ABSTRACT

1 INTRODUCTION

Judicial ethics contributes to enhance professional discipline while safeguarding public trust in the judiciary. For a judge, it is not only important to be competent when appointed to the position. It is also important to be ethical.¹ Good ethics, together with professional values, become an important part of their daily professional responsibilities.² On the other hand, well-documented court records are an important element of judicial transparency. They also reflect overall judicial efficiency.³

In Albania, The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) launched the Albanian Justice Sector Strengthening (JuST) project in 2010. It aimed, among other things, to improve the performance of the Albanian justice sector. As part of the project, digital audio recording was introduced and implemented in Albanian courts.⁴ The installation of the system started in 2012 and was completed in all thirty-eight courts in the country in 2015.

To give digital recording legal force in Albania and integrate it into the judicial process as an official source of documentation, the legal framework needed to be adapted.

The Ministry of Justice approved Instruction 353 dated 3.9.2013 “On determining detailed rules for the maintenance, preservation, and archiving of the minutes of court hearings by audio means”.⁵ This Instruction clearly established that the audio recording constituted the official minutes of the court hearing and that the printed notes signed by the court clerk, together with any available transcripts, were to be attached to the court file as part of it.

A key element of the legal framework for implementing and using the audio recording system is Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Article, among others, provides that “where possible, actions performed during the court hearing, as well as any other action performed outside it, shall be documented through audio or audiovisual recording. The recording begins and ends at the same time as the court hearing”.⁶ Also, according to Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is stipulated that “…the single judge or the presiding judge must ensure that the minutes of the court hearing are kept through audio or audiovisual recording … .”⁷

The High Judicial Council of the Republic of Albania’s Decision 353 of 11 July 2024, “On the Approval of the Instruction on the Use of Audio/Audiovisual Technology in the Judicial Process”,⁸ is the most recent act related to the use of audio/audiovisual recording in courtrooms. According to the Instruction approved by this Decision, digital recording tools are used for recording civil, administrative, and criminal court hearings in all courts within the Republic of Albania.⁹ Pursuant to point 4, these audio-video recordings serve as the official record of each court hearing, in line with the provisions outlined in Article 118 of the Civil Procedure Code, Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Article 34 of Law 49/2012 “On Administrative Courts and the Trial of Administrative Disputes”, as amended.¹⁰

The audio/audiovisual recording of the court hearing is carried out by the court clerk under the instructions and supervision of the presiding judge.¹¹ The recording captures all verbal communications between parties, visual images, court orders, decisions, and other statements throughout the hearing.¹² Parties that want to obtain a certified copy of the audio recording can request it through the judicial secretariat. After payment, the court clerk provides the requested copy on a read-only CD. In certain cases, such as those related to minors, state secrets, or witness security, the presiding judge can limit or stop access to the recordings.¹³

Beyond these specific rules on audio-video recording, the broader legal framework also provides important safeguards.

In the Constitution of the Republic of Albania, the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law is guaranteed.¹⁴ These are principles that guide a democratic society, where the good administration of justice is an important element of its functioning. The principle of the good administration of justice is also linked to procedural guarantees in the examination of issues by the court.¹⁵

According to Eric Alt, referring to the work of a European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) working group, the quality of justice may be understood as “a triangle whose summits may be efficiency, legitimacy and ethics”.¹⁶ In this context, audio-video recording can support these dimensions by providing an accurate and verifiable record of court hearings.

Inevitably, we think that audio-video recording in this context supports ethical standards and accountability, which are also reflected in the Albanian legal framework regulating the evaluation of judicial performance.

The evaluation criteria are defined in Law 96/2016 “On the Status of Judges and Prosecutors in the Republic of Albania,” as amended.¹⁷ According to Article 71, the criteria are based on professional capacity, organisational skills, ethics, commitment to judicial and prosecutorial professional values, personal qualities, and professional commitment.¹⁸ Ethics and commitment to professional values, according to Article 75(1) of the same law, are assessed by the magistrate’s work ethic, integrity, and impartiality.¹⁹

The relevance of audio-video recordings to the evaluation process is reflected in Article 77(c) of the same law: “Judicial files selected by lot for evaluation, pursuant to Article 91 of this Law, including audio or video recordings of the related hearings, shall ensure full representation of all types of cases adjudicated and investigated.”²⁰ As a result, we can say that audio-video recording constitutes a formally recognised source of information in the judicial evaluation process.

