A public person, forced by the Supreme Court of Justice, is apologizing for his intentions to juridically expose the press

The chairman of the “Consumers’ Rights” Social Organization, Petru Gutul, publicly apologized in front of the Info-Prim Neo Press Agency for the fact that the Agency’s reporters were forced to prove in court that Gutul’s declarations, made during a press conference from December 13 2005, were true. At the end of the last year Petru Gutul publicly announced that an economic agent is buying second hand merchandise, repairs it, repaints it and sells it as brand new. The Info-Prim Neo reporter publicized the same declarations, and also requested an interview from the mentioned company. Based on the Info-Prim Neo news, the economic agent sued the “Consumers’ Rights” Association for defamation and the representative of the latter accused the agency of misinterpreting the information and requested the court to draw the Agency to responsibility as codefendant. Although the legislation is not specific about these kinds of cases, the Info-Prim Neo reporter, after several months from the event, managed to demonstrate that the Association and its management is trying to avoid responsibilities, exposing a mass-media company in court. Recently, The Supreme Court of Justice forced Petru Gutul to hold another conference in order to apologize in front of the unjustifiably attacked sides. Gutul conformed to the decision on Tuesday, September 12, although only partially and at the end of the conference, under the pressure of repeated questions. Instead, the chairman of the Consumers’ rights organization again managed to offend the reporters at the beginning of the press conference, when he asked whether they were paid by the economic agent to attend the conference. Although satisfied by the court’s decision, Info-Prim Neo director, Valeriu Vasilica, claimed that this incident proves the vulnerable position of the mass-media from the Republic of Moldova, in terms that it has to be responsible for public declarations of civil servants, including over long periods of time. According to Vasilica, this issue is not stipulated by law, and the courts don’t offer protection even in professional and impartial activity.