[ - This anniversary of Moldova's independence saw a full year of government for the Alliance for European Integration. This is a good opportunity to review the performance of the new government over this period. What has been done and what hasn't to bring the Moldovan justice system closer to the standards of fairness?] - This has been a critical year for the future of the Republic of Moldova. We took over a failed country, an isolated country, a country which people were fleeing from. Now we have some financial stability and we see the first signs of functionality of the democratic institutions. In what concerns the judicial reform, Moldova lagged some 20 years behind the former communist countries in central and eastern Europe. At the end of the last century, with the collapse of communism, most of the post-communist countries started democratic reforms, including the reform of the judiciary. Overall, there were three models followed by the post-communist countries in pursuing judicial reforms. {The first model} was that followed by the three Baltic countries and some of the central European states, including Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. They put strong teeth into their reforms, leaving out everything that had to do with the mechanisms of the old communist system. As a result, those who followed this model succeeded in creating functional judicial systems, which provided the necessary foundation for implementing the other democratic and economic reforms. Those countries, those governments managed to provide decent living standards and personal security to their citizens, similar to those enjoyed in advanced democracies. {The second model} was that followed by countries like Romania and Bulgaria. In those countries, the reforms proceeded slower and with many half measures. The political elites had come from the communist nomenklatura, which generated a tendency to preserve the state of affairs in the judiciary. It took nearly ten years for the elites in those countries to undertake more radical reforms. One consequence of this delay is that these countries were the last to join the EU, despite being located in the middle of Europe geographically speaking; today they have still a great deal of work to do. {The third model} was that followed by a number of post-communist countries perpetually stuck in transition, Moldova being one of them. Here the judiciary remains to be perceived as an instrument employed to preserve the privileges held by those in power, a tool to promote certain businesses and subdue others or, even more banal, a mere moneymaking machine. For the Moldovan political elites, it was never “the right moment” and they always avoided to adopt radical, extraordinary measures which would change the system in essence. To carry out an ample and exhaustive reform of the judiciary, time is needed and this means at least a full four-year term. Considering the political crisis we are going through and the limited mandate of the current government, we have focused our efforts on reforms that can be implemented in a short period of time or which can be pushed to a point of irreversibility. [ - Whereas in certain areas for which Moldova was traditionally criticized by the European organizations – like the freedom of the press, the freedom of expression and that of assembly, etc. - there has been some apparent progress, the reform of the judiciary remains to be a problem as big as it was one year ago. Why is that so?] - Recently, Victor Puscas (Constitutional Court judge – IPN) has criticized me in an article published on the webpage of a governmental organization that I'm trying to reform {„various areas of the judiciary, including prosecution, the courts, the attorneyship, the notary activity, the prison system, the enforcement of judicial rulings, etc., in just a several months' time, whereas reforms of this kind usually take decades to implement”.} As I said, Moldova has been lagging twenty years behind other post-communist countries in reforming the judiciary, because in Moldova, when it comes to the judicial reform, the same people have been replaying the same arguments for all these twenty years: {“It's not the right moment; let's mull over it; there is no need to rush; let's not destroy what was good in the communist times; let's not be radical, and so on.”} Over the time, the people who were in power whether lacked the courage to promote a fundamental reform or deliberately wanted to keep the system unchanged. As a result, we have come to welter in a swamp of nepotism, corruption and incompetence, which will be difficult to get out of. Exactly for these reason we have gone into full swing with the judicial reform. Over one year, we have implemented more reforms in the judiciary than in the previous fifteen. [ - And which are these exactly?] - I will highlight in brief the main reforms in the areas of the judiciary and human rights, but I'd like to mention that our efforts are more ample than that. I think that the biggest achievement, on a political level, is changing the attitude towards the judiciary and excluding governmental interference in its affairs. Over eleven months of government there were a number of institutional reforms concerning certain actors in the judiciary. These are in particular the notaries, the attorneys, and the liberalization of the system of enforcing judicial orders. The modifications made to the legislation totally changes the principles of attorneyship and of the system of enforcing court rulings. I think that the promotion of these reforms represents a real achievement in ensuring the quality and efficiency of the process of administering justice. Moreover, legal amendments were adopted with a view to excluding interference or potential external pressure on the judiciary. To guarantee access to justice, a cap was placed on court fees so that they cannot exceed 25,000 lei for individuals and 50,000 lei for entities. In what concerns respect for fundamental human rights and liberties, I would like to mention in particular the progress in remedying the violations committed in the aftermath of the demonstrations on 7 April 2009. As a result of our efforts, three judges were dismissed for the violations committed in hearing cases related to last April's events. Additionally, a proposal was developed to grant a general pardon to those who were arrested in relation with the demonstrations on 7 April 2009. Furthermore, we remedied some issues of human rights violations inherited from the Communist government. In