Attorneys were requested to be present when the accusation resolution was to be introduced
Interview with B.Batzorig, Head of the Research and Surveillance Department of the Anti-Corruption Agency
-Is the Anti-Corruption Agency a subject authorized to investigate N.Enkhbayar?
-The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) conducts investigations for 8 basic kinds of offences such as misuse and abuse of official power by officials of government, non-government organizations and economic entities, giving, accepting bribes and mediating in bribery, misuse of fiscal funds and others. Persons who are involved in crimes subject to ACA investigations, are often involved concurrently in crimes other than those 8 types of crimes and are parties to crimes committed in groups andor in association with other persons. For instance, while being involved in a crime of abuse of official powers, he or she may be a party to a fraud, theft, contravening or damaging other’s liberty, and furthermore, even a party in a murder. Suspects in such cases in these circumstances are investigated by ACA. The reason is, if a person committed a crime subject to ACA’s jurisdiction, commits other crimes outside ACA’s domain, according to the Criminal Proceedings Law, the prosecution office establishes which body conducts case filing and investigations. Following this legal procedure, the Prosecution office ruled that the criminal case associated with N. Enkhbayar be jointly investigated by the investigators of the ACA and the State Investigations Office.
-Did the State Investigation Department and your organization interrogate N. Enkhbayar when he was in detention?
- As soon as the resolution to detain N. ENkhbayar in conjunction with allegation for criminal offence was passed within the confines of the Criminal Case Proceedings Law, the investigator introduced the resolution to N. Enkhbayar. After the introduction, when the law organ set to begin interrogation, N. Enkhbayar refused to be interrogated, within his legal powers. Therefore, no interrogation has been done.
- I heard, there were three attempts to interrogate him without attorney present. But once, when the detainee was meeting with attorney O. Baasankhuu, [you] avoided interrogating, as now attorneys assert. How many times [did you] submit a request for interrogation?
-According to the Article 40 of the Criminal Proceedings Law, in certain circumstances such as investigations involving a person who does not know the Mongolian language, or a juvenile, or a person who might be charged with a capital punishment, the attorney’s presence is required. But for N. Enkhbayar’s case, there is no any regulation providing for mandatory presence of an attorney. N. Enkhbayar does have a right to be interrogated any way. When we approach him to interrogate we allow every possibility for him to exercise his right to have attorney present. In case the detainee requires his attorney’s presence but the latter is not present, no interrogation is held. Once when we came to the detainee for interrogation, attorney O. Baasankuu was meeting with the detainee. When the investigator was to begin interrogation with the presence of O. Baasankhuu, the latter said:”I will not participate in the process as an attorneyadvocate, but would attend it as a third party to observe whether human rights and liberties were secured in the process”.
-Is the Anti-Corruption Agency a subject authorized to investigate N.Enkhbayar?
-The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) conducts investigations for 8 basic kinds of offences such as misuse and abuse of official power by officials of government, non-government organizations and economic entities, giving, accepting bribes and mediating in bribery, misuse of fiscal funds and others. Persons who are involved in crimes subject to ACA investigations, are often involved concurrently in crimes other than those 8 types of crimes and are parties to crimes committed in groups andor in association with other persons. For instance, while being involved in a crime of abuse of official powers, he or she may be a party to a fraud, theft, contravening or damaging other’s liberty, and furthermore, even a party in a murder. Suspects in such cases in these circumstances are investigated by ACA. The reason is, if a person committed a crime subject to ACA’s jurisdiction, commits other crimes outside ACA’s domain, according to the Criminal Proceedings Law, the prosecution office establishes which body conducts case filing and investigations. Following this legal procedure, the Prosecution office ruled that the criminal case associated with N. Enkhbayar be jointly investigated by the investigators of the ACA and the State Investigations Office.
-Did the State Investigation Department and your organization interrogate N. Enkhbayar when he was in detention?
- As soon as the resolution to detain N. ENkhbayar in conjunction with allegation for criminal offence was passed within the confines of the Criminal Case Proceedings Law, the investigator introduced the resolution to N. Enkhbayar. After the introduction, when the law organ set to begin interrogation, N. Enkhbayar refused to be interrogated, within his legal powers. Therefore, no interrogation has been done.
- I heard, there were three attempts to interrogate him without attorney present. But once, when the detainee was meeting with attorney O. Baasankhuu, [you] avoided interrogating, as now attorneys assert. How many times [did you] submit a request for interrogation?
