Oha! Prämierminister Jatsenjuk und Innenminister Avakov wollen zum 1. Juni die juristische Unschuldsvermutung streichen. Mit anderen Worten sie stellen den Rechtsstaat in Frage.
Ukrainische Zeitung Vesti-ukr:
http://vesti-ukr.com/strana/98992-jacenbk-i-avakov-zapretjat-voditeljam-sporit-s-milicionerami (Archiv-Version vom 10.05.2015)Yatsenyuk and Avakov will prohibit the drivers to argue with the police
The presumption of innocence will be canceled from June 1
The new patrol service in Kiev must work on the presumption of innocence of the police. About this today during a visit to the national Academy of internal Affairs, where young police cadets are being trained for future patrols, said the Minister of internal Affairs Arsen Avakov, reports LigaBusinessInform.
"The Idea was such that if a police officer stopped a car and blaimed this car of violation, you must first obey, and then complain, rather than just saying: prove that it was me. That is, the presumption of innocence of the police objectively... Without this it is impossible to work", - he noted.
In der Ukraine gilt also jetzt "First obey, then complain!".
Nur bei wem sollen sich die Bürger denn beschweren wenn sie zum Beispiel Polizeigewalt ausgesetzt sind? Gibt es in der Ukraine eine Instanz die in der Lage wäre bei einem Streit zwischen dem Bürger und dem Staat ein objektives Urteil zu fällen? Nein sicher nicht. Die Ukrainischen Autofahrer werden hier unter Generalverdacht gestellt. Du bist zum Verbrecher erklärt worden, und du hast keine Möglichkeiten deine Unschuld zu erstreiten.
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk added that the presumption of innocence of the citizen, spelled out in the Constitution refers only to criminal offences. "It is necessary to distinguish between criminal and administrative responsibility... It's not so much a legal question as a political one. With the legal part, we quickly figured out. Not here in General discussion. The presumption of innocence for administrative responsibility does not exist in the Constitution", - he noted.
Huh, jetzt gehts plötzlich nicht nur um irgendwelche Streitereien zwischen Polizisten und Autofahrern, sondern ganz grundsätzlich um alles was unter Administrative Verantwortung fällt.
Although in 2010 the constitutional court of Ukraine ruled that the presumption of innocence also applies to administrative offences.
Thus, in step 4.1 the CCU decision No. 23-RP/2010 dated 22.12.2010 stated that: "the constitutional Court of Ukraine on the basis set out came to the conclusion that administrative responsibility in Ukraine and the procedure of bringing to administrative responsibility are based on constitutional principles and legal presumptions due to the recognition and effect of the rule of law in Ukraine" "the Elements of the rule of law are the principles of equality and justice, legal certainty, clarity and unambiguous legal rules, because otherwise its equal application cannot be ensured and does not preclude the unrestricted interpretation, enforcement and practice, and inevitably leads to tyranny", - stated in the decision of the constitutional court.
Klarer Widerspruch. Das Verfassungsgericht der Ukraine hat schon 2010 entschieden, dass die in der Verfassung verankerte Unschuldsvermutung natürlich sich auch auf Administrative Vergehen erstreckt. Weil alles Andere zur Tyranei führt.
On this basis, the constitutional court concluded that article 62 of the Constitution (the person is guilty of a crime and may be subject to criminal punishment until her guilt is proved through legal procedure and established a court conviction. No one is obliged to prove his innocence of a crime) applies to administrative violations.
Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass der Premierminister der Ukraine so schlecht mit der Verfassung vertraut ist. Das ist Kalkül.
The fact that the dispute with a police officer and a policeman on the road will not have any sense if the duties of the police will be included only administrative Protocol. The Protocol itself is not punishment, but simply fixing the circumstances. The very same matter should be considered by the court and in the court of police will be required to provide proof of guilt of the driver. However, Yatsenyuk and Avakov want the police officer did execute judgment and no other person evaluated his evidence.
In this case, undoing the presumption of innocence for all administrative violations, it is cancelled in those cases that are considered by the court. That is, the human right being denied the right to a fair trial and sentence will be without a single evidence of his guilt is just according to police.
Ein Polizeistaat ist sicher nicht das was man auf dem Maidan gefordert hatte.