Rezultati 3.2.1
“The General Prosecutor’s Office has improved mechanisms for monitoring local activities, defined operational procedures, adequate staffing, enhanced efficiency and productivity in anti-money laundering investigations, improved implementation of the investigation process, involvement in research work on crime and relevant analytical work, and an effective system for implementing the guidelines of the General Prosecution Office and the Directorate General of State Police”.
The first outcome required to be achieved is related to the improvement of the work of the General Prosecutor’s Office. Judicial reform brought about fundamental changes in the functioning of the prosecution system as a whole, the role of the General Prosecution Office and the “delegation” of many of the powers of the former GPO to the newly established HPC. Thus, the General Prosecution: proposes and administers the budget of the prosecution office, with the exception of the budget of the Special Prosecution Office; ensures the smooth running of the work in the prosecution office administration; issues general written instructions to prosecutors; reports to the Assembly on the state of criminality; represents the prosecution in the High Court and cases in the Constitutional Court, unless the state is represented by SPAK; directs, coordinates and supervises the activity of the Judicial Police, etc. The High Prosecutorial Council has responsibilities of a different nature. It ensures the independence, accountability, discipline, status and career of prosecutors of the Republic of Albania.
To exercise these functions, Outcome 3.2.1 requires that the GPO achieve both of these sub-outcomes simultaneously:
The first sub-outcome requires that GPO improve its measurement and monitoring mechanisms for prosecutors in judicial districts, develop rules and guidelines for the development of their activity and provide sufficient and necessary staff for the efficient implementation of its activities, including setting up an efficient system to check whether or not its guidelines are being implemented by prosecutors. Also, GPO should collect and analyze data, which serve to determine the state of criminality, type of crime, its progress, etc., in order to determine, in a researched way, the criminal policies to be followed.
Regarding the second sub-outcome, the GPO is required to increase its productivity in anti-money laundering investigations and to improve the investigation process as a whole. This sub-outcome is directly related to its action as a body that exercises criminal prosecution and represents the prosecution in the High Court and the CC. Here the outcome should have been formulated a little more clearly because, since it refers only to GPO, it should adhere to the responsibilities and tasks of GPO. Regarding the fact that the GPO acts as a body that investigates and represents the state, it should have become clearer that this is an authority that is exercised only in some cases, as provided by law.
In the case when the second sub-outcome should remain as it is, then the measures provided should include not only GPO, but also SPAK, as well as the prosecution offices of the system as a whole. In fact, separate outcomes and concrete measures are provided for SPAK and NBI, as will be seen below.
Preliminarily, we note that the measures envisaged in function of this outcome are related to the review of the Law on Prosecution Office, the review of bylaws issued by GPO (for example, general mandatory instructions for prosecutors and judicial police officers, according to the restrictions set by law; determines the general structure and standard regulation for the organization and functioning of the prosecution offices of general jurisdiction[1]) and the training of prosecutors and judicial police officers on the Law on Prosecution Office. These measures do not fully meet the outcome as they do not fully cover the GPO structure. Recruitment and training of GPO administrative staff, increase of IT capacities, are also very important components in the overall performance of GPO and at least one separate measure should have been provided for them.
Conclusion: This outcome refers exclusively to the GPO and it should contain only GPO-related components. The way it is written leaves room for ambiguity. However, it is concluded that the proper interpretation of the purpose of this outcome emerges by linking it closely with the two main roles of the GPO, that of its influence on the prosecution system and that of the investigative body and the prosecution representative in certain cases.
[1]Law 97/2016, “On the organization and functioning of the Prosecution Office in the Republic of Albania”;