By Zylyftar Bregu
On the day when new magistrates take office, the School of Magistrates accompanies the ceremony with a conference on the many challenges of the justice system in Albania.
On June 29, the difficult relationship between the media and the judiciary was discussed for eight hours. Local and international experts brought their experiences, sharing the conviction that reporting on the judicial system is not a whim of the media, but a necessity that serves justice itself.
Few prosecutors and judges in office attended that event. Among those absent was the president of the Court Against Organized Crime and Corruption (COC), who was, in all likelihood, putting the finishing touches on the new media regulation, which was made public on the institution's official website on July 31, 2026.
The draft, titled "Regulations on security, order, solemnity and rules of conduct in the premises of the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime", has sparked strong opposition, especially among the journalist community, regarding the regulation of media conduct.
The arguments for opposition are numerous, starting from the violation of the mission: some norms directly violate the journalist's role in reporting on the process of delivering justice.
The regulation creates room for arbitrary decisions by judges to obstruct journalists within court premises and limits the use of technological tools that guarantee full, multimedia reporting.
Interestingly, the drafters of the regulation attempt to impose rules of conduct for journalists even outside the court premises.
This regulation conflicts with international practice guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as with domestic legislation, including the Constitution, the Law on the Right to Information, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Criminal Code.
Accreditation, but for what?
Article 90 of the regulation is dedicated to the accreditation of media representatives. In the West, as well as in the executive and legislative branches of government in Albania, accreditation is used as an organizational mechanism to facilitate access.
Point 7/ç of this article requires authorization or certification from the media entity that the journalist represents. With this wording, the regulation excludes freelance (independent) journalists. However, this is not the main problem. A journalist, even after passing this “vetting” of the President of the Court, does not benefit from any facilities from the status of accredited.
In professional literature, accreditation serves to speed up the receipt of information and to facilitate daily work. Meanwhile, in this draft regulation there is no differentiation between accredited and non-accredited journalists. No “privileges” are granted; everyone is subject to the same restrictions, down to the dress code (Article 49). So, what does this process serve, other than as an attempt to control the media?
A large number of articles are devoted to the prohibition of recording, photographing and filming. The four pillars of professional reporting are the word, the voice, the photo and the video. However, the Special Court requires the media to operate only with the word.
The debate over the presence of cameras in the courtroom is well-known: lawyers seek technicalities to ban them, while journalists defend transparency as the only way to increase public trust in justice. But the GJKKO regulation goes beyond this debate; it shows a fear of transparency, even prohibiting the use of phones, for fear of being "converted" into a camera.
The regulation requires separate permission for each court session. If there are 10 trials of public interest taking place in one day, the journalist has to make 10 separate requests, at least 24 hours in advance. This is a tedious bureaucratic procedure that is essentially censorship.
Article 96 is titled “Conduct of the media in court premises”, but point “ë” prohibits the use of Artificial Intelligence to create misleading materials or manipulate audiovisual recordings of the court. This activity cannot be carried out within the court premises, where journalists are already deprived of technology. So, the regulation attempts to regulate the work of the journalist within his editorial office.
Further, point “f” prohibits “unnecessary filming that is not related to the event being reported.” Who determines the need to film a judge, a security guard, or some new censorship apparatus at the GJKKO? Persons with special public status enter the court, and for journalists every detail may constitute public interest, today or in the future.
Even point “g”, which requires blurring or anonymizing persons when identification is not necessary, pertains to editorial work and not to conduct within the court. This again raises the question: which structure will judge whether identification is necessary or not?
A thorough analysis shows that the drafters of the regulation see the media as an adversary and not as a bridge of communication with public opinion. Justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done… except when the opposite is intended.
