Allegations against allegations? The policeman is something more to remind the Constitutional Court

Justice has when standing allegations against claim prioritize testimony of police officers. This applies especially to situations where there is a conflict between the police and the people against whom intervened. He decided on the Constitutional Court, which dealt with the complaint of a stowaway who had allegedly falsely accuse controllers and police officers.

In a democratic legal state, in which all men are created equal, not generally without further attach greater weight to the testimonies of police officers as members of the power components compared with the testimonies of individuals against whom the police or other state powers are exercised,” said Senate with the rapporteur Katerina Šimáčková.

Guilt must be proved beyond a doubt

Justice also ignored the presumption of innocence and the principle that in cases of doubt to rule in favor of the accused. “From the contested decisions of the general courts convincingly imply that the complainant’s guilt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that with the highest possible degree of certainty that can require from human knowledge,” says the award.

Even a high degree of suspicion alone can not be the legal basis for condemning statement, emphasized the constitutional judges. District Court for Prague 6 must renegotiate the case and will be bound by the opinion of the Constitutional Court.

More on

Comments are closed.