Chapter 1
ZZ ROPIKO:
Opinion: Categorical Violation of International Law by the Bulgarian Authorities
The Bulgarian authorities and the judicial system systematically and categorically violate fundamental principles of international law by ignoring their obligations under international treaties and standards. The practice of "secret justice" during the appellate review of the legality of detention serves as a stark example of these violations.
Specific Violations of International Law
* Violation of the Principle of Habeas Corpus and the Right to Liberty and Security
* International Law: Article 5, §4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees every detained person the right to a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention. This review must be effective.
* Action by Authorities: When the appellate instance, under Articles 270 and 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), examines a request for the modification of a measure of constraint in the absence of the accused and their defense counsel, it deprives the individual of the opportunity to be personally brought before a court. This renders the review formal and invalid, directly violating the right to liberty and security.
* Violation of the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Defense
* International Law: Article 6, §2 of the ECHR and Article 14, §2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) establish the presumption of innocence. Every person is considered innocent until proven guilty according to the law. To ensure this, Article 6, §3 of the ECHR and Article 14, §3 of the ICCPR guarantee the right of the accused to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance.
* Action by Authorities: Conducting "secret justice," where the accused cannot be present, present evidence, or challenge the prosecutor's arguments, hollows out the right to defense. This violates the "equality of arms," which is a core element of a fair trial as established by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
* Violation of the Principle of Primacy of International Law
* International Law: Article 5, Para. 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria explicitly states that international treaties ratified by Bulgaria take precedence over domestic legislative norms that contradict them.
* Action by Authorities: Bulgarian courts systematically apply national norms (such as those permitting the secret examination of cases) that are in direct contradiction with international standards. In doing so, they nullify the effect of international treaties, leaving them without practical application and committing an abuse of the law.
Conclusion
The secret appellate review of the legality of detention is a systematic and intentional violation that reveals a deep-seated issue in the Bulgarian administration of justice. This practice is in direct contradiction with the principles of fairness, publicity, equality of arms, and the right to defense, as affirmed by the ECHR, the ICCPR, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the national Constitution. Depriving the accused of the opportunity to be heard by the court is a violation of their individual rights and the fundamental principles of a state governed by the rule of law.
12
Opinion: Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee Regarding Human Rights Violations in Bulgaria
The violations of the right to a fair trial described in the previous opinion are not isolated incidents but a systemic problem repeatedly observed by international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the UN Human Rights Committee provides clear evidence of this.
1. Violations Established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
The ECtHR has repeatedly condemned Bulgaria for violations of Article 5 of the ECHR (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial) in the application of measures of constraint.
* Violation of Article 5, §4 (Effective Judicial Review):
* The ECtHR holds that the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention must provide guarantees of equality of arms and be adversarial. Depriving a person of the opportunity to be present and heard, as well as a lack of access to a lawyer, are primary reasons for judgments against the state.
* Example: In the case of Nikolov v. Bulgaria, the ECtHR found that the lack of opportunity for the accused to attend the hearing where the appeal against his arrest was examined constituted a violation of the right to effective judicial review of the lawfulness of detention.
* Violation of Article 6, §1 (Fair Trial):
* The ECtHR emphasizes that, beyond transparency, the process must ensure equality of arms. Examining a case in the absence of the accused and their defense counsel violates this principle, as the prosecutor is given the opportunity to present their position without facing opposition.
* Example: In the case of Koynarski v. Bulgaria, the Court noted that the lack of sufficient time to prepare the defense and the holding of a hearing without the presence of the defendant's lawyer constituted a violation of the right to defense and the principles of a fair trial.
2. Violations Established by the UN Human Rights Committee
The Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has also identified serious problems within the Bulgarian judicial system.
* Violation of Article 9 (Right to Liberty and Security):
* The Committee draws attention to prolonged detention and the lack of adequate judicial control. It criticizes Bulgaria for ineffective judicial practice in the review of measures of constraint, which leads to unjustifiably long periods of pre-trial detention.
* Violation of Article 14 (Fair Trial and Right to Defense):
* In its reports and views on individual communications, the Committee emphasizes that states are obliged to ensure publicity and equality of arms in criminal proceedings. The practice of secret examination of cases is in direct contradiction to these requirements.
