Falsification the Finnish way
The claim: The proceedings should be stopped on the following grounds:
Human rights are the Rights of a normal citizen towards the
administration. The report by Finland February 2009 was prepared by
administration ie the report was prepared jointly with the Prime
Minister's Office and the relevant ministries. This party is
responsible for all human rights violations in Finland by definition.
This proves that the report is falsified and it gives totally wrong
picture of the real situation in Finland.
The whole process now going on in Geneva reminds me, when Red Cross
visited and investigated the Theresienstadt concentration camp in
Nazi-Germany in forties. Everything was fine, spick et span, as it was
well prepared as propaganda and theater.
The processing of the Finnish case should be stopped untill a neutral
and realistic report is on hand for the UN Human Rights Council.
More detailed but only draft evaluation because of lack of time of the
Finnish Feb 2008 report follows.
< snip >
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW BY
THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
REPORT BY FINLAND
February 2008
2
A. NATIONAL PREPARATION OF THE REPORT
1. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs was responsible for preparing and
coordinating Finland's national report submitted for periodic review by
the Human Rights Council of the United Nations (UN). The report was
prepared jointly with the Prime Minister's Office and the relevant
ministries.
JR: Report is prepared by Human Righst violators themselves. This proves
that report is propaganda, falsified and full on lies.
2. Participation by civil society in the reporting process significantly
contributed to both the report's content and the Government's
continuous and open human rights dialogue with non-governmental
organisations. On 6 February 2008 the Ministry for Foreign Affairs
arranged a dis-cussion meeting, which was also attended by
representatives of a number of ministries. At this meeting,
non-governmental organisations expressed their views on the challenges
of Finland's human rights situation and put forward proposals on how to
ensure more effective implementation of human rights. The draft report
was sent out to organisations for comment before the discussion meeting.
JR: There is no list of the NGO:s involved. Actually there are very few
real NGO:s in Finland as most are manned by administration and funded
by the State. There is no reporting of the comments by NGO:s. For the
hearing adminstration invited those NGO:s suitable for them ie, which
are less critical.
B. FRAME OF REFERENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN FINLAND
Basic rights and liberties
5. In Finland, public authorities are responsible for ensuring the
implementation of basic rights and human rights. An overall reform of
the basic rights and liberties took effect on 1 August 1995.
Its main purpose was to create in Finland a basic rights system that is
in full compliance with the international human rights obligations and
thus reinforce the fulfilment of these obligations at national level.
The Constitution of Finland (731/1999) guarantees the inviolability of
human dignity and the freedoms and rights of the individual and promotes
justice in society. One of the objectives of the basic rights reform
carried out was to increase the direct applicability of basic rights and
liberties by courts and other authorities in their decisions. Before the
reform these authorities made only limited references to basic rights
and liberties, but thereafter they have clearly referred increasingly to
these rights in the reasoning for their decisions.
Legislation.
JR: This is only theory. Nobody really follows the implementation of the
basic rights. There is no basic law court for ex. There are about 500
valid laws, which are against the basic law.
6. Finnish legislation consists of a great number of statutes (the
Constitution, the acts and the lower level legislation). In addition, as
a member state of the European Union, Finland applies directly
applicable Community legislation. Because of the extensive number of
statutes it is impossible to provide a detailed analysis of the
implementation of human rights at the level of legislation. Below in
this report reference is made to legislation in thematic contexts.
JR: EU-law is not known to the experts. The Supreme Court president Ms
Pauliine Koskelo told the audience in Turku University last autumn that
Finnish judges, lawyers and jurists generally do not know and
understand the EU-law and it is also not taught in the Universities.
Judiciary
7. The Constitution of Finland guarantees everyone the right to have his
or her case dealt with appropriately and without undue delay by a
legally competent court of law or other authority, as well as to have a
decision pertaining to his or her rights or obligations reviewed by a
court of law or other independent organ for the administration of
justice. Provisions concerning the publicity of proceedings, the right
to be heard, the right to receive a reasoned decision and the right of
appeal are laid down by an act. The courts of law are independent and
impartial. In their decision-making, the courts of law are only bound by
the law currently in force. No external actor can intervene in their
decisions.
JR: The real life is totally opposite. I refer to the report by Mr Jukka
Davidsson Feb 2008 to Ms Louise Arbour. There are many secrect
courtprocesses and thereby against the basic law. In the courtprocess
the judge does not write what has been really said in the courtroom by
different parties. Judge only writes his own report to support his own
decision. Reporting is falsified. In a secrect meeting 6th of May 1992
that time president of the republic Mauno Koivisto forced the courts to
implement falsifed processes ie to guarantee that banks and public
officials are always winning the case against a normal citizen.
European remedies
8. Finnish authorities and courts are responsible for ensuring
compliance with obligations deriving from the European Community law and
the European Convention on Human Rights. In these contexts, as a rule,
appellants primarily resort to national remedies. In some cases, however,
it is possible to turn to European authorities or remedial bodies. For
example, every person under the jurisdiction of Finland may appeal to
the European Court of Human Rights, if he or she has exhausted the
national remedies. For Finland the right of access to a court that is
guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
('Right to a fair trial') has been unproblematic. However, the excessive
length of proceedings in Finland has caused problems and is currently
the most frequent ground for judgments establishing Finland's violation
of the Convention.
