All the eleven candidates running for president propose measures related to the rule of law, promising to make the judiciary more independent and to fight corruption, among others, but most of them are unspecific and unfeasible, according to a report presented by the Moldovan Legal Resource Center (CRJM) at a press conference on Wednesday.
The proposals range from judicial vetting to fundamental changes in the legal system.
“A notable example is the repeated proposal to create an anti-corruption court, which is supposed to address grand corruption. However, the report points out that such a court would require substantial resources, and the current system, which uses judges specializing in corruption cases, has already proven increased efficiency”, explained CRJM president Ilie Chirtoacă.
In her reelection effort, Maia Sandu continues to support the extraordinary evaluation of judges and prosecutors to achieve integrity of the judicial system. She also wants to strengthen anti-corruption institutions and those in charge of recovering criminal assets. However, the report points out that many of these measures go beyond the powers of the president, requiring collaboration with other institutions.
Meanwhile, Renato Usatîi believes Moldova would be better off as a presidential republic. He also wants a system to directly elect judges and the prosecutor general. While “attractive to the electorate”, the CRJM jurists say these proposals raise “serious problems” of feasibility and compatibility with international standards on judicial independence.
Vasile Tarlev proposes the rehabilitation of “political detainees” and a review of some high-profile criminal cases, but the term “political detainee” is open to interpretation and may lead to abuse or public confusion, the experts say.
Ion Chicu wants to eliminate “foreign involvement” in the vetting of judges. In this case, the CRJM warns that getting rid of international experts may reduce the transparency and impartiality of the evaluation process.
According to the CRJM report, a number of candidates propose “populist” measures that are difficult to implement. For example, proposals to change the form of government, the direct election of judges or the liquidation of important institutions, such as the Intelligence and Security Service (SIS) and the National Anticorruption Center (CNA), risk undermining reform efforts and creating instability in the system legal, says the CRJM.
Another example is the promise made by Andrei Năstase, who insists on the election of the prosecutor general and Supreme Court judges by popular vote. While this could be perceived as a way to increase transparency, the report warns that this measure risks substantially politicizing the judiciary, compromising its independence.
The report concludes that, while all the candidates recognize the importance of reforming the justice system and strengthening the rule of law, most of the proposed measures are either unclear or fall outside of the president’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Real reforms, such as strengthening anti-corruption institutions and ensuring the independence of the judiciary, require a coherent plan and long-term inter-institutional collaboration, CRJM experts say.