Conclusion
The case law of the ECtHR and the Human Rights Committee clearly shows that violations of the right to a fair trial in Bulgaria are not incidental but are a systemic problem that continues to persist. The condemnatory judgments and views highlight that "secret justice" during the review of measures of constraint is in direct contradiction with international and European standards. To fulfill its international obligations, Bulgaria must urgently take measures to guarantee the effective application of the principles of publicity, adversarial proceedings, and the right to defense in every single judicial process.
13
Statement by Emil Dimitrov Milev on Human Rights
I declare with indignation and resolve that in Bulgaria, we are witnessing a creeping and escalating tyranny, carried out through the judicial system while masquerading as a democracy. This is a deep-seated systemic problem that directly violates our country's international commitments.
The Letter of the Law Being Violated
The Bulgarian state and its institutions, including the courts, are grossly and deliberately violating the following fundamental legal norms:
* Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):
* Article 5, §4 (Right to liberty and security): The systemic practice of holding appellate hearings on measures of constraint in secret, without the presence of the accused and their defense counsel, is a direct violation of the right to effective judicial review. The Court in Strasbourg has condemned Bulgaria for this practice, as it hollows out the principle of Habeas Corpus.
* Article 6, §1 (Right to a fair trial): Secret justice destroys the principles of publicity, adversarial proceedings, and equality of arms. This is an abuse of the law that turns the judicial process into a parody.
* Article 6, §2 (Presumption of innocence): When a court reaches a decision in the absence of the accused and the defense, it acts with bias, failing to provide the accused with the opportunity to defend themselves effectively, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence.
* Violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
* Article 14 (Fair trial): The Covenant guarantees every person the right to a public hearing and an effective right to defense. Bulgarian practice stands in total contradiction to these requirements.
* Violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR):
* Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial): The protection of rights is reduced to a mere formality when the court operates "in the dark." This transforms the judicial system into a tool of power rather than a guarantor of rights.
* Article 48 (Presumption of innocence and right of defense): The Charter explicitly affirms the right of defense. Secret justice renders the exercise of this right impossible.
* Violations of the Treaties of the European Union:
* The Rule of Law Principle: As an EU member state, Bulgaria is obligated to uphold the fundamental principles of the rule of law. When the judiciary deliberately violates international law, it undermines the principle of mutual trust between member states and calls into question its membership in the Union, which is an area of freedom, security, and justice.
Conclusion
This is a creeping tyranny that destroys the rule of law and mocks Bulgaria's international commitments. We cannot remain passive in the face of this arbitrariness, which strips all legal human rights guarantees of their meaning.
14
Presumption of Innocence: Detailed Analysis and Core Aspects
Legal Basis
* Article 6, §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." This is a crucial guarantee establishing that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, not the accused.
* Article 14, §2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
Similarly, the ICCPR states: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." This principle has a universal character and is applied globally.
* Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR):
The Charter reaffirms this principle, stating: "Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." This article ensures that the presumption of innocence is applied across all areas of EU law.
Core Aspects of the Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence is not merely a sentence in the law; it comprises several essential aspects that make it an effective legal protection:
* Burden of Proof: The prosecution is obligated to present sufficient evidence to convince the court of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to prove their innocence.
* Right to Silence: The accused has the right not to provide explanations or testimony that would incriminate them. No one can be compelled to testify against themselves.
* Admissibility of Evidence: All evidence gathered in violation of the law (e.g., through illegal wiretapping) must be excluded from the proceedings. This is a fundamental guarantee of fairness.
* Conduct of Authorities: Until a person's guilt is established by a final judgment, they must be treated as innocent. This applies to public statements by state officials (police, prosecutors) and the media, who must not portray the accused as guilty before the court has reached its verdict.
* Right to Defense: The presumption of innocence is inextricably linked to the right to defense. The accused must have the opportunity to defend themselves, cross-examine witnesses, present their own evidence, and receive legal assistance.
* Benefit of the Doubt (In Dubio Pro Reo): If, after examining all evidence, any reasonable doubt remains regarding the guilt of the accused, the court is obligated to rule in their favor and acquit them.
15
Statement by Emil Dimitrov Milev: State-Organized Media Campaign and Violation of the Presumption of Innocence
I note with deep concern and indignation that one of the most insidious forms of human rights violations is being practiced in Bulgaria: a state-organized media campaign against accused persons. This practice represents a serious blow to the rule of law and hollows out the principle of the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial.
