Discussion Forum – Albanian judicial culture versus human rights standards, 13 October 2025

The discussion forum, organised by the European Movement in Albania (EMA) on 13 October 2025, in the premises of the Europe House, focused on the issues related to Albanian judicial culture, as well as human rights, taking as its starting point the articles published in the Albanian Law Journal (ALJ). Under the moderation of Anila Zyberaj, the forum brought together the authors of the journals, as well as other actors from civil society and other interest groups.

During her introductory remarks, Ermelinda Muçaj, Project Officer, European Movement in Albania (EMA), underlined that the articles published in the journals created by EMA aim to fulfill all existing voids by providing in-depth treatment of these topics, such as |Albanian judicial culture and human rights standards, by bringing citizens closer through concrete recommendations for addressing some of the current issues. . This process is the goal of the Albanian Law Journal (ALJ), which is currently being funded by the European Union and has had 3 open calls with about 80 applications, from which 30 articles have been selected.

Brunilda Haxhiu, Lecturer at the New York University Tirana, author of the article “Pre-trial detention as a norm: The impact of judicial culture on security measures”, co-authored with Assoc. Prof. Adrian Leka, University of Shkodra, pointed out the differences between Albania and the European Union on the issue of security, however some arbitrary detention remains a global issue. The overuse of pre-trial detention in Albania, despite the formal compliance of the legal framework with European standards, is not explained by technical factors such as workload or lack of alternative activities, as this practice has become an institutional norm for years. This gap is explained thoroughly by the theory of “risk culture”. The data confirm this discrepancy, violating the principle of subsidiarity, as they lack individualised justification, and structural challenges deepen this problem. The rate of approval of requests for detention in prison has historically been over 96% (Tirana Court) and for 2024, the measure of detention in prison is assigned 1.7 times more often than approval in prison and 4.5 times more often than house arrest. Pre-trial detainees make up about 62% of the prison population (2024), exceeding the European average (25.9%), saying that it is widespread in all those who have created the principle of subsidiarity. Haxhiu emphasized that decisions to assign detention are often deficient and unreasonable, settling on the standard phrase of the risk of escape or tampering of evidence, without such concrete analysis. Courts often automatically consider repeat offenders dangerous, standardising the decision. In conclusion, overuse is a product of external legal, structural and cultural interplay, requiring a much deeper approach, beyond partial reforms, for a lasting change.

Iris Shehaj, Lawyer & Researcher, author of the article “Evidence created by artificial intelligence: The challenges of criminal offenses in the digital age”, co-authored with Maend Kullaj, Lawyer & Lecturer, stated that artificial intelligence is being used more frequently lately for facilitating the process of investigative checks in criminal justice. Integration of Human Intelligence Articles in this field brings new evidence (whether collected, for example, to analyse large-volume data, or generated by AI, such as the creation of visual or audio materials or the enhancement of image quality), which aim to increase efficiency and accuracy, and simultaneously, Shehaj drew attention to major concerns such as violations of human rights, where procedural reasons mainly related to guaranteeing the principle of equality of arms, as well as the origin of the evidence and the assessment of its probative value . To illustrate this with practical international cases, Shehaj mentions “The Golden State Killer”, which raised concerns on privacy and ethics, since the police sent the defendant’s genetic material to the genealogical database “GEDmatch”, after his DNA extraction was performed thanks to the use of AI. Although simple tests from artificial intelligence do not yet have a specific regulation, Shehaj emphasized that some specific principles derive from the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation 2024/1689), which qualifies as high-risk systems those used by law enforcement agencies for polygraphs, assessment of evidence adequacy, profiling or prediction of recidivism, emphasizing the need for accuracy, transparency, protection of procedural rights and avoidance of discrimination, while the CCBE (Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe) has taken a more assertive stance, demanding a complete ban on predictive programs by law enforcement agencies due to unacceptable risks. To date, there is no known case in Albanian practice in the presentation of evidence created or supported by AI, as its use is not regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), although the latter allows the collection of atypical evidence, provided that fundamental human rights are not violated.  In conclusion, Shehaj brought to attention that transparency and maintaining the balance between procedural efficiency and respect for human rights must be guaranteed, as AI does not replace human expertise.

Ina Shënplaku, Lawyer, author of the article “The Right to be Forgotten in the Albanian legal framework: A guarantee for the protection of dignity and its status as a fundamental right”, analysed the “Right to be Forgotten” as an essential mechanism in the digital age to protect the dignity and privacy of the individual from permanent digital “memory”. This right was first recognised by the European Court of Justice in the case Google Spain v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González, (2014) and was consolidated by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), allowing individuals to request the deletion or de-linking of outdated, irrelevant personal information from search engines. In Albania, this right is included in the legal framework with Law No. 124/2024 “On the Protection of Personal Data”, which regulates the criteria for erasure requests. The right to be forgotten is deeply connected to existing privacy and data protection rights, but its specific purpose is to give the individual control over his or her digital identity and to ensure an accurate presentation of himself or herself at all times. However, its implementation raises internal tensions and requires a delicate balancing act with the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and the public’s right to information. The Google Spain decision confirmed that the fundamental rights of the individual can prevail over the economic interests of corporations, but the original information is not deleted, thus protecting freedom of expression. This new concept in Albanian legislation will face practical challenges such as the possibility of censorship or negative impact on other individuals linked to the data. Therefore, the “right to be forgotten” should not be seen as a purely technical tool, but as a fundamental right in development, necessary for the protection of human dignity in a society with an indelible digital memory. The right to be forgotten, although not perfect, is an indispensable need in this digital age.

The participants discussed the need to design effective strategies for the use of pre-trial detention in accordance with European standards, as well as the strengthening of the capacities of the judicial system and the necessity to invest in the necessary infrastructure. At the center of the debate were also the challenges related to addressing the internal mechanisms of the “culture of risk”. The urgent need for legal regulation of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Albanian criminal justice was also emphasized, requesting specific milestones according to international models, as well as continuous training for all actors of the system. The importance of full transparency on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was underlined and ensuring that it serves only as a supporting tool, without replacing human judgment. Finally, the recognition and implementation of the “right to be forgotten” as a fundamental right for digital identity control was also discussed.

*This discussion forum took place within the framework of the “Building Partnership on Fundamentals: Empowered CSOs in the EU  accession process” project, with the financial support of the European Union – IPA Civil Society Facility 2021, which is implemented by the European Movement in Albania and in cooperation with the Academy of European Integration and Negotiations (AIEN), Slovak Foreign Policy Association (SFPA) and the Center for Transparency and Freedom of Information (CTFI).