A number of dangerous things happened in Moldova last week, pointing to the fragility of the democratic changes that took place or were at least stated by the governing Liberal-Democrat coalition. They occurred in the wake of the revelations made by former Voronin's adviser Sergiu Mocanu about businessman Vlad Plahotniuc, who is said to have formed part of the Communist leader's company and is accused of traffic of influence during the present government. The scandal that grabbed the headlines the last few days can turn out to be a large-scale one that will destabilize the political situation in the country, but can also die away as many other scandals, not leaving a profound impact on the people. However, the things we are talking about, even if they passed mainly unobserved, had immediate negative effects that could seriously intensify in the future. Last week, we witnessed an attack on the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression, on the right to be informed. Such actions cannot be overlooked, mainly because they show important deviations from the norms and values of a democratic society, posing a threat to it. In a news conference on August 11, businessman Vlad Plahotniuc said he will sue both those who denigrate him and those who spread the related information, multiplying its effects. The second day, Viorel Chetraru, the head of the Center for Combating Corruption and Economic Crime (CCCEC), said he will not talk with the reporters about a certain topic, invoking a number of reasons. Accidentally or not, the theme is the same “Mocanu-Plahotniuc” scandal: {“For the reasons stated above... the Center asks the representatives of the mass media to accept our position not to return to this subject anymore, no matter what other accusations are made. We will fully ignore this topic,} Viorel Chetraru told a news conference. Formally, these actions have different subjects and pretexts, but they form part of the same category of violations and of a common scenario aimed at intimidating the press. They must be treated as such until the opposite is not proved, the players involved do not withdraw their statements and the competent institutions do not pronounce on the issue, providing guarantees that the rights of the press and the people will be protected. The mentioned players defied the national law and international norms that regulate the work of the press and did it consciously, and, as it seems, with ill intent. It is hard to imagine they don't know that it is the source providing the information, not the press that answers for denigration and calumnies. It is also hard to imagine that such a high-ranking official as the head of the CCCEC is not aware that he is obliged by law to answer the questions of the press and any person, especially when “other accusations” are made. “Ignoring” in this case means defiance and, taken together with the warnings of being sued, form a scenario, a threat. This hypothesis does not lack reasons if we presume that these and other persons involved in the scandal have many things to hide. Moreover, it looks that the threats already had an effect as no media institution launched an inquiry into the given issue. Analysts and politicians have already criticized the media for this. Evidently, the press will have to weigh well before engaging in a life-and-death struggle with incomparably greater resources than the ones used until present. Transparency International-Moldova, in a press release last week, also pointed to the possible proportions of the scenario: “If at least a part of the facts denounced... are proved to be true, this would mean a deep crisis in the penal investigation bodies and the judiciary system of the Republic of Moldova.” Thus, 'forbidden zones' for the press were instituted at the very beginning of the scandal, outlining the danger to which it is exposed if it does not 'obey'. But the press and the state institutions empowered to enforce the law, punish those who make threats and provide guarantees for those who are threatened ignored these 'warnings'. Info-Prim Neo's several attempts to inform the public opinion about the topic (see the news stories {“Plahotniuc's statement represents intimidation attempt, “Acces-info” head}, and {“Alexandru Tanase: Source not the press should be punished when calumnies are made”} here) were not supported by the press, the nongovernmental organizations representing it and the state institutions. The press and the NGOs are not obliged to react, but the state institutions had to do it promptly. The reaction should have included assessments of the cases of intimidation and guarantees for the media organizations that they will not be sued. Legislative initiatives could have been submitted to stop the harassment of the press as an instrument for hiding socially-important information or for settling political and economic accounts. It should be noted that Info-Prim Neo Agency and another two media institutions for over a year have been called to hearings over a case of defending the honor and dignity, at a time when the plaintiff and the accused have no objections to the way in which the press covered a news conference held at Info-Prim Neo by an electoral contender during the last election campaigns. Several days ago, the case was remitted to a higher court so that the 'epic' goes on. If the Alliance for European Integration wants to convince us that it did better than the Communist Government in areas in which Moldova was toughly criticized by international organizations, including the freedom of the press, it is the right moment to show that their accomplishments are not ephemeral and frail and that nobody can damage during one day what the Alliance did during a year. The recurrences of a disease are usually much more dangerous than the first manifestations. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]