Judge Rodica Berdilo, of the Centru branch of the Chisinau City Court, who passed the decision to not validate the Chisinau mayoral election results, said she did her job in accordance with the law, independently of any external influence. In a message posed on the Facebook page of the court of law, the judge said when taking the decision she didn’t yield to the voices at the door of her office that called on her to implement the law in favor of one side or another, depending on their political preferences.
The judge noted she strictly abided by the law, in particular the Election Code that provides that no electoral agitation is allowed on the election day and the day before the election day, the key word being ”no”. “Today the law can be violated a little, tomorrow a little more. Today the law can be broken by someone who you sympathize with, tomorrow it can violated by someone who you don’t sympathize with and the non-punishment of these violations endangers democracy and the rule of law,” stated the judge.
According to her, courage is needed to implement the law and not only in the Republic of Moldova, but in any corner of the world. That’s why not everyone can become judge. A judge has to resist psychological pressure and to obey the oath taken when being sworn in, by obeying the Constitution and the laws of the country.
Rodica Berdilo said she fully obeyed the law and the people will feel that they live in a balanced world and that their efforts can product results only if the law is obeyed.
After the Chisinau City Court on June 19 decided to not validate the election of Andrei Nastase as mayor, the Appeals Court upheld this decision one day later, while the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the invalidation on June 25. Under the argued judgment of the ordinary court, both Andrei Nastase and Ion Ceban campaigned on the election day, which is inadmissible according to the Election Code. Both of the candidates, through the agency of live streams on social networking sites, called on the electorate to vote. Even if these didn’t say who namely the people should vote for, the court decided that these actions had a significant impact on the voters’ option.
