At the initiative of President Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova, a working meeting of current and former members of the Pardoning Commission was held, in order to exchange experiences related to the application of the pardon institute.
President Siljanovska-Davkova explained the initiative for the meeting. According to her, the main reason for convening the meeting is the undivided position of lawyers that the existing law causes serious problems in the pardon process and that there is a need for a new law.
Consulting the members of the previous pardoning commissions, for her, is a necessary step in determining the shortcomings and problems, as well as noting the resulting legal and institutional solutions. In the dedicated, lively, four-hour debate, it was first emphasized that pardon is a human right of convicted persons that must be respected and implemented. There must be no political or party influence when granting and assessing it.
In the pardoning process, most important thing is the coordinated work between the court, the Ministry of Justice and the Pardoning Commission, respecting the principle of division of powers.
Many of the former members of the pardoning commissions criticized the restrictive approach to pardoning. In this regard, it was proposed to increase the scope of pardons, both in terms of the number of pardoned persons and in terms of duration. All participants believe that the Commission should remain resistant to public pressure, guided by the justification of its own pardoning decisions. The members also pointed out the need to provide mechanisms, through an individual approach, for the Commission to be informed firsthand about the condition of the convict and the degree of his resocialization, regardless of the nature and length of the sentence.
At the working meeting, the participants concluded the necessity of adopting a new law on pardons, which would take into account the experiences from the application of the current law, as well as comparative experiences and examples.
According to them, the adoption of the law should be preceded by expert and broad public debate.
