Kerko: a

Isuf B. Bajrami: Albanian citizens support a strong, lawful, and democratic state; therefore, they refuse to bow to the injustice of bad governance

E hene, 26.01.2026, 06:15 PM

Albanian citizens support a strong, lawful, and democratic state; therefore, they refuse to bow to the injustice of bad governance

Youth says: “I want to live for this nation,” then the nation rises stronger. Because youth is energy, it is hope, it is the future.

By Isuf B. Bajrami

The 24 January 2026 Protest in Tirana: A Legal Analysis of the Rule of Law, Use of Force, and Albania’s International Obligations

Abstract

The 24 January 2026 protest in Tirana, organized against corruption and organized crime, escalated into clashes between protesters and law enforcement, resulting in injuries and detentions on both sides. This article analyzes the event through constitutional and international legal standards, linking it to challenges of impunity and institutional capture in Albania. Using a doctrinal legal approach, the article examines the state’s obligations to guarantee the right to peaceful assembly, lawful use of force, effective investigation of violence-related incidents, and equality before the law. The analysis relies on the Constitution of the Republic of Albania, domestic legislation, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

1. Introduction

Citizen protest is a key element of democracy, enabling citizens to seek accountability, express dissatisfaction, and demand political change. In a rule-of-law state, protest is a constitutionally and internationally legitimate means of controlling power and seeking social justice. However, in a context where corruption, institutional capture, and impunity are widespread, protests often escalate into clashes with law enforcement, leading to injuries and human rights violations.

The 24 January 2026 protest in Tirana serves as a case study to assess how failures in law enforcement and lack of accountability can translate into violence and harm to both protesters and law enforcement officers. This analysis aims to evaluate the state’s compliance with constitutional and international obligations, focusing on three main dimensions: (i) the right to peaceful assembly; (ii) the use of force and the obligation to investigate; and (iii) equality before the law and accountability for corruption.

2. Methodology

2.1. Methodological Approach

This article follows a doctrinal legal analysis, interpreting constitutional and domestic legal norms in light of international standards. The approach is based on legal text analysis, interpretation of ECtHR jurisprudence, and evaluation of state practices’ compliance with legal obligations. To avoid speculation, the article relies on verifiable sources and triangulation of information.

2.2. Data Sources

The analysis uses three categories of sources:

1. Primary legal sources: the Constitution of the Republic of Albania, domestic laws (the Law on Assemblies, the Law on State Police, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the law on SPAK), and the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. Official documents and institutional reports: statements by the State Police, official declarations by responsible institutions, reports and public procedural documents where available.

3. Independent media sources: verified and triangulated reports with official sources, providing information on protest dynamics, the number of injured, use of force, and detentions.

2.3. Analytical Process

The analysis is structured in three phases:

• Phase 1: verification and triangulation of facts.

• Phase 2: interpretation of legal norms and standards (Constitution, domestic law, ECHR).

• Phase 3: evaluation of state compliance with legal obligations and identification of structural issues related to impunity.

2.4. Methodological Limitations

The main limitations concern the availability of internal official documents (e.g., internal police reports or criminal investigation files) and the potential inaccuracies of media sources. However, through triangulation of sources and linking facts to legal standards, the article aims to provide a reasoned and reliable analysis.

3. Constitutional and Legal Framework on the Right to Assembly and the Use of Force

3.1. The Constitution of the Republic of Albania

The Constitution of the Republic of Albania sets out the fundamental principles of constitutional order and the rule of law. Article 4 establishes that Albania is a rule-of-law state.1 Article 2 states that sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised in accordance with constitutional principles.2 Article 7 guarantees separation of powers and prevents concentration of power.3

Article 46 guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, while Article 42 guarantees personal freedom and security, and Article 18 guarantees physical and moral integrity.4 These rights are closely linked to the principle of equality before the law, guaranteed by the Constitution and domestic legislation.

Article 122 of the Constitution provides that ratified international treaties have supremacy over ordinary laws.5 This is particularly relevant for the ECHR, which forms part of the Albanian legal order and must be applied by authorities and courts.

3.2. Law No. 96/2013 “On Assemblies”

The Law on Assemblies regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and sets out the obligations of organizers and authorities to ensure order and safety. The law requires organizers to notify authorities, sets safety rules, and provides for necessary restrictions when an assembly threatens public order, safety, or property. The use of violence by protesters is prohibited and punishable, while police intervention must be proportionate and reasonable.