Regarding Albania, while the introduction of audio recording and later audio-video recording in courts has happened recently, studies show that this technology has enhanced courts’ transparency, which represents a vital instrument in preventing corruption.²¹

In its 2025 Annual Report, the High Judicial Council of Albania highlights the importance of maintaining and updating the digital audio recording system and audio-video equipment in courts. This aims to improve the quality of court-hearing recordings and ensure the sustainable storage of audiovisual materials. It also aims to ensure compliance with applicable technological and information security standards.²²

This study examines the benefits and challenges of implementing audio-video recording of court hearings in Albania and its impact on judicial ethics.

The study aims to answer the following research questions:

For this purpose, the paper first analyses the state of play and reviews the literature. The next section presents the questionnaire and interview results, along with the findings. The paper concludes with conclusions and recommendations to further improve the impact of audio-video recording on judicial ethics.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Courts are adapting to the development of new technologies to achieve better, faster, and more efficient performance.²³ Reiling distinguishes three categories of technology used in courts: those that are used within courtrooms; those related to back-office functions, such as administration of cases or management; and those related to communication with external parties.²⁴ While technological progress has been rapid, the increasing use of technologies in courts has also raised concerns about their potential to affect the decision-making process by creating bias and to impact the authoritative power of courts by altering the solemnity of courtroom proceedings.²⁵ Nevertheless, these technologies have enhanced court efficiency by improving their document administration and reducing paper use, as well as providing timely access to transcripts of court proceedings.²⁶

This paper focuses on one courtroom technology: audio-video recordings of court hearings. A court record is based on the conceptualisation of judicial justice, which “requires that a trial process should be just, and that justice should always be presented in a visible, transparent manner”.²⁷ Court records show how trial procedures have been applied, and audio-video recording can be a useful tool for this assessment.

Audio recording of court proceedings has been used for decades in the United States.²⁸ However, audio, and later audio-video recording of court hearings is a recent tool in many countries and transitional democracies, such as Albania. Audio recording is more comprehensive and accurate than a written transcript since it provides other features such as tone, volume, and the emotions of the speaker, which cannot be reflected in text.²⁹

Video recording adds other benefits because it can be useful “to clarify facts, to improve judicial self-awareness, and to reveal a fuller context”.³⁰ These records provide both picture and sound, which can give further context.³¹ The video record provides not only verbal speech but also nonverbal features and other nonverbal acts, and eliminates possible conscious or nonconscious human errors or biases that can happen in the written transcript of proceedings.³²

In this line, Zhang stresses that the audio-video record is superior to a hearing transcript because, first, a transcript relies on the capabilities and professionalism of the clerk and would be very difficult to correct a posteriori if a human error occurs; keeping an accurate transcript can be limited by the speed of the clerk and can cause external interference, because the clerk may request continuous interruptions of the trial process to keep the record complete if one of the parties speaks too fast; a written transcript can also undermine internal supervision, since the clerk’s working position can be linked to that of the judge.³³

Meanwhile, audio-video recording has the advantage of diminishing possible disputes over the accuracy of court records.³⁴ High-quality audio-video recordings could also provide appellate courts with a more comprehensive basis for reviewing first instance proceedings, particularly where the recordings preserve aspects of testimony that cannot be fully captured through a written transcript.³⁵

However, this does not mean that video recording is perfect. According to Donovan, the same errors that can happen in a trial may occur while making a transcript from a video record, and sometimes, by interacting and stopping the proceeding in cases of unclear speech, a more accurate record may be produced.³⁶ Also, reviewing an audio or audio-video file may be more time-consuming than a written document.³⁷ Thus, using both methods can serve as a mutual control mechanism. Nevertheless, most studies emphasise the benefit of introducing audio-video recording in courtrooms. This is because relying only on the traditional method can pose challenges for efficient and timely transcript production, access to justice, and transparency of court proceedings.³⁸ Meanwhile, the use of technologies for a comprehensive transcription of court proceedings boosts legal compliance.³⁹

