Sofia City Court (SGC) issued a measure of "detention in custody" for the People's Representative and MP candidate Jeyhan Ibryamov. Is it legal… Lawyer Silvia Petkova spoke to FAKTI.
- Attorney Petkova, how do you investigate a deputy with two immunities - as a representative and as a candidate for one? I am referring to the detention of Jeyhan Ibryamov…
- According to the procedure established in the law, it follows: in case of suspicion of a specific crime, the permission of the National Assembly is required for the investigation of a representative of the people, and if it is not in session – of its chairman. The permission of the Central Electoral Commission is required for an investigation of a candidate for People's Representative.
- We have permission to remove the immunity from the Chairman of the National Assembly Raya Nazaran, but it remains “without consideration“ his decision to detain him. Why is he still detained?
- This question should be answered in principle, to the extent that the judicial act by which the Sofia City Court decreed the detention of Jeyhan Ibryamov has not been published, as well as to the extent that there is a lack of sufficient information from the materials in the case.
First of all, it is argued that no prior authorization for detention was requested, as the case falls within the hypothesis of the so-called “confused crime”. In this case, permission is not required for the initial detention, but only the National Assembly or its chairman is notified – if it is not in session. However, permission should be given to continue the detention. In the absence of such authorization, continued detention is unlawful.
- One of the witnesses against Ibryamov is an inspector in the Anti-Corruption Commission. Is this according to the law…
- According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, persons who participated in the same criminal proceedings in a certain capacity cannot be witnesses. So, if this officer was not involved in the criminal proceedings in any way, there is no obstacle to being a witness.
- When the parliament removes the immunity of a representative of the people, this constitutes the removal of his protection against investigation. What about the detention...
- According to the Constitution, the authorizations for investigation and detention of the National Assembly, resp. its chairman and from the Central Election Commission, are given separately from each other. That is, if authorization is given to investigate but not to detain, an arrest cannot be lawfully made.
- What does emergency detention and emergency search of his home mean – where his wife and children were. What crime was committed in his home…
- The urgent detention is related to the allegations of the presence of the so-called “welded crime”. A house search is not possible. The procedural figure is “search“ as a matter of urgency and is a type of action on the investigation, which is carried out without prior court authorization, but with subsequent court approval, and only in cases where its execution as a matter of urgency is the only way to preserve and collect evidence for a specific criminal proceeding. Whether to search the home of a particular person in connection with a particular crime is a tactical decision by the investigating authorities. There is no bar to a search of a residence on a charge of influence peddling.
- There is the decision of the Constitutional Court of December 29, 1992, when the 36th National Assembly voted a decision revoking its permission to keep the then-arrested Andrey Lukanov in custody. At that time, Lukanov had his immunity waived and was investigated, but not in custody. Now what's different…
- With the decision of the Constitutional Court, it is said that the authorizations of the National Assembly must be two – one investigative warrant and one arrest warrant. With regard to the Decision of the National Assembly of December 29, 1992 on the partial annulment of the Decision of the National Assembly of July 7, 1992 on the removal of the immunity of a Member of Parliament, concerning the “Lukanov“ case.
First, a general permission was given, which circumstance contradicts the Constitution.
Second, the revocation of the detention authorization comes five and a half months after the actual detention of Andrey Lukanov, and one of the arguments for this is the fact that during that time no action was taken on the investigation. An argument in favor of revoking the permit is the deteriorating state of health of the People's Representative.
- How many institutions violate their powers?
- In this case, one cannot comment on the excess of powers, but rather the potential illegality of acts of institutions. In the absence of full access to the materials of the pre-trial proceedings, a definite comment on such illegality is impossible. It can only be pointed out that, based on the publicly available information, doubts arise regarding the legality of the detention of Jeyhan Ibryamov both by the prosecutor's office and the court, due to the lack of a “premeditated crime” and due to lack of prior detention authorization. Either way, the final decision on the legality of this detention is in the hands of the Sofia Court of Appeal.