It seems that our democratic system is sick! As has been the poor quality of elected representatives that make up a so-called "committee of inquiry," that every day gives a depressing spectacle of this quality, disrespect for one another using language "obscene" lack of legal norms, lack of rules and management standards, lack of standards for negotiation - brings in citizens a sense of shame and discredit political! These are the representatives elected by the citizens?
As a citizen I am bothered with this throw sand into the eyes of others, is that this episode contrasts with other cases in which the Assembly of the Republic has been called the "right to remain silent" (BPN (Dr Oliveiar and Costa), BPN (Dr Joseph Capricious, Ex-JAE (General Garcia dos Santos, has met the deputies at the time the Act) - Today is considered disobedience qualified yesterday in these same situations was considered a right of the accused. Contrary to what happened, the various parties represented in the committee including the PCP, PSD and CDS-PP, accepted the justification for refusal to answer questions and it was like the given by Rui Pedro Soares, a process is being accused his right to collect- into silence in the exercise of a constitutional right.
I understand Mr. Rui Pedro Soares was formed accused of a process leading to the same facts, which are discussed in this committee of inquiry. However, in criminal proceedings the accused has the right to silence is not possible that it has not wherever. I mean, the process remained silent and said this committee was obliged to speak. In the process not to incriminate himself and the committee would, eventually, to incriminate himself. At bottom, weighed two values: on one hand, the risk of being accused of disobedience, the other the right to defense. And between the two, "dominates the right to defense, a defendant in criminal proceedings has the right not to testify in that case. It is understood that this right extends to silence any other proceedings (civil, administrative, disciplinary, etc.) that having to do with the matter under investigation or that the defendant is accused in criminal proceedings. not put at risk the normal management of a prestigious and renowned company in our country? Honourable Members should know that a defendant in criminal proceedings has the right not to testify in that case. It is understood that this right extends to silence any other proceedings (civil, administrative, disciplinary, etc.) that have to do with the matter under investigation or that the defendant is accused in criminal proceedings . That's why it would still be interesting reason or reasons that led to one last year and the parties changed their minds. What then was understandable and acceptable exercise of a deponent refuses to answer questions because this the constitutional right of all defendants today is a "crime of disobedience"?