The Albanian Helsinki Committee has reacted regarding the treatment of former minister Ilir Beqaj during court sessions, as well as that of Ilir Meta, referring to complaints made by themselves or their lawyers. The committee has deemed the practice of holding the accused in a "cage" in the courtroom as illegal and contrary to international standards, reports Top Channel journalist Anila Hoxha.

According to AHC, this situation violates not only Albanian legislation but also the principles of the European Court of Human Rights, jeopardizing the development of a regular and fair trial. It also recalls the case of former president Ilir Meta, who requested not to be held in a glass cage during his court session.

The defense lawyer of Mr. Ilir Beqaj, in a letter dated April 10, 2025, addressed to several institutions, including the Albanian Helsinki Committee, raised concerns that during preliminary court sessions, his client is placed in a security cage, initially metal and later glass. To communicate with the defendant, the lawyer must request permission from the court and physically approach the cage, a practice that significantly limits the effective exercise of defense.

This concern has also been raised in court. By the decision dated April 7, 2026, the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime dismissed the complaint, arguing that placement in a cage is not within its jurisdiction but that of the General Directorate of Prisons, the institution responsible for escorting detainees.

According to media publications dated April 21, 2026, the same request was previously submitted by the defense lawyer of Mr. Ilir Meta, addressed to the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime, not to be held in a glass cabin during court sessions, arguing a violation of constitutional rights and international standards for a fair trial.

Both citizens are held in Penal Execution Institutions under the security measure of "arrest in prison." The Albanian Helsinki Committee assesses that this court practice constitutes a serious violation of domestic legislation and the standards of the European Court of Human Rights.

First, according to Article 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the conduct of court sessions and maintaining order in the courtroom are the exclusive competence of the court.

Second, Article 344 clearly stipulates that the accused participates in the trial as a free person, even when detained. Restrictions are allowed only if they hinder the development of the session. In this context, the court's argument that placement in a cage is the competence of the General Directorate of Prisons contradicts criminal procedural law. Neither Law No. 81/2020 "On the Rights and Treatment of Prisoners and Detainees" nor the relevant subordinate acts provide for the use of a cage as a standard measure in the courtroom.

Third, this practice also contradicts the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

In the case of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia, the ECHR found that holding the accused in a cage during trial constitutes degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Additionally, this practice undermines the presumption of innocence and hinders effective communication with the defense, also resulting in a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that there is no justification for treating a person as a "wild animal" and that security reasons can be addressed with less restrictive measures, such as increasing police presence.

In conclusion, AHC assesses that the automatic placement of the accused in a cage in the courtroom has no legal basis, contradicts the standards guaranteed in domestic legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights, and jeopardizes the fairness of the trial.

The correct implementation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and adherence to the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights elaborated in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg) are not matters of interpretation but obligations for domestic authorities, including the courts.