It appears the internationals have found a new code word to express a legal concept they still seem to have barely understood: “rigorous vetting.” The term first appeared yesterday in a statement of the US Embassy in relation to the vetting of the Constitutional Court candidates:
Those who wish to challenge the election results can look to the Constitutional Court, which we hope will be established soon with judges who have passed a rigorous vetting process.
Today, EU Ambassador Luigi Soreca published a Twitter thread using the same term:
It is also time to move forward with the rule of law reforms. The implementation of justice reform continues and it is irreversible. Focus now is to establish SPAK and bring the Constitutional Court back to its functionality. Once the rigorous vetting of candidates is concluded, SPAK will allow [Albania] to further enhance its fight against corruption and organised crime, while the Court will be able to clarify all outstanding issues related to constitutional rights, including on electoral matters.
It is interesting that Soreca uses the term “rigorous vetting” not in relation to the Constitutional Court, but in relation to the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecution (SPAK). As I have explained before, the Justice Appointments Council (KED) has decided that candidates for the Constitutional Court do not need to pass the vetting in order to be appointed, whereas the High Prosecutorial Council (KLP) has determined that the prosecutor candidates for SPAK need a final verdict of the vetting bodies in order to be promoted to it.
In other words, within 24 hours the US Embassy and EU Ambassador Soreca manage to use the term “rigorous vetting” in two incompatible and contradictory manners. This tells us something about the amount of thought that is given inside these diplomatic missions to the details of the Justice Reform.