Confidence in Justice as a Moral Emotion and Five Mechanisms That Support Its Renewal or Enhancement

xxxx1.1.a) obliges judicial representatives to declare their assets and the assets of their immediate family members-their spouses and minor children. However, this amendment has proved to be inadequate. In practice, property acquired in this way can be made less visible by being signed over to a member of the extended family or associate, as may have been occurred in several high-profile cases, such as those of the Head of the Administration of State Material Reserves of the Slovak Republic, Kajetán Kičura, and former state secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic, Monika Jankovská. A person who is obliged to disclose assets must only do so if those assets are legally available to them; they need not disclose assets that they have placed into the ownership of others, such as their parents or adult children. Broadening the circle of people who must disclose their assets when taking office to include investigators and other public officials, in addition to judges, would limit the efforts to circumvent the obligation of disclosure of property by making over one's property to relatives or potential heirs. After all, the stronger the legal or moral claim that leads to the transfer of property rights of public official to a relative, the greater the willingness to sign over the property. The declaration of the assets of public officials could be made more transparent by expanding the circle of family members whose assets must be disclosed to include parents, adult children or people living in the same household. Admittedly, it would still be possible to circumvent the obligations, as possessions could be hidden with more distant family members and the obligation could not be implemented Nonetheless, the willingness to undertake such circumvention could be partially reduced. Given the potential invasion of privacy, the appropriateness of such an encroachment on individual rights must be weighed against the possible benefits that arise from the potential inheritance of assets acquired from illegitimate income received while holding the position ofjudge, prosecutor, investigator or other public official.

xxxx1.1.b) Ownership information is only publicly available in the case of property and land held within the territory of the Slovak Republic, so any property elsewhere is not accessible to control. Similarly, because of bank secrecy and other obstacles, it is difficult to check whether asset declarations are complete in terms of movable assets, property rights and other property valuations. One possible solution is the open control of financial circumstances by the public. Another is a comprehensive overview of the structure of these rights and the introduction of new powers that allow the Judicial Council or higher judicial body to examine the assets of judges or judge candidates when they appear to own property that exceeds their legal income or their annually declared assets.

xxxx1.1.c) Some cases have demonstrated that public figures often use the real estate or other property rights of third parties without any proven relationship with them. In this regard, Sections 336c and 336d extended the obligation to establish a reason, forming the foundation of a new offence of undue advantage; that is, the offer and acceptance of bribes. This legislation obligated claimants to provide evidence for any legal claims of a proprietary or non-proprietary nature that have no immediate legal basis and whose value exceeds 200 EUR. In addition, the legislation addressed the acceptance of bribes as constituting an undue advantage to a public official or a person close to them. The purpose of this legislation was to prevent the acceptance of undue advantage that is counter to morally acceptable behaviour but had not previously been counter to the law.