Prime Minister Edi Rama announced plans on Wednesday to place people he accuses of protest violence on a register, restrict their access to transport and hotels, and penalise the families of minors involved in damaging public or private property. He also vowed to use technology to identify masked protesters and work with EU countries to bar those accused of violence from entering those countries.
“Those who have raised a hand against the state … who have damaged public and private property will have the shadow of the state following them until they have paid for the damage they have caused,” Rama warned in remarks at a gathering of banking executives.
The proposals reach far beyond those responsible for attacks on police or damage to property. They threaten innocent relatives and would give the authorities sweeping powers to restrict people’s daily lives.
The rights at stake include privacy, peaceful protest and freedom of movement. Family penalties could also deprive children of essential services because of someone else’s actions.
These protections are already binding on Albania. The European Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties Albania adheres to are obligations, not optional standards that Albania can postpone until it joins the EU.
The government can seek compensation through the courts from people responsible for damage. It cannot simply order them to pay without due process. Some of Rama’s other proposals could violate the rights Albania has pledged to protect.
Rama did not explain how people would be protected from wrongful punishment or how they could appeal. He was clear about the penalties he wants, but not about the limits on his power to impose them.
Punishing whole families
Rama’s starkest threat was directed at the families of minors who steal or burn property: the bill would go to the family, and the household would no longer receive any state services.
Parents may be required by law to cover damage caused by their children. Withdrawing services from everyone in a household, however, would punish people whose own wrongdoing had never been established.
Brothers and sisters could suffer for another child’s actions. Parents could lose access to services regardless of whether they bore any responsibility for the offence.
Rama did not say which services would be withdrawn or how long the exclusion would last. He announced no exceptions.
“State services” can include essentials. Denying schooling would threaten the right to education. Withdrawing benefits to which someone is legally entitled could interfere with protected property rights. Withholding essential care could have still graver consequences, depending on the harm caused.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is particularly clear about the position of siblings: children must be protected against punishment based on the activities of family members. It also requires their best interests to be a primary consideration in decisions affecting them. A household-wide penalty would put both obligations in jeopardy.
Holding an offender accountable does not give the government the right to punish the family.
A blacklist for everyday life
Rama also proposed a special register of people deemed violent, accompanied by restrictions on access to airports, hotels, trains and other transport.
Such bans could prevent people from working, studying, visiting relatives or travelling. The restrictions could remain in place long after the protests end.
Rama did not explain who would put people on the register, whether they would need to have been convicted, how long they would remain listed or how they could get their names removed.
Freedom of movement is protected by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention. Restrictions are permitted to protect public safety and prevent crime, but they must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Labelling someone “violent” does not give the government unlimited authority over where that person can go.
Anyone facing restrictions must have an effective way to challenge their justification. Where civil rights or criminal penalties are involved, the Convention’s fair-trial protections also come into play. A register cannot be used to sidestep the courts simply by calling punishment an administrative measure.
His promise to seek entry bans from EU countries faces further limits stipulated in the EU legislation. Albania cannot turn its own register into a European blacklist. A Schengen entry ban on public security grounds requires not only a decision by a participating state but also consideration of each individual case and a right of appeal. An Albanian government accusation cannot substitute for that process.
Surveillance and a ban on masks
Rama promised to uncover the identities behind online accounts that incite violence and use technology to identify masked participants, even when their faces are fully covered.
Investigating threats and incitement is a legitimate police task. But those powers need clear limits, especially when the government also accuses academics, broadcasters and opposition figures of supporting violence.
Identifying and tracking political participants can interfere with privacy and deter lawful expression and protest. Those rights are protected by Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the European Convention.
Rama did not identify the technology or explain what would prevent its use against peaceful critics.
If it includes facial recognition, a European court ruling offers a warning. In Glukhin v Russia, the European Court of Human Rights found that using the technology to identify and locate a peaceful protester violated his privacy rights. It stressed the need for strong safeguards against abuse.
Rama also wants covering one’s face at a demonstration to become an offence in itself.
A mask can conceal someone committing violence. It can also protect someone’s health or shield a peaceful protester from reprisals. The UN Human Rights Committee recognises these reasons and says anonymous participation should generally be allowed unless there are compelling grounds to restrict it.
A blanket offence would erase the distinction between concealing a crime and protecting one’s identity.
Guilt by proximity
Rama also suggested that peaceful protesters who remained near people throwing stones were effectively on their side.
Standing near someone who commits violence does not make a person responsible for it. Peaceful participants do not automatically lose their right to protest because others become violent.
His argument shifts responsibility onto the crowd. It treats peaceful people as accomplices because they remain at a protest, rather than requiring the police to distinguish them from those committing offences.
That distinction is central to freedom of peaceful assembly. Otherwise, the actions of a few would allow the authorities to strip everyone present of protection.
No word on police accountability
Rama’s promises of accountability stopped at the police lines. He defended the conduct of officers without announcing any investigation into whether they had used excessive force.
His silence does not establish that no investigation exists elsewhere. It does expose the imbalance in this speech: sweeping promises to punish citizens, with no comparable commitment to examine police conduct.
Vandalism deserves investigation and prosecution. So does unlawful police violence. Establishing responsibility requires examining how confrontations began and escalated, including whether police actions provoked or intensified them.
That scrutiny must cover decisions to deploy tear gas, water cannon, pepper spray or rubber bullets, as well as how those weapons are used. Their use is not automatically unlawful, but the presence of violent protesters does not give officers permission to use them indiscriminately.
Excessive force can breach the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention. Credible allegations of serious police ill-treatment require an effective investigation.
The European Court has also made clear that even during violent demonstrations, tear-gas weapons must be used with safeguards against abuse and avoidable injury.
A government demanding accountability from protesters must accept the same scrutiny of its own officers.
European examples are no defence
Rama cited France and Italy in support of his plans. But borrowing a measure from another European country does not establish that it respects fundamental rights. What matters is how it works, whom it affects and whether it can be justified.
The government can prosecute violence and recover the cost of damage. It cannot use those powers to punish innocent relatives or impose sweeping restrictions without justification or appeal.
Rama promised that “the shadow of the state” would follow offenders. The European Convention sets limits on how far that shadow can reach—and protects citizens against abuses by the state itself.
Shpërndaje te miqtë
