Who will keep company to Dominica Manole?

Who will keep company to Dominica Manole?

 

Eduard Harunjen, the chief prosecutor of the Republic of Moldova, decided to revive the hitherto dead art. 307(1) of the Criminal Code, prescribing up to 5 years in prison for unruly judges, having intentionally taken some unlawful decisions. Down and out trouble started. The authorities intend to imprison judge Dominica Manole because as they think she made a wrong interpretation of art. 141(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, where it originally has been assumed by default that the territorial-administrative units of the second level are 11 counties (judeţi), not 35 districts (raioane). We see no tragedy that among the unjustly convicted lawyers, police officers, scientists, politicians, bums and pimps, finally one judge will appear, acted contrary to the law. However, what punishment would require such a principled and impartial servant of Moldovan Themis as Eduard Harunjen for much more naughty judges who took very odious judgments contrary to the watertight provisions of the supreme law (of direct action), such as art. 8, art. 20, art. 23, art. 25(4), art. 26, art. 114, art. 119, art. 120??? After all, according to art. 124(1), art. 125(5) of the Constitution, the prosecutor is obliged to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, and one’s activity is subject only to the law.

In this regard, we offer everyone to get acquainted with 17 clearly illegal and contradictory works of judges Iurie Moldovan (Anenii Noi), Marcela Nicorici (Floreşti), Tamara Boubătrîn (Ialoveni), as well as very original and not having any legal force formal replies of the chairmen of district courts Oleg Melniciuc (Rîşcani), Luiza Gafton (Botanica), Mihail Macar (Hînceşti), Petru Triboi (Nisporeni) and Sergiu Osoianu (Străşeni), who refused to the unlucky petitioners in consideration of their applications for revising cases, filed under art. 458(3) p. 4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4 §2 of the Protocol № 7 of the Convention. The variety of responses received from the court instances is impressive. According to art. 114 of the Constitution, art. 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court instances have the exclusive right to administer justice in Moldova Republic. If this motley mosaic would not impress the Attorney General, it will surely duly impress ECHR and the UN HRC. Judge Tamara Boubătrîn, who we had already demanded to bring to the criminal responsibility under art. 307 of the Criminal Code for the adoption of a number of odious decisions, was observed to have a  split of personality. To the applicant Vladislav Ivancevschi (sentenced to 6 years for transporting a goat in the trunk of the car, not knowing that it was stolen), on April 26, 2016 she wrote a court ruling without the right of appeal, and to more annoying Valentin Rimschi, sentenced to 12 years for a mythical economic crime without victims and without damage, she granted 15 days to file a cassation appeal, considering which APC judges Iurie Iordan, Ghenadie Lîsîi and Silvia Vrabii by their decisions of May 17, 2016 have ordered a different composition of the court of first instance to comment on all arguments submitted by the participants of the process, because their incomplete consideration is a violation of art. 6 §1 of the Convention, art. 20 of the Constitution, and art. 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We have already challenged at the ECHR the court ruling against Vladislav Ivancevschi, but what can applicant Mihail Sacara do (sentenced to 6.5 years for having allegedly forced a homeless bum to panhandle), to which the chair of the Botanica court Luiza Gafton in her “love” message of April 28, 2016 simply refuses the free access to the justice because of her incompetence? ??? And who will help wrongfully convicted Mihail Sec to draw up correctly an application such that the presiding judge Mihail Macar would like it? So who would keep the company to Dominica Manole, who allegedly violated art. 6 of the European Convention and art. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? After all, there are many judges in respect to which there are already final decisions of ECHR under art. 6of the Convention,  guaranteeing the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

Without an independent court, a State is not a State, but a gang of robbers.

 

St. Augustine, Valentin Rimschi, Oleg Brega, Constantin Cheianu,  Andrei Năstase, Eduard Rudenco.

Об авторе admin

Научно-техническая группа PaPuRi Неформального общественно-политического движения euroliberali
Запись опубликована в рубрике Право с метками , , , . Добавьте в закладки постоянную ссылку.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *