|
Dear Sir,
Ref.; MAY DAY CALL from Finland. The election on 27th of June 2006 of Ms.
Päivi Hirvelä to become a judge at the European Court of Human Rights.
The election of Ms Päivi Hirvelä to become a judge at
the European Court of Human Rights must be reversed and nomination cancelled as well as those
responsible for criminal acts be taken to justice and be punished on the
following grounds:
- Ms.
Päivi Hirvelä has given falsified information in her Curriculum Vitae,
which can be considered as a criminal act in Finland and
as it was presented also during her interview in Strasbourg it
can be
considered as a criminal act carried out in Strasbourg.
- Members of the so called Selection
Panel - responsible for choosing three candidates in Finland out of eight applicants
- must have known of the falsified facts and have thereby been working
as it seems in concert and participated in the crime. The Selection
Panel or some or its member might have been even acting as accomplices
urging Ms. Päivi Hirvelä
to falsify her CV.
- Most
members in the Selection Panel have been partial in the case and all members have no
legal power to select and propose the candidates.
- The so
called Selection Panel has no legal powers and standing in Finland to
select and propose the candidates.
- It can
be very well argued also that the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
has no legal power to propose three candidates to the Court.
The European Court of Human Rights is the third largest
entity in the world after China and India, covering under the same Human Rights rulings 46
countries with some 800-million people. It is no small matter, who the Judges
in the European Court of Human Rights are, what is their moral standing and
knowledge as well as the experience in the law especially in the field of
Human Rights.
Ms. Päivi Hirvelä has in her CV written having been a
judge for a total of 9 years and
prosecutor for 16 years. This totals 25 years. She claims her first position
as an ”assistant judge” from 1 August 1982. Calculating on the basis of this
takes her career to 1 August 2007 i.e. year 1982 plus 25 years translates to
the year 2007. The application by Ms. Hirvelä has been made on 21.2.2006 and we are still in the year of 2006, i.e. something is wrong.
Ms. Päivi Hirvelä in her CV maintains she has been a judge for a total of 9 years. This is not true. She has been a
judge on a temporary basis for a total of 25 months and 29 days. She has never
been a permanent judge appointed by the President of the Republic of Finland
as the law states, enclosure 1.
Ms. Päivi Hirvelä has been acting as a District Court
judge only according to her “nimikirjanote” i.e. the official registry as
follows, enclosure 2:
YEAR COURT
PERIOD
1981 Lapin tuomiokunta/ Lappland district court 35 days
1982 Lapin tuomiokunta/ Lappland district court 14 days
1982 Lahden raastuvanoikeus/ Lahti city court 18 days
1984 Lahden raastuvanoikeus/ Lahti city court 85 days
1985 Lahden raastuvanoikeus/ Lahti city court 57 days
1990 Orimattilan tuomiokunta/ Orimattila district
court 4 months
1994 Lahden käräjäoikeus/ Lahti district court 3 months
1995 Lahden käräjäoikeus /Lahti district court 12 months
TOTAL 2 YEARS 1 MONTH AND 29 DAYS as an acting ie
temporary, district court judge.
Ms. Päivi
Hirvelä has written that she has been an Assistant Judge of the Court
of Appeal, at the Kouvola Court of
Appeal from 1 August 1982 till 31 August 1990. This is not true. Her job description has
been “viskaali or esittelijä” in Finnish i.e. Rapporteur, Referendary, Senior
secretary of the Court of Appeal or Reporting Clerk as her actual
job has been to present cases, conduct legal investigations and keep the
records. According to the attached copies of some pages extracted from a
Dictionary: Matti Joutsen:
Lakikielen sanakirja,
enclosure 3, SUOMI-ENGLANTI “hovioikeudenviskaali”
has been translated as “judicial secretary of a court of appeal”. If
words “assistant” and “judge” are used
her job description should be “Assistant to Judge”. Expression of “Assistant
Judge” has been totally wrong and misleading.
