9862: Confused by post 9851

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

please post anonymously. thanks... 

Ok, now, I am really confused. According to RSF,

> On 10 August, Minister of Justice Gary Lissade sent a request from
> Examining Judge Claudy Gassant to the Senate, seeking the lifting of
> Senator Toussaint's parliamentary immunity. Toussaint has been
> implicated in the investigation into the assassination of journalist
> Dominique, director of Radio Haiti Inter, and Jean-Claude Louissaint, a
> security guard at the radio station. The minister also passed on a
> judge's decision to the senators which, questioning Judge Gassant's
> impartiality in the handling of the investigation, demanded a stay of
> the execution of his request. This judge had been approached by
> Toussaint's lawyers on the basis of interrogations of several persons
> who were detained in the context of the case. These interrogations have
> since been declared illegal, and the person who carried them out, Judge
> Jean Gabriel Ambroise, was penalised by the minister of justice.
> Ambroise had acted on a request by the senator's lawyers.

Am I to understand from the above paragraph that the
justice minister, Gary Lissade, "sent a request from
Examining Judge Claudy Gassant to the Senate, seeking
the lifting of Senator Toussaint's parliamentary
immunity". However, Gary Lissade "also passed on a
decision" by Judge Jean Gabriel Ambroise to the senators
which "demanded a stay of the execution of" judge
Claudy Gassant's request; even though, Gary Lissade had
penalised Judge Ambroise because his "decision" was based
on interrogations that had been declared illegal?

If the illegality of the interrogations was determined after
Judge Ambroise's decision had been sent to the senate, has
that "decision" since been withdrawn from considereation?

Is this fishy or sloppy or is it sloppy because it's fishy?