Audio-video recording is also linked to judicial ethics and accountability. Cravens highlights that audio-video recording is very important when there are alleged cases of judges’ misconduct, because: first, the lack of such a record makes it difficult to determine objectively and credibly if such misconduct has occurred; second, it is less likely to forward a report of misconduct if a record is missing, thus making it strong evidence. Without a record, the misconduct case will rely on witnesses, who, as the court clerks, may tend to align with the judge's version due to their position of authority; third, it enhances public confidence in the judiciary system since it ensures that disciplinary measures against judges are based on strong evidence.⁴⁰ More broadly, the use of impersonal technological tools in courtrooms has been associated with a reduction of corruption⁴¹ and increased public trust in the judicial process.⁴²

While audio-video recording has been recognised to increase efficiency and transparency of court records, it may raise privacy concerns. “Striking the right balance between transparency and privacy protection is crucial for modernising the judiciary without compromising individual rights.”⁴³ However, unlike covert information gathering, audio-video recording of court proceedings is an overt and procedurally regulated activity. Participants know the court hearing is being recorded to document the proceedings. In the context of operational search activities, the covert or overt nature of information gathering is important, although not in itself a determinative factor.⁴⁴ In the context of court proceedings, however, the overt and regulated nature of the recording, together with its specific procedural purpose, limited access to involved parties, and other secrecy restrictions, may significantly limit potential interference with privacy.

This study aims to contribute to the literature by analysing the benefits and challenges of implementing audio-video recording of court proceedings in Albania and its impact on judicial ethics. Although scholars have paid increasing attention to the use of technology in courtrooms, the literature specifically addressing audio-video recording of court hearings remains relatively limited. Existing studies mainly focus on the importance of audio-video recording for the accuracy and completeness of court records, efficiency, appellate review, transparency, and accountability. In contrast, fewer studies have examined its possible impact on judicial ethics. This literature is even more limited in transitional democracies such as Albania.

The study has some limitations. It relies on empirical data from court clerks and lawyers, two of the main users of the audio-video system. While the sample is exploratory, its findings may indicate broader institutional patterns in the country. They may also be beneficial for future comparisons in the Western Balkans and other post-transition contexts.

3 METHODOLOGY

This study uses a mixed-methods approach. It combines quantitative data collected from questionnaires with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews. The qualitative approach also includes doctrinal research. This research also analyses the relevant legal framework and literature on the use of audio-video recording in court hearings and judicial ethics.

The study was conducted from January 2025 to December 2025, covering approximately the last ten years of audio recording and following the full implementation of the video recording component in Albanian courts in 2024. The data, findings, and recommendations reflect the period in which the study was conducted.

At the national level, there are 138 courtrooms. They are distributed across twenty courts under the new judicial map implemented in 2023. The number of courtrooms can change throughout the year.

The three selected courts where we distributed the questionnaire comprise forty-one courtrooms, representing approximately 30% of the 138 courtrooms nationwide. In total, we distributed questionnaires to eighty-nine court clerks working in these courts. Four interviews were conducted with lawyers.

Specifically, the quantitative component consists of questionnaires distributed to court clerks in three courts in Tirana:

1. Tirana First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction. There are twenty-eight courtrooms in this court, of which twenty are civil, and eight are criminal.⁴⁵ The questionnaire was filled out by forty-eight court clerks who work in this court.
2. Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction in Tirana, which has eight courtrooms.⁴⁶ Thirty court clerks filled out the questionnaire.
3. The Administrative Court of the First Instance in Tirana has five courtrooms.⁴⁷ In this court, eleven court clerks filled out the questionnaire.

Tirana, the capital of Albania, was chosen because it has the largest number of courtrooms, the highest volume of cases, and the largest number of judicial personnel nationwide. These characteristics made Tirana a relevant setting for assessing the implementation and operation of the audio-video recording system.

The researchers administered the questionnaires on paper. The researchers distributed them directly to court clerks present at the selected courts on the day of the visit. Participation was voluntary.

The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice questions. It was completed anonymously.