3.3. Law No. 47/2015 “On the State Police”

The Law on the State Police sets out police competencies and limitations in maintaining public order. The law requires that the use of force be necessary, proportionate, and reasonable, and imposes reporting and investigation obligations for the use of force. This aligns with international human rights standards on law enforcement use of force.

3.4. The Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code

The Criminal Code provides for offenses related to violence during protests (e.g., property damage, violence, assault on law enforcement). The Criminal Procedure Code sets out the obligations of prosecutors and investigative authorities to conduct prompt, independent, and effective investigations. These norms are essential for the principle of equality before the law and accountability.

3.5. Law No. 96/2016 “On SPAK”

The law establishing SPAK creates a special institution for investigating and prosecuting high-level corruption and organized crime. SPAK has a constitutional and legal obligation to investigate and prosecute corruption and abuse of office, ensuring accountability of public officials.

4. International Framework and ECtHR Standards

4.1. The ECHR’s Supremacy in the Albanian Legal Order

The ECHR forms part of the Albanian legal order and has supremacy over ordinary laws, pursuant to Article 122 of the Constitution.5 ECHR standards are binding on Albanian authorities and courts, and ECtHR jurisprudence provides their interpretation.

4.2. Article 6 ECHR: Fair Trial and Judicial Independence

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. ECtHR jurisprudence emphasizes that judicial independence must be assessed not only formally but also in practice, including safeguards against political influence. Decisions such as Baka v Hungary and Volkov v Ukraine stress the importance of independence and neutrality of courts.8

4.3. Article 13 ECHR: Effective Remedy

Article 13 requires that everyone has an effective remedy to address violations of their rights. ECtHR jurisprudence holds that remedies that do not lead to effective investigation and accountability are insufficient. In Kud?a v Poland, the Court emphasized that remedies must be effective in practice, not only in theory.9

4.4. Articles 2 and 3 ECHR: Use of Force and Obligation to Investigate

Article 2 guarantees the right to life and requires states to take necessary measures to protect life. Article 3 prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. ECtHR case law, including McCann and Others v United Kingdom and Nachova and Others v Bulgaria, stresses that the use of force by authorities must be necessary and proportionate and that states must conduct effective investigations of serious incidents.10

4.5. Article 11 ECHR: Right to Peaceful Assembly

Article 11 guarantees the right to peaceful assembly. ECtHR case law, including B?czkowski v Poland and Dimitrov and Others v Bulgaria, emphasizes that states must respect this right and ensure that restrictions are lawful, necessary, and proportionate.11

5. Impunity, Equality Before the Law, and Institutional Capture

Impunity of public officials and selective law enforcement undermine the principle of equality before the law and separation of powers. When investigative and prosecutorial institutions fail to act independently and effectively, citizens lose trust and feel compelled to react outside institutional channels. This constitutes an indirect violation of Article 6 and Article 13 of the ECHR, as the lack of effective investigation creates a system where rights are not protected in practice.

ECtHR jurisprudence, including Gül v Turkey, underscores that states must not use law arbitrarily and must ensure that authorities’ conduct is based on equality and justice standards.12

6. The 24 January 2026 Protest: Facts and Legal Implications

6.1. Context and Objective of the Protest

The 24 January 2026 protest in Tirana was a large-scale assembly against corruption and organized crime, demanding accountability and strengthening of the rule of law. It was organized by political actors and civil society, focusing on denunciation of impunity and institutional capture.

6.2. Factual Data on the Protest

According to official statements by the State Police and media reports, the protest resulted in specific data on injuries and detentions. Authorities reported that:

• 11 police officers were injured and treated in hospital.13

• 23 persons were detained, including a minor.13

• 37 citizens were identified as involved in illegal actions; of these, 18 were arrested and 17 prosecuted, while 2 persons were declared wanted.14

• Independent media reports highlighted that protesters threw molotov cocktails and heavy objects, while police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse the crowd.15

These data indicate that violence and clashes were not isolated phenomena but part of an escalation linked to social tension and lack of institutional trust.

6.3. Legal Analysis of the Data

This section compares factual data with legal norms and international standards.

