🇬🇷🇬🇧 Freedom 8

Liberta:

* Funke v. France (1993): The Court finds that the state violated the right to a fair trial by compelling an accused to provide documents that would incriminate him in a crime. The ruling emphasizes that compulsorily gathered evidence, including indirectly obtained confessions, is inadmissible.

* Tomasi v. France (1992): The ECtHR condemns France for prolonged pre-trial detention and violations of the right to a fair trial, which indirectly affects the issue of the credibility of testimonies and the lack of objective evidence.

Case Law of the UN Human Rights Committee

The Committee has likewise supported the principles of a fair trial and the prohibition of self-incrimination.

* Communication No. 272/1986, A v. Denmark: The Committee emphasizes that arbitrary detention and the lack of adequate legal guarantees violate Article 9 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the right to liberty.

* Communication No. 763/1997, Mahama v. Togo: The Committee rules that the use of testimonies obtained through coercion and without access to a lawyer violates Article 14 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of self-incrimination.

* Communication No. 1361/2005, K.N. v. Belgium: The Committee reaffirms that even in cases of a confession, it cannot be the sole basis for a conviction if it is not supported by other evidence.

Conclusion

The use of "professional witnesses" to manufacture evidence where none actually exists constitutes brutal arbitrariness and a gross violation of Principium Legalitatis, Audiatur et altera pars, Nemo Tenetur Se Ipsum Accusare, Presumptio innocentiae, Principium proportionalitatis, and Respectus iurium humanorum. This practice is a systemic abuse of justice that destroys the foundation of the rule of law and the international obligations of Bulgaria for the protection of human rights. Any conviction based solely on such testimony is unlawful and represents an absolute legal aberration.

32nd

Legal Opinion Regarding Systemic Violations of the Rule of Law Through the Use of "Professional Witnesses"

The present document analyzes the gross and systemic violations of the principles of the rule of law, the principle of legality, and fundamental human rights in the Republic of Bulgaria arising from the use of "professional witnesses" to build charges and secure convictions. These practices constitute arbitrariness aimed at the destruction of the individual through unlawful deprivation of liberty, which contradicts national and international law.

Violated Fundamental Principles

* Principle of Legality (Principium Legalitatis): Requires all actions of state authorities to be based on the law. The arbitrary creation of evidence through unverified witness statements violates Article 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the principle itself.

* Principle of a Fair Trial (Audiatur et altera pars): Guarantees the right of every accused person to be heard and to defend their interests. The use of hearsay testimony, without the possibility of cross-examination and verification, violates this right.

* Principle of the Prohibition of Self-Incrimination (Nemo Tenetur Se Ipsum Accusare): A fundamental principle of law which states that no one is obliged to accuse themselves. When a witness claims that the accused told them about a crime, this is a form of indirect self-incrimination, which is inadmissible as a basis for an accusation and a conviction.

* Presumption of Innocence (Presumptio innocentiae): Establishes that no one can be considered guilty until their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Convicting solely on the basis of hearsay claims, without objective and verifiable evidence, is a direct violation of this principle.

* Principle of Proportionality (Principium proportionalitatis): Requires that sanctions and actions of the state be proportional to the committed act. Arbitrary deprivation of liberty without proven guilt is absolutely disproportionate.

* Principle of the Protection of Human Rights (Respectus iurium humanorum): Obliges the state to respect and protect the rights of the individual. Arbitrary conviction based on unverified statements is a gross violation of the right to liberty, security, and protection.

Violated International Acts and Conventions

The use of "professional witnesses" violates the following international legal norms:

* European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

* Article 5, § 1: Violates the right to liberty and security.

* Article 6, § 1: Violates the right to a fair trial.

* Article 6, § 3, sub-paragraphs (c) and (d): Violates the right to defense and the right to examine witnesses for the prosecution.

* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):

* Article 9: Violates the right to liberty and the prohibition of arbitrary detention.

* Article 14: Violates the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of self-incrimination.

* Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU:

* Article 6: The right to liberty and security.

* Article 47: The right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.

* Article 48: Presumption of innocence and right of defense.

Relevant Case Law of International Human Rights Bodies

* Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

* Case Saunders v. United Kingdom (1996): The Court categorically rules that the use of compulsorily obtained self-incriminating statements against an accused person is in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. This decision also applies to situations where confessions are transmitted by third parties.

* Case Funke v. France (1993): The Court finds that the state violated the right to a fair trial by compelling an accused to provide documents that would incriminate him in a crime. The ruling emphasizes that compulsorily gathered evidence, including indirectly obtained confessions, is inadmissible.

* Case Buzadji v. Moldova (no. 23755/07): In this case, the ECtHR emphasized that the grounds for continued detention pending trial must be constantly reviewed and based on concrete and individual circumstances, rather than on general, formulaic wordings.

* Case Law of the UN Human Rights Committee

The Human Rights Committee is the treaty body that monitors the implementation of the ICCPR. Its decisions on individual communications are an authoritative source for the interpretation of the Covenant.

