The previous days, IPN News Agency published a news item based on a press release of the Association of Judges of the Republic of Moldova (AJRM). It seemed important to us to inform society about the appearance of this message owing to the serious concern that was probably generated by the existence of such a position on the situation in the Republic of Moldova, in general, and from Moldovan justice, in particular. We also banked on reactions in the public sphere to this position, but during almost a week they didn’t come out and this expands the concern. 

According to AJRM’s position, the assessment of the solutions provided by the courts of law should be balanced “so as not to affect the independence, impartiality and authority of the courts of law.” It is a normal request for the “public narrative” and should be applied for assessing all the problems in the country, not only those from justice, this being the first indicator showing that the persons who state their opinion sincerely want things to improve.

Further yet, AJRM states or rather imposes its categorical position, which goes against the call to ensure balance, which they expect from others, and against the general perception of things in Moldovan society.

The concern deriving from this message could be due to understanding or expression deficiencies of the authors of the press release. For example, these could have addressed their call exclusively to “high-ranking officials”, but this reference can be seen in the press release only once. The authors probably used the notion of “public narrative” in a narrow meaning and aimed it against exclusively at “high-ranking officials” who incorrectly generalize violations of the law by courts of law, expressed in terms that imply the disregard of judges”.

But what follows is a crass sample of “unbalanced” expression and of generalization, which excludes any faults of the judicial system in particular: “The Association reiterates that the solutions of the courts of law, either this are conviction or acquittal decisions, are the exclusive result of the implementation of the law and any contrary speculations are fully inappropriate and should be firmly rejected.” Moreover, AJRM challenges the right of anyone, of “high-ranking officials” and of society in general, to publicity discuss the solutions of courts of law. “The court decisions are a pillar of the rule of law, while the recurring tendency to discourage and to publicly challenge them with a view to invalidating the juridical truth they express affects the essence of the rule of law.”

Here, we should return to the broad meaning of the notion of “public narrative”. One of the definitions tells us that this is any message “that interests a group of people and has the general intention of persuading, informing...”.

In the public sphere of the Republic of Moldova, during many years, from different levels, by a lot of persons and groups of persons, not only politicians and government officials, messages have been formulated about the bad state of affairs in Moldovan justice. AJRM does not know, does not want to know or does not find it necessary to take this state of spirit in society into account. Does AJRM believe that these people came/fell from the Moon?

Does AJRM really believe that we have authentic rule of law in the Republic of Moldova that is ensured by the “courts of law” as a “pillar”? Haven’t its administration or members heard about the “captured state” that we couldn’t have witnessed without “court decisions”? Does AJRM believe that only the politicians and government officials are to blame for the inducing of such a state of spirit in society?

The Association of Judges is rather aware of the real state of affairs in Moldovan judiciary as its members also live in the Republic of Moldova, not elsewhere. Why does the Association have then this categorical, rigid position that distorts the existing situation? Why does it provoke such serious concern? Maybe because it shows the judges’ decision to put up common resistance to the processes which are called “justice sector reform” by the current government? We can presume that this is the position at least of those who form part of the given Association and who didn’t find it necessary to dissociate themselves publicly.