The recent intervention of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office, on the occasion of the decision not to impose pre-trial detention on public officials accused of corruption cases, is causing legitimate concern both in legal circles and in the wider society.
Pre-trial detention is the strictest procedural measure and is only provided for under strict conditions: risk of flight, recurrence or repetition of criminal activity, and sufficient evidence of guilt. It is neither a punishment nor a means of social relaxation. The constitutionally enshrined principle of the presumption of innocence (Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) prohibits the treatment of the accused as guilty before his final conviction.
One may agree or disagree with the judicial decision not to order pre-trial detention. However, the public intervention of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office, especially when it appears as a value judgment on the judicial work, touches the limits of institutional deviation. The separation of powers, the foundation of every state governed by the rule of law, imposes the independence of justice – not only in its operation, but also in the perception that society forms of it.
The impression that the supreme prosecutor’s office controls or influences the judgments of investigators and judicial councils does not strengthen trust in institutions; it undermines it. Especially when it comes to high-profile cases, the issue is institutional self-restraint and the defense of the independence of Justice from all kinds of pressures – institutional, political or communication.
Tackling corruption is indeed of the utmost importance. However, it cannot be done at the expense of fundamental rights or with tools that involve punitive arbitrariness. If the rule of law gives way in the name of spectacle or expediency, then corruption has already won.
Konstantinos G. Parigoris
Lawyer at the Supreme Court