Elena Udrea was brought on Tuesday morning to the National Anti-corruption Directorate headquarters for hearings in Gala Bute case.
In a new note posted on Sunday on her Facebook page, she accused the judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), stating that they violate the new Criminal Procedure Code by the fact that they do not accept, at trying the preventive arrest requests, to study the merits of the cause.
Elena Udrea accuses, by means of the communication team managing her Facebook page, that the judges of rights and freedoms violate the Criminal Procedure Code that “forces” them to study the merits of the cause and analyze proof when they reach decisions related to preventive arrest requests. Nonetheless, she shows that the same Code allows a suspect to be kept under preventive arrest without proof, based merely on “reasonable suspicion”.
Here is the integral message posted on Elena Udrea’s official Facebook account:
“The situation of the ‘proof’ against Elena Udrea
People talked a lot about the fact that the extension of preventive arrest in the case of Elena Udrea might prove, in a peremptory manner, that there is proof against her. This assumption is the result of the stipulations of the new Criminal Procedure Code that demands the existence of proof that would back up “reasonable suspicion”. In comparison, the previous Code only demanded “solid clues”.
Actually, the new Criminal Procedure Code forces judges of rights and freedoms to study the merits of the causes and to analyze proof. In reality, though, this thing never happens. We are talking about terms scheduled, sometimes, from one day to the next, which means that a judge would analyze thousands of pages of a file in no more than a few hours. And he might even have ten files in one day.”
Actually, files could just as well arrive to Court laced with a ribbon, and this is the state they return, without ever being opened.
Moreover, the judges themselves point it out to defendants and defence lawyers that, at this time of a legal pursuit, arguments should only refer to the reasons the defendant should not be kept under preventive arrest during trial, without ever entering the merits of the cause. And this is a violation of the stipulations of the new Criminal Code.
One should not blame judges, though, as they are physically unable to analyze all proof in a file and frequently use merely the prosecutors’ reports. This is why we witness motivations that are copied and pasted after the reports – they copy the arguments brought by prosecutors on a memory stick and assume them due to extraordinary agglomeration.
Therefore, based on two denunciations and two declarations in the file, Elena Udrea has been staying under preventive arrest for two months, because denunciations and declarations are also considered proof. But if you never look over them, to see that they are contradictory, that they change from one moment to the next, that they do not fit each other, and they never fit anything else, you risk saying that they are reasons for preventive arrest. This thing happens in almost all complicated files with thousands of pages and dozens, perhaps hundreds of defendants.
The solution should be to clearly establish the crimes that require preventive arrest during the inquiry. As there are cases when a person accused of a tax evasion of RON 10,000 remains under preventive arrest five or six months because there are proof to establish “reasonable suspicion”. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Code must be modified, to clarify these situations and to stop forcing judges to approach the merits of the cause while the inquiry is still ongoing”, the post signed by the communication team of the ex-Tourism and Regional Development Minister pointed out.