Search results

Mudanyaal iyo Marwooyinka qaaliga ah, Jarmalka waxaa ka jira Xeer iyo Dhaqan gooni ee Kiraystaha, tahay in ey ilaaliyaan. Warqaddaan Macluumaad Kiraystayaasha ayaa leydinku tilmaamayaa iyo leydinku sharxayaa, sida aad u heshaan Aragti gooni ah. Haddii ey dhacdo in aad u baahantaan Caawinaad iyo taagyeero ku saabsan Arrintaan, waxaad ka heleesaan Bogga ugu dambeeyo ee Warqadda Macluumaad Kiraystayaasha,Taas aad ka heleesaan Cinwaanada Qofka aad la xiriirin laheeden ama ka sheegayo Goobta kula talin laheed

Aktivitäten der UNO-Organisation auf verschiedenen Gebieten. (DÜI-Etr)

The article analyses the notes, which were prepared by provisional investigation commissions formed by the Seimas, in which it was suggested that the Seimas should either agree or disagree on the abolition of the immunity of a Member of the Seimas. In the opinion of the author, an analysis of these notes permits to assert that these notes often have essential drawbacks: the notes contain insufficient arguments following which the commission substantiates its proposal that the Seimas should not give its consent to hold a Member of the Seimas criminally liable, to arrest him or restrict he freedom otherwise; at times such notes do not contain any such arguments at all; sometimes the commissions exceed the powers granted to them and undertake functions which are not characteristic of such commissions. The Constitution establishes the immunity of a Member of the Seimas not for the purpose that a Member of the Seimas who committed a crime could avoid criminal liability, but that he would not be held criminally liable in the absence of legal grounds, that he would not be persecuted for political or other similar reasons, and that no influence (which is prohibited by the Constitution) would be exerted on him due to his activity in the capacity of a Member of the Seimas.

The article analyses the notes, which were prepared by provisional investigation commissions formed by the Seimas, in which it was suggested that the Seimas should either agree or disagree on the abolition of the immunity of a Member of the Seimas. In the opinion of the author, an analysis of these notes permits to assert that these notes often have essential drawbacks: the notes contain insufficient arguments following which the commission substantiates its proposal that the Seimas should not give its consent to hold a Member of the Seimas criminally liable, to arrest him or restrict he freedom otherwise; at times such notes do not contain any such arguments at all; sometimes the commissions exceed the powers granted to them and undertake functions which are not characteristic of such commissions. The Constitution establishes the immunity of a Member of the Seimas not for the purpose that a Member of the Seimas who committed a crime could avoid criminal liability, but that he would not be held criminally liable in the absence of legal grounds, that he would not be persecuted for political or other similar reasons, and that no influence (which is prohibited by the Constitution) would be exerted on him due to his activity in the capacity of a Member of the Seimas.