Yesterday, I wrote that based on the argument of the International Monitoring Operation the chance of Sevdari’s complaint against Special Appeal Chamber judges Luan Daci and Ardian Hajdari would be investigated in its current form, namely as a possible disciplinary violation or as an abuse of office seems unlikely.
However, she may consider another avenue, which would be to file a lawsuit against them at the Special Prosecution Office (SPAK) for falsification of documents. Any final criminal conviction would automatically remove a KPA judge from office.
According to Vetting Law art. 7(4), Vetting Institution candidates should have provided notarized or equivalent copies of diplomas and documents attesting to not having been subject to disciplinary measures.
This means that the National Ombudsman, International Monitoring Operation, General Secretary of Parliament, and two Ad-Hoc Committees all had access to notarized documents on file stating that
- Hajdari completed second level studies in Law (cf. art. 6(1)(a) of the Vetting Law);
- Daci had never been subject to disciplinary measures as a judge (cf. art. 6(1)(dh) of the Vetting Law).
If either of these had been missing, the National Ombudsman and ONM would have disqualified their applications automatically on formal grounds. Unless we assume the Ombudsman and ONM did a bad job, we must assume that these notarized documents were part of Hajdari’s and Daci’s respective dossiers.
If Sevdari’s claims are found to be correct, this means that both Hajdari and Daci could be prosecuted for falsification of documents under art. 186 of the Penal Code.
The question is only who has the right to prosecute judges of the KPA. According to Constitutional Annex art. C(3), KPA judges “have the status of judges of the Constitutional Court.”
Following art. 148/dh(1) and 135(2) of the Constitution, the Special Prosecution Office (SPAK) is competent to investigate “criminal charges against [… a] judge of the Constitutional Court.” This means that, in theory, Sevdari could reformulate her complaint against Luan Daci and Ardian Hajdari and file it at SPAK, which will then decide whether to open an investigation.
The fact that SPAK consists solely of vetted prosecutors who went through a selection procedure of the KLP should remove any doubt that such an investigation into the KPA judges would be politically biased.
