The Code of Criminal Procedure is expected to undergo one of the biggest interventions since the Justice Reform of 2017. The new draft law aims to change an important part of the way criminal investigations are conducted, security measures are put in place, evidence is collected, the defense is exercised and information from criminal files is made public.
According to the explanatory report, this is considered the second most important reform of the Code since its adoption in 1995. The stated purpose is to strengthen the guarantees for due process, especially for the person under investigation and the defendant, while simultaneously maintaining the effectiveness of the investigation and trial.
The changes are organized into eight pillars and affect issues ranging from prison arrest and defense access to prosecution evidence, to phones and digital evidence, wiretapping, the release of investigative materials and the broadcasting of court hearings.
Imprisonment is intended to be used as a last resort
One of the most important changes concerns detention. Coercive measures, as a rule, can only be imposed for criminal offenses for which the maximum penalty is higher than three years of imprisonment. Exceptions are provided for certain cases, including violation of previous measures and some categories of criminal offenses.
The threshold becomes even higher for prison arrest. The draft law stipulates that this measure cannot be imposed for criminal misdemeanors and, as a rule, not even when the maximum penalty provided for is lower than five years of imprisonment.
The court must also argue why other measures, even in combination, are insufficient and, in particular, why house arrest cannot meet the security needs.
The report argues that the need for the measure must be proven on concrete facts and behavior and that the nature or dangerousness of the criminal offense, taken alone, should not be sufficient for deprivation of liberty.
The reform is also important because of the data on the duration of detention. The report cites data according to which the average length of time is 253 days in the courts of general jurisdiction and 616 days in the Special Court, compared to about 155 days reported as the EU average.
Additional protection is provided for certain categories, among them pregnant women, parents in certain circumstances with children up to 6 years old, people over 70 years old and people in a particularly serious state of health.
Property security becomes a mandatory alternative to consider
Another strong change affects the property guarantee. When setting house arrest or prison arrest, the court, according to the project, will be obliged to determine the value of the property guarantee that can be deposited as an alternative, with the exceptions provided by the Code.
The amount will be determined taking into account the real insurance needs, the personal and family circumstances and the financial situation of the person. After the filing, the prosecutor must verify the documentation and act, as the case may be, for the release or confirmation of the measure within the established deadlines.
New measures are also added, such as leaving the family home and banning contact or approaching certain people or places.
The defense gains the right to conduct its own investigation
One of the biggest conceptual innovations is the creation of the “defense investigations” institute, inspired according to the relationship by the Italian model of defensive investigations.
The lawyer will be able to take actions to collect elements in favor of the client, receive statements, provide documents from the public administration and carry out verifications. The collected materials are included in a defense file, which can be presented to the judge and, after the completion of preliminary investigations, becomes part of the prosecutor’s file.
The report presents this as a move towards a more realistic equality of arms between prosecution and defence.
The prosecution must provide the evidence to the defendant
The draft law interferes with Article 24 of the Code. The prosecutor will be obliged to make available to the defendant all the evidence he has about the proceedings and, at the time of the announcement of the charge, all the evidence and documents obtained by him. New evidence subsequently obtained must be notified immediately.
For the person who has not yet received the status of the defendant, investigative secrecy remains, but he or the lawyer can request access to certain documents. The prosecutor must respond within 48 hours and the decision-making is subject to court control.
In particular, all evidence on which a security measure is imposed must be made available to the person or his defense. Violations may be grounds for disciplinary action.
It is intended to put an end to the “unofficial investigation”
Investigative actions will not be allowed outside the scope of the registered report. If elements of another criminal offense emerge during the investigation, the prosecutor must register a new notification.
Only in flagrante delicto or when immediate intervention is needed to prevent or stop a serious crime are actions allowed before registration, but new proceedings must be registered within 24 hours.
The lawyer takes an active role during the interrogation
The rules of interrogation also change significantly. If there is specific and individual suspicion that the person has committed the criminal offense, he should not be interrogated as an ordinary person or witness to circumvent procedural guarantees.
Before questioning, the person must be informed that the statements may be used against him and that he has the right not to answer. Failure to observe any of these warnings renders the statements unusable.
The lawyer will be able to intervene during the questioning to protect the right to remain silent and against self-incrimination, the confidentiality of communication and to oppose methods that violate freedom of will.
The bill also provides for the absolute inadmissibility of evidence obtained through torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
Phones and digital evidence under a new regime
Another important block of changes relates to digital evidence. The project distinguishes between the physical seizure of a device and access to the data it contains.
