By Agendas: Vilja Toomast

The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding the procedural rules of the Riigikogu and the operational structure of the Legal Affairs Committee. Precise technical terms are used, such as "deadline for amendments," "second reading," and "final vote." The expertise focuses on the procedural journey of the draft legislation, rather than a substantive analysis of the ILO constitution.

The expertise is evident in the area of legislative procedure and the ratification of international treaties, particularly regarding amendments to the ILO Constitution. Technical details are provided (e.g., increasing the number of Governing Body members), and reference is made to the involvement of ministry experts. The speaker is qualified to convey the substance of the committee's work and discussions.

The speaker demonstrates expertise in the legislative process and the organization of the Legal Affairs Committee's work, accurately relaying the minutes and procedural decisions. He/She details the Ministry of Justice’s legal arguments against the invalidation of the criminal law provision, focusing on the precise definition of the elements of the offense (corpus delicti) and the objectives of the provision. Furthermore, he/she is knowledgeable regarding issues related to the termination and challenging of proceedings.

The speaker demonstrates a deep understanding of the procedural processes of the Legal Affairs Committee, including a detailed presentation of the submitted opinions (the Prosecutor’s Office, the Chamber of Commerce, Ginter) and the proposed amendments (by the Centre Party faction). He explains technical aspects, such as the rationale behind increasing the fine unit and the option for paying fines in installments. Furthermore, he is able to justify why the proposal to link fines to income was excluded from the draft legislation (citing complexity and the risk of income concealment).

The speaker demonstrates a profound understanding of criminal law and procedural expenses, detailing the historical rationale behind calculating the unit fine (60 kroons, 4 euros, a potential 27 euros). The speaker is aware of the lack of impact assessments and the IT challenges involved in implementing income-based fines.

The speaker demonstrates profound knowledge of incarceration law, criminal policy, and the legislative process. He details specific amendments (e.g., regulations concerning solitary confinement, the modernization of drug control equipment) and references specific legal sources, such as European Court decisions and the opinions issued by the Chancellor of Justice. This expertise is further reflected in the accurate reproduction of the arguments presented by Ministry of Justice representatives regarding the rejection of proposed amendments.

The expert knowledge relates to the work of the Legal Affairs Committee and the legislative procedure, including deadlines for amendments and the technical correctness of the draft bill. The speaker demonstrates awareness of involving specialists from the Ministry of Justice's Criminal Policy Department. Emphasis is placed on the draft bill being reviewed by a language editor, which indicates attention to detail.