By Months: Timo Suslov

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and concise, serving the purpose of conveying the factual content of the commission's discussion. The speaker employs a logical approach, emphasizing procedural correctness and the achievement of consensus. Emotional or personal appeals are absent, with the focus remaining strictly on brief and summary reporting.

The rhetorical style is formal, polite, and constructive, addressing the head (or director) and the minister in the form of a question. The speaker employs logical argumentation, focusing on practical outcomes (speed, investments) and demanding data rather than emotional appeals. The tone is supportive, yet demanding.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on conveying the progress of the draft bill and the substance of the proposed amendments to the Riigikogu. The speaker employs a logical structure and technical language, eschewing emotional or personal appeals, and remains concise and factual.

The address is formal, procedural, and fact-based, typical of a commission's report delivered to the plenary session. The tone is neutral and concise, focusing on relaying the discussion and consensual decisions. Emotional or personal appeals are avoided; the emphasis is placed solely on sharing logical and structured information.

The style is formal, informative, and procedural, focusing on the chronological presentation of events and decisions. The speaker uses a neutral tone and emphasizes logical and fact-based reporting concerning the committee’s work. Both the chairman and the Chancellor of Justice are thanked, which indicates a polite and respectful manner of communication.

The rhetorical style is formal and procedural, focusing on the neutral presentation of the commission's decisions. The speaker maintains caution, repeatedly emphasizing their role as the commission's rapporteur and refusing to express personal opinions before the conclusion of the presentation. Logical argumentation is employed, referencing statutory provisions and the issue of proportionality, while refraining from emotional appeals.