=?X-UNKNOWN?Q?a1148=3A__Re=3A_a1141L_Is_Another_Assassination?==?X-UNKNOWN?Q?_of_JEAN_DOMINIQUE_about_to_Take_Place=3F_M?==?X-UNKNOWN?Q?ich=E8le_Montas_Dominique_=28fwd=29?=

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: kevin pina <kpinbox@hotmail.com>


"Fact: The Senate of the Republic, composed exclusively of members of Fanmi
Lavalas, returned the Jean Dominique file to the investigating judge, asking
for a number of documents prior to any decision about lifting Senator Dany
Toussaint’s parliamentary immunity, as requested by Judge Gassant; according
to jurists, the release of such documents would amount to a flagrant
violation of the investigation’s confidentiality. By doing so, the Senate
conferred upon itself the authority of a court, in violation of the
separation of powers".


I was wondering if someone on the list with legal experience within the
"French" system of jurisprudence could answer a few honest questions related
to this matter. Does review of the evidence by the parliamentary committee
constitute "a flagrant violation of the investigation’s confidentiality" if
it is reviewed in closed chambers?If there is evidence linking one to a
crime does the judiciary have any obligation of disclosing it to any other
body prior to issuing a mandate for commencement a trial? What protections
are in place for one accused of a crime prior to being placed on trial? If
evidence is not bound to be deemed credible prior to a trial does that mean
that an individual accused of a crime is assumed guilty and therefore must
prove their innocence?

I am certain everyone would like to see justice done in this matter but I am
confused by the judiciary's lack of disclosure of the evidence. Might they
be able to ask for review of the evidence by a credible and mutually
acceptable "non-belligerent" body such as the world court?

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com