-According to the Article 40 of the Criminal Proceedings Law, in certain circumstances such as investigations involving a person who does not know the Mongolian language, or a juvenile, or a person who might be charged with a capital punishment, the attorney’s presence is required. But for N. Enkhbayar’s case, there is no any regulation providing for mandatory presence of an attorney. N. Enkhbayar does have a right to be interrogated any way. When we approach him to interrogate we allow every possibility for him to exercise his right to have attorney present. In case the detainee requires his attorney’s presence but the latter is not present, no interrogation is held. Once when we came to the detainee for interrogation, attorney O. Baasankuu was meeting with the detainee. When the investigator was to begin interrogation with the presence of O. Baasankhuu, the latter said:”I will not participate in the process as an attorneyadvocate, but would attend it as a third party to observe whether human rights and liberties were secured in the process”.
Criminal Proceedings Law provides a detailed regulation on an attorney’s participation in interrogation. Yet O. Baasankhuu said he would not exercise the rights and duties of an attorney in the process, rather he would place control over the interrogation. Therefore, it was impossible to interrogate.
Attorneys perhaps negotiate and agree with their clients on their mode of participate in the case. Maybe on these grounds, the attorneys’ team may have divided their duties and responsibilities.
-The ACA noted that O. Baasankhuu’s attorney rights to advocate N. Enkhbayar were suspended. What would you say about this?
- The ACA does not have a right to suspend O. Baasankhuu’s attorney rights.
-Attorney N. Oyunbileg was called when the accusation resolution was to be introduced and to interrogation process. Why did not attorney Oyunbileg appear?
- The investigator on the case notified the attorneys B. Ganbaatar, Shinen, N. Oyunbileg and O. Baasankhuu by phone and sms texting of the accusation resolution and of interrogation of the accused to take place the next day. O. Baasankhuu replied to that notice that he would not be able to participate as he had a court session at Bayanzurkh district court. But B. Ganbaatar and Shinen wrote a reply sms text saying that the attorneys decided after internal consultations to have attorney N. Oyunbileg attend the accusation resolution presentation and interrogation the next morning. The next morning, when the investigator called attorney N. Oyunbileg, the latter said she was on the way to the Detention center. When she arrived at the Detention Center, the investigator expressed his intention to produce an accusation resolution and start interrogation, attorney N. Oyuntsetseg said she would attend only the accusation and detention process and would not attend interrogation, and she apparently left. So the investigator produced the accusation resolution and introduced to N. Enkhbayar.
- As the attorneys claim, the fact that an investigator entered the cell N. Enkhbayar detained in was against law. Does this act violate law?
- According to the law to enforce decisions to arrest and detain suspects and accused persons, the investigator must enter the detention cell upon due permission. By procedure, the detained person should be called to the interrogation room for questioning. However N. Enkhbayar said he can’t come to the interrogation room. In such a case, the investigator requested a permission to enter his cell from the Head of the Detention Center. Upon the Detention Center Head’s permission, the investigator entered the cell of the accused.
-I heard the process of introducing the accusation resolution to Enkhbayar was recorded. Why were the attorneys refused to view the record?
-The attorneys didn’t submit their formal request in writing to view the recording. The process of getting acquainted with the case files and materials is not over. All records are in the file. They filed a complaint at the address of judge Soyombo-Erdene that the arrest and detention lacked any grounds. At that time, the attorneys did view the record.
- There are some suspicions that the recordings and video files underwent some editing?
-We live in the 21st century. Mongolian science, IT and technology specialists are fully capable to determine whether camera records, video materials are edited or not.
- N. Enkhbayar said the law organs were sending their medical doctors to him, and that those doctors were disseminating false information?
- The life and health of persons in detention are secured and safeguarded by the Court Decision Enforcement organization and health organs. The ACA does not have any right to appoint medical doctors and direct them about what to do.
- When did corruption come to sprout? In his statement of today N. Enkhbayar claims that “corruption wasn’t widespread, or “didn’t sprout” when he was in government”. Who rendered him “the Godfather of Corruption” attribute?
-Mongolian researchers have begun since 1999 comprehensive studies and analysis of corruption related issues. Ninety three (93) per cent of respondents in 1999 survey, 88.9% of 2004 survey respondents replied corruption was widespread in Mongolian. Also Transparency International produces Corruption Index, which shows that since 2006 corruption has been high in Mongolia.
The closer the above index value to 10, the lower the risk of corruption is, and the lower it is (closer to 1), the graver the corruption is. The attribute “Godfather of corruption” to N. Enkhbayar’s name was probably begun spreading around by media.
- There are also claims that when your organization called O. Tsolmon and E. Batshugar to have them meet with N. Enkhbayar, you attempted to interrogate them? Did you take testimonies and evidences from his family members?
- The information about who calls who to get what testimonies in the process of investigations is subject to confidentiality. Once the attorneys finish detailed study of the case file, they would perhaps discuss these matters openly.
- I heard E. Batshugar was banned to travel outside of Mongolia. Is E. Bat-Shugar being investigated?
