IPN interview: The Moldovan authorities must take into consideration corruption at the low level and at the high level too as the reports count less. What counts is how many very corrupt persons are in jail. The parliamentary immunity must be limited and should not be regarded as a possibility of escaping punishment for acts of corruption. Such statements were made by Christian Humborg, executive director of Transparency International Germany, in an interview for IPN.
– Mister Humborg, tell us about your visit to Moldova.
– I was invited by the Embassy of Germany to Chisinau to speak about Germany’s experience in fighting corruption. I represent a nongovernmental organization that often criticizes the authorities. For this reason, I welcome the initiative of the Embassy of Germany to invite me here. I has paid a three-day visit and discussed the issue of corruption with representatives of a number of NGOs. I had discussions at universities and took part in a dinner given by the Embassy, where I met with the Minister of the Interior and the director of the National Anticorruption Center.
– After the meetings with representatives of Moldovan NGOs, what opinion do you have about the level of corruption in Moldova?
– I cannot pronounce on the changes as I don’t know in detail how it was in Moldova earlier. After the discussions I had, I got the feeling that there are different topics that they discuss a lot in Moldova, including the reform of the justice sector and the notion of immunity.
– How do they combat corruption in Germany?
– We cannot say that there is a law or an institution that fights corruption in Germany. Corruption combating depends on a number of institutions, laws and factors, on people and their decisions in different situations. A relevant example is last year’s case of the former President of Germany, which showed that the fight against corruption in Germany really produces results. He was invited to Octoberfest, together with his wife, by a friend. The President’s accommodation cost €700 and was paid by the one who made the invitation. It was afterward seen that the mass media in Germany work very well. The case was covered widely. The criminal prosecution service wasn’t intimidated by the fact that it was the head of state and examined everything appropriately. I noticed that society is very dissatisfied with the fact that different political figures accept invitations to places where the costs are very high.
– How should corruption be fought: from up to down or from down to up? For example, 23 customs inspectors and border police officers were recently arrested in Moldova for corruption. But they say they only pretend to fight corruption in Moldova before the Vilnius Summit, where Moldova is to initial the Association Agreement with the EU so as to show that results are achieved in the fight against corruption.
– I do not know details about this case, but two things are really important. First: they should take into account both of the sides in the fight against corruption and to apply the integrity test. Second: they should fight corruption at the high level as, when achieving the final result, it is not the adopted laws and the number of written reports that counts, but rather how many known and very corrupt persons are behind bars.
– Some experts say that the parliamentary immunity in Moldova is too great and should be limited. What do you think?
– I will speak about immunity referring to the German example. I think it should be very limited. In Germany, only the President and the MPs have immunity. We often see cases in the European countries when those who have immunity want to escape punishment for acts of corruption. This is not fair as the immunity should not protect from criminal cases. In Germany, if a prosecutor wants the immunity of an MP to be withdrawn, he files an application to the President of the Bundestag. If the latter takes no attitude within 48 hours, the prosecutor can take legal action against the MP.
In Germany, during the 48 hours the lawmaker must find a majority to take attitude so that he is not deprived of immunity. In Moldova, the 48 hours are used to find a majority to withdraw the MP’s immunity.
– No MP in Moldova was ever deprived of parliamentary immunity and we do not even know the procedure.
– This is exactly what I here about Moldova not for the first time. In Germany, there was only one case of immunity withdrawal this year. In the other cases, the charges were dropped.
– Do they often propose withdrawing the immunity in Germany?
– I do not know figures, but there were many cases. There was for example a case. The secretary of the Liberal Party had an accident. He hit the mirror of another vehicle with his car. He ran away without informing the police. Eyewitnesses called the police. It was established that it was the MP’s car and that the accident had nothing to do with his position. An application was lodged to deprive him of immunity so that the case could be examined. Nothing was done during 48 hours. A criminal case was started and the court fined him €1,500.
IPN note: The visit by Christian Humborg to Chisinau forms part of the Discourse Program of the German Federal Government and was organized with support from the German Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations (www.ifa.de).
Mariana Galben, IPN
