TO THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AT THE MILITARY COURT OF
APPEAL,
I, the undersigned, SAVA PAUL, son of --- and of ---, born
on 1984-04-03, in ROMAN, NEAMŢ county, Personal Identification Code ---, identified
by ID Card Series ---, No. ---, issued by SPCLEP Roman, residing in ROMAN, str.
---, blk. ---, apt. ---, NEAMŢ county, having a non-resident permit applicable
for IAŞI, str. ---, no. ---, blk. ---, apt. ---, IAŞI county, working as ---, IAŞI
county, within the legal notice period, submit the present
COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE ORDINANCE OF DISMISSAL OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AT THE IAŞI MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Dated 2014-03-14 in the Case no. 259/P/2013, where I stand as the aggrieved party,
Demanding that you reconsider the criminal proceedings in the Case
no. 259/P/2013 and find that there is enough evidence for the crimes of
«abuse while on duty against the interests of persons» and «abusive behavior».
I demand that you take the legal measures against: master sergeant ---, master sergeant
--- and capt. ---, all three members of the PLOIEŞTI RIOT POLICE INTERVENTION
TEAM.
As a matter of fact:
-on December 7, 2013, I participated in the protest against
water contamination through the shale gas exploration and exploitation using
the hydraulic fracturing method, protest occurring in PUNGEŞTI, VASLUI County,
--PAGE 1---
-on December 20, 2013, I composed
and submitted the Criminal Complaint to the Judge Advocate General at the Iaşi
Military Tribunal via regular mail,
-on December 23, 2013, the Criminal
Complaint reaches the Judge Advocate General's Office at the Iaşi Military Tribunal,
-on December 24, 2013, the Judge
Advocate General at the Iaşi Military Tribunal issues a citation for January
10, 2014,
-on January 10, 2014, I am heard and
provide a written and signed statement to the Judge Advocate General at the
Iaşi Military Tribunal,
-on March 14, 2014, the Judge
Advocate General at the Iaşi Military Tribunal issues the Ordinance of
dismissal,
-on March 25, 2014, I acknowledge
the deliverance of the Ordinance,
-the Ordinance shows
that: the representatives of the Riot Police do not challenge the repeated
identity control procedure concerning the undersigned, they do not challenge
the procedure performed by a high number of Riot Police employees close to
their vehicles, they do not challenge the existence of the filming sequences
related to my presence in the Pungeşti area, that is the filming sequence of
the second identity control procedure,
-the case
documents, meaning the statement of the witness --- and the Letters sent by
the VASLUI RIOT POLICE COUNTY INSPECTORATE to the military prosecutor, do not
show any evidence of me being the subject of a civil penalty or a criminal
complaint filed by Chevron Romania or the subject of criminal case to the
Vaslui Court,
-the case documents do not show that there has been «solid
evidence» that I was performing, having performed or preparing to perform «a
deed which stands as crime or criminal offence», the deed of identity control
performed by the Riot Police personnel being illegal, abusive, degrading,
insulting, undemocratic and unconstitutional, against the letter and the spirit
of art. 27, let. b, from Law no. 550/2004,
-the Judge Advocate General ignored the fact that the
presence and the actions of the Riot Police employees within the Ministry of
Interior were contrary to Order no. 60/2010 of the Ministry of Interior
concerning the organization and the performance of activities of preserving public
order and security, particularily articles 1 and 12:
--PAGE 2---
Art. 1, pt. 1 states that “Maintaining
public order and security represents the set of measures taken by and
regular activities of the Romanian Police, with the purpose of protecting
and observing the citizens’ fundamental rights, regular operation of the state
institutions, the civil norms, social rules, other supreme values, as well as
the public and private property.”
Art. 12,
pt. 1 states that “By the order of the Chief of the City/Town Police, special
places of public security can be established in urban and rural areas with
the participation of additional teams in charge with public order and security,
with the use of personnel belonging to other police structures: Criminal
Investigation, Special Police Units etc.”
-according to art. 19 from the Law no. 550/2004, “(1) The
Romanian Riot Police fulfills the following duties, using its specialized
units:” “c) carry out missions of restoring public order whenever it has
been disrupted by any type of actions or deeds contrary to the regular legal
provisions;”
-The special area of public security established within
the PUNGEŞTI village, VASLUI county, should have been handled by the Romanian
Police, that is the Vaslui City Police, because maintaining public order is a
duty to be fulfilled by the Romanian Police, not by the Riot Police. Therefore,
the performance of the duties of the three Riot Police employees did not
observe the legal framework, they have carried out illegal orders coming
from their superior officers and performed abusive identity control
activities and behaved abusively,
-following the filming sequences sent by the Riot Police,
the statement related to the use of an insulting language is not being
challenged. I considered the use of «Come here, you crank» and «You might
receive a civil penalty at home!» to be insulting, degrading and threatening.
The criminal prosecutor found that these words do not show the guilt and intent
of insulting, degrading and threatening me, a finding which I strongly object
to.
