IMMUNITY IS NOT IMPUNITY
If a parliamentary hearing as a witness does not pose any difficulties and does not involve the lifting of parliamentary immunity, the situation is more delicate when it 's acts to continue when he is suspected of having committed an offense.
immunity does not mean impunity. It aims to ensure the proper functioning of the Legislature, not to protect the parliamentarian as an individual. The House should simply check if the request is sincere and serious.
To be honest, it can not be inspired by other motives than a proper administration of justice. To be serious, it can not hurt obviously no legal impediment, especially if there is sufficient evidence on the existence of the alleged facts.
A request for waiver of parliamentary immunity whether formulated by the Government Commissioner or the Magistrate, tends only to allow the exercise of public action. Besides, you know the saying "nobody is above the law."
It is unthinkable that a section of the parliament to oppose the lifting of immunity of one of its members under the pretext, for example, that this will hinder the normal work of the Assembly whose parliamentary belongs.
One can not imagine having been denied a waiver of immunity of a senator or a MP, because it can see the exercise of his mandate impeded by interrogation and even an indictment, or that his arrest may have the effect of upsetting the balance of power that result in the parliament.
was not to balance the need to ensure the normal administration of justice and of ensuring the proper functioning of the parliamentary institution. Any request for waiver of immunity made by the justice should be executed because of this lack of formality, and provided there is no flagrante delicto, any judicial inquiry to identify evidence or even an indication of guilt in charge is zero, and without regard for the public prosecutor or investigating magistrate handling the case.
However, despite this coverage, and this largesse Constitution under Article 114, the legislature is not an untouchable because in case of flagrante delicto, he is deprived of the benefit of immunity. And that is why we insist that Article 115 of the constitution does not enshrine the absolute impunity of parliamentarians. These, during the session and provided there is no evidence for red-handed carrying an afflictive and degrading, are protected against arbitrary arrest or prosecution.
By protecting this way, the grantor had no other purpose than to protect the public against any threat to the way they expressed their vote during elections. That is to say, the immunity is to prevent the executive and judiciary, for arbitrary decisions, alter the balance of power in parliament and thus jeopardize the operation thereof.
Explained in this way, the immunity can be analyzed as an accompanying measure of the system democratic. It is also necessary that parliamentarians, when ruling on a request to lift immunity on one of their peers, do not adopt a protectionist attitude. In other words, the arbitrary nature of proceedings shall be proved for a House refuses to lift the immunity of one of its members.
Heidi FORTUNE
Magistrate, Magistrate
Cap-Haitien, Haiti
This
February 24, 2008 Read more ... 
0 comments:
Post a Comment