The researchers collected no personal identifiers or personal data. Court clerks were informed about the study's purpose and that the collected data would be used exclusively for academic research.

The authors drafted the questionnaire specifically for this study. It consisted of eighteen questions. The questionnaire contained two main groups of questions on the use of audio-video technology and its impact.

Four lawyers participated in the interviews. Two lawyers had experience both before and after implementing the digital audio recording system. The other two had worked as court clerks at the Tirana First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction before becoming lawyers. The selection of lawyers for interviews was based on their extensive experience, in-depth institutional knowledge, and practical knowledge. They were informed about the purpose of the research and voluntarily consented to participate. The paper anonymised the lawyers' identities. The interviews were exploratory and were not intended to be statistically representative.

The study followed the ethical principles of voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity. The questionnaire aimed to examine court clerks’ perceptions of the use and ethical impact of the audio-video recording system. Interviews with lawyers provided an additional qualitative perspective from legal practitioners.

However, the study presents some limitations. The empirical data were collected only in Tirana, which limits full generalisation at the national level. However, the institutional significance and caseload of the selected courts provide relevant insights into the Albanian context. The number of interviews is limited; however, participants' in-depth experience strengthens the analytical value.

Another limitation is that judges were not included among the interview participants. Their perspective would have added another dimension to assessing the impact of audio-video recording on court hearings. Future research may consider this perspective.

4 RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEWS

The questionnaire results show that the audio-video recording system is widely perceived as functional and as having an important impact on the conduct of court hearings. According to Figure 1, most court clerks (71.9%) reported that they do not encounter difficulties using the system, while a smaller percentage reported moderate or high difficulties. However, 30.3% (Figure 2) estimated that they would need additional training to properly use the audio-video recording system. This shows that, despite the technical functionality, human capacity remains an important component for achieving the goal for which this digital audio-video recording system was put in place.

Regarding the new video recording element, 43.8% of respondents consider it very useful for their work, while the rest find it partially useful or are neutral. This suggests that the impact of video recording is still consolidating, perhaps because it was implemented relatively recently. From an operational point of view, 64% of court clerks say they use playback of recorded court hearings very often, showing that the system is integrated into their daily professional practice. Furthermore, 96% of respondents say the audio recording quality is clear.

Another important dimension examined in the questionnaires is the parties' ability to use the digital audio-video recording system during court hearings. About 66.3% of court clerks report that parties need better guidance on using microphones during the hearing. Also, according to the court clerks who completed the questionnaire, a significant percentage of parties require assistance to listen to the recorded material (65.2%). Figure 3 shows that these difficulties mainly stem from a lack of computer skills and unfamiliarity with the playback program. These data suggest that the system's full impact depends not only on the technology implemented in the courtrooms but also on users' awareness and digital education.

According to Figure 4, concerning the ethical dimension, a large majority of the court clerks (94.4%) assess that the system has significantly increased the transparency of court hearings. Credibility is perceived as significantly increased by 84.3% of respondents, while 74.2% report increased accountability.

Regarding the solemnity of the hearing, 64% of court clerks believe the system has significantly strengthened this element. In comparison, over half (56.2%) perceive a noticeable impact on the ethical behaviour of the parties in the courtroom. The discipline of the participants is also perceived as significantly improved by 48.3% of the court clerks in this questionnaire. These results show that the impact of the audio-video system is not limited to the technical aspect of documentation but extends to many important elements such as transparency, accountability, ethics, credibility, and solemnity.

As shown in Figure 4, the AVR system is perceived as having a significant impact across the aspects assessed in this paper. Overall, the Figure indicates that the audio-video system contributes to several interconnected ethical dimensions of court hearings. Transparency emerges as its strongest perceived impact.

The privacy dimension presents nuanced responses. A significant percentage of court clerks (47.2%) believe it may somewhat influence privacy, while 12.4% believe it may significantly influence it. In contrast, 40% do not see any risk of privacy violation during video recording. Another finding is that 59.6% of court clerks reported that some parties attending court hearings feel uncomfortable speaking in front of a microphone during audio-video recording. Based on the questionnaire results, we can say that there is still a need for clarity and public awareness of the legal limits, privacy protections, and the use of the recording.

To analyse the digital audio-video recording system's impact on the ethical dimension of a court hearing, as well as its use, we have conducted four interviews with lawyers of various profiles and varying years of experience.

All interviewees agree that the audio-video recording system has positively influenced the ethics of court hearings. The awareness that every word and action is documented has brought more self-control in communication and greater respect for procedural rules by all parties involved in the judicial process, compared to the period when such technology was not applied. In their experience, the number of cases of unethical communication have also decreased.

The two lawyers with the most experience, who practised before and after the implementation of digital audio recording of court hearings and audio-video recording technology, have a similar approach. They believe the audio-video recording system has increased the solemnity of court hearings, respect for the order of speaking, control over the behaviour of the judge and the parties, and procedural accountability.

In D.H’s. view, the recording system functions primarily as a preventive rather than a punitive mechanism. As he puts it, “Before the audio system, there was more room for procedural irregularities and unethical communication. Now everyone is more careful because everything is recorded”. D. H. perceives audio-video recording as particularly useful for verifying allegations of procedural violations. Two former court clerks now working as lawyers (I.S. and E.H.) offer a more technical, institutional perspective on evaluating the audio-video system. E.H. stresses that the audio-video recording system of court hearings facilitates the work of the court clerk, especially in long hearings and processes. Former clerks see the system not only as an ethical guarantee but also as a tool that improves documentation quality. Both point out that the audio-video recording system increases the self-control of the judge and the parties during the hearing. It also helps in avoiding incidents (especially in criminal cases). E.H. adds the interesting element: “video encourages respect for the formal aspect of the hearing (e.g., obligation of wearing a toga)”.

The interviewees largely agree that audio-video recording does not violate privacy. This is because access to recordings is limited only to interested parties. A. P. links it to transparency: “It is not about violating privacy, but about guaranteeing transparency and ethics”. However, for lawyers from before the introduction of audio-video technology in courts, audio remains the essential element; video is seen as an important addition to the audio recording.

A further issue raised by the interviewees concerned the holding of some court hearings in judges’ offices. They attribute this to the still-existing lack of sufficient courtrooms in Albanian courts. In this framework, A.P. notes that “When the hearing is held in the office, the solemnity and transparency of the process are not respected”. D. H. indicates that “Hearings held in the office limit publicity.”

Also, according to the interviewed lawyers, the audio-video recording system is perceived as a factor that increases the procedural trust of the parties in the judicial process.

I. S. outlines that she perceives the system as impossible to manipulate since any intervention in the proceedings is traceable. From her experience, she describes the system as fully functional. In her work as a court clerk and now as a lawyer, she has benefited greatly from accurate documentation of the minutes. As E.H. summarises “When everything is recorded, the parties feel more protected because every element of the court hearing can be verified”.

5 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

This section highlights all the findings based on the results of the court clerk questionnaire, interviews with lawyers, and literature.

First, the questionnaire results show the significant perceived impact of the digital audio-video recording system on the ethical aspects of court hearings. Based on the court clerks’ questionnaire, the element most affected by the digital audio-video recording system in courtrooms is transparency, followed by credibility, accountability, courtroom solemnity, behaviour of all parties involved in a court hearing, and participants' discipline. According to lawyers interviewed, implementing digital audio-video recording in courtrooms has significantly improved the ethics and standards of court hearings, starting with solemnity, behaviour of parties, transparency, and accountability. As a result, the system ensures that all parties involved are more careful and respectful of the legal process. On the other hand, lawyers argue it may prevent procedural irregularities and unethical interactions. The digital audio-video recording system offers greater security by visually capturing incidents, including any possible aggressive behaviour, usually in criminal cases. Thus, the paper's empirical data support the literature of Cravens, Reiling, Lee, and Zhang⁴⁸ linking audio-video recording to increased ethical control and procedural reliability.

Second, the lack of infrastructure, particularly sufficient courtrooms, significantly diminishes the impact that a digital audio-video recording system would have in an optimal court infrastructure.

