Public defenders Natalia Molosag and Veronica Mihailov who defended in court the victims of events in April 2009 claim that the views on torture cases remain unchanged. The lawyers held a press conference on Wednesday, where they presented two recent cases. In both cases, the Prosecutor’s Office refused to start criminal proceedings against the torturers, Info-Prim Neo reports. Igor Stoica, programs director at Amnesty International Moldova, told the press that a one-year project called “Strategic litigation- stop torture in Moldova” was launched in May. Its goal is to fight the torture phenomenon on the level of criminal prosecution and examination in courts. “Although much time has passed and many declarations have been made, our conclusion as defenders is that nothing has changed. We are in the same situation as in the sad year of 2009”, declared Natalia Molosag. She spoke about the case when police workers harassed an underage boy in Prison no.5 in Cahul. According to the lawyer, the case was papered over even though responsible bodies had been notified. Natalia Molosag says she has recently seen the ordinance declining the opening of criminal proceedings in this case. She learned that the underage victim was deprived of protection and was denied medical examination. Although the law expressly forbids the withdrawal of requests submitted on behalf of minors by their legal representative, the Prosecutor’s Office invoked the withdrawal of charges as a reason for not starting criminal proceedings. The defender supposes that the child refused to talk because of the pressure put on him. Public defender Veronica Mihailov told the story of a young man with mental deficiencies who was arrested by the police, interrogated using physical and psychological pressure and forced to write self-incriminating declarations about a crime he didn’t commit. Though he had been on psychiatric records for several years, only a few months after his arrest the police requested a specialized expertise, which showed the young man’s state of mental deficiency. He was transferred to a specialized psychiatric institution until the court ruling. The lawyer noticed that in this case the Prosecutor’s Office refused to start criminal proceedings as it claimed there was no crime. “Reading the text of these ordinances we conclude that the same arguments are always used: the denial statements of police workers who had been directly involved in the victim’s arrest, which proves the bias of the investigation”, said Veronica Mihailov. In the first case, the young man was accused of intentional bodily harm, while in the second the victim was suspected for robbery.