, representative of the Legal Office at the General Prosecution.
The MPs have also heard the opinion of the civil society. Kozara Kati decalred in the hearing session of the Security Commission that there are clashes between the articles of this draft law, and that there should be more focus on the basic human rights.
Top Channel
