The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights states that calling Maciej Wąsik and Mariusz Kamiński political prisoners is a serious distortion that harms the memory of people who were jailed for their beliefs, for their commitment to democracy, and for human rights. The foundation underscores that such labeling oversimplifies a complicated legal matter and strains public memory about real cases of political repression.
The HFHR issued a formal statement regarding Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, clarifying the organization’s position on their status as prisoners.
According to the HFHR, describing Wąsik and Kamiński as political prisoners misrepresents events and damages the memory of those who were actually imprisoned for democratic or human rights activities. The foundation notes that both individuals were lawfully sentenced by a Polish court for offenses tied to the execution of public duties. The sentence remains in effect until completion, unless a court grants release or the President exercises pardon powers to nullify it.
The HFHR notes that in 2015 the President’s move to halt criminal proceedings against the two figures was an intervention into the justice system that did not have proper authorization, according to the foundation.
The foundation recalls that in 2017 the Supreme Court held that pardoning before a final sentence has no procedural effect and does not terminate ongoing criminal proceedings. The court also indicated that pardons granted before final sentencing do not take effect once a final verdict is issued.
Still, the HFHR emphasizes that there are no legal barriers preventing the President from issuing a pardon now, in a case where a final conviction has already been entered.
– the HFHR notes.
The foundation also points out that the sentencing of Wąsik and Kamiński to prison led to the automatic loss of their parliamentary mandates, and that the Speaker of the Sejm had both the authority and the duty to issue a formal acknowledgement of this situation.
Challenge to the Supreme Court’s Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs
In the HFHR’s view, an appeal of the Sejm President’s decision regarding parliamentary mandates should be heard by a Supreme Court panel that meets independence and impartiality standards and is constituted in line with applicable law. The Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs, however, does not fully satisfy these conditions, a point recently affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in the Wałęsa v. Poland case.
– the HFHR asserts.
The foundation explains that the Supreme Court’s role in reviewing an appeal against the Sejm Chairman’s decision is not to reexamine the verdict on Wąsik and Kamiński or to deem the prior judgment unlawful. Instead, any substantive challenges to the criminal proceedings should be pursued through available remedies within the existing legal framework.
The authorities of Poland are called upon to ensure the safety of all people deprived of liberty.
– the HFHR stresses.
Recent reports describe police detaining Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik while they were at the Presidential Palace following a ceremony appointing new advisors to the president. The two men, previously linked to the 2007 land development case, were sentenced to two years in prison in a final judgment on December 20 for abusing powers related to those actions.
The HFHR is noted as not recognizing the legitimacy of the pardon mechanisms used by the current president in relation to Kamiński and Wąsik, nor accepting the Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs as a valid procedural pathway, while affirming that both politicians retain their parliamentary status and immunity.
Publication credits are attributed to the reporting outlet and its affiliates.
Related discussions highlight public responses and ongoing debate about the treatment of these figures and the broader discussion of political accountability and legal processes in Poland.
Source attribution is provided by the reporting outlet and associated agencies.