Róbert Spanó criticizes Guðrún Hafsteinsdóttir’s decision on Helgi Magnúsar Gunnarsson in Iceland

Róbert Spanó, the former president of the European Court of Human Rights, expressed serious concerns regarding the Icelandic Minister of Justice, Guðrún Hafsteinsdóttir’s decision in the case of Helgi Magnúsar Gunnarsson, a deputy prosecutor. He argued that the minister’s conclusion lacks a legal foundation.

In a submitted article, Róbert analyzed the rationale behind Guðrún Hafsteinsdóttir’s verdict regarding Helgi, who had made controversial statements about immigrants from the Middle East. Following remarks that suggested an influx of people with differing cultural backgrounds was problematic, Helgi faced criticism and a formal complaint from the organization Solaris.

Justice Minister Guðrún decided not to suspend Helgi from his duties, asserting that he should have had more room for freedom of expression given the specific circumstances he faced. The judgment stated that Helgi’s comments arose amid threats made against him and his family by an asylum seeker, Mohamad Kourani, who had been sentenced for these threats.

Contrarily, Róbert argued that this reasoning is not legally valid, insisting that the issue is not about Helgi’s personal conduct but rather about the integrity and independence of the public prosecution service. He emphasized the need for prosecutors to maintain high standards of impartiality, equivalent to those required of judges, due to the significant authority wielded by prosecutorial powers.

Róbert ultimately deemed the Minister’s decision a setback for the credibility of the prosecution in Iceland, which affects public trust in the justice system. He noted that public officials, particularly in the criminal justice system, often face threats, and such conditions should not serve as a justification for remarks that undermine the integrity of the office.