6.3.1. Right to Assembly and Lawful Restrictions

Under the Constitution and the Law on Assemblies, citizens have the right to assemble peacefully. The state must ensure this right, while restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. ECtHR jurisprudence, such as B?czkowski v Poland, emphasizes that restrictions must be justified and not arbitrary.11

In the 24 January 2026 protest, clashes and violence by some protesters created conditions for police intervention. However, assessing compliance with ECHR standards requires verifying whether the use of force was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable.

6.3.2. Police Use of Force and Obligation to Investigate

The Law on the State Police requires that the use of force be necessary and proportionate. ECtHR jurisprudence, especially McCann and Others v United Kingdom and Nachova and Others v Bulgaria, requires that any use of force be justified and accompanied by effective investigation.10

In the 24 January 2026 protest, reports of tear gas and water cannon use raise questions about proportionality. If force was excessive or unjustified, the state may be responsible for violating Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR.

6.3.3. Effective Investigation and Criminal Accountability

Under Article 13 ECHR and ECtHR jurisprudence (Kud?a v Poland), the state must ensure an effective remedy for human rights violations. In this case, the investigation of protest incidents must be independent, impartial, and effective, including identifying perpetrators of violence and evaluating police use of force.

7. Victims of Violence: Protesters, Law Enforcement, and Citizens as Victims of a Captured System

7.1. Protesters as Victims of a Weak System

Protesters, as citizens exercising the constitutional right to assemble, are protected by the Constitution and the ECHR. When protests escalate into violence, some protesters are injured and detained. This is linked to institutional mechanisms that fail to address corruption and abuse of power effectively. Protesters who are injured are victims of a system where the rule of law is unequal and dysfunctional.

7.2. Law Enforcement as Victims of the Conflict Triggered by Lack of Accountability

Law enforcement officers, who were injured during the protest (11 officers), are also victims of the conflict. They have the duty to maintain public order but face aggression. This requires investigation of the circumstances and accountability for violence against police. At the same time, police use of force must comply with the law and ECHR standards.

7.3. Violence as a Consequence of a Captured System

Injuries to protesters and police are a result of a system where corruption and institutional capture undermine trust in institutions and law enforcement. This is a problem linked to equality before the law and the state’s obligation to investigate and ensure accountability. ECtHR case law, including Assenov and Others v Bulgaria and Kud?a v Poland, highlights the obligation to conduct independent and effective investigations for serious incidents.16

8. Discussion

This section discusses broader implications of the 24 January 2026 protest on the functioning of the rule of law and human rights in Albania.

8.1. The Right to Assembly as an Indicator of Democratic Health

The right to peaceful assembly indicates democratic health. When citizens feel compelled to take to the streets to demand accountability, it signals that institutional mechanisms are not functioning. Protests are not only social reactions but expressions of a demand for law enforcement.

8.2. Use of Force and Proportionality

Police use of force must be necessary and proportionate. In the 24 January 2026 protest, use of tear gas and water cannons must be assessed in the context of the circumstances. If force was excessive, it may constitute a violation of the ECHR and require criminal and disciplinary accountability.

8.3. Effective Investigation and Accountability

Effective investigation of protest incidents is essential to restore trust in law enforcement institutions. If investigations are not independent or do not lead to accountability, this worsens the sense of impunity and increases the risk of escalation in future protests.

8.4. Equality Before the Law and Corruption

Corruption and impunity violate the principle of equality before the law. When public officials are not punished, citizens lose trust and feel compelled to seek justice outside institutional channels. This is unacceptable in a rule-of-law state and in a system aiming for European integration.

9. Policy and Legal Recommendations

Based on the above analysis and considering the context of the 24 January 2026 protest, this writing provides recommendations aimed at improving the rule of law, human rights protection, and preventing escalation of violence in future protests. Recommendations are divided into (i) legal/institutional and (ii) political/organizational levels.

9.1. Legal and Institutional Recommendations

9.1.1. Independent, Impartial, and Effective Investigation of Protest Incidents

The state has an obligation to guarantee effective investigation of any violent incident during assemblies, in accordance with Articles 2, 3, and 13 of the ECHR.10 This obligation includes investigating police use of force and any abuse.

Recommendation: Establish an independent investigative mechanism for protest incidents with a mandate to investigate all parties involved (protesters, law enforcement, organizers), ensuring transparency, impartiality, and clear timelines.

Legal justification: ECtHR jurisprudence requires independent and effective investigations, particularly when there are suspicions of excessive force or human rights violations (e.g., Assenov and Others v Bulgaria and Kud?a v Poland).16

9.1.2. Strengthening Use-of-Force Standards and Reporting

Domestic law and ECHR standards require that force be necessary, proportionate, and reasonable. To ensure practical compliance, clear and monitored tools are needed.

