The CSOs Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, Coalition All for Fair Trials, Institute for Human Rights, Macedonian Young Lawyers Association, Center for Legal Research and Analysis, European Policy Institute and Foundation Open Society – Macedonia, which are part of the Blueprint group of organizations focused on monitoring of the judicial reforms and advocating their implementation, disagree with the way in which amendments to the Law on Public Prosecutor’s Office (the Law) are being passed. This law governs the future existence, functioning and remit of the current Special Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) without proper analysis of the significant problems related to SPO’s work, which have been known since the very beginning of the existence of this Prosecutor’s Office, and without taking the past recommendations of CSOs and experts into consideration as well. Therefore, we demand further drawing up of the Law’s amendments, with provisions regarding the future status and work of the SPO into the main focus.
As CSOs, we react to the non-transparent preparation of the Law, absence of consultations and inclusion of civil society organizations as well as experts, which creates direct distrust in SPO’s further functioning. Overall, CSOs didn’t form part of the working group that prepared amendments to laws in the criminal-legal area. In addition, the version of the Bill on Amending the Law on Public Prosecutor’s Office, adopted by the Government, differs from working group’s version that we were presented with through the Council for Monitoring the Judicial Reforms. As CSOs that are taking part in the Council’s work, we believe that by doing so, failing to act upon Council’s recommendations, it’s role will be perceived as decorative and it will not execute its main mission – control over the implementation of the Judicial Reform Strategy 2017 – 2022.
Last, but not least, the Law was adopted by the Government but was not published on ENER, and in fast-track procedure, meaning that the possibility for participation of interested parties is excluded, which also affects Law’s quality and contributes to non-transparent policy creation.
We use this opportunity to point out that the proposed solution for further existence, functioning and remit of the SPO runs against the goals it was established in the first place, which are fight against high corruption and organized and systemic abuse of the state and state resources for fulfilling vested interests and property gain (so-called “state capture”). Limiting the possibility for using the audio materials, so-called “bombs”, as evidence, poses the question: what is the essence of SPO’s existence if the “bombs” cannot be used as evidence? This decision concerning the bombs imposes several dilemmas:
- Can a law limit the use of a specific type of evidence for which the domestic, as well as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, have established that the aim for which it had been obtained justifies its use (national courts in cases “Spy” and “Nanny” and judgments of the ECtHR),
- Can the legislator order the court not to consider the already accepted evidence in ongoing proceedings (the “bombs”, our remark) and isn’t that direct meddling in judiciary’s independence and limiting the principle of free judge’s assessment of evidence?
- Does the remit of the current department for prosecuting organized crime overlap with newly proposed one’s that’s supposed to replace the SPO? To wit, the proposed law doesn’t make a clear distinction between the remit of the existing department for organized crime and the newly formed department that is supposed to replace the SPO. Also, it is unclear what does “an appointed official” mean?
- Will the existing legal solution bring SPO’s autonomy and functionality into question, as well as the justification for its existence from the aspect of built capacities, human and material resources if it is to be transposed in the public prosecutor’s office?
- Due to the aforesaid reasons, the civil society organizations demand from the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia to withdraw the Bill on Public Prosecutor’s Office and return it to the relevant ministry, which, in a participative and transparent process, will finish drawing up the Law by taking the recommendations into consideration.
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
Coalition All for Fair Trials
Institute for Human Rights
Macedonian Young Lawyers Association
Center for Legal Research and Analysis
European Policy Institute
Foundation Open Society – Macedonia
—————————————————
13 March 2019