The apparent revenge of the new government is an introduction to the Maidan in Poland. Some voters of the new government want blood. Common sense tells us to say: yes, but so what?
Article 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997 states:
The law on pardon is applied by the President of the Republic of Poland. The pardon law does not apply to persons convicted by state tribunals.
At present we have a situation where all legal doubts work against the accused. This is characteristic of totalitarian systems.
However, the Constitutional Tribunal states that:
The Constitutional Tribunal stated that the right to pardon is specified in Art. 139 of the Constitution – is the prerogative of the President, which derives from Art. 144 Section 3 Clause 18 of the Constitution. He emphasized that two concepts should be distinguished: the broader “law of grace” and the narrower “pardon”. The second concept applies only to legally convicted persons, while the first concept, in addition to the complete or partial removal of the sentence (including the reduction of its severity), also includes an act of individual amnesty, which includes a ban. To initiate proceedings against a specific person or to suspend and terminate already initiated proceedings. The formulation of art. Article 139 of the Constitution clearly states that the President can exercise the power of pardon, including the act of individual amnesty. Here we cannot talk about the “presumption of competence” of the President in terms of the application of individual amnesty, because it directly follows from the use of the most general possible formula by the legislator.
(…)
The constitutional provision only excludes the possibility of applying the amnesty law to persons convicted by a state tribunal.
Source: https://trybunal.gov.pl/postepowanie-i-orzeczenia/komunikaty-prasowe/kom…
To summarize, the constitution here is very general and allows for the right to pardon as the President of the Republic of Poland deems appropriate.
In addition, the Constitutional Tribunal found that:
The Tribunal did not share the view that individual amnesty violates the principle of separation of powers and the principle of the right to a trial. The president does not administer justice or determine truth, guilt or punishment. Therefore, the use of the right to pardon does not constitute an interference with the judiciary.
Judge Piotr Mirek believes:
– The right of pardon can be exercised only for those persons whose crime has entered into the legal force of the court.
A judge can be careful. I ask, does the law prohibit this?
Comment:
Meanwhile, everyone forgets what Kaminski and Vesik are all about.
The issue is that the legalization documents used by the SSB during the operation in the Ministry of Agriculture in 2007 (as ID cards to hide the identity of the officers) were not recorded in the registers, which the Internal Security Agency found during the destruction. documents. The CBA probably wouldn't support its enemies, so there was a lack of caution.
In law, there is such a thing as a “question of the highest order”. It wasn't really a serious crime, just an oversight. The current government is only interested in political settlement and that's it. It's just a nasty revenge, that's all.