Another two facets of Domneasca Forest tragedy

{Info-Prim Neo analysis} If it hadn’t been such a tragic case at personal level and such a serious case at the level of state institutions and functionaries, I would have used the known saying about the good news and bad news, when they usually ask with which news to begin. Anyway, there must be identified another two important facets of this case, in addition to the two mentioned in the January 9 Info-Prim Neo analysis “Prosecutor general was punished”. Thus, the case turned out to be more serious and more relevant for the real state of affairs in Moldova than we imagined 10 days ago and even 1-2 days ago. This is the bad part of things. The good part, if using such adjectives in a case of killing, even if accidental, is not sacrilege, is that this case offers real chances of improving the situation in Moldova, especially in the area of justice and not only. It is a dear pretext yet, which cost a human life, and the institutions or persons that will oppose this vital process will commit real sacrilege. First of all, I want to speak about the bad part of things. The new details that emerged meanwhile, more under pressure rather than owing to the work done by the state institutions, show that the December 23 killing was hidden intentionally by the bodies and officials that were obliged to identity those to blame and to make the case public. Experts say the hiding is not an offense or crime in itself, which is punished by law. However, the exceeding of authority and the abuse of power, by which the hiding of the murder was allegedly forced or approved, are punished with imprisonment. Initially, it was presumed that this case was hidden only because the hunting involved high-ranking officials and they didn’t want to be in the focus of the public opinion and in roles that would have damaged their image. Meanwhile, there emerged the real and very serious reasons of the hiding. [One:] the hunting in the scientific reserve “Padurea Domneasca” was illegal. Thus, all the participants in it broke the law before and after the killing. At least, the police said that a criminal case was started over the December 23 illegal hunting in the scientific reserve “Padurea Domneasca”. [Two:] in that hunting the participants used dangerous bullets banned by law. These are two serious circumstances that make each of the participant in the hunting a possible suspect of the killing and a real candidate for punishment for already committed offenses. Thus, each of them, not only the prosecutor general, who was accused by a politician of committing the murder, and the person investigated officially in this case, are in states of conflicts of interest in this case and can be personally interested in hiding it or certain information concerning it. The posts and resources they have and their relations in the political sphere and justice theoretically can be used to prevent the discovery of truth. Should we ask ourselves how the state bodies would have behaved if the killing had been committed accidentally by a hunter or a group of hunters without ‘epaulets’? Or did similar hunting activities that involved officials and the use of banned bullets take place earlier? In the previous analysis, I spoke about transparency, partial and selective democracy and justice as serious dangers generated by the hiding of this or any other cases. Meanwhile, the situation has worsened by the attempt to change emphases in this case, including from the highest levels. Until now, neither the prosecutor general, nor the prosecution service provided details about the reasons and persons responsible for hiding the information. Instead, the Head of Parliament introduced the notion of defective way of communication. Surely, this notion cannot replace the notion of ‘hiding’. In the best case, the two notions must co-exist, but the last notion refers more to the information capacity of the three great rulers of the country. Marian Lupu himself said that he found out about this case from his ‘consultants’ 16-17 days after the killing. President Nicolae Timofti and Prime Minister Vlad Filat found our about it from the mass media, after the news conference given by politician Sergiu Mocanu, respectively in about 13 days. How did a simple politician from the non-parliamentary opposition find out about this case at a time when this opposition is not expected to have such expert consultants and the enormous resources of the managed state institutions? The three should be very offended and concerned because the situation in the country is not within their control. I mean the political control and responsibility for the quality of government and, in this respect, the leader of the third political organization that is in power, Mihai Ghimpu, should have similar feelings. However, the good part of things is that this case was ultimately made public. In a really defective way, society found out about it and this means that there are chances of identifying those to blame so that they answer before the law, as all the country’s citizens, without exception and without discrimination. This means chances to have better justice and better democracy, not only partial and selective. The given chances have two preconditions and only one solution for being used. Even if it may seem strange, one precondition is related to the coalition format of the current government. Despite the arguments inside the Alliance for European Integration (AEI), of which we are sick and tired already, the competition spirit of the relations between the components of the alliance offers us certain guarantees against the abuses that tempt the representatives of all the parties that had been and are now in power. In other words, the allies in the AEI are rather zealous surveyors when it is about deviations committed by the coalition partners. It’s not excluded that they found out about the tragedy in the Domneasca Forest namely in this way. The newer and older story shows that the inconvenient secrets of the authorities, including the serious and minor crimes, cannot be found out by society when there is one-party government. Another precondition concerns the position of Moldova’s development partners, especially the European Union, which was expressed rather trenchantly this time again. The EU Ambassador to Moldova Dirk Schuebel said the way the investigation into that tragedy is performed will play an important role in the liberalization of the visa regime for Moldovans, which is to be decided at the end of this year. Thus, those who will oppose this process will have to deal with the reproaches of the EU in the external relations and will have to assume responsibility before the voters for the possible failure of the negotiations on the liberalization of the visa regime and, eventually, for the change of the country’s European integration course. It is clear that the Europeans look at this process in the context of the reformation of the legal system of Moldova because they want real guarantees that the Moldovans will not dare to organize hunting activities in their countries according to the rules used in Moldova or European citizens will not be killed during hunting in Moldova. Thus, the real and not delayed reformation of the legal system is the only solution for using the chances to have better justice and better democracy for Moldova and its people. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]