The lawyers argue that the lack of accessibility for interested parties further undermines the publicity of court hearings held in the judge’s office. These hearings lack the complete formality and solemnity required for a typical hearing. They are also shorter, which risks compromising the thoroughness of the defence’s arguments and missing key elements of the case.

The High Judicial Council's annual reports repeatedly state that infrastructure remains a challenge for the courts in Albania. “The lack of land for construction and the outdated infrastructure of the Supreme Court, the Administrative Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction, and the Tirana First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction not only fail to provide conditions for solemn court proceedings but also do not provide conditions for everyday work for human resources either.”⁴⁹

The annual report of the High Inspector of Justice (HIJ) also highlights that during the inspection of the Tirana First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction, which concluded in 2025, the lack of the necessary infrastructure for the recording of court hearings was identified.⁵⁰ Having more courtrooms is important to maximise the digital audio-video recording system’s impact on court hearings.

Third, regarding the video recording component, the questionnaire results indicate a generally positive perception of its usefulness among court clerks, while some remain neutral. The neutrality may be related to the additional workload and time consumed to review the video recording, as has been stated by Lee and Sabatino.⁵¹

The questionnaires show that a significant proportion of court clerks perceive the inclusion of video as useful. However, their responses suggest a more nuanced picture regarding privacy. Meanwhile, the lawyers unanimously think that video recording does not violate privacy because the hearing is public. On the contrary, they think this new element brings more security and transparency and contributes to higher ethical standards during court hearings.

According to the interviews with lawyers, audio recording is mainly associated with the procedural dimension (appeals, verification of alleged procedural violations, evidence of language used and ethics). At the same time, video is perceived as an instrument that enhances formal solemnity. This difference aligns with the literature of Cravens, Gorgos, and Lederer,⁵² which argues that video adds visual context, captures nonverbal behaviour, and supports disciplinary control.

Fourth, additional training or guidance may be useful for users of the audio-video system. Most court clerks reported no difficulties in using the system. However, the questionnaire indicates that some may benefit from additional training. From the court clerks’ perspective, the parties involved need further guidance on using microphones while recording the hearing. Based on the questionnaire data from court clerks, parties in court hearings often request help with the recording playback program. The main difficulty is that, according to court clerks, the parties lack computer skills and do not know how to use the playback program.

We can conclude that interested parties who want to listen to recorded court hearing sessions need more guidance on using the recording playback program.

The interviews reinforce this finding: the system is perceived as technically simple and functional, but problems arise more from users' knowledge than from the technology itself. From interviews with lawyers, we understand that the digital audio-video recording system is generally easy to use. One lawyer observed that, depending on the client, some may need more training. Another lawyer emphasised that lawyers and all interested parties need further training and campaigns on using the digital audio-video recording system.

This shows that, to maximise the ethical and procedural impact of audio-video recording, it is necessary to have not only adequate technical resources but also support training and awareness raising.

Fifth, according to the results of the clerks’ questionnaire, most parties involved in a court hearing have rarely experienced discomfort while the hearing was recorded. For those who experienced some discomfort, the main reason is usually that they feel uncomfortable speaking in front of a microphone.

Three interviews with lawyers revealed that the digital audio-video recording system is highly efficient and fulfils its intended purpose in nearly all cases. The system’s high-quality recordings and simple functionality make it easy for legal professionals and clients to use. Access to the program is easy, and recordings can be listened to on various devices, such as computers and phones. They also say it can even be listened to while travelling in cars.

Sixth, the questionnaire results indicate that the audio-video system is perceived as contributing to greater credibility and accountability in court hearings. The interviews reinforce this dimension by emphasising that parties feel more protected when everything is recorded and can be verified. This is in line with the literature that links technology to increased trust and reduced perceptions of corruption.⁵³

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis and empirical findings of this study indicate that the digital audio-video recording system significantly contributes to the ethical standards of court hearings. Keeping recordings in digital format is an effective safeguard for long-term accessibility, and backup rules are easier to implement, reducing doubts about data alteration and enabling easy access when needed.

However, although the system is installed in all of the courts, the lack of sufficient courtrooms remains a structural obstacle. When hearings are held in judges’ offices, the digital audio-video system cannot be used.

