Do you feel that in the past year you have taken an excessive interest in matters of criminal procedure, even though they do not fall within the direct jurisdiction of the minister of justice?

The Public Prosecutor's Office is also under the Ministry of Justice, and I can put my hand on the Constitution and say that I have not requested, ordered, initiated, or closed any criminal case. No one has been asked to be identified as a suspect or be charged. What I have asked is what the reasons are or why this or that criminal case has been delayed, and whether I can help in any way in my position. This is especially true for the Slava Ukraini case. Yes, I have also asked that certain criminal cases be reviewed by more than one person, just to be clear that the evidence is together so that decisions do not have to be made by a particular prosecutor, which can be very difficult.

And as for this last allegation that I took an interest in the Ain Seppik trial, this is completely misleading information, I never once asked any prosecutor or chief prosecutor about that trial.

Yes, Ain Seppik has written two complaints against the prosecutor general, which have been handled by the Ministry of Justice, and they have been handled exactly as required by law, i.e. no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, as far as I know. I am very sorry that this situation has come out in the open. I am very sad that one of the initiations of a service review, what I would call a management audit, to then better help the prosecutor's office in this regard, to have a more credible prosecutor's office in the public eye, how to protect these prosecutors from being overburdened in this hard work and how to motivate them. I've done all that, I've talked to at least a couple of dozen prosecutors, I've been to all the district attorney's offices. I am concerned about law enforcement.

What would have to happen, and where would be the line beyond which a minister of justice would no longer be able to intervene?

Specifically, if I were to give guidance on specific procedural steps to be taken in one or another proceeding, even the kind of thing that I gave as an example, that somebody has to be identified as a suspect or that somebody also has to be prosecuted, these are very specific interventions.

When the minister of justice asks the Prosecutor's Office for information about this or that trial, why things are not going well, or what stage the case is at, the Prosecutor's Office usually provides memos. All the other ministers of justice who have commented on this have also said that they receive such memos all the time.

Yes, certainly from my previous experience as a police officer and also having been Minister of the Interior and Minister of Defense, it is important for me to know what is going on. The question is, do I intervene in some way? Or am I not intervening, and that's where the question of interpretation comes in as to what that intervention is.

In 2019, when Mart and Martin Helme wanted to know the status of the Danske and Swedbank money laundering cases, you criticized their behavior as political interference. Is it time for political trials in your case as well?

I'm going to deny that completely because I've never gone into the substance of cases. I asked about the Ukrainian side of the procedure in Slava Ukraini case and if there was anything I could do to help the Ukrainian side get information faster and intensify cooperation. Yes, I asked the prosecutor general to contact the prosecutor general of Ukraine. Yes, I contacted the minister of justice of Ukraine myself and asked him to help us so that we could get information from there quicker, and after that phone call, things started moving. I am not involved in any specific case. I have never called any prosecutor with a file to see what the contents are, but I have asked them to carry out an effective and quick legal process. The expectations of the Estonian people for legal clarity about whether their money was used to help Ukraine or whether it was stolen by criminal means are extremely high. And I have been asked this question several times in the press and also in the Riigikogu, so I am quite clear that people's expectations must be met and they must get answers to their questions.

Reading the story, one gets the impression that you have taken a personal interest in the case of Elmar Vaher and Eerik Heldna.

No, I have asked the prosecutors to check whether there is enough evidence to take the case to court, so that we don't have a situation in the course of the trial where there is not enough evidence. This story has had a very wide reach in Estonia. It is a very extraordinary story, and as a result, I have asked the leadership of the Prosecutor's Office, including the Prosecutor General, to evaluate the file.

On the other hand, I have also asked the Prosecutor General to take a personal look at criminal cases of high public interest before they go to court, to prevent setbacks in court, negative feedback, and files being sent back.

Eesti Ekspress writes that Alan Rüütel, the prosecutor in the case of Elmar Vaher and Eerik Heldna, has said that "there is a feeling that strange requests are coming from the minister, not directly to me, I have spoken to him once in my life, but through the chief prosecutor." What requests have you had in this case that the prosecutor handling the case could consider as questionable?

It is true that I have asked prosecutors at certain points in their defense to use what is called the principle of peer review, so that several prosecutors would look at the case to see whether the case is promising or not promising, i.e. whether there is enough evidence or not. This is to protect a single prosecutor who is making a very important decision to bring a case to trial.

After all, we know that the work of a prosecutor is extremely complex and stressful, that you make decisions where the fate of people is at stake, and to lighten and broaden that personal responsibility, it makes sense to do it in such a way that more than one person is assessing it.

Former ministers of justice say that the minister should not interfere in the work of the prosecutor's office – you agree. But several former ministers have the impression that you are trying to get rid of Prosecutor General Parmas. Is it your aim to dismiss the prosecutor general, to replace him, or have things been misunderstood?

Today, I am expected to sign a decree that will initiate the so-called management audit, that is, the oversight of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Once this is done, we will have a clear picture of how well the prosecution as a whole is run, and then we can talk about whether Andres Parmas has done a very good job, a good job, or whether there is a shortcoming. Today it is very difficult to assess that.

What time period and events do you have in mind?

This decree is in preparation. We certainly don't want to go very far back in time. I think it's going to be this calendar year period.

Is it possible that we will hear more cases in which Minister of Justice Laanet has taken an interest?

I want to emphasize again that I did not give any order, any request to follow a procedure, not to continue or not to conclude, not to initiate or not to question anyone. It certainly wasn't the case, because I know very well where the limits of my intervention are and what I can and cannot ask for.

After all, there have been several criminal cases this year that have been in the public eye. Again, I want to emphasize that I have asked the prosecutor general to personally review these cases that are of heightened public interest before they go to trial. I'm not talking about specific trials, but in general. We have talked at length and in depth with the prosecutors about the expectations and principles that society has of the prosecutor's office, and this has been an ongoing conversation.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!