* Case A. v. Australia (Communication no. 560/1993): The Committee ruled that the state violated Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR, as the detention of a person without bringing specific charges is arbitrary and not based on grounds and procedures established by law. This underscores that even in the presence of a legislative framework, deprivation of liberty must be justified by concrete facts.

IV. Right to Compensation and Effective Remedies

The violation of the right to liberty and security entitles the affected persons to seek compensation.

* Article 5, paragraph 5 of the ECHR: Guarantees an enforceable right to compensation to everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5.

* Article 9, paragraph 5 of the ICCPR: Provides an enforceable right to compensation to any person who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention.

* Article 13 of the ECHR: Obliges states to ensure effective remedies for the protection of rights under the Convention.

* State and Municipal Liability for Damages Act (SMLDA): Bulgarian legislation provides a legal mechanism to seek compensation for unlawful detention.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations

* The described detention on the grounds of predicted future crimes without concrete facts and evidence constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, in direct violation of the principles of legality, predictability, and reasonable suspicion established in Article 5 of the ECHR, Article 9 of the ICCPR, and Article 6 of the EU Charter.

* The State is obliged to compensate the affected persons pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 5 of the ECHR and Article 9, paragraph 5 of the ICCPR.

* It is recommended that the affected persons utilize all available national legal remedies, including appealing the detention. After exhausting national remedies, they have the right to file an individual complaint with the European Court of Human Rights to establish a violation and receive compensation.

32nd

9

Legal Analysis of Arbitrary Detentions in Bulgaria and Violated Democratic Principles

The practice of arbitrary detentions carried out by the Bulgarian police represents a systemic violation of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, legality, predictability, and the prohibition of abuse of rights. This phenomenon erodes the foundations of democracy, as it transforms law enforcement authorities into an instrument for repression rather than for the protection of citizens.

The detention of persons for a period of 24 hours without specific and current factual grounds, but solely on the basis of past criminal registrations, is deeply incompatible with international and European standards.

Violated Legal Principles

* Principle of the rule of law and legality: This principle, fundamental to any democracy, requires that the actions of the state be predictable and strictly regulated by law. Arbitrary detentions that are not based on a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offense (as required by Article 5, § 1, sub-paragraph c of the ECHR) violate this principle. They also conflict with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which establishes the rule of law as one of the core values of the Union.

* Right to liberty and security: Guaranteed by Article 5 of the ECHR, Article 9 of the ICCPR, and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Detention that is not supported by concrete facts constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, which is categorically prohibited.

* Prohibition of abuse of rights: Enshrined in Article 17 of the ECHR, it prevents state authorities from using their powers for purposes other than those for which they were granted. In this case, the police use detention not to prevent crimes, but to exercise control and induce fear.

Relevant Case Law of the ECtHR and the Human Rights Committee

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR):

* Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, applications nos. 12244/86, 12245/86, 12383/86: The ECtHR categorically states that the existence of a criminal record in itself does not constitute sufficient grounds for a reasonable suspicion and therefore does not justify detention. It is mandatory to have concrete, objective, and current facts related to the commission of an offense.

* Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, application no. 11209/84: In this case, the Court established a violation of Article 5, § 3 of the ECHR, emphasizing that prolonged detention without immediate judicial review is impermissible. This also applies to the 24-hour detention in Bulgaria, given the lack of an effective mechanism for judicial review of its lawfulness.

UN Human Rights Committee:

* B. v. Australia, communication no. 216/1986: The Committee established a violation of Article 9, § 1 of the ICCPR, ruling that even short-term detention without a legal basis is arbitrary.

* A. v. Australia, communication no. 560/1993: In this case, the Committee also found a violation of Article 9, § 1 of the ICCPR, emphasizing that the detention of a person who is not suspected of a specific crime is impermissible. These decisions clearly show that deprivation of liberty must be based on concrete legal and factual grounds, not on assumptions.

Consequences and Effective Remedies

Arbitrary detentions are a legal aberration that erodes citizens trust in the state and leads to severe consequences. Victims of these violations have the right to compensation by virtue of Article 5, § 5 of the ECHR and Article 9, § 5 of the ICCPR. The protection of their rights can be achieved through:

* Filing a complaint with the prosecution office.

* A lawsuit for compensation against the state.

* A complaint to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting national remedies.

In order to put an end to this practice, a decisive reform within the Ministry of Interior is required, including the training of officers and the introduction of effective mechanisms for control and accountability.

Only in this way can it be guaranteed that the police will act as a guardian of the legal order and not as an instrument for arbitrariness.

30th

RIGHT TO LIBERTY

Author: Hey Dgo

The right to liberty is one of the most fundamental and inalienable human rights. Every person has the right to liberty and no one has the right to arbitrarily deprive them of it. This right is protected by a number of national and international acts:

Article 5, §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

Article 9, §1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Article 30 and Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria;

The principles of the rule of law, enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, where it is stipulated that the Union constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice.

