G4Media.ro

The protocols’ untold truth

Susține-ne activitatea G4Media logo
Donație Paypal recurentă

Donează lunar pentru susținerea proiectului G4Media

Donează prin Transfer Bancar

CONT LEI: RO89RZBR0000060019874867

Deschis la Raiffeisen Bank
Donează prin Patreon

Donează

3 comentarii

  1. What G4 is failing to mention is the fact that these protocols – according to the law – should HAD NOT BEEN SECRET as they are / were.

    By signing these secret documents the involved institutions were caught into the Romanian secret service’s (SRI) trap.

    The Romanian Constitutional Court had established in its Decision no. 91 / Feb 28th 2018 the following
    1.

    – the provisions of the Romanian National Security Act do not offer the quality of evidence to the information & data gathered through methods (authorized by the Law no. 51 / 1991) which are restricting the exercise of the fundamental human rights & freedoms

    („[…]dispozițiile legii privind securitatea națională nu conferă calitatea de probă/mijloc de probă datelor și informațiilor rezultate din activități specifice culegerii de informații care presupun restrângerea exercițiului unor drepturi sau libertăți fundamentale ale omului, autorizate potrivit Legii nr.51/1991”)

    – the recordings gathered through technical surveillance could be accepted as legal evidence and used in the Courts of law only if they are obtained based on the provisions of Article 139 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED if they are obtained based on the provisions Article 11 letter d from the Law no. 51 / 1991)

    („Doar dispozițiile art.139 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală ar putea conferi calitatea de mijloc de probă înregistrărilor rezultate din activități specifice culegerii de informații, autorizate potrivit Legii nr.51/1991, iar nu dispozițiile art.11 lit.d) din Legea nr.51/1991.”)

    Punctul 35, pag. 18
    https://www.luju.ro/static/files/2018/aprilie/19/legea51.pdf

  2. Well, the people in the judiciary are not the same as in 2009. They are better. I don’t think anyone can overturn that.

    PS. I think you meant:
    – eluded truth (not elided truth)
    – the anti-corruption fight

    • Dear Ioan, many thanks for your suggestions, I am actually glad people take enough of an interest in this as to send their feedback.
      In this particular respect, I actually did want to say „elided”, which is a linguistic term meaning omission or eviction of something from a structure. For the moment I cannot introduce changes to texts once they are published, but I’m exploring something to that effect for the future. Ruxandra