McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

  ... and yet ... the fact remains that the Portuguese authorities reopened Madeleine's case in 2013.

thanks Brietta...

[G-Unit]

  ... and yet ... the fact remains that the Portuguese authorities reopened Madeleine's case in 2013.

If the McCann's lawyers are correct, the Public Ministry may find themselves having to justify the grounds they quoted for the archiving and reopening of the case. It may be them and not the Supreme Court who are being accused of breaching the human rights of the McCanns.

[Carana]

perhaps you are not following the debate...this is a very important point and has not yet been explained...gunit says the case could not be opened...carana says it could...as it actually was i would appreciate gunits explanation

Read further up, Davel.

G-Unit or Slarti then later provided the SC reasoning. It could have been opened under the initial one but SC decided that it ought to have been archived under 277/2.

What I can't find for the moment is this "memo for the media" - to see if that is what is was actually opened under, as opposed to what the SC decided it should have been 3 years after the fact.

[Mr Gray]

Read further up, Davel.

G-Unit or Slarti then later provided the SC reasoning. It could have been opened under 177/1, but SC decided that it ought to have been archived under 277/2. P

What I can't find for the moment is this "memo for the media" - to see if that is what is was actually opened under, as opposed to what the SC decided it should have been 3 years after the fact.

So it could be re-opened even if archived under 277/1....I was under the impression the judges said it couldnt

[Brietta]

If the McCann's lawyers are correct, the Public Ministry may find themselves having to justify the grounds they quoted for the archiving and reopening of the case. It may be them and not the Supreme Court who are being accused of breaching the human rights of the McCanns.

It will be interesting to have sight of the basis of the complaint the McCann lawyers have raised on their behalf with the ECHR.
It will be interesting to see how the ECHR will deal with the complaint.

Just as sceptics appeared to have a vested interest in Madeleine's case not being reopened and properly investigated ... they appear to be in some denial that the McCanns would ...
(a) present an appeal to the ECHR or that
(b) there were grounds for such a case to be heard by the ECHR.

Time will tell if there will be any opportunity for informed debate on this issue.  Let's just wait and see, shall we? 

[G-Unit]

Read further up, Davel.

G-Unit or Slarti then later provided the SC reasoning. It could have been opened under the initial one but SC decided that it ought to have been archived under 277/2.

What I can't find for the moment is this "memo for the media" - to see if that is what is was actually opened under, as opposed to what the SC decided it should have been 3 years after the fact.

hat reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm

Article 279/1 is quoted in my post.

[Carana]

hat reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm

Article 279/1 is quoted in my post.

Thanks, I'll have a read. I couldn't remember all the articles offhand.

Yes, it would have been opened under 279/1 as /2 is a recourse to a superior if the MP is messing about (which presumably didn't happen, so it's irrelevant).

[Carana]

hat reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm

Article 279/1 is quoted in my post.

G-Unit, that memo doesn't make any reference to whether the number of the archiving article had changed or not...

[G-Unit]

It will be interesting to have sight of the basis of the complaint the McCann lawyers have raised on their behalf with the ECHR.
It will be interesting to see how the ECHR will deal with the complaint.

Just as sceptics appeared to have a vested interest in Madeleine's case not being reopened and properly investigated ... they appear to be in some denial that the McCanns would ...
(a) present an appeal to the ECHR or that
(b) there were grounds for such a case to be heard by the ECHR.

Time will tell if there will be any opportunity for informed debate on this issue.  Let's just wait and see, shall we?

In my opinion a lot of information can be gathered by reading the process which gave rise to the application. I don't know about 'sceptics' but it appears that the McCann's lawyers saw the archiving dispatch as equal to an acquittal, a point rebutted by the SC judges;

This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea.

[G-Unit]

G-Unit, that memo doesn't make any reference to whether the number of the archiving article had changed or not...

As far as I know the Public Ministry have made no comment on the Article quoted in the archiving dispatch. It wasn't even questioned by the SC until 2017, so wouldn't be of interest in 2013. They did what they did and are now in the position of possibly having to justify their actions at some point.

[Carana]

From the SC rejection thing again, snipped

The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.

In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.


Nope, it's still not making sense to me... and I'm trying lol

I don't have access to the book they cite, and they haven't made it clear why it couldn't have been reopened at all if it had remained archived under 277/1.

The "Memo" thing doesn't make any mention of the archiving article, so I'm still none the wiser.

[Carana]

In my opinion a lot of information can be gathered by reading the process which gave rise to the application. I don't know about 'sceptics' but it appears that the McCann's lawyers saw the archiving dispatch as equal to an acquittal, a point rebutted by the SC judges;

This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea.

"UNhappy"? Or did you mean happy?

Yes, they no doubt saw it as an acquittal, but I accept the point that it wasn't a full res judicata. However, since then, the PJ had conducted a review starting in 2011, presumably with the blessing of the MP, and the case was formally reopened in October 2013, with Pedro do Carmo clearing stating that the McCanns aren't suspects. Full stop."

The SC was ruling 3 years after the fact, in a civil case, on a legal summary of a criminal one, with no clear explanation for their assertion.

[Brietta]

In my opinion a lot of information can be gathered by reading the process which gave rise to the application. I don't know about 'sceptics' but it appears that the McCann's lawyers saw the archiving dispatch as equal to an acquittal, a point rebutted by the SC judges;

This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea.

I do not understand the following from your post:  "The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea."

Please explain.

[Carana]

As far as I know the Public Ministry have made no comment on the Article quoted in the archiving dispatch. It wasn't even questioned by the SC until 2017, so wouldn't be of interest in 2013. They did what they did and are now in the position of possibly having to justify their actions at some point.

Possibly. Or the SC might.

Intriguingly clear as mud, IMO.

[G-Unit]

From the SC rejection thing again, snipped

The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.

In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.


Nope, it's still not making sense to me... and I'm trying lol

I don't have access to the book they cite, and they haven't made it clear why it couldn't have been reopened at all if it had remained archived under 277/1.

The "Memo" thing doesn't make any mention of the archiving article, so I'm still none the wiser.

It's certainly not simple lol. If 277/1 is equal to being acquitted by the courts, as Duarte argued (res judicatia), there may have been strict conditions on the type of new evidence used to reopen the case. I know there are in English law and the Director of Public Prosecutions has to give permission.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/retrial-serious-offences