Let's start with the prosecutors' code of ethics and the expected changes to it. Are your efforts to update it connected to the recent cases that have attracted heightened public attention and in which the Prosecutor's Office has been criticized, such as the Port of Tallinn, Eerik Heldna, and the Priit Humal and Parvel Pruunsild cases?

The idea and need to update the code of ethics did not arise from any specific criminal case. Nor did it come from the leadership of the Prosecutor's Office, but from within the organization itself. Prosecutors have made the proposal that we could review and modernize the existing code of ethics.

It was last amended in 2013, and since then social media and society have undergone major changes. We want our code of ethics to take those changes into account.

Another aspect is that over the years quite a number of new people have joined the organization, so we can also go through the code of ethics with them again. That way we can reach a shared understanding of what is expected of a prosecutor and what we expect of ourselves. This helps ensure that the organizational culture is unified and clear to everyone.

What are the most important changes you are planning to make to the code of ethics?

At this stage I would not single out specific changes, because the discussion process is still ongoing. We have discussed the issue internally in various formats and highlighted questions that need further thought. Since everything is still quite raw, I would not point to anything specific yet.

One topic will certainly be social media and how the Prosecutor's Office or prosecutors should act on social media. This is an area that requires more thorough treatment, and people expect it to be carefully thought through.

In addition to the code of ethics, the Prosecutor's Office also has an ethics committee. What kinds of issues have been brought before the prosecutors' ethics committee recently?

Issues do not reach it very often, but they have been of different kinds. If a prosecutor has doubts in a particular situation about whether certain behavior is reasonable, permissible, or acceptable, there are colleagues they can turn to. They help think things through and provide feedback on how to act in a given situation.

After losses in court or public criticism, the Prosecutor's Office — also through you — has said that you conduct analyses and make changes if necessary. What exactly have you changed recently? Let's take the Port of Tallinn case, for example. What have you seen in your analyses that you should do differently, and what are you actually doing differently?

I wouldn't speak here about any specific case, but more broadly, over the past year we have agreed on strategic goals and focus areas that require attention. A major emphasis is on ensuring that our pretrial investigations are effective — this includes both quality and speed in my view.

We have also set time-based benchmarks for the general time frames within which investigations should be completed. This depends on the specific criminal case, but general time frames should be in place so that investigations do not drag on for too long.

As for quality, we are reviewing our training plans and considering how to better mentor new people, as well as ensuring that training is necessary and relevant. In addition, cooperation with investigative authorities must be effective. The Prosecutor's Office does not do anything alone; most of the pretrial investigation is carried out by investigative bodies, so cooperation must work well.

The code of ethics also plays a significant role in how we conduct our everyday work and safeguard the independence and impartiality of the Prosecutor's Office.

We have also made proposals to the legislature in areas where laws should be amended. For example, there is an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure currently in parliament that includes several proposals that would allow us to conduct pretrial investigations more effectively than we do today. There are also proposed amendments to the Prosecutor's Office Act that would help us focus more on quality. For example, prosecutors' probationary periods could be longer than they are now, enabling us to mentor new people in a more substantive and longer-term way.

Your predecessor, Andres Parmas, also said after the Port of Tallinn trial collapsed that there was nothing to reproach the Prosecutor's Office for, and that instead the legislature should provide the Prosecutor's Office with the necessary so-called tools. Lavly Perling has said the same. Why haven't the legislative changes you need been made so far?

That is perhaps more a question for the legislature. The bill currently before parliament has been there for quite some time. As far as I know, it is now moving forward, and hopefully it will be adopted in the near future.

You mentioned that cooperation with investigative authorities is a focus for you. Did the proceedings involving Heldna and other police officials damage your cooperation with the police in any way?

I have not noticed that it has harmed our everyday cooperation. In my assessment, we have very good day-to-day cooperation with investigative authorities.