According to the report, access to digital data requires prior judicial authorization with an individualized object. Implementation is then subject to judicial review, and exceeding the limits of authorization renders the evidence unusable.
The report states that the regulation also codifies the standard established by the Constitutional Court with decision no. 44 of July 29, 2025. Changes are also foreseen for controls and seizures, interceptions and taking biological samples. Genetic profiles will be subject to retention periods and, in the case of innocence, mandatory destruction is foreseen.
Personal liability for judicial police officers
Judicial police officers may bear disciplinary liability for illegal searches and seizures, use of surveillance to obtain evidence requiring judicial control or authorization, abuse of the concept of flagrante, pursuit or urgency, and breach of guarantees during interrogation. Liability is provided regardless of the final outcome of the proceedings.
The standard for sending the case to trial changes
The bill also proposes a new standard for filtering cases that go to trial. According to the report, the standard of “sufficient evidence to support the charge” is replaced by that of “reasonable expectation of conviction”.
This requires a qualitative assessment of the evidentiary material and the consideration of both the prosecution and defense evidence. The prosecutor must justify the elements of the criminal offense and identify concrete evidence for each of them.
The preliminary hearing also changes. The motion for summary judgment will be filed after the objections to the validity of the acts and the admissibility of the evidence have been resolved.
Much stronger rules on the release of criminal files
One of the parts with the most direct impact on the media is the amendment of Article 103.
The publication, even partial, of acts protected by investigative secrecy and their content is prohibited. The ban includes publication in the press, television, institutional websites, social networks and other forms of communication.
It is also foreseen to ban the publication of court decisions on security measures as long as the conditions defined in the draft law exist. The publication of the content of wiretapping is prohibited in principle, except for the transcribed part that is cited in the reasoning of a decision or used during the trial.
Special protection is established for the identity and images of minors and victims, while the publication or transmission of images of persons deprived of their liberty while under physical coercion is prohibited, except in the cases provided for.
Particularly important for the media is the provision according to which even journalists and media outlets that already have the data that fall under this regime must ask the court for authorization for publication. The court must weigh the integrity of the proceedings, the rights of the parties and the public’s right to information; according to the draft, publication cannot be carried out without judicial authorization.
Violation of prohibitions may result in civil, disciplinary and, when conditions are met, criminal liability.
It cannot be presented as guilty without a final decision
The Code also includes a special provision for the presumption of innocence. The person under investigation or the defendant must not be presented as guilty in acts that do not aim at making a decision on criminal responsibility, before the guilt has been proven by a final sentencing decision.
It is also prohibited to appear as guilty in a dismissal decision when the proceedings are closed due to the statute of limitations. The person who claims to have been violated may request the correction of the act.
Audiovisual recording becomes the rule
The draft law significantly strengthens the audiovisual documentation of the procedure. Exceptions to non-registration are limited to documented technical defects or force majeure and only when delay would have serious consequences for the evidence or the length of the process.
Violation of the obligation may lead to the unusability of the testimonies and statements taken at the hearing, as well as disciplinary liability. The copy of the registration or minutes must be made available within 24 hours of the request.
The sessions in the counseling room are also different
A general rule is established for proceedings in the consultation room: the parties must be notified at least ten days in advance, may submit submissions and have the right to be heard, including via remote connection in specified cases. Breach of these warranties may be void.
At the same time, the relation foresees the expansion of the publicity of the process: the session can be broadcast live at the request of the defendant or the victim and with the authorization of the court, while the rules of publicity are intended to extend to the appeal as well.
Change also for GJKKO judges and SPAK prosecutors
The draft law stipulates that the GJKKO will not be competent to judge the charges against a judge of its own or a prosecutor of the Special Prosecution when the criminal offense is not part of the subject competence of the Special Court. In these cases, the competence passes to the courts of general jurisdiction.
As a whole, the proposed changes affect some of the most sensitive points of the Albanian criminal procedure. The axis of the reform shifts towards the stronger limitation of detention, judicial control over the way of obtaining evidence, the more active role of the defense and the strengthening of the presumption of innocence.
But the package brings at the same time a significantly stricter regime for the publication of information from criminal proceedings. For the media, this is one of the interventions that is expected to have the most direct effect, since the draft is not only limited to the obligations of prosecutors, courts and parties in the process, but also sets conditions for the use by journalists of investigative materials that have already arrived in their possession./ekofin.al
