Bulgarian President Georgi Purvanov said on April 8 2010 that he had vetoed two of the recent amendments to the Penal Procedure Code that had been approved by Parliament.

Purvanov's office released a statement asking Parliament to reconsider the amendment that introduces the so-called "substitute lawyer" system.

According to the text, the substitute lawyer will step in when the lawyer chosen by the defendant fails to appear in court for no justifiable reason.

At the time when the ruling majority voted the amendment, put forward by Justice Minister Margarita Popova, the opposition objected to the fact that this substitute lawyer would be chosen by prosecutors when the case is in its pre-trial phase, and by the presiding judge when the case has entered court.

According to Purvanov, this change, billed by Popova as a way to prevent defendants from abusing their right to repeatedly change their lawyers in the course of their trials and so slow down procedures, contradicted article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which says that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing.

The amendment also contradicted article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which says that in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing.

"In a situation of a lack of trust between the defendant and the substitute lawyer, defendants will be forced to defend themselves from the substitute lawyer appointed by the court against their will," Purvanov's statement said.

The other amendment which Purvanov asked Parliament to reconsider was the introduction of the figure of the secret and anonymous witness, on the basis of whose evidence the court may reach a verdict of guilty.

Similarly, an accused may be found guilty solely on the basis of evidence gathered through intelligence work. Until now, such evidence was insufficient for a court to reach a verdict, but now judges will be able to rule solely on the basis of evidence from unidentified witness testimonies or on evidence collected through intelligence methods.

The amendment also allows police officers to testify in court as anonymous and secret witnesses, which, according to critics, might provide police officers with the chance to fix certain flaws in their initial investigation and thus manipulate the case.

According to Purvanov's statement, evidence gathered through intelligence should be accompanied with other evidence when reaching a verdict. The same applied to the figure of the secret witness and undercover police agent.