Turning to one of the most recent matters, the case involving politician Tõnis Mölder — Prosecutor Alar Lehesmets said, commenting on criticism from members of parliament, that it undermines the credibility of law enforcement authorities. Is this the official position of the Prosecutor's Office?

Speaking in general terms, if the credibility of a law enforcement authority is consistently called into question, then of course it undermines the credibility of the state as a whole. Justified criticism is another matter, but if criticism is unfounded or exaggerated, it can indeed weaken credibility.

Has the politicians' criticism in the Mölder case been justified?

Public debate and criticism are a natural part of a democratic society. Procedural decisions can be based solely on the law and the evidence.

In this criminal case, the Prosecutor's Office proceeded according to the same principles as in all other proceedings — the collected evidence was assessed, and based on that assessment a decision was made to bring charges.

Has the risk of being subjected to political criticism changed the Prosecutor's Office in any way — have you become more cautious?

I wouldn't say that it has made us more cautious in any way; this is simply part of our job. We cannot choose whom we investigate. If there is sufficient reason to believe that a crime has been committed, proceedings must be initiated regardless of whether the person involved is a politician or not.

We have to take the possibility of criticism into account, but we cannot leave things undone because of it. In a sense, this is built into our work.

Some MPs have suggested that in the case of failed prosecutions, parliament should review the work of the Prosecutor's Office. Is that a bad idea?

Oversight of the substance of the Prosecutor's Office's work is exercised by the courts; that is how the law is structured. If the Prosecutor's Office has sent a criminal case to court and the court has issued a ruling, then under the current system no other institution can start second-guessing or overturning that decision.

If a court has found someone guilty or acquitted them, it is not possible in a rule-of-law state for someone else to reassess that court ruling.

I understand that members of parliament were likely referring more to the Prosecutor's Office's handling of proceedings — whether they were conducted with sufficient speed and thoroughness.

Those aspects, too, fall within the court's authority. A court can tell the Prosecutor's Office if, in a specific situation, for example, a reasonable time limit for proceedings has been exceeded. The court assesses this based on the volume of evidence, the complexity of the case, and other relevant circumstances. Similarly, it is the court's role to assess whether the prosecutor's work in a given investigation has been lawful and of sufficient quality. All of this lies within the court's competence, and courts do carry out this oversight.

If there is something to criticize about a prosecutor's conduct, it is usually reflected in the court's decision.

Is the independence of the Prosecutor's Office currently under threat?

I wouldn't say it is under threat, but at the same time, this is something that must be constantly monitored. Maintaining prosecutorial independence is an ongoing effort that requires continuous attention.

You took office at a time when political pressure on the previous prosecutor general was quite strong. Do you feel you have to make political compromises to maintain a calm working environment?

I have not felt that I need to make political compromises. Ensuring a calm working environment is my daily responsibility as a leader — to make sure prosecutors can do their work and are not subjected to inappropriate external pressure.

Where does this pressure come from?

Naturally, we are constantly under public scrutiny, and that is something we have to take into account.

One case that has drawn and continues to draw significant public attention is the Pihlakodu case, in which the Prosecutor's Office initially decided not to initiate proceedings against the legal entity — the care home itself. This is difficult for the public to understand: in corruption cases the Prosecutor's Office goes all the way, but here the lives and health of vulnerable people were at risk in a care facility. How would you explain this apparent contradiction in simple terms?

In my view, the initiation of any criminal proceedings must be very carefully considered.

The threshold for opening an investigation should be fairly high in economic and corruption cases, so as not to cause unjustified harm. On the other hand, as the Supreme Court stated in its ruling yesterday, in investigations involving vulnerable groups that threshold should be lower — and I agree with that.

Was the idea that a lower threshold should apply to cases involving vulnerable groups discussed internally within your organization?

It is important here to distinguish that the main proceedings against the individual who allegedly committed the rapes directly are already before the court. With Wednesday's decision by the court of appeal, the 11-year prison sentence imposed on him was upheld.

