[ad_1]
From: TT
Published:
Photo: DPLAY / TT
Image from the documentary series on Dplay showing previously unknown damage to the Estonian hull.
In three cases in the 1990s, prosecutors decided to close the criminal investigation into the sinking of Estonia. Prosecutor Karolina Wieslander was instructed to re-investigate the matter. Should the criminal investigation be resumed?
26 years after the accident, however, most possible crimes are prescribed by law.
In 1997, the prosecutor decided to close the criminal investigation into the sinking of Estonia, which occurred three years earlier. The decision was reviewed by a chief prosecutor and finally by the prosecutor (RÅ), who in 1999 decided not to reopen the investigation because the offenses were prescribed.
RÅ’s decision was also requested to be reconsidered, but a decision was made a year later when the prosecutor decided not to change.
Now he can take over the entire process, after prosecutor Karolina Wieslander of the National Unit for International and Organized Crime was tasked with examining a request to resume the criminal investigation into the sinking.
Starting from the beginning
The request came from a man who survived the disaster, citing information about previously unknown damage to the Estonian hull that was revealed in a new Dplay documentary.
– That’s why (the new information, editor’s note) goes to the prosecutors at my level. The case has been reviewed in various organs of the prosecution before.
TT: So you should start over?
– Exactly. Then you can say.
In part, it will go through the old criminal investigation and in part it will participate in the new information of the documentary.
– In the report they have indicated the documentary and the information that the complainant believes arose through the work of the documentary team. Therefore, the resumption of the preliminary investigation was requested.
If you decide not to initiate a new preliminary investigation, you can appeal to an attorney general. Finally, you can end up with the prosecutor again.
– It’s exactly the same thing they did in the 90s, says Wieslander.
SHK reviews the information
In parallel with the prosecutor’s work, the Swedish Accident Investigation Board (SHK) is also reviewing the new information. SHK’s preliminary assessment is intended to consider whether the new information provides grounds for reviewing the conclusions drawn in the 1997 accident report on the accident, whether further investigative measures should be taken, and if so, which ones.
TT: Could SHK’s findings affect your decision to initiate a new preliminary investigation?
– Of course, I will take into account all the information to which I have access. But I don’t want to anticipate it, I haven’t even had time to start looking at the preliminary preliminary investigation in its entirety, says Karolina Wieslander.
However, it is clear that more than 26 years have passed since the Estonian disaster and that the vast majority of possible criminal suspicions have been prohibited by law. Only the most serious crimes, such as terrorist crimes, crimes against humanity and murder, do not have a statute of limitations.
So even if the prosecutor finds reason to believe that a crime has been committed, an investigation cannot be started unless it involves crimes that do not have a statute of limitations.
– I cannot resume the preliminary investigation on crimes prohibited by law, says Karolina Wieslander.
It is unclear when he will make a decision on the issue.
– Actually, I don’t know. I can’t answer that.
Published:
