I discuss the trial on another of my blogs, and in my next post I will simply discuss Prokipczaks evidence under oath during that proceeding, as well as Komendant Gawliks rather, interesting sworn evidence.
However, you should know a little about how the trial was "conducted" by the Judge, and it gives a more global view of how things are done in Poland, first by the Police, then by the Prosecutors, and finally in the Courts, in the sister blogs I discuss this in greater detail, so here I limit it to the Judge who was presiding over the case in which Prokipczak and Gawlik gave their sworn testimony.
I have to first make it clear that both I, and a Lawyer I had present during the proceedings, made repeated objections to the Court over many issues of the Court violating my rights during the Trial, denying me my guaranteed right to fully understand proceedings (which were conducted in Polish, with an interpreter present), to fully understand (i.e. have in English) all documents either used or created during proceedings, his failing to order witnesses to answer the questions they were being asked, his failing to ensure that witnesses limited their speech to shorter "outbursts" in order that the interpreter had the possibility to translate to me what was being said (else how could I ask follow-up questions, or follow a pre-planned series of questions), , as well as the Court repeatedly interrupting me to say "that does not matter" whenever I tried to either question witnesses or put forward evidence of the crime under Article 234* of the Polish Criminal Code in the indictment, (which was 50% of the indictment and inherently linked to the perjury charge), and, in fact, this ended up with 2 motions for the Judge to be recused (removed from hearing the case) due to the many and various violations of Law and my rights which were permitted by the Court.
A Higher Court would later rule (on appeal) ,and in a very Polish manner, that many of these violations did take place to my detriment, but that they didn't matter!
This included the failure of the Court to provide me with translated documents (to English), meaning I had no idea what was contained within them during proceedings, and, providing me with no translations of the written record of proceedings themselves to refer to when preparing for the next hearings, some of which were 4 months apart. Apparently only I was supposed to rely on memory, of verbally half-translated testimony, while everyone else involved in the trial was provided with a full written record of the proceedings, which they could refer to throughout.
This also meant that when I would attempt to sum up the case, some one year after it started, having had 8 separate hearings, with months in between these hearings, that I was supposed to recall everything that had been said....
but hey, I was only the victim, and, oh yeah, the auxiliary Prosecutor !
However, mid-trial, in any event, and providing me with no surprise, the motions to recuse the Judge during proceedings were........... refused..............
by......................
HH Judge Joanna Zaryczny........, who at the time of making this decision had been a Judge for all of one year, and had worked exclusively in the Civil Courts.
So this most Junior and most inexperienced Judge in the system in Gorlice, was in charge of deciding whether or not one of the most Senior Criminal Court Judges should be recused, based on inappropriate or biased conduct.
While this is very Polish (and thus legal in Poland), the idea of the most Junior person deciding if one of the most Senior people should be removed from their current job, seems, well, bizarre.
(It is at this point I ask you to create an image in your head....... your Boss, the one with years of experience, sitting in his/her plush office, with a beautiful view, all lovely.......then someone complains about him/her, so, your employer follows strict codes of inquiry procedures........
.....and then appoints the most Junior and inexperienced person in your office or workplace to decide whether or not your Boss had done his job correctly, with the caveat that the most Junior member of staff had never actually done any element of the Boss' work, and you get the picture).
How about you imagine a scenario where a medical malpractice allegation was made against a Cardiac Specialist of 30 years standing, and a review of his conduct was ordered by his employers,............. ....to be carried out by a kid one year out of Medical school....with no experience of Cardiology........hmmmmm.
I'll give you a flavour of just one or two of the "Justifications" provided by HH Zaryczny when she decided that there was nothing wrong with how the case was being conducted, and that the violations of Law, and my rights, were entirely ok:
1/.
"...there is no statutory duty to have the minutes (written record) of Court sessions translated".
For your information my reader:
a) There IS a statutory duty to make written records/minutes of Court sessions.
b) There IS a statutory duty to create these records in the Polish language.
c) According to Polish law, participants to the trial, Lawyers, Judge, Victim, Suspect, are entitled to obtain these written records/minutes, and read them.
d) In fact, the Polish Court system operates a portal, and these written records/minutes are published on that portal....in Polish only. I have to point out that I was granted access to that same Portal by the Polish Courts, as I was both victim and auxiliary Prosecutor in this case, but not a single document that was posted to that Portal could I comprehend, as I do not speak Polish.
