5 ms·
From the article: > “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated
by mlthoughts2018 6y ago
From the article:
> “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”
- pydry 6y agoI really question the motivations of people who would downvote this. It's clear, objective, relevant information.
- colpabar 6y agosadly I think a lot of people see downvote buttons as "I disagree" buttons.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- toyg 6y agoYeah but how can one disagree with a factual statement, in good faith...?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- res0nat0r 6y agoIt's being downvoted because the OP already answered the question. They're being treated exactly the same as the rest of the public.
- pmachinery 6y agoThe rest of the public is also having its remote access revoked?
- LegitShady 6y agoAmnesty has the same access as the rest of the public.
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoNo, the article explains their remote access was revoked (unlike many other public observers).
- LegitShady 6y ago>We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial monitors. Judge states that no 'special provision' will be made for our trial monitor's attendance,” They requested they get special status as "fair trial monitors". The judge said they get treated like everyone else. They should have no better access than you or I. They are nobody - a group that got together to push their agenda. They have no standing in court different from any other member of the public. They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago> “ They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.” No, their remote access request was denied. This is separate from any request for standing as an expert trial observer (which is a whole other can of worms).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cmiles74 6y agoI would be interested to read anything that confirms that some observers have been allowed to view the proceedings remotely. My understanding is that observers would need to have either one of the four available seats in the public gallery or a seat in the "overflow" rooms next to the court. Please note that the audio in the overflow room is reportedly very poor, what little I've read made it sound unreliable. If some observers were allowed remote access, I think that is important.
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoYou are factually wrong. Amnesty was granted remote access, and it was revoked. This has not happened to many other public observers. It seems you only read the parts about physical access, and the point about space limitation might be valid in that case. But that part is merely a footnote. The real issue is the remote access being revoked.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoActually, around 40 other public observers from across Europe had the same access granted and then revoked. Many of them were from other countries, happy not to need to travel during the pandemic, and they woke up the morning of the first day to discover their access revoked.
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoSo you’re saying the humanitarian problem is even bigger than just Amnesty International. Not even other international observers can see whether the trial is fair. This is truly alarming, to a much bigger scale, in this case.