Read the original text at 112.ua.
The charges, de facto, made by the Attorney General against the former president of Georgia in the walls of the parliament, sounded profound. Although they were ridiculous. The most important thing is that although the indictments have been presented as an established fact, they have not yet been approved by the trial. This fact leaves us tangled: the Attorney General confused the circus dome with the parliamentary one?
The situation with the detention of Mikheil Saakashvili looked ridiculous, and so it did not find a clear explanation by the law enforcement officers, their devastating failure in court was the peak of the situation.
However, existential questions to the prosecutor's office remain unanswered. The key one is: how should the criminal process be conducted in order not to provoke the civil society to start a new revolution? Of course, the question is quite unexpected for a civilized society. But his general activity was set by the Attorney General himself.
A useful lesson could be learned from the situation that prosecutor general’s charges should be voided in the court, not in the parliament. This is a way civilized people act. It is a legal, political, and human.
Even a defender of the Stalin totalitarian regime, Vyshinsky, did not ignore his speeches in court's proceedings. And what about the prosecutor general of Ukraine? He is showing antipathy. Instead of going to the court, he went to the parliament to present his accusations.
In terms of a public court hearing that have at least some signs of adversity, hot emotional assaults of justice based on phobias and a specific understanding of causal relationships, the person "without qualified legal education," as Lutsenko once called himself, looks unconvincing. And sometimes it is just funny. The facts should be supported by understandable and measurable proofs.
After all, any violations of the principles and procedures carried out in the pre-trial investigation can be easily corrected by a simple "swing of a gavel" of the Themis servant. Even in our Ukrainian not-reformed court.
The key issue that ensures this justice is the openness of the court session itself. Experience shows that the openness and publicity of the judicial process today (the lack of trust in the judicial system as a whole) is a pledge of competition and ultimately a fair decision.
The most important thing is that in this case, society has the opportunity to make its own conclusions. Sometimes the one that can help to correct the mistakes made in the court.