Liberty is also reaffirmed by divine laws and human moral principles - "Do not take away the life and liberty of your neighbor", as well as by the fundamental principles of law:

Principle of legality (principium legalitatis) - Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege;

Principle of predictability (principium praedicibilitatis) - lex certa;

Principle of legal certainty (principium securitatis iuridicae) - lex certa, lex stricta, lex praevia;

Principle of liberty (principium libertatis) - Ubi jus, ibi libertas; Libertas est naturalis facultas eius quod cuique facere libet, nisi si quid vi aut jure prohibetur (Digests 1.5.4).

In Bulgaria, unfortunately, the right to liberty is frequently violated by the police and the prosecution authorities. It is a mass practice to detain individuals for up to 24 hours under the Ministry of Interior Act and for 72 hours by order of a prosecutor - without the presence of factual and legal grounds, without initiated criminal proceedings, and without real data regarding a committed crime. Annually, between 30,000 and 40,000 people are detained in Bulgaria, being deprived of liberty not as an exceptional measure, but as a means of pressure, repression, and personal retaliation. These practices are incompatible with the principles of the rule of law and constitute a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention.

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a number of foundational judgments related to arbitrary detention:

Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (1988) - The Court rules that detention for more than 4 days and 6 hours without judicial control violates Article 5, §3 of the Convention. This case is pivotal for limiting excessive police detention.

Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom (1984) - emphasizes the importance of a fair procedure and judicial control as guarantees against arbitrariness.

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom (1990) - The Court accepts that for a detention to be lawful, there must be a "reasonable suspicion", rather than abstract or presumptive grounds.

These decisions clearly establish that every detention must be:

1. Statutorily regulated;

2. Necessary and proportional;

3. Subject to swift and effective judicial control.

The contrary constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, incompatible with Article 5 of the Convention, international standards, and the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

Consequently, the 24-hour and 72-hour detentions in Bulgaria, applied massively and without sufficient justification, are an example of a violation of the right to liberty. They undermine trust in justice, create an atmosphere of fear, and are more reminiscent of the practices of repressive regimes than of a European democracy based on the rule of law.

THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT. NO ONE - NEITHER STATE NOR AUTHORITY - CAN ARBITRARILY IMPAIR IT.

THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY: LEGAL BASIS AND HUMAN VALUE

Liberty is one of the most fundamental and inalienable human rights. It is not only a legal norm but also a supreme human virtue that forms the foundation of any democratic society. It is enshrined in a number of national and international acts that protect it from arbitrariness and infringements.

LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF LIBERTY

Liberty in a legal sense is based on clear and fundamental principles aimed at protecting the individual from state arbitrariness. These include:

* Principle of legality (principium legalitatis): Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. (No crime, no punishment without law.) This principle guarantees that no one can be punished unless their act was explicitly declared a crime by law prior to its commission.

* Principle of predictability (principium praedicibilitatis): Lex certa. (The law is clear.) Legal norms restricting liberty must be formulated clearly enough to be comprehensible to everyone. Vague laws allow for arbitrary interpretation by the authorities, which is a direct threat to liberty.

* Principle of legal certainty (principium securitatis iuridicae): This principle combines lex certa, lex stricta (strict law), and lex praevia (prior law). It ensures stability and predictability in the legal system, guaranteeing that citizens rights are protected from sudden and obscure changes in legislation.

DIMENSIONS OF LIBERTY AND THE CHALLENGES IN BULGARIA

Despite legal guarantees, liberty is often infringed upon, not only through physical deprivation but also through violations of its other aspects. In Bulgaria, these violations manifest in various spheres:

* Personal liberty: The mass practice of detentions for 24 and 72 hours, often without sufficient justification, is an example of impairing the fundamental principles of the rule of law. These actions violate Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and undermine trust in justice.

* Political liberty: Violations of the right to free and fair elections, such as vote-buying, represent a direct infringement upon democracy. They deprive citizens of their right to choose their representatives by free will.

* Freedom of speech and the media: Bulgaria ranks among the last places in freedom of speech in the European Union. This limits citizens access to pluralistic information and hinders their ability to hold those in power accountable.

* Economic freedom: Inadequate income and rising prices can turn citizens into economic slaves who cannot afford basic needs such as housing. This situation restricts their ability to live with dignity and to develop.

* Environmental freedom: The right to live in a healthy environment is a fundamental human right. Air pollution and other environmental problems directly affect peoples health and quality of life.

* Freedom of movement: Poor road infrastructure and other obstacles to free movement within the country can indirectly restrict personal freedom of movement.

CONCLUSION

The right to liberty is inalienable and no one, neither state nor authority, can impair it arbitrarily. Liberty is at the core of every democratic society and is the sole means of protection against tyranny and dictatorship. In order to flourish, it must be valued and defended by every single citizen.