The dispute has concerned whether the company should also be punished for what its employee did, and whether the company can be held criminally liable at all. Where is the line between an employer's responsibility and the lack thereof? We have discussed this issue quite extensively within the organization. Until now, the prevailing view has been that corporate liability for the actions or inaction of employees should be interpreted rather narrowly. There is not a great deal of case law on this yet, so there is still room for further discussion.

The Supreme Court said that by deciding not to initiate criminal proceedings, the Prosecutor's Office made serious errors — for example, that a significant amount of submitted evidence was not reviewed due to the decision to discontinue proceedings. Will you launch an internal investigation to determine how these errors occurred?

As has already been reported publicly, on Wednesday the Prosecutor's Office decided to open an investigation in line with the Supreme Court's guidance. In doing so, we will once again review the evidence that has already been collected in the main proceedings. Many people associated with the care home have been questioned as part of that investigation. We will review those statements again and, if necessary, question individuals who have not yet been interviewed.

Did the Supreme Court's decision come as a surprise to you?

It is not unusual for a court to take a different view than the Prosecutor's Office. Nor is it uncommon for lawyers to interpret situations differently.

Some accusations directed at the Prosecutor's Office can be linked to your predecessor, but the decision not to open proceedings against the Pihlakodu legal entity was made during your tenure. Do you feel personal responsibility for the mistakes that were made?

Once again, the issue of the limits of corporate liability has been discussed quite broadly within the organization, and I have personally participated in those discussions. Until now, we have held the view that corporate liability for the actions or omissions of employees should be interpreted narrowly.

A recent survey by the think tank Foresight Center (Arenguseire keskus) showed that in cases of domestic violence, people trust the police, courts, and the Prosecutor's Office less than in ordinary situations. Trust in the Prosecutor's Office was the lowest, at 30 percent. Why is that?

In that survey, the Prosecutor's Office and the courts were grouped together; they were not distinguished from one another. It is necessary to look at the context — specifically, what the survey questions were — and to take into account the differing roles of the courts, prosecutors, police, and victim support services when dealing with victims. Given the nature of investigations and victim support, the roles of the Prosecutor's Office and the courts differ somewhat from those of victim support services.

The Prosecutor's Office and the courts cannot offer psychological support, which victims undoubtedly need throughout the investigation. That responsibility lies with victim support and other institutions.

Within judicial proceedings, it is also necessary to ask critical questions to determine whether a crime has been committed or not. This can feel oppressive to victims or give them the impression that they are not believed. For that reason, it is understandable that trust may be lower. However, this does not mean we should not work toward ensuring that victims feel safe even at this stage. The Prosecutor's Office has consistently moved toward having specialized prosecutors in this field. Judges have also begun to specialize, though not throughout the entire country. This clearly needs further development so that the issue can be addressed more effectively.

Does the recently adopted consent-based rape law — the "yes means yes" model, which defines rape through the absence of consent — change anything for the Prosecutor's Office? Do you now conduct proceedings differently?

From our perspective, what matters is our ability to prove the allegations we bring, and in that sense nothing changes. When the elements of a crime are present, prosecutors and investigative authorities must be able to prove them to the same standard; the burden of proof does not change. What is important in terms of this law is changing societal attitudes through legislative reform.

You mentioned amendments to the Prosecutor's Office Act. Which change do you see as the most positive, and are there any you oppose?

Most of the proposed amendments in this bill were actually initiated by the Prosecutor's Office itself or discussed with us. They include issues related to recruitment as well as other matters, and we do not directly oppose any of them. The amendments would give the Prosecutor's Office more tools to manage and improve quality internally and would add flexibility to personnel management. In that sense, they are necessary for us.

Once the law enters into force, it would also bring one major change for you personally — your term of office would be extended.

Under the draft law, the prosecutor general's term of office would be seven years and limited to a single term.

--

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