Factual Aspect of the Violation
In practice, we observe the following:
* The Prosecution and the Ministry of Interior hold briefings where accused persons are presented as guilty before the court has reached a verdict. Expressions such as "we have exposed a criminal group" or "we have established guilt" are frequently used, suggesting to the public that guilt has already been proven.
* The media, instead of remaining objective and presenting all points of view, actively participate in this campaign. They use the information released by the prosecution and present it as an indisputable fact, creating a public conviction before the judicial one.
* Individuals are subjected to humiliation and public pressure. Their reputations are destroyed, which carries severe consequences for their future, even if they are ultimately acquitted by the court.
Legal Aspect of the Violation
From a legal standpoint, this practice is a gross violation of fundamental international and European legal norms:
* Violation of Article 6, §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): The ECtHR has repeatedly ruled that authorities must refrain from public statements that could suggest a person is guilty before a final conviction is secured.
* Violation of Article 14, §2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): The Covenant obligates states to treat the accused as innocent until their guilt is proven. A media campaign organized by state institutions stands in direct contradiction to this obligation.
* Violation of Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR): The Charter guarantees the presumption of innocence. The conduct of state-driven media campaigns renders this guarantee entirely meaningless, as society has already reached its decision based not on legal evidence, but on suggestion and propaganda.
Ultimately, this practice not only undermines the fairness of the trial but also transforms state institutions into instruments of public terror. It demonstrates that the Bulgarian state is failing to uphold its core commitments and is instead deliberately creating conditions for the violation of citizens' rights.
16
Statement by Emil Dimitrov Milev: Disclosure of Case Materials – A Grave Violation of the Presumption of Innocence and Fundamental Rights
I declare with deep concern and indignation that the practice of state institutions—the Ministry of Interior, the Prosecution, and even the courts—disclosing materials and evidence from criminal cases through the media and the internet is not merely professional negligence, but a systemic and intentional violation of fundamental human rights. This phenomenon represents one of the most dangerous and destructive aspects of Bulgarian "justice," as it directly undermines the presumption of innocence and compromises the entire judicial process.
The Factual Side of the Abuse
We observe a recurring scenario where investigative information—witness testimonies, photographs, audio recordings, or other documents—is leaked to the media. This occurs before the case has entered the judicial phase and long before a court has assessed the credibility of such evidence. State authorities use the media as a platform for public condemnation, creating a "media trial" that runs parallel to the official one.
As a result, the accused is publicly convicted in the eyes of society, and their reputation and private life are completely destroyed. This practice does not simply inform; it manipulates public opinion, making an impartial hearing of the case in court impossible.
Legal Side: A Complex Violation of Fundamental Rights
This practice stands in direct contradiction to numerous international and European legal norms that Bulgaria is obliged to uphold:
* Violation of the Presumption of Innocence:
Article 6, §2 of the ECHR and Article 14, §2 of the ICCPR categorically state that everyone shall be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. When the state itself discloses case materials, it directly violates this principle by suggesting that guilt has already been established. This abuse is also in direct conflict with Article 48 of the EU Charter.
* Violation of the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life:
The dissemination of investigative materials, which often contain personal data, photographs, or information about the family of the accused, is a gross infringement on the right to private and family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the EU Charter.
* Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial:
The disclosure of evidence outside the courtroom compromises the impartiality of the court. Potential jurors, judges, and witnesses are subjected to media pressure and already hold formed opinions on the guilt or innocence of the accused, which undermines Article 6, §1 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter.
* Abuse of the Freedom of Expression:
At first glance, it appears the media are simply exercising their right to freedom of expression. In reality, however, when state authorities are the source of information aimed at discrediting an individual, freedom of expression is transformed into a tool for propaganda. This is an abuse of power that hollows out the function of the media as the "fourth estate" and protector of the public interest.
Conclusion
This practice is dangerous and anti-democratic. It shows that the Bulgarian authorities use justice and the media not to seek the truth, but to destroy those who are inconvenient. This is a mockery of human rights and the fundamental principles of the rule of law. As a human rights defender, I am adamant that such actions must be condemned and terminated immediately.
17
