Though the legislation on wiretapping was amended in 2012, no essential changes occurred at practical level, the Legal Resources Center of Moldova says in an analytical study with recommendations for remedying the situation that was presented in a conference, IPN reports.
The Center’s head Vladislav Gribincea reminded that in 2009 the European Court of Human Rights passed a decision in the case of Iordache and others by which it criticized the Moldova wiretapping system. According to the Court, the legislation didn’t clearly stipulate the character of the offenses for which wiretapping was allowed, the subjects that could be wiretapped, the period and requirements for wiretapping. The obligation to inform the judge about the results of wiretapping wasn’t provided. The judge verified the wiretap, but didn’t monitor what happened next.
“In 2012, the Code of Penal Procedure was amended, the list of offenses for which wiretapping was allowed being limited. But this list was supplemented in 2013 and 2014. There were defined the subjects whose phones can be tapped – the persons who are involved in offenses and are investigated as suspects or were charged. It was specified that the tapping period cannot exceed six months, except for situations when new circumstances appear. But these new circumstances weren’t defined. The wiretapping was limited to only criminal investigations. There were also made other amendments that make the tapping of telephone conversations more difficult,” stated Gribincea.
He noted that the impact of these changes wasn’t yet the expected one. “The statistics of the Department of Judicial Administration shows that 3,848 requests to allow wiretapping were made in 2009, as opposed to 5,952 in 2014, an increase of 60%. The rate of wiretapping authorizations is also high and varies between 97 and 98% a year. This is only 15 requests of 100 are rejected. For comparison, in Austria in 2009, there were authorized only 19 wiretappings, while in Norway in 2012 – 24,” added the jurist.
Sorina Macrinici, legal adviser at the Legal Resources Center, spoke about other aspects that weren’t clarified by the amendments made to the Code of Penal Procedure. “For example, the persons whose phone conversations are taped have the right to ask to familiarize themselves with the wiretaps. But the judge can provide only fragments of the wiretaps that are relevant to the case. These persons do not have access to the other part of the wiretaps and this infringes on the person’s right to defense,” she stated.
Sorina Macrinici noted that the bill on extremism provides that the Security and Intelligence Service can resort to wiretapping only within criminal cases. This fact is also open to question.
The Legal Resources Center recommends that the governmental agent at the ECHR should present a plan of action for implementing the ECHR decisions passed after 2009, while the Supreme Court of Justice should carry out an analysis of the judicial practices concerning the implementation of the law on wiretapping. Each court of law should be checked to see how they keep the wiretaps.
The Center’s adviser Pavel Grecu said the analytical study will be presented to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe together with the stated proposals and objections.
