Flashback by: longbow4y
Do not worry rixstep, Ubuntu does not sleep. What is great is sometimes done in silence.
Soon begins probably a criminal investigation against the MN is my tip.
the first and second paragraph:
"1 § Anyone who willfully or negligently by public authority, act or omission override those of the task must be convicted of misconduct in a fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years. If the act having regard to the offender's powers or task associated with the exercise of authority in general or to other circumstances are considered to be small, should not be penalized.
If the offense referred to in the first paragraph has been committed intentionally, and is regarded as a grave, shall be sentenced for gross misconduct to imprisonment for at least six months and six years. In assessing whether the crime is gross special consideration shall be whether the offender has seriously abused his position or whether the act of an individual or the public has resulted in serious harm or improper benefit is significant. '
There, more serious than rape, less rough.
JK, RAW and others sitting with the question in your lap right now. And with that many now ask for the email logs, they can not consider themselves ignorant of the problem and ignore the problem.
The Supreme Administrative Court judgment from 2010:
regulate the detention with the help of EAO by:
"It is therefore in line with the Framework to a prison sentence, which was decided in the context of the system of arrest, should be regarded and treated as a fact in all Member States irrespective of the country of detention has taken place and regardless of the purpose for which the warrant was issued "
It is understood that prosecutors and possibly court not followed this precedent-setting judgment in the case of YES (JA) and pursuant to Chapter 24 of the Code.
Comparable to a similar court cases "Question of reckless authority in custody." where the sentence of a magistrate reads: "Court of Appeals opinion that MM has suffered detriment partly because he had been arrested without formal rules observed that regulate how a custody matter shall be dealt with and by that he remained in custody despite that detention is objectively not existed. Detriment can not be considered call. "
Original Flashback: https://www.flashback.org/sp39548148