What is the lie in Amarals book. The truth of the lie.

[Alice Purjorick]

Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes.  But deadlines had to be met.  The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.

One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.

Which police state did you live in then? or which police state did you have in mind?

[Mr Gray]

The SC rejected the reason Duarte gave, not the existence of the entitlement. .

That's your opinion not a cite

[Alice Purjorick]

 And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

the moral being, in simple terms, be sure you understand what you are asking to be judged and under what conditions it may be judged.

[Mr Gray]

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

the moral being, in simple terms, be sure you understand what you are asking to be judged and under what conditions it may be judged.

So the SC is saying lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence... Yet lack of evidence is I would think the number one reason for acquittal.... And is therefore evidence... But not proof of innocence

[G-Unit]

What gunit seems to be saying is that as they had not been cleared they were not entitled to the presumption of innocence... Which is patently absurd

That's not what I'm saying at all.

[G-Unit]

So the SC is saying lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence... Yet lack of evidence is I would think the number one reason for acquittal.... And is therefore evidence... But not proof of innocence

The crux of the matter is whether the archiving dispatch is the same as an acquittal. Under Article 277/1 it can be. Under Article 277/2 it isn't.

[Robittybob1]

"The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

So unless you are found guilty you are presumed to be innocent.  Even while you are being charged, even while in court you have the right to be presumed innocent, so that must include the time you are an arguido or a former arguido in an archived case.

Some of those presumed innocent will be found guilty during a trial so presumption of innocence is not proof of innocence.

[G-Unit]

"The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

So unless you are found guilty you are presumed to be innocent.  Even while you are being charged, even while in court you have the right to be presumed innocent, so that must include the time you are an arguido or a former arguido in an archived case.

Some of those presumed innocent will be found guilty during a trial so presumption of innocence is not proof of innocence.

Even those who are acquitted are not judged 'innocent', they are judged 'not guilty'. An archiving dispatch can't declare someone is innocent either, although Duarte said it could and did. That was her mistake.

[misty]

The crux of the matter is whether the archiving dispatch is the same as an acquittal. Under Article 277/1 it can be. Under Article 277/2 it isn't.

Which article of Pt. Law would permit the SC to alter a legal document in a criminal case, which had not been heard in court, adversely affecting the interests of those criminally defamed in a civil case?

[Robittybob1]

Which article of Pt. Law would permit the SC to alter a legal document in a criminal case, which had not been heard in court, adversely affecting the interests of those criminally defamed in a civil case?

It would be like myself as a moderator, being able to correct obvious errors.  The SC explain why it should have been archived Under Article 277/2 and not Under Article 277/1, and then proceed to argue using the changes they have just made.

[slartibartfast]

"The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

So unless you are found guilty you are presumed to be innocent.  Even while you are being charged, even while in court you have the right to be presumed innocent, so that must include the time you are an arguido or a former arguido in an archived case.

Some of those presumed innocent will be found guilty during a trial so presumption of innocence is not proof of innocence.

If you are not charged then it is not relevant.

[Mr Gray]

The crux of the matter is whether the archiving dispatch is the same as an acquittal. Under Article 277/1 it can be. Under Article 277/2 it isn't.

It is not the crux of the matter... It's irrelevant

[Mr Gray]

Even those who are acquitted are not judged 'innocent', they are judged 'not guilty'. An archiving dispatch can't declare someone is innocent either, although Duarte said it could and did. That was her mistake.

If you read my post you would see thst I posted acquittal is evidence if innocence not proof... Which it is
Do you have cite that duarte claimed it was proof of innocence... I would say you don't...
Some translations online use the word evidence... Sime proof.... It's not clear ...I cannot see duarte claiming proof of innocence... I'm sure you are, wrong... So do you have a cite

[Eleanor]

If you read my post you would see thst I posted acquittal is evidence if innocence not proof... Which it is
Do you have cite that duarte claimed it was proof of innocence... I would say you don't...
Some translations online use the word evidence... Sime proof.... It's not clear ...I cannot see duarte claiming proof of innocence... I'm sure you are, wrong... So do you have a cite

Isabel Duarte is far from an idiot.

[Mr Gray]

If you are not charged then it is not relevant.

I think you are wrong and the presumption of innocence applies to suspects