Ms. Päivi Hirvelä has claimed in her application to
having been a prosecutor for 16 years. This is also not true as is explained in the following records
from her “nimikirjanote” i.e. official registry:
District Prosecutor, Lahti prosecutors office, 1 Jan
1986- 4 April 1988
2 YEARS AND 4 MONTHS
District Prosecutor, Lahti prosecutors office, 1 Sept
1990- 31 Jan 1999
8 YEARS 6 MONTHS
State prosecutor, Office of The Prosecutor General, 1
Feb 1999 onwards
By the time she made her application on 21.2 2006 above
makes totally 17 YEARS and 10 MONTHS till 1
Feb 2006 having her been a prosecutor.
Out of the above prosecuting jobs she has been on leave
as follows:
Taking care of another job 01.01.1986-31.01 1987
ONE YEAR AND ONE
MONTH
Taking care of another job 01.02.1987-04.04.1988
ONE YEAR AND 2 MONTHS
Maternity leave 05.04.1988-24.12.1988, during this
period she has been on payroll at Kouvola appeal court as a reporting clerk.
9 MONTHS
Additional maternity leave 19.02.1989-31.05.1989,
during this period she has been on payroll at Kouvola appeal court as
areporting clerk.
3 MONTHS AND 10
DAYS
Leave for Eurostat training 01.04.1999-30.06.1999
3 MONTHS
Stydying abroad
01.07.2001-31.12.2001
6 MONTHS
Unpaid leave 05.01.2005-30.11.2005
11 MONTHS
Unpaid leave 01.12.2005-29.12.2005
ONE MONTH
MS Päivi Hirvelä has been on leave for a total of at least 4 years whilst on the
payroll as a prosecutor since 1 Jan 1986. Deducting this from 17 years and 10
months we come to a figure of 13 YEARS
and 10 MONTHS, which fails short of her informing having been 16 years a
prosecutor.
During her prosecutor career from 1 Jan 1986 untill today she has also
had other positions as follows:
Helsinki University, Researcher, 50% working duty 01.01.1996-30.06.1996
6 MONTHS
Helsinki University, assistant, 01.07.1996-31.03.1997
9 MONTHS
Referendary in Parliament Ombudsman office, 14
Sept 1998-31 Jan 1999
4 MONTHS
According to the
information from Ombudsman office
dated 25.10.2006, the job
has been lasting till 30.6.1999, enclosure 4.
5 MONTHS
If we deduct the above additional positions 24 months
or 21 months from 13 years 10 months we come to a figure of 11 YEARS AND 10 MONTHS or 12 YEARS AND ONE MONTH depending on calculations.
Final conclusion is that Ms. Päivi Hirvelä has not been
9 years a judge but rather 2 YEARS 1 MONTH AND 29 DAYS as an acting i.e.
temporary district court judge. A prosecutor she has not been for 16 years
but instead 11 YEARS AND 10 MONTHS or
12 YEARS AND ONE MONTH depending on
the calculations. No doubt she has given falsified information in her
application to one of the highest
judge positions in Europe.
The Finnish
members in the Selection Panel should have rejected her application
immediately unless they are party to the conspiracy. All the members of the
Selection Panel have juridical training so they are all aware, that Ms.
Hirvelä has not been a permanent judge
at any Finnish court and there is no such job like “assistant judge” at the
Courts of Appeal.
The
Selection Panel includes the Supreme Court President Pauliine
Koskelo and in her position she is in charge of
following the general performance of the lower courts, so she must have
known, what has been the real position of Ms. Päivi
Hirvelä. One has to believe that fraud is now inherent
and misendeavour has been purposely pursued. Maybe
some members have even encouraged Ms. Hirvelä to
give falsified information acting in a sense as accessories.
It is still unknown to me how the Selection Panel has
been formed as persons responsible:
Ms. Camilla Busck-Nielsen; Ms. Irma Ertman
and Mr. Jyrki Poskiparta at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have not
given me the required information. The documents I have, for example, requested are the
minutes of meetings of the Selection Panel.
We have a law in
Finland “Valtioneuvoston ohjesääntö 6§” i.e. Government ruling that
stipulates how a committee like this Selection Panel must be formed. It seems
that Selection Panel was not set up in accordance with this ruling.
Members of the
Selection Panel:
Chancellor of Justice Paavo Nikula
Supreme Court President Pauliine Koskelo
Supreme
Administrative Court President Pekka Hallberg
Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice Kirsti
Rissanen
Chief of the Juridical Department of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs Irma Ertman.
