134 uL stration and eV tting in post-communist Albania inter-linked with civic trust in governmental institutions verification of the chairmen of parties and political associations50. The “Genocide Law” and “Verification Law” were subject of many changes from 1996 until 1998 (Table 2). The Verification Law changes starting in 1996, the change was to exclude the local government candidates from the verification of the figure. In 13 May 1997, that time Albania was in civil unrest, the parliament made huge changes on both laws. The changes were part of the political agreement and consent from left and right wings party for the sake of Albania stability. The parliamentarian debate51 was very short and MPs admitted that the changes were part of political agreement. In 1997 Verification Law changed twice and narrowed the position to be lustrated. The changes permitted Fatos Nano, Skender Gjinushi and other opposition leaders to run in the parliamentarian election in June 1997. The last change in Verification Law was 1998. That time in parliamentarian debate were discussed only between Socialist Party Member of Parliament which came in power in the election of June 1997. They expressed the will to abrogate the entire law but let it as it was with a very narrow space for lustration measures. Both laws expired in 31 December 2001. There is not an official number of the persons lustrated/vetted by Genocide Law and Verification Law. In the annual report of 2017, the Albanian Authority on Access to Information on the former State Security Service (Authority) confirm that all the documents created by Verification Commission are not elaborated or inventoried as the archives law demands, so there is not a list of persons controlled or verified by the Verification Commission. In addition, there is not a list of persons who have a clearness certificate52. These entire documents are being processed from the Authority in respect to the Law No.45/2015. The court sessions in respect of Genocide Law during 1996 were closed to observers from the public and media, lacking the transparency. The Albanian Helsinki Committee contends that the entire process violated Albanian and international law by failing to grant prospective candidates the right to due process. There were complaints that the time for appeal was too limited, and several decisions came after the time limit had passed for candidates to file for the election”53, denying the right to the persons for a due process. The majority of Albanian have had not the opportunity to access the Sigurimi files. The authors Elbasani and Lipinski will argue TJ measures in Albania 1991-2001 as a failure and as “too much politics, too little debate”54. Lacking the debate in TJ measures in Albania is afformed also by Austin and Ellison in arguing, “key issues of the communist past were never really subject to a national debate.”55 50. Constitutional Court Decision No.1, dated 31.01.1996 51. Parlamentarian Debate, year 1997, Legislature No. 16, p.464-466 52. Annual report 2017, Authority, p.38 53. U.S. Department of State Albania Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996 54. Erolda Elbasani and Artur Lipinski, “Public contestation and Politics of Transitional Justice: Poland and Albania compared”: EIU Working Papers, 2012 55. Robert C. Austin and Jonthan Ellison “Post-communust Transitional Justice in Albania”: East European Politics and Societies and Culture, 2008