JR: Those responsible for wrong judgements are never punished nor made
responsible for damages. Wrongdoers can continue their behaviour.
Guardians of the law
9. The Chancellor of Justice of the Government and the Parliamentary
Ombudsman are the supreme guardians of the law inFinland. As an
important part of their duties both of them monitor the implementation
of basic rights and human rights. In practice, the Chancellor of Justice
and the Parliamentary Ombudsman supervise legality by processing and
ruling on complaints against actions of authorities and others
performing public tasks. Both guardians of the law may also investigate
matters on their own initiative. Their competence is limited to
intervention due to procedural faults, and they may not amend judgments
of the courts, which are independent, or of authorities.
Through their work, however, the Chancellor of Justice and the
Parliamentary Ombudsman can steer the authorities to take basic and
human rights better into account in their activities.
JR: Very seldon there is any acion against the public officials. The
trust for these guardians of law has eroded and totally vanished.
Ombudsmen
10. Supervision of legality is additionally carried out by four other
ombudsmen, with different emphasis on legality: the Ombudsman for
Equality, the Data Protection Ombudsman, the Ombudsman for Minorities
and the Ombudsman for Children. The ombudsmen may issue statements on
defects that they have noticed and take initiatives if they deem it
necessary.
JR: Ombudsman for Children Ms Aula is not an expert on this field. She
is a politician. Lately she was special advisor for that time
primeminister Mr Aho. This job was created for her specially and office
close to her home ie in central Finland, remote Jyväskylä.
Advisory boards
11. Finland has long traditions of cooperation between the state
administration and civil society. A good example of this cooperation is
the large number of advisoryboards, including the Advisory Board on
Human Rights, the Advisory Board on Romani Affairs, the Advisory Board
for Ethnic
Relations, the Advisory Board for the Ombudsman for Children, the
Advisory Board for Minority Issues, the Council for Gender Equality and
the Advisory Board for Sámi Affairs, where representatives of civil
society contribute to the development of human rights. Among other
things, the advisory boards issue statements and make proposals for the
development of legislation and other measures.
JR: These are manned by yes-men and –women, loyal supporters of the
administration.
Concluding observations of the UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies concerning
Finland
70. Family violence against childrenandsexual abuse of children and
young personsseri-
ouslyviolate children's rights. The purpose of the Child Welfare Act
that took effect at the beginning of 2008 is to ensure that the child's
rights and interests are taken into account in child welfare measures,
and to guarantee the child and his/her parents the supportive measures
and services that they need. The purpose is also to promote ...
read more »
Reply to author Forward
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "Elected Judge Under False Pretences" by Mitsos**
2. Mitsos**
View profile
More options Jul 28, 10:51 am
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek, soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.baltics
From: Mitsos** <feta...@greek.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:51:54 +0300
Local: Mon, Jul 28 2008 10:51 am
Subject: Elected Judge Under False Pretences
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Elected Judge Under False Pretences
Falsified Information in Application of Newly Appointed Human Rights Judge
State Prosecutor Päivi Hirvelä was elected in June to represent Finland
on the bench of the European Court of Human Rights. Already at the
nomination stage, experts were astonished due to the fact that her
career has never appertained to issues of Human Rights.
In her application, Hirvelä claims to having had nine-years experience
as a judge. This is not so. According to her curriculum vitae, Hirvelä
has worked as a judge in thirty-two short periods which amount to two
years two months and three weeks - only slightly more than the requisite
of one year sitting as a judge in order to qualify for title Master of Law.
Hirvelä’s longest working relationship (1990-1996) has been as a public
prosecutor for the City of Lahti. From February 1999 Hirvelä worked as
State Prosecutor, two years of which she has taken a leave of absence.
In the 1980s she was employed as a referendary for Koivula Court of
Appeal and worked for various stints for a period of slightly less than
eight years.
Hirvelä’s 1997 -published dissertation on the child in the criminal
process is her greatest merit. This, her only publication,should have
become a docotoral thesis but thus far is incomplete.
Finland presented three candidates from which the Council of Europe
chose one. Hirvelä received 78 votes, Supreme Court Judge Gustaf Möller
55 and Åbo Akademi University’s Martin Scheinin 11 votes.
Of those put forward, the candidate with the most extensive experience
as a judge was Möller who is our most nationally renowned lawyer?????
Professor Scheinin is Finland’s most qualified human rights lawyer i.e.
his competence is precisely in the field of the European Court of Human
Rights. Compared to Hirvelä, Möller and Scheinin were undoubtably far
superior candidates.
In all, 8 lawyers applied for the post of judge at the European Court of
Human Rights.
A list of the three proposed candidates was put forward by Irma Ertman –
Director General of the Legal Department for the Foreign Ministry,
Kirsti Rissanen the Chief of Staff for the Ministry of Justice, Paavo
Nikola Chancellor of Justice of the Council of State, Pekka Hallberg the
President of the Supreme Administrative Court and Pauliine Koskelo the
President of the KKO. The matter was decided by Erkki Tuomioja the
Foreign Minister.
There do not seem to be grounds for choosing the above candidates. Folke
Sundman, the special advisor to Minister Tuomioja suggested asking Irma
Ertman who has not returned my calls.
Mikko Niskasaari
http://www.promerit.net/english.pages.html