Secretary from the Juridical Department of the Ministry
of the Foreign Affairs MS Camilla Busck-Nielsen.
should have had a permission for a secondary occupation
(sivutoimilupa) for working on the Selection Panel, which they most probably did not have. The law is very strict in this especially
for Judges:
Supreme Court President Pauliine Koskelo and
Supreme
Administrative Court President Pekka Hallberg.
Most probably they would not have been able to get this
permission as they were partial in the case.
As it can be seen, all the members of the Selection Panel come from the public sector, which can be regarded that
part of the society which commits practically all the violations against
human rights. Choosing such members to the Selection Panel has been totally
intolerable or it seems that they have elected themselves.
Most intolerable has been that two of the members are
the Presidents of the Supreme Courts - Ms. Pauliine Koskelo and Mr. Pekka
Hallberg - and also that one member
is the Chancellor of Justice Mr. Paavo Nikula. These three and Nikula`s deputy Jaakko
Jonkka, are the greatest violators of Human Rights in Finland together the
Parliament Ombudsman Ms. Riitta-Leena Paunio and her Deputies. Human rights
are the relations of a normal citizen towards the authorities. Practically
all the violations by authorities against normal citizen are handled as a
final stage in the Supreme Courts. The individual with highest legal power in
Finland is the Chancellor of Justice
Mr. Paavo Nikula, encl 5. His duties include the follow up of the courts,
Cabinet and President of the Republic and in general the whole of the Finnish
official administration. Mr. Paavo Nikula sits in the Cabinet meetings to
ensure that the decisions are made according
to the law. If he, his deputy Mr. Jaakko Jonkka, and his office would
perform well there would not be any complaints of violations of human rights
to the ECHR. He, his deputy, and his office would have cleaned the
table. The same applies to the
Parliament Ombudsman Riitta-Leena Paunio and his deputies.
Members of the
Selection Panel
Chancellor of Justice Mr. Paavo Nikula
Supreme Court President Ms. Pauliine Koskelo
Supreme
Administrative Court President Mr. Pekka Hallberg
Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice Ms Kirsti
Rissanen
Chief of the Juridical Department of the Ministry
of the Foreign Affairs Ms. Irma Ertman.
Secretary from the Juridical Department of the Ministry
of the Foreign Affairs Ms. Camilla
Busck-Nielsen.
have known of the quota for women to the ECHR.
As there is a need for woman judges, members of the
Selection Panel must have been certain, that if one of candidates is a woman,
she will be elected by Parliamentary Assembly. Therefore, if the CV of Ms. Päivi Hirvelä were to be polished, she would be
elected, which actually took
place. There were two other woman
candidates: Helsinki University lecturer, docent, Iuris doctor Laura Ervo and professor, Iuris doctor Johanna Niemi-Kiesiläinen. Both ladies have far better
qualifications especially in the field of Human Rights than Ms. Päivi Hirvelä. They have much
better knowledge of languages, too.
The experience and knowledge of Ms. Päivi Hirvelä in the field of
Human Rights is nill in comparison to the other two
lady candidates as well as the men candidates not to mention professor Martin
Scheinin, who is far above all the others in this specific field.
Curious is that MS Hirvelä matriculated at the age
of 20 when normal age is 18 years. She has not had any permanent job since
finishing her studies at the University from 1980 untill
01.01.1986 becoming a “viskaali” i.e. presenting clerk at the Appeal Court in Kouvola. Her real permanent career has started only in
1999, when she was employed at the State Prosecutors office. Before that she
did various odd jobs in the field of legal administration. She has served in
the courts on temporary basis as an acting judge and shortest
period being one day only. It is obvious that her positions as a judge have
hardly been of an outstanding nature.
One cannot avoid an observation that especially members
of the Selection Panel:
Chancellor of Justice Mr. Paavo Nikula
Supreme Court President Ms. Pauliine Koskelo
Supreme
Administrative Court President Mr. Pekka Hallberg
have tried and succeeded in getting into the ECHR their
“own woman” to lobby for the support for their own wrong and illegal
decisions and performance in their official capacity i.e. violations against
Human Rights in Finland. Same applies
to Ms. Hirvelä herself and her
colleaques in the State Prosecutors office and the decisions made there.
