[Supreme Court] Results of Case 2011/001
•
by eBelgian Presidency
The eBelgian Supreme Court has made a ruling and announce this.
Results of Case 2011/001 - Cabinet Dec 2010 vs Avegan
After reviewing all evidence provide by the accuser ThomasRED and the accused A Vegan, the Supreme Court of eBelgium has decided that the evidence provided was not strong enough to start a trial.
Motivation
- The chatlog was the only incriminating evidence provided that wasn't based on the accuser's own testomony.
- It's imposible to verify the authenticity of the chatlog. Unless the eRep Admin can come testify here herself.
- Chatlogs also contained clear signs of being edited and is therefore not valid evidence.
- Even if it was valid, the chatlog alone does not provide strong enough evedence to warrent a trial.
The SC regrets the fact that it took so long before someone started to gather this evidence and would advice the current and future goverment too have a stricter password policy and better financial records as the current situation resulted in old/vague evidence.
Keeping this in mind the SC has decided that any requests for an investigation into the theft of the 50 gold of the eBe Raw account between 24 Sept 2010 and 10 Oct 2010, will be rejected.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Thank God, finally a statement!
I agree on the message, but the last part
"Keeping this in mind the SC has decided that any requests for an investigation into the theft of the 50 gold of the eBe Raw account between 24 Sept 2010 and 10 Oct 2010, will be rejected."
Thats obliterating the free will!
If every time one trial isnt allowed, but someone else wants to have a trial about the same subject, it isnt possible because you will automatically reject it?
@ GW
That is what a court is for, to remove a freedom through due process.
This was to be expected. But I do agree with Glenn that a new trial/investigation shouldn't be rejected in advance, but the person who will request one should come up with new and verifiable evidence.
Okay then,
"Keeping this in mind the SC has decided that any requests for an investigation into the theft of the 50 gold of the eBe Raw account between 24 Sept 2010 and 10 Oct 2010, will be rejected unless a substantial amount of new evidence is provided."
Better?
For me, it is (;
Let that be (unless a substantial amount of new evidence is provided) the last bits wasted over this case. GJ
@ GW, you can't incriminate the same person for the same crime. Lol.
That would be "double jeopardy". xP
Not every country uses that law, and I heaven't found it in our eBelgian Constitution 😛
This decision does two things.
1) It closes a festering wound in the political life of the nation.
2) It establishes an important precident.
There have always been divergent opinions about the purpose and use of judicial institutions and processes.
Some are, frankly vexatious – to beat the proverbial dead horse as another facet of a personal dispute.
Others are strategic – perhaps to position oneself for personal/social/political/economic advantage.
There are arguments that no guilty party should ever escape, no matter how many innocent are hurt: the flip side is the opinion that no innocent should ever be hurt, regardless of how many guilty get away.
This is none of those. It bounds a situation with reasonable rules, and closes the book – for now. If, at some point, a future SC should find the principle unworkable, they can [and i hope have the intelligence to] change it.
Regarding its absence in the Constitution:
A constitution provides a framework; not a detailed ‘to do’ [‘to not do’] list of the daily life of eCtizens. So, I for one, am happy enough that it is not referenced there.
2 messages for you...
1. Use forum for eRepublik not eRepublik for forum games....
2. and little less weed in the brain!
"1) It closes a festering wound in the political life of the nation."
It doesnt close any wound as no questions were answered
Not saying someone is guilty, but closing a festering wound, no, i didnt think so
@Glenn - wound stays open if people keep picking at it ... and i must say, with any RL crowd like this, they would need intensive group therapy.
at last we have a rulling!
let's all read it, accept it and move on.
moreover, I would expect a public apology to AV from TR as with this rulling AV was found innocent, but knowing how TR works that would be like expecting pigs to fly.
just saying.
i think it's best if we let the case by this and never talk about it again before it starts all over again.
This ruling didn't say anything new, it only confirmed the fact that it's close to impossible to find the thief, and I guess we will never know the complete truth, as it is almost impossible to provide objective and convincing evidence that everyone will accept. So unless the culprit steps forward him-/herself and confesses (which is highly unlikely), the general public can only speculate about rumours, which won't bring us anywhere, or accept the situation as it is and try to move on. But the wound hasn't been closed, as many will remain with the conscience that the thief possibly is still among us, unpunnished, and could maybe even strike again in the future. I guess only time could close that wound, as the events will get farther and farther behind us, and less people involved in those events will still be around. It's up to everyone individually to find out how to cope with it, but trust is something that is difficult to recover...
A Vegan wasn't found innocent, the result is just that there won't be a trial because proofs are not enough important for the Justices...
In the same time, i'm surprised that the Justices didn't asked a single question to A Vegan about this case. So finally, it's not a big surprise if we don't get the truth, as he is the only one to know it at 100%.
Justices will said that they haven't been able to ask a question to A Vegan, because A Vegan asked forum admins to delete his account and all his messages just before the start of the investigation, and disapeared from the forum... He just connected himself for the first time since the start of the investigation, 2 days ago, when the investigation had been closed by the Justice...
Happy coincidence isnt' it ?
>"I would expect a public apology to AV from TR as with this rulling AV was found innocent,"
noone ever said AV was innocent. A proper investigation couldn't be held because AV didn't want to cooperate. Which makes him all the more suspicious in my eyes.
+1 with shadowukcs
Excuse me but NO questions where ever asked to me. I wasn't around when the case was started that is it. I did not get any PM or message in game.
Also it seems you forget that an accused doesn't need to answer any questions. It is the job of the accuser to give evidence. If no evidence is present or it is poorly (or edited like in this case) it is only normal that no trial is started.
As I am innocent I was never scared of a trial. But yeah just keep on dragging it on.
Lets forget that I spend 2 days and send more than 20 mails to get the gold back. Lets forget that I (and TR) gave my word that when the gold was returned the case would be closed and I would never give the true identity of the person who originally took it.
I would have no problems in giving a name if the gold wasn't returned but first giving your word to get the gold back and than brake it seems very dirty. I guess others think different. Sorry to hear that...
Anyway if I had known that my help in getting the gold back would make me look like a liar and thief I would never have done the effort. Actually I should have better asked to split the gold and get 25 gold out of it. If I had done that nobody would have ever called me a thief or liar.
It's a pity that the person who got the gold back (TR gave me the tip I needed but I did the work) gets slandered constantly.
I really have nothing more to say about this. And indeed if TR keeps this up (like he has done the day before 2 CP elections) than that is slander. Wait I can't say that so lets call it insulting. Better?
@shadowukcs
look kiddo, I'm not gonna discuss basics of the law and/or the criminal procedure cuz you've shown you have no clue about that.
let me just enlight you that the whole process is about defining if somebody is guilty or not. If the verdict says no substantial proves have been made, the accused if found innocent.
Plus, in vast majority of the cases, it's up to the accusant to provide proves to justify his/her accusations, not vice-versa.
@TR
read what is in the comment for shadowukcs.
+ as a former CP and the one who picked the members of SC, it's not only your duty but also your obligation to respect the decision reached by the SC and not to publically spit on their decision!
Shame on you, ThomasRed!