Taghi wants other investigating judges, claim rejected | Inland

LIVE – Reporter Saskia Belleman is present at the trial. Follow the case via her tweets at the bottom of this article.

An office colleague of lawyer Inez Weski, Taghi’s lawyer, requested during a closed session with the examining magistrate on November 17 to postpone a witness hearing that was scheduled two days later. She argued that Weski was ill. The investigating judges did not grant the request, after which a request for challenge followed. Challenge is a request to the court to replace a judge in the case because he or she is biased.

The appeal chamber of the court met in closed session on December 2. The challenge chamber rules “that a judicial (interim) decision cannot, in principle, form a ground for challenge.” The challenge chamber refers to a ruling of the Supreme Court from 2018. According to the challenge chamber, the circumstances do not show that Taghi’s defense was not taken seriously. There was also no question of bias, according to the judgment of the challenge chamber.

In September this year, Weski’s request for recusal was rejected during a public hearing in Marengo. Then the counsel retaliated against the court after it had decided that she was not allowed to make a presentation about text messages from the key witness during the hearing.

—