-For the investigators to establish truth, some people may be prohibited to leave Mongolia. I cannot provide any more detailed information on your question.
- Are there any attempts to libel, threaten and blackmail the ACA investigators?
-If there are any attempts to libel, threaten to use force or attempts to hinder or block filing and investigations processes and other legal activities of the ACA investigators, the law provides for the application of criminal sanctions.
Attorneys perhaps negotiate and agree with their clients on their mode of participate in the case. Maybe on these grounds, the attorneys’ team may have divided their duties and responsibilities.
-The ACA noted that O. Baasankhuu’s attorney rights to advocate N. Enkhbayar were suspended. What would you say about this?
- The ACA does not have a right to suspend O. Baasankhuu’s attorney rights.
-Attorney N. Oyunbileg was called when the accusation resolution was to be introduced and to interrogation process. Why did not attorney Oyunbileg appear?
- The investigator on the case notified the attorneys B. Ganbaatar, Shinen, N. Oyunbileg and O. Baasankhuu by phone and sms texting of the accusation resolution and of interrogation of the accused to take place the next day. O. Baasankhuu replied to that notice that he would not be able to participate as he had a court session at Bayanzurkh district court. But B. Ganbaatar and Shinen wrote a reply sms text saying that the attorneys decided after internal consultations to have attorney N. Oyunbileg attend the accusation resolution presentation and interrogation the next morning. The next morning, when the investigator called attorney N. Oyunbileg, the latter said she was on the way to the Detention center. When she arrived at the Detention Center, the investigator expressed his intention to produce an accusation resolution and start interrogation, attorney N. Oyuntsetseg said she would attend only the accusation and detention process and would not attend interrogation, and she apparently left. So the investigator produced the accusation resolution and introduced to N. Enkhbayar.
- As the attorneys claim, the fact that an investigator entered the cell N. Enkhbayar detained in was against law. Does this act violate law?
- According to the law to enforce decisions to arrest and detain suspects and accused persons, the investigator must enter the detention cell upon due permission. By procedure, the detained person should be called to the interrogation room for questioning. However N. Enkhbayar said he can’t come to the interrogation room. In such a case, the investigator requested a permission to enter his cell from the Head of the Detention Center. Upon the Detention Center Head’s permission, the investigator entered the cell of the accused.
-I heard the process of introducing the accusation resolution to Enkhbayar was recorded. Why were the attorneys refused to view the record?
-The attorneys didn’t submit their formal request in writing to view the recording. The process of getting acquainted with the case files and materials is not over. All records are in the file. They filed a complaint at the address of judge Soyombo-Erdene that the arrest and detention lacked any grounds. At that time, the attorneys did view the record.
- There are some suspicions that the recordings and video files underwent some editing?
-We live in the 21st century. Mongolian science, IT and technology specialists are fully capable to determine whether camera records, video materials are edited or not.
- N. Enkhbayar said the law organs were sending their medical doctors to him, and that those doctors were disseminating false information?
- The life and health of persons in detention are secured and safeguarded by the Court Decision Enforcement organization and health organs. The ACA does not have any right to appoint medical doctors and direct them about what to do.
- When did corruption come to sprout? In his statement of today N. Enkhbayar claims that “corruption wasn’t widespread, or “didn’t sprout” when he was in government”. Who rendered him “the Godfather of Corruption” attribute?
-Mongolian researchers have begun since 1999 comprehensive studies and analysis of corruption related issues. Ninety three (93) per cent of respondents in 1999 survey, 88.9% of 2004 survey respondents replied corruption was widespread in Mongolian. Also Transparency International produces Corruption Index, which shows that since 2006 corruption has been high in Mongolia.
The closer the above index value to 10, the lower the risk of corruption is, and the lower it is (closer to 1), the graver the corruption is. The attribute “Godfather of corruption” to N. Enkhbayar’s name was probably begun spreading around by media.
- There are also claims that when your organization called O. Tsolmon and E. Batshugar to have them meet with N. Enkhbayar, you attempted to interrogate them? Did you take testimonies and evidences from his family members?
- The information about who calls who to get what testimonies in the process of investigations is subject to confidentiality. Once the attorneys finish detailed study of the case file, they would perhaps discuss these matters openly.
- I heard E. Batshugar was banned to travel outside of Mongolia. Is E. Bat-Shugar being investigated?
-For the investigators to establish truth, some people may be prohibited to leave Mongolia. I cannot provide any more detailed information on your question.
- Are there any attempts to libel, threaten and blackmail the ACA investigators?
-If there are any attempts to libel, threaten to use force or attempts to hinder or block filing and investigations processes and other legal activities of the ACA investigators, the law provides for the application of criminal sanctions.
Comments
Post a Comment