Antoni Ciszewski: In the service of the presumption of guilt
Such an attitude in public administration – e.g. in the prosecutor's office – of a democratic regulation of law is unlawful and unacceptable, due to the fact that it freely enters judicial independence, destroys the legal order and contradicts the fundamental legal principle, referring to the primacy of the rule of justice and justice in law over the rule of strict law.
In the legal system, Polish and European, the rule of presumption of innocence applies for centuries – Article 5 (in dubio pro reo) Code of Criminal Procedure. This rule straight refers to constitutional standards, referring to criminal liability for a criminal offence committed – Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland – and the full normative of this legal issue is established in Chapter: Freedom and individual rights, in Articles 38 to 56 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
According to the Ombudsman:
Article 42 – Right to defence, presumption of innocence.
- Only those who commit a criminal offence under a law in force at the time of its execution shall be liable. This rule does not prevent punishment for an act which, at the time of its execution, constituted a crime under global law.
- Anyone against whom criminal proceedings are conducted has the right to defend himself in all stages of proceedings. In particular, he may elect a defender or, in accordance with the principles set out in the Act, usage a defender of his own motion.
- Everyone is considered innocent until his responsibility is declared by a final judgment.
What does that mean?
(paragraph 1) The founders of the Constitution have peculiarly stressed the work for crimes here, and so specified criminal acts are prohibited under the threat of punishment, which are socially unacceptable, highly harmful, where the ailments should be peculiarly felt.
The rule that criminal liability is subject only to those who commit an act prohibited under the punishment of a law in force at the time of its execution, lawyers describe in Latin as nullum crimen sine lege (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege poenali anteriori).
Both rule nullum crime (there is no crime) and the rule nulla poena (there is no penalty) they already find their origin in Article 31(3) of the Constitution (Limitations on the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights can only be laid down in the Act and only if they are essential in a democratic state for its security). Both principles are absolute and must not be subject to any exceptions.
(paragraph 2) The right of defence shall mean the anticipation to take any lawful action to confirm the version of the events of the associate of the proceedings (his innocence or the circumstantial nature of the fault). Under no circumstances may it be required to cooperate in proving the allegations.
This right is granted at all stages of proceedings and in all instances. Each time it occurs to a full extent, regardless of the decisions taken.
In this case, the right to usage the aid of a defender is highly important. The defender acts in the interests of the suspect, allowing him to exercise his rights full and effectively.
(Paragraph 3) The fact that a prohibited act has been committed and the fact that it has been committed must be proven.
The presumption of innocence refers to anyone who commits a criminal offence, not just the defendant. This broad approach is crucial due to the fact that Article 42 deals with criminal liability and criminal proceedings in any form.
This provision must be straight linked to the right to court (Article 45(1)). At the same time, it is worth noting that court decisions are the most common rulings on punishment. The presumption of innocence is besides attributed to those against whom an investigation or investigation is being conducted, as well as to those accused of committing an offence or any another act prohibited under punishment (see RPO Bulletin).
Against the background of these legal regulations, recognised practices of enforcement by the D.A.'s office, under the direction of the current Minister of Justice and the lawyer General, Adana Bodnar must be suspicious of the usefulness of specified superior service activity – it does not confuse with the alleged hardness of the law, due to the fact that specified demanding laws would gotta apply first.
On the example of arrested government officials from the Ministry of Justice, liable for the distribution of public funds from the Justice Fund, in 2016-2022, and Fr Michał Olszewski from Foundation Profeto, It is hard to specify the work of the state services, so that, at this preliminary phase of evidence, an impartial — alternatively than political — assessment can be made of specified government prosocial programmes, financed by public funds, in terms of classical extortion or fraud.
One thing is certain, the above case of unquestionable financial generosity from the Justice Fund for pro-social initiatives related to the widely understood fight against crime and its victims, cannot exhaust the signs of an authoritative crime, in the sense of media presumption. Why?
Because, as a rule, per analogy, this has nothing to do with cases of intentional embezzlement (?) of public assets (e.g. selling out Polish banking – about 82% – including sales of Bank Gospodarki Żywowej SA in 2003, bringing together 1632 cooperative banks, to the Dutch RABO Bank) by erstwhile political teams – specified as the UW, KLD, SLD, PSL-ZSL.
And a bright case of clerical failure was known Plasma Fractionation laboratory (LFO). This investment was started in 1995, but the laboratory never created it.
As we read in the assumptions of this investment:
The investment was aimed at creating a plasma fractionation facility and producing a number of applicable medicinal blood products: albumin, immunoglobulin, origin VIII and origin IX. From a business point of view, the investment was to be highly profitable (PLN 10-12 million in yearly income) due to advanced marketplace prices for blood products and advanced consumption in treatment (e.g. cancer treatment, burns, haemophilia).
The investment was besides to be a means of implementing the WHO recommendation, according to which each country should treat blood and plasma as strategical resources and aim for self-sufficiency in their acquisition. Poland was mostly dependent on abroad producers of these medicines, so in 1995 the inter-ministerial committee after the marketplace designation selected LFO as the company's realist.
The investment received a $34 million debt from a consortium of banks (the main Credit Bank), guaranteed by the government of Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz. In 1998, LFO signed a licence agreement with the Australian company CSL. In 1999, the bank stopped lending the investment and a year later CSL withdrew from the investment. In 200, LFO signed a fresh licence agreement with Octapharma. In 2001, the bank yet broke the LFO deal, and the case was dealt with by the prosecution.
- To Wikipedia. The LFO affair.
It's called the so-called. FOZZ affair, in the texts of investigative journalism, all criminal threads have been exhausted. After these world-wide scandals, at the same time, it was averted: The media affair (called the Rivina affair, alleged Rywingate, from 2002), Gambling (2009), The Vatov carousel affair (2014-2016), not full explained Affairs (2015), after publishing illegal recordings with Owls&Friends.
Today we are dealing with a full fresh kind of movie “Afer”. These are affairs without scandals in which the primary trend – which is widespread in mass media – is (ad hoc) an ad hoc presumption of guilt. What is more – the presumption of guilt is served by a full set of EU prerogatives about the regulation of law(?). Undoubtedly, the leading function in this socially harmful process must have black characters Donald Tusk and Adam Bodnar.
But Poland is not Bantustan – it is not San Escobar – and Polish services must be the best in the world. There's no another way.
We besides recommend: The stores are about to run out of balls. Everything as usual by the EU
