Returning Special Law: Better to Be Corrected Than Falling to Constitutional

Lawyers Adrian Ibrahimi and Valdet Hoxha have commented on the return to the Kosovo Specialised Chambers Law Convention, assessing it is important that the bill be carefully considered to avoid possible constitutional and judicial problems.

Speaking on show FIVE, lawyer Adrian Ibrahimi said that in the President’s decision, he had not seen a clear order of findings or remarks to concrete provisions of the law.

According to him, however, discussions have been linked to the possibility of limiting the jurisdiction of the Special Court, the maximum degree of punishment this court could pronounce, and the possible retroactive effect of the law on already pronounced decisions.

But the idea being discussed is in one form or another limit the jurisdiction of the Special Court or of provisions that are related to the maximum of the possible punishment that this Court can pronounce, and eventually it’s also a question of the retroactive effect of this law on the decision that the Special Court has already pronounced, Ibrahimi said.

He also explained that the bill does not return to zero point, but continues from the remaining stage, with material being voted on in second reading.

The bill continues where it remains, is considered a third reading, so it doesn’t go back to zero, but it has to be re-voted and it has to go back to the Assembly once again to submit to the decision process, but it goes on to the material that is currently the same as voted in second reading, Ibrahim said.

Meanwhile, lawyer Valdet Hoxha estimated that the initial process of drafting the law may have been characterised by hastyness and political pressure, warning that this may have influenced the involvement of provisions that conflict with international agreements or with the legal basis for establishing specialised rooms.

The bad taste of law is that the first version is in a hurry, that euphoria of waiting for a legal act has created a kind of political drunkenness that no one has thought of doing so, as Hoxha is now supposed to.

According to him, the pressure of protests and the haste to adopt the law may have prevented certain provisions from being adequately assessed.

He said restitution of the law does not necessarily amount to harm, as it is most important to ensure a law that meets the intended goal and does not risk falling by the Constitutional Court.

I think there’s no major damage being done to the law, because it’s better to lose 30, eventually 60 days to have a law that achieves the goal, rather than stubbornly continue and result in the threat of collapse at the Constitutional Court, Hoxha said.

Source Layer: Dukeagini