Peet Kase erakogu
ANTTI SUVIRANTA 23 January 1992
SOME COMMENTS
On the Constitutional Assembly Draft of December 13, 1991 for the
Republic of Estonia Constitution
Art. 3, para. 2
As was already said at our visit to Tallinn in October, a constitutional provision that no one can plead ignorance of the law as an excuse is in our opinion too rigid. The effects of an ignorance of the law should be regulated in ordinary legislation. In modern criminal law, for instance, ignorance of law may be admitted as an defence, or as an alleviating circumstance making e.g. an otherwise intentional crime only negligent.
Art. 4, para. 2
The unlimited right of the descendants (great-grandchildren, and even more far-off) of former Estonian citizens to restore their Estonian citizenship seems rather wide.
Art. 12, para. 2
In October, we recalled that Art. 5 of the European Human Rights Convention, while requiring that the procedures for arrests and detentions are prescribed by law, does not simply allow the cases for arrests and detentions to be prescribed by law, but lists itself all permissible cases.
Arts. 17, 19, 20 and 22.
Similarly, we recalled in October that the Human Rights Convention not only requires that any restrictions to the rights embodied in these articles are prescribed by law but also that they are “necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” (Arts. 8, 9, 10 and 11, paras. 2 of the Convention). We recommended that such a provision be included in the Constitution.
Art. 29
The provision in the last sentence seems to me far too rigid, allowing no exceptions even by legislation.
Art. 39
The restrictions in the second sentence of this article are limited to business and State secrets. Should it not be possible also to protect information concerning personal circumstances of individuals from being revealed to outsiders?
Art. 69, para. 1
I understand this paragraph so that it applies to legal proceedings against Riigikogu members in every case, that is, not only to acts committed in their capacity as members of the Riigikogu but also to common crimes, traffic offences, etc.
Para. 2
Will a Riigikogu member lose his mandate even when fined for a traffic offence, etc.?
Art. 72, para. 1, and Art. 73
These provisions seem to be contradictory: shall the Riigivanem be elected by the Riigikogu, or by an Electoral Body?
Art. 84, para. 3
This procedure seems rather complicated, as the Prime Minister shall nominate a Deputy Minister separately at each occasion. In Finland, e.g., immediately after a Government has been formed, the Ministers are nominated to act as each others’ first, second, third etc. deputy every time the Minister in question has a hindrance.
Arts. 92, 127, 135 and 143
See Art. 69, para. 1, supra.