Post by tomis42 on Feb 15, 2024 4:38:28 GMT -6
I understand the leader of SPAK when he says that "it is difficult to find evidence". It's hard, really. It is precisely for this reason that I do not understand SPAK at all, which accuses and imprisons people without evidence. We knew that it was difficult, that's why we created SPAK, to find the evidence and not to imprison and accuse people like during Bolshevism. Read also: Basha: We will submit a criminal complaint against Edi Rama to SPAK The incinerator of Tirana, Kelliçi: Let SPAK sleep, we will track the money The point is, how can you arrest people without asking them even once and when there are no flagrant elements?! How will they find the evidence when the people .
who possess it drive them Turkey Phone Number List away from the investigation?! Or do they think that with the tricks of the BKH soldiers they will find evidence?! How can you even think of finding evidence of blatantly illegal behavior?! How will they find evidence when instead of using the evidence to go to the author, you use the author to please the people with arrests?! I don't know how to find evidence when the investigations are based on political and popular reports and in complete ignorance of the findings of public institutions!!! How can they prove accusations when investigations degenerate from one file to another unconnected and unintegrated in a legal logic?! How can you ask for evidence from low-level officials for actions that the leaders do?! It comes to promises for jobs.
And so on…. I agree that it is difficult, but SPAK's investigations leave many paths and are not where they should be. With interceptions and their use in the media, they have no way of finding evidence. With a history of wiretapping, we have seen the degeneration of justice for at least 15 years. If the statistics of arrests or charges filed is an evaluation criterion for SPAK, there is no chance of finding evidence. What is the need for evidence when arrest statistics are more important?! Why do you need evidence when you can re-judge previously judged cases?! Others have found the evidence…. What is the need for evidence when the accusations are raised like this, according to whim and not the logic of the law of evidence?! Why do we need evidence when the Prime Minister has divided who is arrested and who is not?! *** No one makes this kind of reasoning in the committee of legal experts.
who possess it drive them Turkey Phone Number List away from the investigation?! Or do they think that with the tricks of the BKH soldiers they will find evidence?! How can you even think of finding evidence of blatantly illegal behavior?! How will they find evidence when instead of using the evidence to go to the author, you use the author to please the people with arrests?! I don't know how to find evidence when the investigations are based on political and popular reports and in complete ignorance of the findings of public institutions!!! How can they prove accusations when investigations degenerate from one file to another unconnected and unintegrated in a legal logic?! How can you ask for evidence from low-level officials for actions that the leaders do?! It comes to promises for jobs.
And so on…. I agree that it is difficult, but SPAK's investigations leave many paths and are not where they should be. With interceptions and their use in the media, they have no way of finding evidence. With a history of wiretapping, we have seen the degeneration of justice for at least 15 years. If the statistics of arrests or charges filed is an evaluation criterion for SPAK, there is no chance of finding evidence. What is the need for evidence when arrest statistics are more important?! Why do you need evidence when you can re-judge previously judged cases?! Others have found the evidence…. What is the need for evidence when the accusations are raised like this, according to whim and not the logic of the law of evidence?! Why do we need evidence when the Prime Minister has divided who is arrested and who is not?! *** No one makes this kind of reasoning in the committee of legal experts.