Some experts consider the court of law acted selectively in relation to Ilan Shor, while others think such a decision may be right. Contradictory opinions on the issue were stated in the talk show “Fabrika” on Publika TV channel, IPN reports.
Journalist Ion Terguta believes a selective approach was used in the case of Shor. “It’s unexplainable how a person accused of such a crime can be placed under house arrest. The doctors accused of arranging tender contests were arrested. The arrest warrant against former health minister Andrei Usatyi was extended even if he underwent an operation on heart,” he stated.
Media analyst Cristian Tabara also considers that the court acted selectively in relation to Shor. “I cannot say with certitude as I didn’t see the case. But the decision to place Shor under house arrest at a time when others accused of stealing much smaller sums are held in remand centers seems disproportionate to me,” he said.
Director of the Resource Center for Human Rights Sergiu Ostaf believes the court could have taken a correct decision after Shor’s lawyer presented conclusive evidence. “The defense probably had enough arguments to convince the court that Shor should be placed under house arrest,” he stated.
Lawyer Roger Gladei noted there is no general judicial rule concerning the issuing of arrest warrants. “Judges decide based on their own convictions. The placement of the accused under arrest for the period of the investigation is the harshest measure. The accused person may be acquitted by the court. As a result, cases regarding illegal detention in inhuman and degrading conditions are lost at the ECHR,” he said.