But, according to Judge Zaryczny, if you happen to be a foreigner, or don't speak Polish, then hard luck, you get Polish language documents which you cannot understand.....Polish Justice.
Now, at the risk of telling a Polish Judge the Law....in Poland.......here's some European, Polish Constitutional and indeed some Polish domestic Law on the subject, just ELEVEN examples, but there are more:
Charter of Fundamental rights of the EU (which became binding on EU member States with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1st December 2009).
Article 1:
"Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected"
Unless of course you are a foreigner in Poland, when you may be treated with no respect or dignity by the Polish State.
Article 20:
"Everyone is equal before the Law".
Unless you are not Polish, do not speak or comprehend Polish, then the Polish State will happily discriminate against you.
Article 21:
(1) Any discrimination, based on any ground, such as sex, race , colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, LANGUAGE, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited".
Very clear, yet, HH Zaryczny felt free to, in effect, rule that discriminating against me on the grounds that I do not comprehend the Polish language, and being a foreigner, was perfectly ok, as there was "no statutory duty" to translate Polish language documents (that every Polish person could read and comprehend in their own language).....into English, so that I, the victim, and auxiliary Prosecutor, might also know their content.........equal before the Law? Not if you don't speak or comprehend Polish you're not.......
(By the way, you might remember Gawliks letter to me, and his ignorant abuse of my rights about language , highlighted at point 6/. in the post reached by clicking on this link:
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-this-police-intimidation-komendant.html)
(2) Within the scope of the application of the Treaties and without any prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of Nationality shall be prohibited"
Unless of course, like me, you happen to be Irish, in a Polish Court, in which case you can merrily be discriminated against, if you do not comprehend the Polish language.
Constitution of the Republic of Poland:
Article 27:
"Polish shall be the official language of Poland.
This provision shall NOT infringe upon national minority rights resulting from ratified International agreements"
So, accession terms to the EU, EU Law, Fundamental Charter of Human rights of the EU all apply, but just not when Polish Judges are making decisions that relate to the upholding and respect for the rights of Non-Polish speakers and foreigners?
Article 30:
"The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms, and RIGHTS of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable.
The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of the Public authorities".
Just not when the person whose rights are being denied and abused is not Polish?
Article 32:
(1) "All persons shall be equal before the law.
All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities".
Unless you are not Polish, and do not comprehend the Polish language?
(2) " No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason whatsoever".
Unless, you do not speak Polish, in which case Poland will merrily discriminate against you?
Article 37:
"Anyone, being under the authority of the Polish State, shall enjoy the freedoms and rights ensured by the Constitution".
Unless you happen to be foreigner...who does not comprehend the Polish language......in Poland?
Article 87:
"The sources of universally binding Law of the Republic of Poland shall be:
The Constitution, statutes, ratified international agreements, and regulations"
Unless of course, those Laws happen to be internationally binding Laws, Internationally binding agreements or Treaties, and particularly if it is European Law (to which Poland is a signatory), which is ignored as standard practice.
Polish criminal procedure Code:
This keeps changing, and is covered by more than one Article in the Code, but effectively, the Code states that all evidence must be translated for a person who does not have a command of the Polish language, :
Article 204, (subsection 2):
"An interpreter shall also be summoned when it is necessary , to translate into Polish a document written in a foreign language, or to translate a document written in Polish, to a foreign language".
This also covers the calling of Interpreters to Court proceedings.
Now it seems that HH Zaryczny in her decision NOT to recuse Judge Langer, does NOT consider sworn witness testimony to be evidence, and so it does not need to be translated in the written record, in order that I, a non-Polish speaker, might be able to read it, re-examine it, or use it later in proceedings.
Perhaps she would also think it was perfectly reasonable if the written record/minutes, were made in Swahili, and so Judge Langer, and Defence Counsel, could not read or comprehend them either?
I think not.
It was into this that Prokipczak and Gawlik walked, and it was no better when they gave their evidence,
