|
The likely reasoning is found in Chapter I-4-c, I-4-d, with Chapter II-1-a, and Chapter II-4-a. Case 17 is often used by the formerly interrogated in lawsuits against the prosecution and the detainers (as they’re separated from the courts).
The Courts still hadn’t changed the initial standpoint and it is more than safe to assume it won’t. While it isn’t very ambiguous (provided you read the decision before pursuing a case), most parties don’t, which generates revenue for the legal representatives of both parties in such cases.
If it helps raise a sense of ontological security, the High Courts do anticipate that this precedence is violated. It would give grounds to extend their jurisdiction at the expense of external and internal prosecution bodies, including AID Units Eight & Ten and Departments Eight & Ten respectively.
Which the military and the police (and the respective AID) are also aware of, hence why the conduct of unethical but legal EIMs are much more carefully implemented than other interrogation approaches.
#ClownWorld,#ClownSystem,#SecondReliableNarrator
LOCKED, 1 (NUS AE APPROVED) LOCKED Comments
|
