In Bulgarias progress towards membership of the European Union, the judicial system is widely viewed as the problem child.
When the European Commission later this month releases its report on the countrys readiness to join the EU, few will be surprised if, even if the EC says that the country should be admitted on January 1 2007, it recommends the imposition of a safeguard clause in regard to the judicial system.
However, analysis has shown that it is not justified to write off Bulgarias judicial system wholesale.
With the support of the British embassy, Bulgarian non-government organisation the Centre for Liberal Strategies (CLS) published a report in April taking a detailed look at the performance of the judiciary. Details of this report were covered in The Sofia Echo on April 28.
According to the report, much of the workings of the judicial system actually meet EU standards. Those that do not include issues such as funding, which lags behind European levels, the rate of successful prosecution of organised crime, and shortcomings in courts issuing detailed explanations of their judgments. It is well known that a major concern arises from an issue beyond the powers of the judiciary to resolve. This concern arises from the changes to the constitution approved by Parliament earlier this year, which in an attempt to redress the lack of accountability of the judiciary went too far in the other direction, so some critics say, by impinging on the independence of the judiciary.
This is a brief sketch of the shortcomings of the judicial system. No one who has soberly and seriously studied its condition would dismiss the system as an unmitigated failure.
In the run-up to the EC report this month, supporters of Michael Shields, whose conviction for the attempted murder of Martin Georgiev has now been confirmed by this countrys highest relevant court, are protesting that the outcome of the court process, and the process itself, are proof that Bulgaria should not be admitted to the EU.
It is ironic that even the most cursory examination of how the three courts have dealt with the case shows that their criticisms are ill-founded.
The CLS report said that, contrary to perceptions that court actions in Bulgaria drag on interminably, the country is not behind EU standards. Specifically, in the case of Shields, his trial - against the background of the logistics of an investigation and several eyewitnesses - reached the court of first instance within less than three months. Subsequent phases, involving two courts of appeal, were completed in less than a year.
The CLS report said that an enduring criticism of the courts is that they fail to fully explain their decisions. Hardly the case with regard to Shields, where the courts have issued their reasoning in full, with the Varna court of first instance going so far as to issue an English-language translation, because of the considerable public interest in the case. Notably, the final court of appeal in turn issued its own reproach, saying that information about the case had been presented selectively in the UK, to - in the words of the court - manipulate public opinion and to discredit Bulgarias judicial system.
Family, friends and counsel backing Shields now say that they are considering taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging irregularities in the way that the investigation and court hearings were handled, and alleging violations of Shieldss human rights. Should they proceed, the European Courts judgment will be of great interest to all sides awaiting an objective assessment on how the Bulgarian system handled issues of procedure and of human rights.
There is, by the by, another issue. Before anyone had ever heard of Michael Shields, Bulgarias legislature approved legislation against sports hooliganism, and in the initial sentence pronounced against Shields for attempted murder - a crime more grievous than hooliganism - it appears that the Varna court was trying to send a clear message about such behaviour. If Shields is guilty, as three courts now have ruled that he is, it seems out of kilter with the intentions of the legislators and Government policy to reduce the jail sentence, as the Supreme Cassation Court has done, for a crime associated with sports hooligan behaviour, and given the enduring injuries to Georgiev, a crime that was in fact much worse.
