The announcement of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court on the conclusion of the case of telephone monitoring, naturally, disturbed many and made some others angry. In this particular case there were not a few who invested professionally and politically and now feel that they have lost. I will not refer to the arguments put forward by the protestors as, like them, I have not read the 300 pages of the case file documenting the decision of Mrs. Georgia Adelini. I assume – not to say that I am certain – that strong evidence put the surveillance case on the record on the one hand and led to the referral to Justice of four involved individuals.
Reading the objections of the protestors, I saw in them, in addition to an embarrassment, the introduction of extra-procedural criteria into their judgment. Thus, a university teacher referred to “decisions that offend the intelligence of citizens”. Is there a foolproof measure that not only accurately captures citizens’ intelligence, but also interprets it objectively? Where does it come from that the citizens want this decision and not the other? From polls? Since when are the beliefs of a group of individuals considered to represent the whole of society? I am very much afraid that the eminent professor throws out of the window the repulsive “popular sentiment about justice,” with which the judges should be attuned. I do not extend my thought because I will be led to the mob image presented by our courtrooms when hearing cases of “social interest”.
Should judicial officials not form their judicial judgment based on the evidence, but by listening to society?
But also a serious political commentator, also dissatisfied with the announcement of the Supreme Court prosecutor, wrote that “the Justice cannot be indifferent to the expectations that society has from the outcome of an investigation, a preliminary examination or a trial”. What does this “can’t care less” mean, perhaps that judicial officers should not form their judicial judgment based on the evidence, but by listening to society? Which society? There is no single expression of it. Opinions often differ on critical issues. But even if there was a unified expression, what would its expectations be shaped by what engaging performances? And why should the judges, if their own evidence were unshakable, set it aside in order not to be indifferent to the “expectations of society?”
Admittedly the surveillance case raises some questions different from those raised by the protestors, given that they too admit the legitimacy of the links. The main question now is who and why were 28 Greek citizens being monitored with the predator application? What was their motivation? What special did each of the 28 do? Questions that apparently will not be answered.
2024-08-02 17:07:00