The Supreme Court’s statement on presidential pardon

The Supreme Court asserted its duty to assess whether the act of pardon, issued prior to conviction by a final court judgement, constitutes an interference with the domain of justice as expounded in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal (lawful resolution of a disagreement over law by an impartial and independent institution). The Supreme Court asserted the above by directly applying constitutional norms (art. 8(2) and 178(1)), having due regard to the fact that the Constitution establishes the principle of separation of powers (art. 10); the principle of state organs acting on the basis of and within the limits of the law (art. 7) and the principle of the sole competence of courts in the domain of justice (art. 175(1) and art. 183).

Having conducted a thorough exegesis of legal provisions, the Supreme Court came to conclusion that the power of pardon can be exercised only after a final convicting judgement of a court has been delivered. For only under this circumstance one does not infringe upon principles enshrined in art. 10 in conjunction with art. 7, art 42(3), art. 45(1), art. 175(1) and art 177(1) of the Constitution.

Effectively, the Supreme Court indicated that the exercise of the power of pardon before the judgement of a court becomes final cannot entail any procedural effects. As the Supreme Court concluded, issuance of a final convicting judgement is therefore a sine qua non of the exercise of the power of pardon.

Made on the basis of official information provided by the Supreme Court (cf.

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of