There is no other explanation as to why Ms. Hirvelä was
nominated as one of three aforementioned candidates above. Her application
should have been rejected immediately and she be prosecuted for fraud,
which seems so clearly evident.
Finland knows
very well that her system to choose candidates to international judge
vacancies is elementary. Finland has a legally based system to select and
appoint local judges. The system is
solidly based on law.
Prime Minister, Mr. Matti Vanhanen established a working group on 12th of Aug 2005 to make a
recommendation on how to appoint persons to international judge job
vacancies, encl 6. The work of the working
group has now finished and
the report will be given to the
Cabinet within next two weeks. Basically, the recommendations include some
changes to the present law i.e. new clauses to the present law governing how
candidates for judges are selected and vacancies filled. The report will
reveal how the present system to select candidates and propose them to the
international Judge positions with “Selection Panels” is not acceptable. The
new system will follow the present practise to appoint local national judges.
The proposal to an international body will be made by the whole Cabinet and
not solely the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The chairman of the working group has been Chancellor
of Justice Mr. Paavo Nikula and one member
Ms. Irma Ertman. No doubt, Mr Paavo Nikula should not have been the chairman
of this group nor a member of the Selection Panel now in question. Mr. Paavo
Nikula in his capacity as a Chancellor of Justice is the highest controller
of Finnish administration. He should not take part in any decision-making
which he is responsible to follow up and control that no violations against the law is committed.
The working group for the appointment of international judges were
allocated time to finish their report until 30th of April 2006. They could
not meet this deadline, which actually could not have taken more than one
month and done as deskwork in the
Ministry of Justice. They got extension. It is a fair argument that working
group did this deliberately i.e. delayed their task so that the selection of
the three candidates to the ECHR would be made as per
“old system” and they could get their “own woman” to the ECHR. If the
new laws had been passed, they could not have smuggled their “own woman” in
the ECHR so easily.
Reading the “nimikirjanote” i.e. official registry of
Ms. Päivi Hirvelä, reveals the following additional wrongdoings, which are also a proof of the
rotten, administration of Justice in Finland.
- Ms Päivi Hirvelä like so many others keep several competing posts in
the same time.
- She has been an acting i.e. temporary Judge in a lower district court, when she also is
a reporting ckerk in the appeal court, where the appeals for the
decisions of this district court go.
- She
has been public legal councellor at the same time as being an acting
judge in the district court.
- She
has been a public legal councellor at the same time as being a reporting
clerk in the appeal court.
- She
has been a reporting clerk in the
appeal court at the same as being
an acting judge in the district court.
- She
has been a public prosecutor at the same time as being an acting judge
in the district court.
- She
has been a State Prosecutor at the same time as being a referendary in
the office of Parliament Ombudsman.
- We
have a legal regulation in Finland, that if for example a temporary
judge is needed at a district court for a longer period than one year,
the vacancy must be advertised in an official gazette. This ruling is
bent in such a way that the appointment is devided into shorter periods,
which totally exceed one year. In this way “suitable” person can be selected and kept as a ”Judge” like
Ms. Hirvelä. General legal and just ruling is that judges are nominated
for life and by the President of the Republic. With temporary judges
“the system” can do their dirty
work “legally”. Shortest period for Ms. Hirvelä acting as a temporary
judge has been one day. It is no doubt that she was selected for one
court case only.
- She
has had at least 9 secondary occupations, which would have required an
official permission for each of them i.e. “sivutoimilupa”. She has not
had a single one. One could call
this “moonshining”.
Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol
No. 11 Article 21 stipulate following
criteria for office
The judges shall be of
high moral character and must either possess the qualifications required for appointment
to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.
MS Päivi Hirvelä does not fulfill
at least the requirement for high moral character.
The
election of Ms Päivi Hirvelä to become a judge at the European Court of Human
Rights must be reversed and nomination
cancelled as well as those responsible for criminal acts brought to justice
and punished.
As the highest legal officials in Finland are being
involved in this case it is impossible to investigate the case and those responsible
for criminality be brought to justice and taken to any court in Finland. The
possible crime has occured in Strasbourg and against the international
community ie the Parliamentary Assembly
of the
Council of Europe. The
case must be investigated in Strasbourg. Responsibility to start the
investigations rests on the Parliamentary Assembly.
