The Albanian Helsinki Committee has raised concerns about the procedure for transferring Erion Veliaj from Durrës prison to Fier prison, stressing that the detainee has not been given the transfer order and the specific reasons for the decision have not been communicated to him.
Full statement
The Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC), following public claims made by detainee Erion Veliaj regarding his transfer from the Penitentiary Institution for the Execution of Criminal Decisions (IEVP) Durrës to IEVP Fier, carried out a monitoring mission on 30 October 2026 to verify the procedures followed and the conditions of his treatment.
During the monitoring, the AHC representative met with the detainee and with the managers and responsible staff of IEVP Fier.
The monitoring revealed problems that raise concerns about compliance with legal guarantees during the transfer, transparency of administrative decision-making, the possibility of exercising the right to appeal, communication with family members, continuity of healthcare, and conditions of treatment in pre-trial detention.
The AHC stresses that a person’s status as a pre-trial detainee does not deprive them of rights that have not been restricted by law or by a court decision. Penitentiary authorities are obliged to guarantee these rights without discrimination, regardless of a person’s identity, public function, or the charges they face.
1. The transfer under a classified order and obstacles to effective appeal
One of the most troubling findings of the monitoring concerns the lack of communication of the transfer order and of the specific reasons that led to this decision.
According to the detainee’s statements, the transfer was notified on 28 October without the relevant documentation being made available to him, and without him first being told which institution he would be sent to.
The reason for the transfer order was generally recorded as “for security reasons,” while the document bore the classification “restricted,” for a period of up to two years.
The AHC considers that transfer for security reasons is a measure provided for by legislation, but its use must be based on concrete, documented and verifiable circumstances.
From a preliminary review of the legal framework, particularly Law No. 10/2023 “On Classified Information,” it is not clear what concrete basis justifies classifying this order in the interest of national security. The security of a penitentiary institution and national security are not necessarily equivalent concepts.
The AHC does not prejudge the existence of lawful security reasons that may have motivated the transfer. However, the classification of an administrative act cannot become an obstacle to the person being informed of the decision that directly affects them and to challenging it in court.
Law No. 81/2020 recognises the right to judicial appeal against decisions of penitentiary authorities. This right risks remaining merely formal if the person is not aware of the essential content and reasons of the decision.
The AHC considers that this problem goes beyond the specific case and highlights the need for clearer rules on the notification, reasoning and judicial review of transfer orders.
2. Factual limitation of telephone communications
At the time of monitoring, two days after the transfer, the detainee had not been able to make telephone calls with family members and other persons he wished to contact.
According to the management of IEVP Fier, activating communications required approval of a new list of telephone numbers and completion of procedures with the company providing the service. Due to the weekend, this procedure could be delayed until at least 2 November.
The NPM notes that law no. 81/2020 guarantees the right of a detainee to inform his family immediately about his transfer and whereabouts. Restrictions on communications must have a legal basis and respect the relevant procedural guarantees.
Administrative or technical delays must not, in practice, produce restrictions on rights that the law does not provide for.
In this specific case, it requests an explanation of why the continuity of communications through numbers previously approved by IEVP Durrës was not enabled.
3. Exercise of public functions and institutional communication
A particular circumstance of this case is that Erion Veliaj continues to hold the legal status of Mayor of the Municipality of Tirana, following the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding his dismissal.
During monitoring, he stated that he had requested the possibility of communicating with representatives of state institutions and the municipal administration, as well as receiving and forwarding documentation related to the exercise of his function.
The management of IEVP Fier stated that these requests would be consulted with the prosecutors handling the case.
The NPM assesses that detention entails lawful restrictions on personal liberty, but does not automatically imply the loss of public office or of every possibility to exercise competences that have not been legally restricted.
Without prejudicing the competences of procedural authorities and security requirements, the relevant authorities should carefully examine the legal and practical possibilities for institutional communications and the management of documentation.
Just as the status of mayor does not create privileges in detention, detention cannot be used to impose additional restrictions that do not derive from law.
4. Deficiencies in accompanying documentation and concerns about health care
Monitoring found that, at the time of the visit, only the detainee’s legal documentation had arrived at IEVP Fier, while medical and psychosocial documentation had not yet been processed.
This situation raises concerns about compliance with Article 78 of law no. 81/2020 and the relevant provisions of the General Prison Regulation, which require that a transferred person be accompanied by the relevant documentation.
The absence of these documents is not merely an administrative deficiency. It may directly affect the assessment of individual needs, continuity of treatment and protection of health.
