Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The main focus is the protection of constitutional rights and ensuring the legal clarity of the draft bill. The speaker emphasizes that the prohibition against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings derives from the Constitution, and the emphasis is placed on correctness and adherence to the position of the Chancellor of Justice. He asks whether this right extends to legal persons and whether the lack of such extension constitutes non-compliance with the Constitution, which indicates serious doubt regarding the draft legislation until clarity is achieved. Consequently, the position is moderate, focusing on the protection of rights and demanding legal clarity, rather than political confrontation.

The text addresses fundamental constitutional rights and the foundations of criminal procedure, referencing Article 22 of the Constitution and the stance of the Chancellor of Justice. It utilizes technical terminology and discusses the issue of systemic legal consistency (or legal coordination). Emphasis is placed on the necessity of legally specifying the scope of the right and its potential expansion, and the concept of *constitutionalité* is touched upon conceptually.

The tone is formal and measured, and uses questions to prompt discussion and clarity. It is selectively focused on justification and procedure, not emotionally aggressive, and is a blend of highlighting facts and rights.

Actively participates in the plenary session, focusing on the debate surrounding draft legislation and constitutional matters; poses structured questions and provides references to the positions of committees or the Chancellor of Justice.

There is insufficient data to evaluate opponents or their political groups during this specific visit; the representative only emphasizes the protection of rights and the clarity of the bill, not specific opposition criticisms.

There is insufficient data regarding the modes of cooperation; the impression is that a question concerning clarification and legitimacy was raised first, rather than an active form of coalition.

There is insufficient data regarding regionalized attention/focus; there is no mention of regional projects or regional interest.

There is not enough data regarding the economy, taxes, or regulations.

There is insufficient data regarding social issues; the discussion focuses on rights and the views of the Chancellor of Justice, rather than specific socio-political topics.

The legislative focus centers on interpreting the scope and constitutionality of criminal procedure rights within the context of the draft bill. It highlights the necessity for clarity regarding the extension of these rights to legal entities and ensuring alignment with the stance taken by the Chancellor of Justice. The representative noted that future efforts must rely on the interaction of legal principles and institutions, and did not offer any specific updates on progress or guarantees of the bill's adoption.