Independence of the judiciary

Judicial independence affects only judges [23] . In the conditions in which they enjoy immovability, they have the right (why not, even the obligation) to publicly expose the attempts to hijack the course of a trial. As such revelations did not take place, we understand either that the respective manifestations did not exist, or that the judges are characterized by fear [24] and then they do not deserve to exercise this high function. Of course, it is preferable that there are no such attempts with regard to prosecutors – who do not do justice. However, they have been registered over the years. And they were also in 2005 (the issue of telephone calls and meetings between certain investigated persons and representatives of the authorities).

everything must be regulated (legislative or enshrined in practice) so that people understand that any discussion of the process must take place before the judiciary, with which they must cooperate fully to help find out the truth.

From this point of view, SoJust criticizes the vote given in the Parliament regarding the house search of a parliamentarian. In a country where suspicions of corruption are acute and distrust of justice is high, such a decision has only created the belief that although it is said that we are equal before the law, some are still more equal than others. SoJust hopes that the Parliament has not become a forum from which defenses are made in trials or, moreover, cases are solved.

There were general negative assessments from some ministers or even the country’s president regarding the functioning of the legal system. SoJust considers that, within certain limits, such assessments are necessary: ​​the political class, at least now, shows interest in the functioning of the legal system in an objective way, there is the political will to reform. Political discourse is part of the politician’s tools, but we draw attention to the principles that must be promoted in such discourses: the quality of procedural documents, the need to trust the population in the system, decision-making independence, reasonable time to resolve cases [25] .

On the other hand, it is true that the other extreme must not be reached: irresponsibility. “Independence does not mean impunity magistrates justice,” said High Commissioner recently [26] . We must not forget that the magistrate obeys the law, and the law must be applied in its letter and spirit by all magistrates equally – only in this way will the unitary application of the law be reached. On the other hand, the disciplinary and moral courts of the judiciary – SCM and magistrates’ associations – must function not in order to protect magistrates, not to find deficiencies in their character or training, but to protect the population from possible abuses or mistakes. . After all, independence is not a privilege of the magistrate, but a benefit of the citizen.