The paper further shows that the audio-video recording system has an impact beyond the technical function of documentation. Through interviews and questionnaires, it is perceived that this digital technology has, over the last ten years and more recently with the addition of video recording, functioned as a mechanism that strengthens transparency, accountability, credibility, and discipline in court hearings. The interviewed lawyers similarly associated audio-video documentation with greater awareness and self-control among judges, prosecutors, and all the participants in court hearings. They also said digital audio-video recording enables verification of procedural actions. Furthermore, it enables parties to protect their rights more effectively and exercise their right of appeal on more secure and objective grounds.

Nevertheless, the ethical and procedural benefits of audio-video recording of court hearings fully materialise when supported by an appropriate infrastructure. Although court conditions and infrastructure have improved in recent years, without sufficient courtrooms, the benefits of audio-video recording cannot be fully achieved in practice. In this sense, the effectiveness of the digital audio-video system depends not only on the technical quality but also on the physical and organisational infrastructure of the courts. Adequately trained court personnel, where needed, and informed users are also essential to these processes.

Based on the findings of the questionnaires and interviews, some of the recommendations for further improvement of the digital audio and video recording system operation and awareness raising in Albania are as follows:

• Participants need additional user guides on the proper use of microphones in courtrooms. These user guides, which could be shown to the parties before the trial as a short video or in printed materials, will provide clear instructions on how the speaker should speak in front of a microphone. Warnings and instructions on correct microphone use could also be printed near the microphone base in the courtroom. These measures are essential to avoid audio cracks and noises and could help improve audio quality.
• To help lawyers, parties, and prosecutors use of the digital audio-video recording system correctly, we recommend providing short videos with clear instructions on using the playback software, published on court websites and displayed on monitors in the courts’ public areas. A demonstration computer for public access within court premises to help users access and use the software might also be useful.
• Additional training for court clerks who have difficulty using the system might be useful. Court technical staff or colleagues who are proficient users of the digital audio and video recording system could provide this training.
• To further improve the audio and video quality of the digital audio-video recording infrastructure in courtrooms, periodic technical assessments of the hardware, such as microphones, audio mixers, cameras, etc., are needed.
• Expanding the implementation of the digital audio and video recording system in courts where its use is limited due to the lack of courtrooms. This problem needs to be addressed in the short- and long-term. If adding more courtrooms is not possible in the near future, we suggest implementing the digital audio and video recording system in judges’ offices (only for court hearings held there). This would provide a useful tool for having accurate documentation of the court hearings on the current infrastructure as a short-term solution.
• The court's strategic approach should focus on raising public awareness and increasing visibility of the digital audio and video recording system's benefits for transparency, accountability, and efficiency. This approach would help enhance public confidence in the judiciary and strengthen standards of conduct during court hearings.

FOOTNOTES

REFERENCES

1. Achode L, ‘Judicial Ethics: A Key Tenet to Legal Ethics’ (2022) 6(1) Strathmore Law Journal 257 <https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.183> accessed 18 June 2026
2. Alt E, ‘Quality of Justice’ (MEDEL Magistrats européens pour la démocratie et les libertés, February 2012) <https://medelnet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Quality-of-justice-3.pdf> accessed 18 June 2026
3. Cochran C, ‘Hear No Evil: How Permissive Rules on the Creation and Use of Courtroom Audio Recordings Can Increase Judicial Accountability’ (2020) 33 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 423 <https://www.law.georgetown.edu/legal-ethics-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2020/09/GT-GJLE200016.pdf> accessed 18 June 2026
4. Cravens SMR, ‘Recording Judges: Filling Gaps to Improve Judicial Discipline’ (2024) 24(1) Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 1 <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4346952> accessed 18 June 2026
5. Donovan BM, ‘Deference in a Digital Age: The Video Record and Appellate Review’ (2010) 96(3) Virginia Law Review 643 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/20700380> accessed 18 June 2026
6. Faafeng J and others, Towards Justice: Analysis of Civil Proceedings in the District Courts (OSCE 2012)
7. Frade C, Fernando P and Conceição AF, ‘The Performance of the Courts in the Digital Era: The Case of Insolvency and Restructuring Proceedings’ (2020) 29(3) International Insolvency Review 346 <https://doi.org/10.1002/iir.1390> accessed 18 June 2026
8. Giuffrida I, ‘Legal, Practical and Ethical Implications of the Use of Technology in European Courtrooms’ (2004) 12(3) William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 745 <https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol12/iss3/10> accessed 18 June 2026
9. Gorgos KA, ‘Lost in Transcription: Why the Video Record Is Actually Verbatim’ (2009) 57(3) Buffalo Law Review 1057 <https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol57/iss3/13> accessed 18 June 2026
10. Hajdini B and Skara G, ‘The Role of Information and Communication Technology in Fighting Corruption in the Judiciary System: The Case of 2016 Judicial Reform in Albania’ (2022) 8(3) Journal of Liberty and International Affairs 115 <https://doi.org/10.47305/JLIA2283115h> accessed 18 June 2026
11. Hloviuk I and others, ‘The Use of Video and Audio Recordings Provided by Victims of Domestic Violence as Evidence’ (2024) 7(1) Social & Legal Studies 145 <https://doi.org/10.32518/sals1.2024.145> accessed 18 June 2026
12. Klages K, ‘Court Reporters on Way Out? Courts Experiment with Audio-Video Machines’ (1989) 75(2) ABA Journal 28
13. Knol Radoja K and Šago D, ‘Transparency of Civil Proceedings in the Digital Age’ (2025) 9 EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series 429 <https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/38125> accessed 18 June 2026
14. Kolaneci E and Pejo E, ‘Transitional Justice Research in the Digital Age: Western Balkans Results’ (2023) 6(4) Social & Legal Studios 89 <https://doi.org/10.32518/sals4.2023.89> accessed 18 June 2026
15. Lederer FI, ‘The Evolving Technology-Augmented Courtroom: Before, During, and After the Pandemic’ (2021) 23(2) Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 301 <https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol23/iss2/3> accessed 18 June 2026
16. Lederer FI, ‘The Road to the Virtual Courtroom? A Consideration of Today’s—and Tomorrow’s—High Technology Courtrooms’ (1999) 50 South Carolina Law Review 799 <https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/212> accessed 18 June 2026
17. Lee T, ‘Court Recording Methods and Their Implication on Criminal Trial Procedure: Focusing on Digital Audio Recording Model’s Potential to Facilitate Concentrated-Hearing in Korea’ (2016) 15(2) Journal of Korean Law 355 <http://doi.org/10.23110/jkl.2016.15.2.003> accessed 18 June 2026
18. Reiling D, Technology for Justice: How Information Technology Can Support Judicial Reform (Leiden UP 2009)
19. Sabatino JJM, ‘The Appellate Digital Deluge: Addressing Challenges for Appellate Review Posed by the Rising Tide of Video and Audio Recording Evidence’ (2023) 96(1) Temple Law Review 11
20. Sanders A, Updated Report on the Individual Evaluation of Judges in Albania (SEJ II Project, Council of Europe 2018)
21. Upegui Caro V, ‘Five Ways Digital Technologies Are Transforming Courts and Access to Justice’ (World Bank Blogs, 20 March 2025) <https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/governance/five-ways-digital-technologies-are-transforming-courts-and-acces> accessed 18 June 2026
22. Yadav AB and Mane S, ‘Online Stream and Recording of Court Proceedings: A Constitutional Right’ (2022) 13(2) Indian Journal of Law and Justice 171 <https://ir.nbu.ac.in/handle/123456789/4771> accessed 18 June 2026
23. Zalnieriute M and Bell F, ‘Technology and the Judicial Role’ in Appleby G and Lynch A (eds), The Judge, the Judiciary and the Court: Individual, Collegial and Institutional Judicial Dynamics in Australia (CUP 2020) 116
24. Zhang X, ‘China’s Model of Electronic Reform for Court Records’ (2022) 66(4) Pravovedenie 360 <https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2022.401> accessed 18 June 2026

AUTHORS’ INFORMATION

FUNDING STATEMENT

RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS

EDITORS

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

DETAILS FOR PUBLICATION

AI DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

АНОТАЦІЯ