-according to the statements given at the hearings, the
three Riot Police employees were ordered to “identify the individuals who
provoked the damages” “pursuing” “the identification of individuals with marks
of scratches and damaged clothes in the wrecked fences”
--PAGE 3---
-the case documents show that I followed the request of
the Riot Police personnel, showed co-operation, did not use an insulting
language and did not show signs of violence, “marks of scratches and damaged
clothes in the wrecked fences”, I voluntarily attended the hearing for which a
citation was issued and proposed a witness who showed co-operation with the
criminal prosecutor.
-it is not found whether the representatives of the Riot
Police provided the criminal prosecutor with unedited and complete filming materials,
presented on the original storage device, performed with the technical means of
the Riot Police.
-it is not found when and where the three Riot Police
employees were heard.
- the elements on which the Judge Advocate General based
his decision to identify the three Riot Police employees as potential perpetrators
of the crimes being investigated are not found.
-the Judge Advocate General did not offer me the chance
of performing a visual identification procedure related to the three Riot
Police employees as potential perpetrators of the crimes being investigated.
Hence, the Riot Police employees did not have the right then
and there to prevent my return home, to ask for my Identity Card and to
film me. I was treated as a criminal with no legal reason.
The Ordinance of dismissal brings the possibility of me being
sued by the three Riot Police employees for libelous complaint, circumstance
which brings emotional and psychological distress. I want to make clear that
the three Riot Police employees are being supported by the Romanian Government,
the Ministry of Interior, the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Riot Police,
the Vaslui County Riot Police Inspectorate and the Ploieşti Riot Police
Intervention Team. I, the undersigned, am not member of a political party or a
Non-Governmental Organization and am not represented by a attorney of law paid
through donations or personal funds.
The representatives of the Riot Police resigned to
degrading behavior towards me, limited my freedom of movement on Romanian soil,
did not respect my view according to
which shale gas exploration and exploitation through hydraulic fracturing,
unsafe procedure in relation to the quality of the drinking water and water for
agricultural use, developed within the Pungeşti are, is being performed
following the illegal activities of CHEVRON ROMANIA when it comes to the right
of using the disputed area, circumstance investigated by the
Fraud Investigation Service of the Vaslui County Police Inspectorate.
By displaying my sacred loyalty to my country, I challenged
the way in which the Riot Police personnel fulfilled their oath to protect the
country. I fulfilled my right and duty to defend my country in good faith.
--PAGE 4---
I was subjected to identity control twice because the
state authorities involved in the matter, particularily the authorities in
charge with public order and national security, have noticed that I expressed
my thoughts and views publicly, peacefully and without carrying any weapon.
At the same time, I challenged the way in which the authorities did not observe
the constitutional right to a safe and balanced environment. The
representatives of the Riot Police, institution under the control of the
Ministry of Interior, part of the Romanian Government, did not provide the
conditions for me to freely participate in the political, social and economic
life of the country.
It is worth mentioning that the Judge Advocate General in
charge with Case no. 259/P/2013 showed lack of respect towards the undersigned taking
into account the following:
-he issued the citation for January 10, 2013 on December
23, 2013,
-
-the Ordinance of dismissal is dated “Year 2013 month
March day 14”,
-
-he dated the Letter of the Vaslui County Riot Police
Inspectorate prior to December 7, 2013: No. 2324613/ 2013-02-05,
-he seized my original Citation without providing any
justification.
Considering
the above-mentioned, I find that there is enough evidence to bring to trial
master sergeant ---, master sergeant --- and capt. ---, all three Riot Police
employees with the Ploieşti Riot Police Intervention Team, because the adjudication
ordered by the Judge Advocate General at the Iaşi Military Tribunal is
unsubstantial and unjustified.
--PAGE 5---
I rest
my complaint on the provisions of art. 275-278 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and art. 5, 9, 10, 11 from the European Convention on Human Rights,
and art. 22, par. 2, art. 25, art. 29, par. 1, art. 30, art. 35, art. 39, art.
49, par. 5, art. 54, par. 1, art. 55, par. 1, from the Constitution of Romania.
I
append to the present complaint the following documents:
-copy of the
scanned citation
-copy of the Letter
of the Judge Advocate General to the Iaşi Military Tribunal
-copy of the
Ordinance of dismissal
-copy of the
Criminal Complaint
-copy of the
envelope
-copy of the
advice of the delivery of the Criminal Complaint
-copy of the
Request of the undersigned no. 2352631 from 2014-01-06 to the Vaslui County
Riot Police Inspectorate
-copy of the
Letter no. 2324118 from 2014-01-08 of the Vaslui County Riot Police
Inspectorate
-copy of the
scanned Letter of the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Riot Police for the
producer of the TV show DOSAR ROMÂNIA running on TVR 1.
-
The
address of deliverance of the procedural documents of the Judge Advocate General’s
Office at the Military Tribunal Iaşi concerning the undersigned is: Sava Paul,
Iaşi, str. ---, no. ---, blk. ---, apt. ---, Iaşi county, zip code ---.
2014-04-12 ---
SAVA PAUL,
TO THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AT THE MILITARY COURT OF APPEAL
--PAGE 6---
No comments:
Post a Comment
The Truth shall set you free...