The pretrial detainee also stated that he had a fracture in his left leg, for which periodic radiological check-ups had been recommended, and that the next examination had not been carried out. The management of IEVP Fier confirmed awareness of this issue and expressed their intention to enable the examination during the following week.
The Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC) emphasizes that healthcare cannot wait for the completion of bureaucratic procedures, especially when medical recommendations exist and complaints of pain are present.
5. Conditions of detention and security assessment
The on-site inspection found that sectors serving different categories of persons were located in the same area of the institution, including persons under special supervision, persons under observation, and persons transferred from other institutions.
The pretrial detainee stated that he felt threatened due to the presence in this area of a person convicted of serious crimes, against whom he had previously made public statements.
The institution’s management stated that the necessary measures had been taken to avoid contact between the different categories and that the risk assessment had not identified a concrete threat to his life.
The AHC assesses that claims of risk to personal safety require individual, documented and up-to-date assessment. Security measures must be proportionate and must not lead to unjustified restrictions on living conditions, ventilation, or permitted contacts.
6. Proportionality of the transfer and family ties
The AHC notes that the location of the detention facility is important for maintaining family relations, communication with legal counsel, and participation in the judicial process.
According to the standards of the European Court of Human Rights, persons deprived of their liberty do not have an absolute right to choose the institution where they are held, but authorities must take into consideration the impact of location on family life and the proportionality of restrictions.
In this context, it remains to be clarified whether, before the decision to transfer him to Fier, other alternatives were considered that would guarantee the safety of the pretrial detainee while simultaneously allowing greater proximity to family, legal counsel, and the competent court in Tirana.
Recommendations and requests of the AHC
At the conclusion of the monitoring, the Albanian Helsinki Committee addresses the Ministry of Justice, the General Directorate of Prisons, and the relevant authorities with these recommendations:
1. Transparency and verification of the lawfulness of the transfer. The General Directorate of Prisons should clarify the specific legal basis, the factual reasons, and the security criteria that prompted the transfer, as well as whether the obligation to notify the procedural authority was fulfilled.
2. Clarification of the legal basis for classifying the order. The Ministry of Justice and the General Directorate of Prisons should identify the legal provisions justifying the classification, the responsible authority, the corresponding category of information under Law No. 10/2023, and the reasons for setting the two-year term.
3. Guaranteeing effective appeal. The pretrial detainee and his defense counsel must be given access to the transfer order or a partially declassified version of it, to the extent necessary to exercise the right of appeal, while protecting information that is legally required to remain confidential.
4. Restoring lawful communications without delay. IEVP Fier must enable communications with family members and other persons in accordance with the legislation in force, avoiding unnecessary administrative delays. Any restriction must have a clear legal basis.
5. Guaranteeing health care. Medical assessment and the performance of recommended examinations must be ensured without delay, in accordance with clinical need, as well as the full administration of health and psychosocial documentation.
6. Reassessing security and treatment conditions. The suitability of the facilities where the pretrial detainee is held must be verified, the individual risk assessment must be documented, and compliance with standards for ventilation, lighting and dignified treatment must be guaranteed.
7. Examining alternative places of detention. The General Directorate of Prisons should clarify whether other pretrial detention institutions closer to the family and the competent court were assessed, and whether the choice of IEVP Fier was necessary and proportionate to the specific security circumstances.
8. Clarifying options for institutional communication. Competent authorities should consider, within the limits of the law and without prejudicing the criminal proceedings, requests for communication and document handling related to the public office that the detainee continues to hold.
9. Improving procedural guarantees for all persons deprived of liberty. The Ministry of Justice should assess the need to complete the legal and sub-legal framework, with the aim of establishing clear rules for the notification of transfer orders, their reasoning, and the possibility of judicial review.
The Albanian Helsinki Committee emphasizes that the findings of this monitoring do not constitute an assessment of the guilt or innocence of Erion Veliaj, nor of the merits of the criminal proceedings against him. They relate exclusively to respect for the legal rights and guarantees of a person deprived of liberty. The AHC assesses that some of the problems identified require immediate intervention, while others require further verification and clarification from the responsible authorities.
The security of penitentiary institutions is a duty of the state, but security cannot be used as a general argument that excludes transparency, proportionality and judicial review. In a state governed by the rule of law, deprivation of liberty does not mean deprivation of rights, and no administrative order, whether classified or not, should remain outside the control of legality.
The Albanian Helsinki Committee will continue to follow the treatment of this case and the implementation of the recommendations, in fulfilment of its mission to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms.