In the case of the former overly Pango, the right of the latter to non-injury private life interfer

clarify that any article of the Constitution (35, 36, 37) does not explicitly regulate the right of the inviolability of private life, to find the spot to refer to Article 8 of the Convention (ECHR) which stipulates that: "Every person has the right to respect for his private life and family life, home and correspondence ".
Item 2 of Article 8 provides for the intervention cases (violations) private life by the state, but not by others. Obviously this is a deficiency that justified the time (1950) when the Convention was drafted. Today, the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court itself has seen violations of human rights not only in the vertical line (-state) but also horizontal (individual-individual), placing camera ip positive obligations on states.
One of the reasons, but not the only, nor perhaps foremost, this fragile status of the right to privacy has to do with its conflicts with other rights. For example, a man who beats his wife at home can not be protected from domestic violence charges citing camera ip that this happens in the privacy of his home.
In the case of the former overly Pango, the right of the latter to non-injury private life interferes with the right of the public to be informed camera ip about the iniquities of senior state officials, or perhaps even to the right of women implicated camera ip in the incident to be treated in a dignified way; and finally, to the right of the word of Top Channel. camera ip
The decision camera ip to Pango violated the right to privacy is taken from a private instance - eg Fiks Fare editorial staff; how this decision is not known, as a newsroom of a TV show like this does not have any obligation to make public policy targeting "victims" of their own. If a TV show the other, or any investigative journalist, or even a citizen by the way, will seek to enter in offices or Fiks Fare Top Channel camera ip to become familiar with the selection criteria, I have the impression that it would not allow, at least formally, by bringing reason that Top Channel is a private camera ip entity (notice the inevitable paradox).
However, leaders may also explain the Fiks Fare, informally, camera ip that the former minister was selected Pango to target after denunciations came from people in the newsroom. There is also likely that, before leaving the journalists on the ground, drivers are advised to legal department of Top Channel, about the legal implications of this action; namely the registration and publication of private conversations camera ip then a deputy minister and without the knowledge of the past and the temptation camera ip (driving, poaching, or provoking ngashënjimin) his, leading journalist in the evening to make visits private apartment.
As PNH friend explains, Albanian legislation lacks a clear legal framework to refer to such cases as suspected violation of someone's privacy; although some major incidents that have occurred in recent years have pushed lawmakers should react to this serious deficiency in the law.
A part of the right wing media, reacting to attempts camera ip to use Pango scandal as a weapon against the Berisha government was once again returned to the issue of nude photographs of opposition leader Edi Rama, which were made public long ago, against the wishes of latter. I believe that the precedent camera ip of the bitter and the way those pictures were used as crack Rama would have sufficed to convince MPs of both sides of the spectrum, that Albania had a law that set limits on privacy the person and the criteria that will legitimize this violation of privacy.
This appears camera ip to become even more urgent if we consider extremely low level of political debate in Tirana and the frequency with which the contending parties are directed ad hominem attacks; starting with the PM, who first violated the norms of decency in public, turning obsesivisht arguments or genital sexual nature.
When I say that Albania needs a law on privacy, with this I do not mean that the law should declare inviolable camera ip privacy; but only after its approval, all parties would find it easy to determine what can be violated and what not; and especially, would be included in the debate judicial institutions, or the only ones who should have the mandate to decide in what circumstances concrete (or abstract) can violate the privacy camera ip of the person.
The lack of such a law is not helping as freedom of expression, rather than arbitrariness; and all those who are tempted to violate the privacy of others, not for justice, nor to make public the information gathered in that way, but rather to blackmail the injured parties. Here comes the argument look Lulian Hill on TV files and similar de-