I think that the approach taken by the VC in this opinion is well reflected in this quote: "Respect for the rule of law presupposes a willingness to abide by the rules of the game, however arduous these rules may be, and to work within the constitutional system to change it from within."

However, the VC believes such actions will not resolve the crisis but could set negative precedents for future abuse.

In this context, the VC also criticized the government’s failure to publish all CT rulings. Judgments issued by improper panels could be published with a note on possible reopening, but all others should be published normally.

The Commission was skeptical about that, citing potential negative consequences for legal certainty. In this regard the VC referred to a report by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, which I had the opportunity to contribute to.

The draft constitutional amendment provides that term of office all incumbent judges would be terminated. The Commission criticized these plans. Since 12 judges were lawfully appointed, there is no basis for this. It warned that such a precedent might be exploited in the future.

According to the VC, a provision should be introduced to remove the "double judges" from all cases and bar them from being assigned new ones. However, would this work in practice? The problem is that, as the VC itself acknowledged, case assignment is controlled by the CT President.