Sources: VINOUSH, Cultural Forum, January 27, 2011 By Ray
Killick, January 26, 2011
RayHammertonKillick-conscience@yahoo.com
Haiti must establish a State of law. Such a project requires a radical change of mentality that only leadership with the will and the very dexterity political will can achieve. When Mr. Duvalier was ousted in 1986, he left a political vacuum that could hardly have filled the military regimes. Everything is connected. And that's why he came to power crossroads of February 7, 1991 with the same political mentality Duvalier but with a purpose of systematic destruction and general upheaval that he will continue his return in 1994. Anarchist, impatient and vengeful, Aristide could not conceive of the rule of law, much less implement it. In fact, he chose someone he knowingly lower court to him and manipulated by him into president of a liner. Preval could not conceive of the rule of law. There was never believed. To the point, I'll go from there is a rule of law (or mental exercise Thought experiment).
justice works in the rule of law, is not it? Which can then prevent anyone translate another court that would have harmed? In other words, the rule of law, the state "sine ira et studio" by Max Weber. Without hatred, without passion and without bias, it provides services to the public. (Note that I say and not public because the people I talk about the rule of law.) In that same State, it was often a presidential pardon. However, the exercise of such discretion in order to promote national reconciliation, for example, can not remove the right to any citizen to seek a form of redress. To illustrate, a future president of a state law can absolve Baby Doc, but Mrs. X or Mr. Y may still pursue this one justice. We can not deter those who seek redress. Doing so is unfair. If a case has no merit, it is for justice, not the philosophers to decide.
In sum, we must distinguish the prosecution of civil action in criminal law. All discussions in cyberspace for further former torturers to justice of the Haitian people seem to confuse the two. The first is an action on behalf of the company while the second is relief sought by the victim of a crime or her name. For example, Michèle Montas Dominique has the right as a citizen of Haiti to begin legal proceedings against JCD while gouverenement Haiti continues his comedy supposedly on behalf of the public.
A path that requires the existence of a higher authority over the justice of the rule of law to decide the validity of a legal case is arbitrary. Any decision that does not emanate from the judiciary (the role of interpreting law) on a legal case is also arbitrary. Decide now that it is not worth the trouble to pursue Jean-Claude Duvalier to trial would be arbitrary and inconsistent with the rule of law. Say it is a waste of time, it underestimated the need for Haiti to finally establish a competent judiciary. Odette Roy Fombrun as saying that if we would judge JCD, we must try all the other torturers and criminals is not a principle of justice. This principle should rather be the domain of morality. It's like saying: if you want to judge Michael Jackson for a case of pedophilia, he felt was necessary that all pedophiles Vou. Highest authority that justice, as was precisely the attitude of Aristide who thought the power of justice on behalf of the Haitian people instead of bringing justice to reform itself to become a vehicle that can deliver the trust company ("The state is me." dixit Aristide after Louis XIV). National reconciliation requires the application of justice.
What tears the social fabric of Haiti is precisely the absence of justice, impunity. So when does it end if we do not begin enforcing the law? If it discourages those who seek justice have been victims of Duvalier regimes, military Aristide and Preval, then with what regime will do we start? Our future torturers do not they say: we made a lot less crime policies that Duvalier and Aristide ...? After all, if we want to prevent a citizen JCD continue to justice, should we not intervene with legislation to do this? Is it then an illustration of the rule of law, right?
justice pe Lebrin is injustice. The dechoukaj macoutes in 1986 was injustice. For in all these cases, there was not filed lawsuits that would have to apply the appropriate sentence for the crimes committed, and this case by case basis. Whenever one uses as a society in such practices, it divides society. Every time we turn the masses as an instrument of violence, we move away from the rule of law.
If "a museum of torture" is a good memory exercise, as suggested by a visitor, it may not serve as an instrument of criminal deterrence. Transforming Fort Dimanche a museum does not resolve the lack of justice which Haiti is a country of out-of-law, m'fè sa'm VLE, sa'm pi pito. It shows us the Nazi atrocities all the time on TV, but this does not always register that heinous crimes, regimes "bloody", etc..
I can assure you that it is rather a functioning justice ultimately will facilitate national reconciliation because it will discourage abuse and arbitrary and unjust acts. The real cure is difficult, it is the rule of law. The set up is a huge effort which requires the dismantling of the state of lawlessness, the state privileges shameless, fiefs and nobles. Any argument that seeks justice outside the judicial system is flawed at the outset, his realization that abortion can not. We must learn as a society to provide justice "sine ira et studio." No civil action against Aristide or JCD can not be deleted. In fact, the civil action is a test for judicial reform in Haiti. Public action will be a test for credible justice when it is conducted by a government that really wanted to establish the EAT of law in Haiti. So the question of the hour is to Manigat Martelly and how are you going to establish this rule of law?
0 comments:
Post a Comment