By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The style is formal, detailed, and explanatory, consistent with the role of a committee rapporteur, where the referencing of procedures and discussions predominates. It employs logical arguments and legal references to justify restrictions based on national security considerations. The closing statement incorporates a moderately emotional tone, expressing regret over the situation and reassuring believers that the draft bill is not directed against their faith.

The style is varied: at times pedagogical and instructive (when addressing a young colleague), at others sarcastic and aggressive, particularly towards the opposition's draft bills (created using AI) and the former leadership of the Centre Party. The overall tone is defensively confident, stressing that democracy is the art of compromise. It employs numerous rhetorical questions and direct appeals to the opponent.

The style is formal, analytical, and supportive, focusing on the logical explanation of the bill’s substantive changes and the justification of their positive impact. The argumentation is primarily logical and based on resolving procedural issues. Although the tone is generally optimistic regarding the reform, caution is expressed concerning the balance between transparency and the presumption of innocence when publishing court decisions.