Asked if equality in treatment of re-evaluation subjects is threatened unless it is postponed, constitutionalist Erind Merkuri said that “HPC and HJC do not follow the practice of Vetting bodies, but offer another method of control.”

Merkuri also added that “the Vetting process is not penal but administrative, so it is difficult to maintain the consistency of handling the cases in this regard.”
Meanwhile, answering another set of questions, constitutionalist Aurela Anastasi said that, “additional functions would affect the standards of the work of councils, HPC and HJC.”

“Today about half of the magistrates have not been vetted yet. Conflicts of competencies may arise and we will no longer be able to manage the conflict of competencies,” she said.
Constitutionalist Anastasi listed some of the positive aspects of postponing the term of the Vetting bodies.

According to her, the extension of the term enables continuum and consistency because the process will be built on the experience gained following the same standards.

Another positive aspect is the guarantee of ongoing support from IMO, based on the experience developed so far. “The IMO has a functional standard that is not limited in time,” said Anastasi.

Carrying out of re-evaluation process by the same bodies as before, according to the constitutionalist, “maintains strict control over the duration of the Vetting process and guarantees the deadlines.”
/r.e/sm/