[ - The European authorities have been persistently demanding that Moldova improve the performance of its judiciary. What else shall be done to take the judiciary issue out of Moldova's list of democratic drawbacks?] - In 2008 the Moldovan judiciary has failed to regain confidence in the eyes of the general public in Moldova and abroad. Speaking of particular cases, I think it would be right to say that the image of the judiciary has not improved. Last year was marked by court decisions concerning violations of the right to freedom of exression – the case of TVR1, of Jurnal de Chisinau); the right to peaceful and free assembly – numerous cases against Hyde Park and more recently, the case of Mr. Matasaru ({Businessman Anatol Matasaru has won international fame after he had dressed a donkey in police clothing and a pig – in a jacket on which he wrote 'porcuror' (a pun deprecative of prosecutors), on December 18. The police had hindered him then to reach Chisinau's downtown, while a Chisinau court fined him 200 lei. – e.n}); the right to a fair trial and to property – many companies got re-nationalized, etc. I consider there is still much to be done to have a fair, professional and functional judiciary. First, political will is needed, not only nice statements in different action plans. It's important that the authorities really want an independent judiciary, not one obeying the interests of the “state”, of the “political party” or “the president on the US dollar”. Probably, it's the key factor, since both the business community and the entire society badly feel the lack of protection from the judiciary against the committed illegalities. If there is political will, it will be possible to implement a transparent policy in selecting judges, appointing prosecutors and career progression in the judicial system. [ - The fines imposed on the Moldovan government by the ECHR have skyrocketed to millions of euros this year. How much blame does the judiciary deserve for this wastage of tax-payers' money?] - Until December 2008, the ECHR fined the Moldovan government over 11 million euros, of which over 8 million were awarded to the plaintiffs by the judgments delivered in 2008. The judiciary in each state is the only mechanism that can mend the abuses, errors or the negligence admitted by administrative authorities. And if the court exerted their powers duly, it is logical that Moldova, and eventually the Moldovan tax-payers, would not have to pay such penalties. It's true the courts cannot always correct a situation where human rights are abused. The courts do not have the powers to abrogate laws running counter to the Convention; for example, the Moldovan judiciary cannot abrogate the law depriving the holders of dual citizenship of a seat in parliament. There are few such cases considered by the European Court, and as a rule, no damages are requested in such cases. It's essential that the law in question is changed or abolished. [ - Apparently, the Moldovan judges have deficiencies in applying international procedures. Why? Do they still need training?] - It's possible that many judges, prosecutors and lawyers are not familiar enough with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. A similar situation existed in other member countries of the Council of Europe. It's not serious, but things must improve eventually. In some situations, I don't think it is a matter of not knowing the provisions. I am sure that judges largely are aware or at least have heard of the cases Moldova lost in the ECHR, since these decisions are translated into Romanian for better accessibility. However, in a fair amount of trials, experienced Moldovan judges prefer to ignore arguments based on the ECHR's case-law. [ - Traditionally, the judiciary ranks low in opinion polls. How can the image of the judge be improved?] - Judges are not popular for both objective and subjective reasons. A solution to improve the judge's objective image is to improve the quality of justice in courts, that is, making clear and legal court decisions. Subjectively, the judges could improve the image of the entire system by better running trials, that is, planning the sessions so as not to have people wait for a judge for 5 hours, proper conduct of judges and court clerks in relation to the parties in a trial and, not the least, revamping the court rooms. There are many judges who, even in these times, inspire trust and respect by being righteous and by delivering just judgments.