The role of the Finnish minister of Foreign affairs Erkki Tuomioja must be investigated also as he made the final
proposal of three candidates to the Assembly.
In Finland the most unsuccessful and worst performing
sector in society is the administration and performance of Justice starting
from single police-officer to the Supreme Courts and their controllers
Chancellor of Justice Mr. Paavo Nikula and his deputy Mr. Jaakko Jonkka as
well as Parliament Ombudsman Ms.
Riitta-Leena Paunio and her deputies.
The cornerstone of the organised society is Justice and
the Rule of Law. In Europe especially
within EU, the key policy has been to abolish all trade barriers in order to
make Europe more competitive. Unfortunately, the importance of “Law and
Order” has been left aside specially in the field of normal citizens. Too
much attention has been devoted to so called “terrorism” and its prevention.
The state terrorism i.e. violations of Human Rights towards normal citizens
is forgotten, at least in Finland. Europe does not feel well and
competitivenes in economic field will suffer, if Justice and the Rule of Law
does not exist.
Finland is actually very much more corrupted than is
generally understood. To undercover the corruption in Finland one has to have
special skills so well it is hidden. I am taking only two examples:
We have ”Ihmisoikeusliitto” i.e. The League of Human
Rights, which does what the name says. This League gets its most financing from
government sources so it is not any real NGO as they pretend to be. Main
activities do not go deep to the core of violations of the Human Rights in
Finland. When we look at, who are on
the Board of this League, we can notice Mr. Pentti Arajärvi there. He is the
husband of current President of the Republic, Tarja Halonen. If anyboday thinks, that Mr. Arajärvi sits on the Board with other politicians trying to
reveal the grave violations of Human
Rights in Tarja Halonen´s Country, he must check his head. The League of
Human Rights is there to prevent the undercover, the fainted and ugly face of
Finnish Human Rights situation.
Another cover organisation is the Finland branch of the
Transparency International i.e. an organisation to reveal and fight against
corruption. The present Chairman of the Finnish branch is Dr. Antti Pihlajamäki, whose main, “bread and butter”
activity is being the Chief Prosecutor of Turku Prosecuting office. Does
anybody really believe that Dr. Pihlajamäki in his position in
Transparency International is really
after corruption within administration, which he is part of, as he should do this officially
already in his capacity as a Prosecutor?
Elected ECHR judge Ms. Päivi Hirvelä has gained
all her experience in the field of
official law enforcement activities. She has had minor temporary judge positions in various district courts, last one being
in the year 1995. Employments have
been several short periods and
shortest being one day only. It is very doubfull whether she has been
processing any difficult cases. She
has been also a prosecutor and present vacancy is being a State Prosecutor
since 1 Feb 1999. For the last year
2005 she has been on leave and most of the time of the present year 2006.
There are no records for her having
been a prosecutor in any major case. She is
not a Finnish “carladelponte”. It seems that she has been able to
spend her time in studying and in various secondary occupations, for
which she had no official permissions.
Ms. Päivi Hirvelä lives in Lahti City some 100km north of Helsinki,
where her permanent job site is located. Daily travelling to her city centre office in Helsinki takes her time
some 2 hours in one direction, which is quite exceptional in Finnish
conditions. No doubt Ms. Päivi Hirvelä has not found it very attractive to
appear too often at her job site.
When ECHR judges are elected the most undesirable
background for a new judge is having been a judge or prosecutor as on this field practically all the violations against
Human Rights are done. There were
eight applicant to the present job. Only two of them including Ms. Päivi Hirvelä had a contaminated background for the demanding job of judge in the ECHR, the rest
were not so tarnished. Very clean ones
one could consider those applicants,
who come from the University sector
like Dr, docent, Ms. Laura Ervo, Dr, professor, Ms. Johanna Niemi-Kiesiläinen and Dr, professor, Mr. Martin
Scheinin.
This
is now a MAY DAY CALL from Finland.
If the International Community fails to take this case to Justice and Ms. Päivi
Hirvelä is able to start her job as a
judge in the ECHR, any still existing trust and hope for Justice and the Rule
of Law will vanish in Finland and no
doubt also within all 46 Member Countries of the Council of Europe.
Yours faithfully
Jali Raita, diploma engineer
|