particular, we discontinued some abusive Communist practices where governmental bodies were employed to act like a gendarme against some inconvenient NGOs. Also in this context, we modified the Law on political parties and removed the requirement for the Ministry of Justice to request the court to dissolve the parties which didn't participate in two consecutive electoral races or which polled in those elections a smaller number of votes than the number of members required to establish a party. We also ensured the enforcement of the ECHR rulings. I can tell you in this context that there are no unfulfilled obligations as to the damages awarded by the European Court of Human Rights. Also, all the cases were submitted to the General Prosecutor's Office so that legal action can be taken against those responsible for the human rights violations which led to ECHR fines. I think that a considerable and very important achievement for the current government is the termination of the monitoring procedure by Council of Europe in a number of issues of religious nature, and that happened after eight years of no progress at all. Some progress was registered in the prison system as well. There were provided improved detention conditions through the rehabilitation of a number of prison facilities. With public budget financing, we fully renovated the detention cells for juveniles in Penitentiary 13 in Chisinau, as the solitaries in this establishment were all closed. I'd like to conclude the 'progress' chapter with a question: “What have we done in this year of independence?”. We have given a renewed impetus to the reform process where it was possible and have demonstrated to Moldovan society that a government can govern without giving orders to the judiciary and without transforming the entire country into some huge police station or prison. [ - There is an impression that the recent developments have confirmed, alarmingly enough, the concerns formulated in a commentary published by Info-Prim Neo on 16 February 2010, called {'Muruianu' has thrown down the gauntlet? Who's going to pick it up?}. Is there such a phenomenon which we can call 'Muruianu'? What influence does it have on the state of affairs in Moldova and how much can it hurt the principles of the rule of law?] - The Muruianu case was a challenge for everybody. It was an opportunity to start an ample process of changes in the judiciary in order to remove those who, actually, ruined this system. Muruianu remained in office just because there wasn't enough political will to discharge him. The same is true for the courts. To carry out a fundamental reform, we need a fully fledged mandate, because this is a very complicated system, and very sensitive, too. The current situation, the developments in the recent months, as well as the Muruianu case, the double failure of Parliament to vote for the liquidation of courts of specialized jurisdiction, have demonstrated to us that the Moldovan judiciary needs profound changes so that it can meet international standards. Another persistent problem is the reform of the prosecution system. The establishment of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors was a step towards the modernization of this institution, but that was hardly enough. A fundamental reform of the prosecution system will be possible based on a conception that will have to be adopted immediately after elections and the formation of the new cabinet. For this to happen, we need courage as well as a fully fledged mandate and people who would accept to undertake this task. We also need people who would form judgments and establish rules based on the best interest of society, not with a view to advantaging or disadvantaging someone. a. We haven't managed to promote certain proposals only out of a lack of time. The formation of the Cabinet and governmental agencies started on September 25 and finished at the end of 2009; Parliament was practically functional just three or four months, and in addition, from March, it has been confronted with the Communist boycott, which has affected the law-making activity. [ - It seems that the Ministry of Justice has engaged in a struggle, if not a war with its own system. Do you think there is any chance of a positive outcome? Because, usually the system always wins...] - The Ministry of Justice is part of the political and administrative system of the country. {A priori} we cannot engage in a war with someone. But if you refer to some of the judges, there is some truth in that. I waged war on corruption, but unfortunately I was practically on my own in this war. Prime Minister Vlad Filat also remarked it, when he said that I was left all alone in front of everybody. [ - How much endorsement does the Ministry of Justice enjoy in the judicial system and how much support does the 'Muruianu phenomenon' get?] - I wish to think that the Muruianu case is singular and there is no such thing as a 'Muruianu phenomenon'. With some exceptions, the collectivity of judges has supported the reforms promoted by the Ministry of Justice during my term. [ - How sure can you be of the correctness of what you are doing? How much knowledge did you gain about the peculiarities of the Moldovan judicial system when you were a practicing lawyer?] - I strongly believe that the promoted reforms are overall correct. I admit there might be some errors somewhere and I know that there are people who don't share my point of view. It is their right to do so. And as concerns the judicial system and the state of affairs in the courts, I think I know it very well. I was lucky to be the head of the most far-reaching assistance program in the area of the judiciary when the court system was in its infancy. [ - We were quite successful as a lawyer and now you are a quite successful politician. Was there a price to pay? I mean, was there anything you felt obliged to do to convince them that you are “their man”?] - I belong to no one. I've always tried to do my job honestly. That was also my rule when I was a lawyer. Whether I've succeeded or not with this principle, it's up to the people to say. [ - When will be that anniversary of Independence when we'll be able to go to the prosecutors, the police, the judge without any fear?] - People should not be afraid to go to the court, the prosecutor's office or the police. And they should not be afraid to claim their rights. I can tell you from my own experience: your rights will serve you no good if you don't have the courage to claim them. [Valeriu Vasilică, Info-Prim Neo]