Recommendation: Review use-of-force protocols and implement a mandatory reporting system for use of force, including incident records, equipment use (e.g., tear gas, water cannons), and publication of summary reports for transparency.

Legal justification: ECHR standards require authorities to justify necessity and proportionality of interventions (e.g., McCann and Others v United Kingdom).10

9.1.3. Strengthening SPAK’s Independence and Capacities

High-level corruption and institutional capture are the root causes of lack of trust and protest escalation. Weak investigations undermine citizens’ confidence.

Recommendation: Strengthen SPAK’s independence and capacities, including protection of investigators, human and technological resources, and controlled transparency of processes.

Legal justification: Equality before the law and effective investigation obligations are linked to the state’s duty to combat corruption and ensure accountability (Articles 6 and 13 ECHR).

9.1.4. Parliamentary Oversight and Independent Control Mechanisms

To prevent institutional capture and ensure checks and balances, parliamentary and independent oversight mechanisms must be strengthened.

Recommendation: Strengthen the roles of parliamentary committees on public order, justice, and transparency, and establish independent control mechanisms over police (e.g., an independent body for complaints and use-of-force investigations).

Legal justification: Separation of powers and checks and balances are constitutional principles (Article 7) and key standards for judicial independence and rule of law.

9.1.5. Improving Access to Justice and Effective Remedies

To comply with Article 13 ECHR, the state must ensure effective remedies for rights violations. In conditions of trust deficit, citizens must have real access to justice.

Recommendation: Improve access to justice for victims of protest-related violence, including legal aid, expedited investigations, and witness protection.

Legal justification: ECtHR jurisprudence requires remedies to be effective in practice and provide real access to justice (Kud?a v Poland).9

9.2. Political and Organizational Recommendations

9.2.1. Enhancing

Institutional Dialogue and Civil Society Engagement A major factor leading to mass protests is the lack of institutional dialogue and resolution through legitimate channels.

Recommendation: Create an institutional dialogue mechanism involving government, opposition, and civil society on key issues such as anti-corruption, judicial reform, and law enforcement.

Legal justification: Institutional dialogue supports the principle of popular sovereignty (Article 2 of the Constitution) and prevents escalation of social conflict.

9.2.2. Legal Education and Training of Law

Enforcement To prevent abuses and ensure correct law enforcement, police should receive advanced training in assembly management and use of force.

Recommendation: Continuous training for police on ECHR standards, use of force, and human rights protection.

Legal justification: ECHR standards require force to be proportionate and authorities to respect human rights.

9.2.3. Improving Public Communication and Transparency

Transparency and public communication are essential to build trust and prevent misinformation.

Recommendation: Publish summary reports on protest events, number of injured, use of force, and ongoing investigations to increase transparency and accountability.

Legal justification: Transparency supports the rule-of-law principle (Article 4 of the Constitution) and contributes to human rights protection.

10. Conclusion

The 24 January 2026 protest in Tirana reflects a deep crisis of the rule of law in Albania. It demonstrates that citizens feel compelled to demand accountability through mass assemblies. Injuries to protesters and law enforcement officers evidence conflict escalation, linked to lack of trust in institutions and failure to enforce the law.

From a legal perspective, the state is obligated to guarantee the right to peaceful assembly, use force only when necessary and proportionate, and effectively investigate any violent incident. Failure to meet these obligations risks violating the ECHR and undermining constitutional principles of equality before the law and judicial independence.

Footnotes

1. Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Article 4.

2. Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Article 2.

3. Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Article 7.

4. Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Articles 18, 42 and 46.

5. Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Article 122.

6. Law No. 96/2013 “On Assemblies”.

7. Law No. 47/2015 “On the State Police”.

8. ECtHR, Baka v Hungary (Application no 20261/12, 2016); Volkov v Ukraine (Application no 21722/11, 2013).

9. ECtHR, Kud?a v Poland (Application no 30210/96, 2000).

10. ECtHR, McCann and Others v United Kingdom (Application no 18984/91, 1995); Nachova and Others v Bulgaria (Application no 43577/98, 2005).

11. ECtHR, B?czkowski v Poland (Application no 1543/06, 2007); Dimitrov and Others v Bulgaria (Application no 48095/06, 2012).