The obstruction of justice must stop

The obstruction of justice must stop
Erol Rizaov

If the government really is to save the essential element of democracy, it should quickly apply the moves and means of securing the rule of law. During this year and a half after the change of power, the practice shows that the liberation of the institutions and the constitutionally guaranteed principles are not enough. Macedonia has long had these mechanisms, but the most important functions of the justice system are blocked. In the division of justice, a severe diversion from the previous corrupt government has been made, which has constructed and built an anti-legal social order in the protection of crime headed by the president of the state. That rotten system must undergo general overhaul not only in terms of staffing, but much more in the legislative part, and in the departisation of the judiciary.

For months we see the powerlessness, but also the intentional sloppiness of the judiciary to carry out a single process of indicted former senior officials. It is not about complex trials with many ambiguities and lengthy debates on the jury, nor is it understandable and necessary caution of the judges to ensure that basic human rights are not violated, and also not violate the legal procedure. These are not situations like the famous long trials in legal states. Far from it. In our case, it is a matter of obstruction of justice by the powerful recidivism of the fallen regime and the inconsistencies in the legislation that tie their hands, and the judges who want to do their work according to the law. It is therefore necessary in the shortest possible time to legislate the regulation of the functioning of the judiciary on issues that are not regulated, or are insufficiently covered by the laws.

In all countries where the rule of law is at a high level, where citizens have gained confidence in the judiciary, the pillars of the well-established legal system are the severe penalties against occurrences and actions that grossly undermine the rule of law and impede its consistent accomplishment. In this regard, the government, the parliament and the holders of the justice system need to quickly take the most vigorous measures to bring in the necessary laws and legislative changes that will sanction the obstruction of justice with severe penalties. Otherwise, the biggest benefit of the regime's defeat and the change of government will be diminished by banishing the delays of court hearings from corrupt bureaucracy with good prospects Macedonia to return to the old track when justice was present in the party headquarters.

That trend of trivializing court proceedings from day to day, with every delay in trials and sentences, turns into a general misrepresentation and ridicule more of the inability of the authorities and the judiciary to disable the impediment of justice than to the former high officials accused of abuse of power, crime and corruption, by rigging election results and another bunch of grave crimes. Some explain this as a tax on freedom and excessive democracy, which is either a great ignorance at best, or in most cases a severe manipulation of one part of the public in the style of the sticky story of Murto and Kurto. As if both of them are stealing, the judges do their jobs by order of both of them when they are in power, there are both corruption and bribery in one and the other, elections are held both by each other, neither one of them pay taxes, from where do they both get their money.... long-known doctrines of placing themselves in one basket so that the calculation with the holders of organized crime and the abuse of power and authorizations is to be dissolved to the end.

In that direction, judicial reforms should also take place that will hinder the slowness of justice, which turns into a great injustice. Both the plaintiffs and the judges, and lawyers are well aware of their practice and experience of how unjust late justice can be. It's hard to describe that horror and suffering of innocent people after years of imprisonment, in prison, and after the destruction of life and existence. In the court, the arguments of the type do not apply, both the one and the other committed the crimes, but everyone should separately confront the cantor that measures the justice that should be blind in relation to those who are the perpetrators of the law. Evidence is the strongest trump card for each judgment. They have, or are not, everything else in front of the real court is garlic and water. The court does not look at it or interest it. It's a matter of politics and the public. Unfortunately, in Macedonia, the majority of citizens have not yet mastered the difference between law and justice in most of the media. It's always big differences whose rejection causes strong emotions and pressures in the most delicate trials.

Recorded conversations acquired illegally are not decisive evidence, but are a good basis for a thorough investigation. It's the same as the recorded incursion into parliament on April 27 with attempts to kill MPs and obstruct the work of parliament. The defendants, of course, can argue that this is not true, that the footage is mounted and require expertise and stronger evidence from the footage that they actually hit someone in the parliament where they just walked and protested, that they did not violate the law with the defendants are within their jurisdiction to interfere with the violence they condemn, that they do not feel guilty that they have opened the doors of the people and the thugs to beat MPs etc., etc. But when the undeniable evidence is brought before the court, then, there is nothing left for defense than to assert that it is political compromise and retaliation. When it becomes unconvincing and insufficient, the evidence and testimonies apply the tactic of delaying the trials in order to divert and trivialize the work, so that the public will be completely disinterested after many years of trial for the epilogue of the greatest abuse of power in the history of independent Macedonia.

These days, one lawyer for the defendants, the highest officials of the former government, wanting to be specific and original in his statement about the innocent people's trial, quoted the headline of Djordje Balasevic's latest hit "Dno Dna" (“The lowest of the low”) in front of the cameras. The democrat's trial of his clients was the lowest of the low ,the counselor wanted to say. It is so, but the lawyer did not understand the song, nor Balasevic's message, or maybe played the card that public had forgotten about what his clients were accused of. Balasevic's poem is inspired by exactly those of his clients and corrupt rulers and despots. Therefore, where it was addressed that the "lowest of the low" occurs, it is forbidden. Do you understand, counselor, give us other arguments.

Share with your friends: