[ad_1]
© Julia Lazarova
The prosecution explains the publication of data and evidence in pending cases more frequently with the high interest of the media and the public.
The Office of the Prosecutor disseminates evidence, recordings of conversations and discloses details of specific cases in compliance with recommendations of the European Commission for greater accountability and transparency in the work of the prosecution, but without violating the law and the presumption of innocence. This is confirmed by the response of the State Prosecutor’s Office to the MEPs, who ask why various sound recordings, photos and transcripts are published in pending cases, in some of which no charges have even been filed, and how this practice is valued.
The publication of evidence in pending cases has been done frequently in recent months, at the initiative and with the support of Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev even before he took office. However, this practice by the prosecution provoked a series of criticisms and dissatisfaction not only from the accused, but also from human rights organizations, lawyers and judges. They fear that the presumption of innocence has been violated that is, without a final judgment, the prosecution suggests that those investigated are guilty and thus influences the court that will hear the case. In addition, the dissemination was selective, incomplete and used more for suggestions than to contain evidence as for the court (there was a call sign in which other names mentioned were missing).
These evidence, recordings of conversations and messages exchanged were released during the investigation of the data leaked by the National Revenue Agency, the pre-trial process against Vasil Bozhkov and the illegal importation and processing of waste against the Bobokovi brothers and the Deputy Minister of the Environment. Environment and Water Krassimir Zhivkov. and many others. The prosecution and MEPs sent an English translation of the Bozhkov talks.
However, according to the state prosecutor’s office, there is no violation, as the prosecution owes a response and accountability to the public, especially in cases of high public interest. The Prosecutor’s Office ensures that the distribution in pending cases is carried out in strict compliance with the law – with the permission of the supervising prosecutor. Furthermore, this generally does not occur until these data have been presented and examined by the court during the determination of preventive measures for the accused.
It is interesting that in its response the Prosecutor’s Office explained the actions and “media” messages with recommendations from the European Commission, which in several reports on the cooperation and verification mechanism recommended “transparency in the work of the judiciary and accountability to society. civil – as for ongoing and completed proceedings. “
The state prosecutor’s office even ensures that the effect of the efforts made in recent years is tangible. Excerpts from the 2018 EC report are also cited.establishing that “a public reporting mechanism must be established on the progress of high-level organized crime cases for which there is information in the public sphere. Depending on the presumption of innocence, the Attorney General must report the charges.”
The prosecution appears to have taken the recommendation literally. and it puts it into practice by exporting specific data on some of the major cases and investigations. Recommendations from other reports are also cited, including the 2020 one, which states that high-level anti-corruption results have been achieved, but notes the need to continue to improve the anti-corruption framework and engage stakeholders. in the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy and the establishment of future priorities.
More generally, it is observed that Anti-corruption institutions must build public trust and earn the reputation of institutions that work independently and professionally., they recall in their response from the Prosecutor’s Office and add that some of the cases in which said evidence was disseminated are against people of high public office.
However, the prosecution secures with the stipulation that these are ongoing investigations and inspections, which does not prevent some of the charges from being dropped at a later stage if other evidence is gathered.
“The publication of official press releases, briefings and statements by supervising prosecutors, prosecutors’ spokespersons or the chief prosecutor are a means of providing information and ensuring that the public is immediately informed of important cases,” said the state attorney’s office.
“Dissemination of information on criminal proceedings by public authorities not prohibited of the mandatory acts for the Republic of Bulgaria of the EU and other international acts ”, he added in his response to the MEPs of the prosecution.
“Neither the manner nor the context in which the information is disseminated gives the impression that people are guilty before the court proves guilt in accordance with the law. The publication of official press releases or statements by supervising prosecutors, spokespersons or the attorney general is intended only to inform citizens for the development of the investigation of a public criminal case that has aroused the interest of the media, without questioning the supposed innocence of individuals, ”emphasizes the Prosecutor’s Office.
“The formal written or oral statements are intended to shed light on the general conduct of operations and the development of investigations and does not rule on the guilt of certain people, which in principle does not violate the presumption of innocence“added the state attorney’s office.
From the written responses of the prosecution to the MEPs – read here
What the Bulgarian institutions demand from MEPs about the new Constitution, freedom of the media and the rule of law – read here
Accents in the text are in “Dnevnik”.
