|
In her CV dated
21.2.2006 that she has written when applying for the office she states that
she has been a judge for 9 years. In reality there are two occasions when she
has been a district judge for a total of 1 year and 7 months + several temporary duties as judge
lasting from 1 day to 21 days, a total of some 209 days. This adds upp to 2 years and 2 months at the most.
She claimes that she
has been an assistant judge for 8 years but that job was merely the job of a
reporting member, a referendary, someone that is
presenting the case to the court, not a judge.
The
way she was elected as a candidate for the office did not (as usual) fulfill the legal requirements even under Finnish law let
alone the requirements of the Parliamentary
Assembly in Strasbourg that made the final
election.
"
2. In order for the European Court of Human Rights to continue to inspire
confidence, it is vital that the process by which judges are selected and
appointed also inspire confidence.
3.
The Parliamentary Assembly insists that the process of appointment must
reflect the principles of democratic procedure, the rule of law, non-discrimination,
accountability and transparency. "
The way she was
appointed candidate by the Minister for Foreign affairs after a non-public meeting out of 8 other applicants does not fulfill the principles
above. Among others the Presidents of the two Supreme courts and the Chancellor
of Justice were telephoned in to form an election panel and hold a meeting.
For
an observer who is familiar with the "justice" system of Finland it is quite apparent that this
election panel would recommend someone "suitable" for the post.
Minor inconsistencies in the CV can easily be overseen. What can be better
than to be able to recommend someone suitable as the judge that is handling
complaints against yourself in Strasbourg?
In Finland it is common knowledge that the
goal of Finland is to elect someone not so very
competent to Strasbourg because the main objective is
only to sort out cases that would cost Finland most and only let through cases
where Finland only has to pay some 3000 euros.
This
is an insult towards the some 800 million people from the 46 European
countries that seek justice from the European Court of Human Rights and
reflects the attitude of the Finnish Government towards the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The press in Finland is not writing about these things because
like in Russia you cannot write anything negative about the
ministers or the administration.
|