[ - Mister Vladimir Sarban, we found out from press repots that you will appear before court again. What has happened?] - Not again, but in continuation... On November 18, 2009, there will be held the 211th hearing on cases involving officials of the Chisinau City Hall, which were started in 2004. Until then, on November 12 this year, I will mark five years of the day when I was detained in front of the Chisinau City Hall. Afterward, I was arrested and accused of offences committed by other persons, who, owing to the ‘efforts’ of the prosecutors and prosecuting body, have not been brought to trial as they bought their freedom as they say. On November 19, 2004, I was imprisoned over the ‘ambulances case’ and set free on October 12, 2005, only after the decision of the European Court of Human Rights was published on October 4, 2005. [ - The former mayor general of Chisinau Serafim Urecheanu had been accused of the same counts, but went through all the trials and was acquitted. Where does this difference derive from – from the incompetence of the panel of judges trying your case or from a political order that is still valid?] - A legal explanation for this difference is the joining of all the cases involving the City Hall functionaries, who had been arrested in that period - Modarca, Paladi, Cebanenko, Raileanu, and their simultaneous examination with the participation of five defendants, five lawyers and five prosecutors. This is a long process. All the participants had been [and continue to be] obliged to attend the hearings even if the counts examined bore no relation to them. The ‘ambulances case’ is the most relevant example, but not the only one... Why they did not separate some of the cases as the participants asked is another aspect of the problem, which is far from having legal connotations. It is those who ordered that the cases be joined that must provide explanations for this. As regards the counts, they were different formally, but in essence they are part of the same scenario. The ‘ambulances case’ against me was ‘invented’ in only several tens of minutes as the person who investigated this case confessed for the press and in front of the court. He separated intentionally and very tendentiously, at the instruction of his bosses, certain documents from the case opened against Serafim Urecheanu. There the separation was considered rational, but in fact it was necessary. On November 18, 2004, I was released from arrest, but somebody wanted to see me behind bars again, the very next day, so that they invented the ‘ambulances case’ as there were no other counts. [ - All those events that involved you seemed like part of an action movie – detaining in front of the City Hall – house arrest – invitation to the CCCEC – arrest in the street – hearings – Pruncul etc. Did anyone want to make a show of the arrest of the secretary of the Chisinau Municipal Council?] - No, the aim was not to make a show. The show was only an instrument of intimidation for achieving the goal – to remove me from the City Hall. Who else if not the secretary of the Chisinau Municipal Council has access to all the data in the City Hall, keeps and uses the stamp on documents signed by the institution’s administration and could eventually provide the information asked for in a discreet way? I was advised to do this on November 13, 2004, on the first morning in the basement of the Center for Combating Corruption and Economic Crime. The first time that I was told to leave the City Hall was at the start of that year. I refused and asked that they present serious objections to my work. “If we have the man, we will find legal reasons by all means,” the person who told me to leave replied. [ - How will this case develop in your opinion?] - I am also curious to hear the discourse of the prosecutor at the hearings that I hope will start on November 18. All the witnesses have been heard by the court, except those protected by the prosecutors, who said they bought their freedom. The evidence was examined. The parties can draw conclusions, while the court is to take a decision. I thoroughly examined all the materials of the case again and again and I’m finishing my discourse. I will ask the court to offer enough time to prove the groundlessness of the accusations made against me and will enumerate again the violations committed in the investigation process. I informed the prosecutors who participated in the examination of the case and the former prosecutor general about the deviations committed by the prosecuting body, the prosecutors, but I received no answer. Maybe I will receive one now? [ - Why not? The Prosecutor General’s Office offered apologies to persons against which legal cases had been opened illegally. I mean Urecheanu, Plesca] - It is a nice gesture, but one swallow does not make a spring. Moldova has lost more than 100 cases at the European Court of Human Rights. So many innocent persons ruined their health in prisons owing to the unhealthy ambitions of obedient persons and servility of docile fulfillers. The country’s budget was deprived of astronomical sums, but the Prosecutor’s Office keeps silent… I do not expect compassion and gratis phrases from somebody. I will use the legal ways to prove my innocence. I hope my health permits me…