On the Rule of Law and Equality before the Law

On the Rule of Law and Equality before the Law

Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga

Reflections on the rights of individuals and of nations have been a life-long concern of mine, beginning with my early experience as a child of political refugees, continuing in my later life in democratic countries and culminating upon my repatriation to my native country and serving as its President from 1999 to 2007. In swearing in new judges as part of my presidential duties, I always emphasized the importance of a just and well-functioning legal system as one of the basic pillars of democracy.

While the independence of the legal system is a fundamental prerequisite to democracy, this does not mean that the legal system can afford to be ineffective, irresponsible, unprofessional, or worse still, corrupted. Judges should be submitted to regular evaluations of their competence and professional integrity, just like any other profession. Equally important is the regular evaluation of the procedural aspects of trials, so that regular improvements might be introduced.  Citizens need to have confidence in the reliability and fairness of their justice system. If not, they lose confidence in the integrity of their government as well.

The ideal of equality before the law goes back to the French and American revolutions and was linked to the civil rights of citizens by Thomas Paine in his “Rights of Man” (1792). That same year, Mary Wollstonecraft published “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” a principle still not universally applied in many parts of the world.  A major achievement was the Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN soon after their creation in the aftermath of WWII. Multilateralism, such as called for in relation to the 75^th anniversary of the UN, brings the concept of equality to the level of international relations.

In a unicameral parliamentary republic such as Latvia, the right of veto of the President on bills passed by the Parliament is equivalent to the corrective powers afforded the Senate in bicameral systems. This helped to bring the post-Soviet period of Latvian legislature in line with the acquis communautaire of the EU and the requirements of NATO. As Latvia continues evolving as a tolerant democratic society, its Constitutional Court plays an ever more important role in evaluating the performance of the legislative branch. Its close and fruitful collaboration with the President of the Republic is recommended regarding legislature on matters of human rights, including the ratification of the Istanbul convention.