As is apparent from the recently expired „pedophilia case” in the context of judicial proceedings and from the higher instance – Vilnius district – courts examined case of the Socialistic Peoples Front head Algirdas Paleckis in which revoke the acquittal announced conviction – what started was the beginning of practice of faulty prosecutorial influence to the witnesses, with a clear „abuse reserve for the future” signs. Thus before witnessing it the court search about what evidence the prosecution would like to hear… Or even shorter, – ‘know little grasshopper, before leaping against the breeze, who are you hopping against’.
In case of the ‘pedophilia case’ of criminal proceedings against the witnesses has not only the effect of ‘legitimation’ against them, but also the further intrusion in cases analysis planning characteristics. Possibly in order to obscure the ‘judicial investigation’ and the gaps in „long-waited results” (in decision of First Instance Court).
Be that as it may, the court has never designated that so-called „pedophilia fact invention ‘motive, to which D. Kedys ‘vengeances’ and a desire to ‘measure out’ a portion to A. Ūsas for the fact that this has helped the ‘o so loving’ and had up to now known from who with all our resources is ‘Mom’ protected. Well, it appears that Drąsius Kedys (according to the official version of the prosecutors) opened fire and killed two people only because of their ‘story’. So the motives were revealed by neither interrogation nor the court…
Here I can hear a ‘well-grounded’ remark that ‘Kaunas murder investigation is quite another case’. Yes, but on the entire so-called pedophilia case because of the array of reasons cannot be fully investigated in ‘local investigation’ manner. And this truth is not even denied in the ‘rule of law’ concept of splitting cases like episodes or cases exclusions in to ‘individual cases’, supposedly it is for the sake of greater objectivity, while in truth it is for the sake of investigation suppression perspective.
According to the official ‘rule of law’ concept (the ideal for law theoretic) court (judge or group of judges) adopts a procedural decision ‘also according to the witnesses’ testimony’. Meanwhile in both the pedophilia case and A. Paleckis’ judicial analysis the vicious bewitched circle precedent is being clearly created, while the DEFENCE is being admitted of ‘giving false testimony’ as soon as the charge based on prosecutors version or other prosecutors ‘attacking position’ wins. That’s exactly what happened in the case of A. Paleckis. Because now it is impossible to prove what and where shooting in to who and from what positions nearly 22 years ago (not even the footage is gone, while TV is showing the same frames all the time) then speaking about A. Paleckis case (proceed and escalated nearly two years only for his words ‘it seems… they were shooting at their own’) acquisition and defence witnesses testimony ‘battle’ in the court must be evaluated through known provisions ‘my word against your word’ prism. Further this dilemma is being solved by the court.
However now when there are cases held and conviction is announced for A. Paleckis’ witnesses, the vicious bewitched circle precedent is being created which essence is: witnesses give their testimony in the court, court ‘follows the testimony of witnesses’, court announces the decision favorable for the prosecutors, the latter is treated as evidence that defence witnesses had DELIBERATELY LIED and,,, the criminal proceedings are held for the defence witnesses.
Other similar cases becomes easier for the prosecutors – after all potential defence witnesses for other cases will be intimidated through ‘historical experience’ and also ‘more approachable’, and that is a FALL of ‘rule of law as a concept and as a vision’! Thus a defence and the right to defence as ‘rules of law’ classic immediately become discriminated. But the right is not guaranteed by declarations, but with specific leavers.
A right to a fully-fledged defence cannot be ensured without defending witnesses freely speaking out fragments of their own experience. Restricting the rights of the defending witnesses means the restriction of defence.
So in A. Paleckis’ case, witnesses for the defence has become defendants simply because (and only because it) the defence lost, after all court took on the decision that appeals the prosecutors’ position. Maybe there will be times when right after the court announces the judgment prosecutors will start suing even the lawyers of the defending side? The fall is bound to progress.
The ‘pedophilia case’ is even more complicated. Here nothing is clear, neither who is defendant nor who is defence. After all the prosecutors initiali expressed charges on A. Ūsas (without them the court would not have started at all) and later reneged these allegations.
By the way, according to prosecutor E. Motiejūnas logic, the case should be also held for… the same prosecutors, who originally „blame”, and then retract everything, after all that prosecutors had done exactly the same thing as Dr. Bloznelytė, which gave up her earlier testimony in court (by the way, I think it is highly interesting parallel, possibly suggesting about a certain shadow ‘leader’ presence in this case).
Well, in this case there were no charges and so there was no defence. I mean the classic definition of these words described values.
But prosecutors (after retraction its original provisions) had some unpleasant witnesses. They are the ones having cases on their heads for supposedly false testimony. Only based by the fact that their testimony ‘might not have been recorded’ in (still ineffective) courts’ judgment. Based on the fact that the prosecutors, who themselves retracted their original provisions, did not like it.
By the way what was it that prosecutors ‘did not like’? Where is the evidence that the witnesses were „deliberately” lying? After all this is, how people, one person’s word against another person’s word!
Here V. Kedys testified that he had seen Ūsas there and there who wore such and such ‘clothes’. Who can deny it? The ‘movie’ does not exist. So V. Kedys testimony about the fact that he saw Ūsas there and there, in such and such „clothing” might be challenged only by witnesses… of the other side. And maybe it was them that were ‘false’. It was also testimony made by ‘interested party’. This is the meaning of expreassion of ‘your word against my word’.
So let’s go back to the subject while keeping it simple and clear. Witness in court carries out his civic duty (by the way, precisely because of that he must be defended by the law from any kind of pressure!). In the court he says what he saw, what he knows, what he heard, what he thinks of… Finally, witness says is what he says. The court examines and evaluates the testimony of witnesses. Receives decision, ‘and according to witness testimony’ (of course that includes witnesses assessments) one side loses. There will never be an ideal – court, as a subject, will never get free from subjectivity.
But the demise starts and then progresses, when it losing side becomes object on the ‘prosecution effect’. When the law, alien to presumption of innocence and right, reigns – ‘winners are not judged, while the losing side is ultimately dealt with’ (as in vengeful gladiator fights). When witnesses after completing their civic duty becomes defendants solely on the ‘basis’ that they represented the unsuccessful half…
By the way, this fall makes any judicial disputes and justice as a whole, into a farce. Or maybe it already did?
Sergej Sokolov
