Abstract The change in the political and legal system in Albania gave birth to great hope, not only for the triumph of dignity but also for the correction of injustices towards former political prisoners. In Albania, from 1991 to 2008, a series of legal measures addressed the issue of former political prisoners. Their purpose was not only to legally consider punishment for crimes of a political nature as unjust but also to award compensation. But, in the span of 17 years, they remained a formal statement on paper, an inadequate legal solution that in very few cases became effective. At the beginning of 2008, with the entry into force of the law on the compensation of former political convicts, an administrative compensation process was sanctioned that offered a reasonable solution in terms of time and amount of compensation. However, the subsequent legal changes recognized the right of the state to carry out a compensation process based on budgetary possibilities and did not condition the realization of this process in terms of time. The paper aims to analyze the concept of transitional justice in international and domestic law, highlighting its main instruments, as well as focusing on compensation for former political prisoners in Albania. The work through the analytical and comparative method supports the hypothesis that the compensation of political prisoners designed as an effective tool for correcting the injustice caused during the years of communism is bringing back new injustices, which are incompatible with the principle of the rule of law and human rights. The compensation scheme for political convicts in Albania has created not only legal uncertainty regarding the time of compensation but also that such duration can lead to inequality and discrimination. The paper recommends the need for immediate legal changes to build a fair, fast, and effective compensation mechanism. Keywords: Transitional Justice, Rehabilitation, Compensation Scheme, Ex-Political Prisoners Introduction The developments that followed the Second World War represent the most important moment in the reformation of the conceptual framework of international law. From a right that addressed issues and elements of relations between states, as its subjects, to a right that as a subject also included individuals who are under the jurisdiction of a state. Precisely, this moment marks an important turning point in the approach of international law, from a right that was an instrument of states, to a right that turned into an instrument of human dignity and basic human values. This shift is undoubtedly dedicated to a new ideology on human nature, basic values, needs, and relationships that characterize it from birth to death, and the role and functions of the state. This ideology was embodied in the regime of basic human rights and freedoms, which were first sanctioned in the Universal Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights and, subsequently, in several other international and regional law documents. This new approach brought important implications in two aspects. First, if a state has ratified legal documents of international or regional law, the doctrine of fundamental rights and freedoms makes the state automatically responsible for fulfilling the negative and positive obligations associated with the application of any right in its jurisdiction. internal. Secondly, the effectiveness of the guarantee of fundamental rights is no longer only a matter of domestic jurisdiction with the fact, but also of international law, paving the way for the possibility to address violations through the mechanisms of international or regional law. In the large range of fundamental rights, an important place is occupied by the status of the right to redressal from illegal actions and acts of public bodies. Its legal nature is the object, not only of a series of legal documents of international and domestic law but above all of the jurisprudence of the International Courts and the constitutional ones of the special jurisdictions. The right to redressal in international law and Albanian Constitution The right to redressal, which in Roman law is considered a fundamental right based on the principle of redressal, where there is a right there is also a remedy (Laplante, 2007). In international law, for the first time, it was formulated by the Permanent International Court of Justice in the Chorzow Factory case. (Chorzow Factory Case, Germany vs Poland, PCIJ, 1928) This Court, interpreting the principle of redressal, states that it represents a principle of international law and a general concept of law, which means that every violation must be compensated. This principle, as most treated in international law, according to the Permanent International Court of Justice, is based on the restoration of the situation that existed before the violation occurred. At its core is making, as soon as possible, the reparation for the damage suffered as a result of the violation, the elimination of all the consequences that have come as a result of the illegal activity, and the restoration of the previous state as if the violation had not occurred. The redressal consists of the return in kind or, if this is impossible, in the payment of an amount corresponding to the value of its return (Chorzow Factory Case, Germany vs Poland, PCIJ,1928, p 47). This principle formulated in the Chorzow Factory case and applied later in other disputes that regulate relations and responsibility between states in case of violation of international treaties or customary international law has had a great influence in the field of human rights (Shelton, 2005). For the first time, in the field of human rights, the right to redressal was sanctioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 8, this document guarantees every person "the right to have effective legal remedies before competent national courts to redress actions that violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution or by law" (UDHR, Art 8). Later, this right was also provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights, which, in Article 13, sanctioned: "the right of every individual who has been violated the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention, to be offered an effective solution before a national body, even though the violation was committed by persons acting in the fulfillment of their official functions.". A few years later, the right to effective legal remedies was affirmed in the ICCPR, which imposes on member states the obligation to enact laws where necessary to make the rights recognized by the Convention effective. and provide effective remedies for their violation (ICCPR, art. 2, para. 3). Also, Article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Inhumane Treatment sanctions the obligation that "Each State Party, in its legal system, ensures the victim of an act of torture the right to seek reparation and to be compensated fairly and adequately, including the necessary means for rehabilitation as soon as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, those who suffered from it have the right to remedy" (Convention against Torture, art 14). Although the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not include the concept of domestic legal remedies, the UN Commission on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has repeatedly stated that the obligation to realize economic and social rights "by all appropriate means" means the internal provision of legal remedies or other effective means. In the Constitution of the Republic of Albania, the right to redressal from illegal acts and actions of public bodies is included in the chapter on personal freedoms and rights. The Constitution recognizes everyone's right to be rehabilitated and/or compensated by the law, in case they have been harmed due to an illegal act, action, or inaction of state bodies (Albanian Constitution, art 44). It was not without purpose that the constitution maker created the provision, that for the damage suffered by the illegal acts, actions, or inactions of the state bodies, persons have the right to raise two claims a) rehabilitation, and/or b) compensation of financial interests. Dictionaries of the Albanian language define rehabilitation as the official return to someone of the rights they had lost or were unjustly taken away; restoring the good name or honor that was tarnished; call it good or valuable again (Albanian Dictionary, 1998). Therefore, the right to redressal is closely related to the cause of the damage and the resulting obligation to compensate it. It is a legal institute that finds special treatment in our Civil Code (Albanian Civil Code, art 608) and other legal acts. The obligation to redressal leads to the birth of legal responsibility, the purpose of which is to protect the subject and his property from the consequences of the illegal and harmful actions of the persons who commit such an action (Nuni, 2012). Responsibility means that a subject must be liable on a human, moral, or legal level for facts, actions, or events committed by him or that he is a participant in them and answer to the consequences derived from them (Sherifi, 2023). If we analyze its purpose and content, we notice that the right to redressal has a complex nature. It is presented as a procedural right, where the victim must be given the right to complain and be heard before an impartial decision-maker regarding the violation of a right, as well as a material right that implies making adequate reparation for the damage suffered. As such, the right to redressal is closely related to another right, the violation of which results in the arising of the right to redressal. The right to redressal, as a separate right, can have a mixed nature, i.e personal (non-property) and property at the same time, because it aims not only to protect the financial interests of the subject but also personal ones, dignity, reputation, personality, etc. The right to redressal of former political prisoners, as an instrument of transitional justice One of the main challenges of the democratic state during the transition period is how to achieve social justice, how to build a future of peace and economic and social prosperity and serving the interests of society in general. In this phase of great political, economic, and legal transformations, the realization of the constitutional aspiration of justice requires taking as a basis, not only certain economic and social circumstances or values such as needs, merits, and services but above all also valuing the protection and respect for basic human rights and freedoms, such as freedom, private property, etc., violated for decades during the communist system. This view is based on the presumption that in a democratic order, human rights and freedoms are considered as rights of a natural character, indivisible and inalienable from him. This view, which is known in doctrine as transitional justice, was an expression of the conviction that a country based on democratic values cannot be built and developed without looking at the historical background to see the violations suffered by basic human rights and freedoms, as well as without repairing as much as possible the consequences of this violation (Williams, 2007). In 1996, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, through Resolution 1096/1996 "On measures to eradicate the communist totalitarian past", made a valuable contribution to the drafting of a conceptual framework on transitional justice. The importance of this document lay in the fact that it specifically addressed the nature of the reform measures that former communist states must undertake to build a future of peace and social harmony and the effects they bring to the construction and consolidation of the democratic state. One of the main measures that former communist states must undertake as part of transitional justice reforms, is reparative in nature and is related to "...rehabilitation of persons convicted of "crimes", which in a civilized society do not constitute criminal acts and those who have been unjustly punished. Material compensation should also be given to these victims of totalitarian justice and should not be (much) lower than the compensation given to those unjustly convicted of crimes under the current standard Penal Code” (PACE 1096/1996, Art. 8). Only in 2004, the United Nations Human Rights Committee analyzing the legal obligations imposed on states by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made a clear definition of the right to redressal sanctioning, among others, that "the obligation to provide effective legal remedies to individuals whose rights have been violated as defined by the Covenant, is not fulfilled if those individuals are not offered compensation." Resolution 60/147/2006 of the General Assembly defined what the right to redressal includes, specifically including: restitution, measures aimed at returning victims to the initial situation before the serious violations of international human rights law occurred, such as restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, restoration of employment, return of the property, etc. compensation, economic measures for physical or mental injuries, lost opportunities, and material and moral damages caused by massive violations of human rights. rehabilitation, as measures of medical and psychological care, provision of legal and social services, the moral satisfaction of the injured, as measures that shift the focus from the victims to the perpetrators through efforts to prosecute them and establish the truth at the political, legal, scientific, and cultural levels. guarantees of non-repetition include institutional reforms and measures aimed at consolidating democracy and rule of law mechanisms, which can minimize the chances that other massive human rights violations will be repeated. As discussed above, the right to effective remedy that is sanctioned in several documents substantially includes the obligation of states to address past injustices. The wording in the above acts of international law of terms such as effective means, fair means, or appropriate means gives the decision maker great flexibility in repairing as long as there is no concrete definition of these means based on the type and nature of the violation. Such a legal framework is considered as a source of corrective justice, as part of the doctrine of transitional law. Corrective justice tells us, among other things, what the law essentially allows or requires if someone has been denied, violated, or violated a good that belongs to them. Undoubtedly, it is impossible to completely correct all violations or infringements of rights. For example, life and liberty lost are irreversible and irreparable. A rapist cannot undo the violation, or dictatorial states cannot erase the damage they have caused to generations. However, these damages can be compensated at least partially, firstly, by an apology, as a measure of moral reparation, as an indicator of feeling, remorse, and reflection, which acknowledges the injustice and takes steps towards the restoration of moral relations. Corrective justice provides grounds for such pardons. Therefore, first, corrective justice requires measures of moral reparation. The demand for a large and deep social, political, and legal apology to those whose lives were taken or their freedom was taken away for criminal figures provided for in the legislation of the communist state, which represents postulates of freedom in a democratic order, represents an obligation essential of the new democratic state. Second, these measures may also include providing compensation for the injustices suffered. Redressal refers to financial and material compensation. The main goal of correctional justice reforms is to restore justice and social dignity of the victims of communist violence, alleviate suffering, and create favorable conditions for their social reintegration. According to Cohen (2016), the reasons that justify undertaking a reform with a corrective character should not be turned into reasons for the justice of another character, that of distribution (Cohen, 2016). This is because the compensation of former political convicts should not be seen as a benefit in the framework of distributive justice measures, which has as its object the causes of how and why people in a group can have benefits and certain responsibilities regarding the distribution of various goods in society. In this perspective, the right to redressal includes, on the one hand, the obligation of states to guarantee at the law level the necessary measures that guarantee the rehabilitation of victims of communist violence, as well as ensure the effective procedures for the realization of this right. The purpose of this mechanization of transitional justice, as stated in the Albanian law, is the commitment of the democratic state to the punishment of the crimes of the totalitarian communist regime, the restoration of justice and social dignity or the creation of favorable conditions, for their social reintegration, as well as guaranteeing them a better life. (Law no. 9831/2007, Art. 2) It is unimaginable that the right to an effective remedy, which itself emphasizes the "effective" character of this right with a corrective nature in many international documents, would not be successfully implemented in practice. Such a thing would lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law that the contracting states undertook to respect when they ratified the ECHR (Kennedy v. Hungary, 2006, Kaic, etc. v. Croatia, 2008). The right to redressal of former political prisoners given the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Courts of the SEE countries For the former communist countries, the unjust punishments that occurred during the period of the communist regime became a matter of justice. The Lithuanian Constitutional Court held the position that: "the primary goal of law in a democratic state, and therefore of the law "On determining the status of politically persecuted persons during the years of the communist regime and Nazism" is justice and its assurance." (LCC, Case no. 04-01(99), 1999). Meanwhile, the German Federal Constitutional Court about this topic has stated that "the state and society, by the principle of social justice, must share the burden or concern that has been inflicted on certain social groups by sanctioning by law concrete rights for redressal of the victims" (GCC, Decision December 12, 2000). According to this Court, the compensation of political prisoners should have both symbolic and financial value. This means that these people who suffered so much during the communist regime, should not only benefit from something concrete as a sign of the obligation, attention, and commitment of, the state and society towards them. (GCC, BvR 1804/03, 2004). The German Constitutional Court takes the position that: "In the construction of such a compensation system, the legislator has a wide scope of the evaluation, taking into account the nature and purpose of the repair that will be made. In this way, the legislator can determine the amount of compensation according to the financial means available, as well as take into consideration other expenses (ECHR, Von Maltzan etc. vs. Germany). The R