Representatives of civil society and of the state institutions have contradictory opinions about the justice done to the young people who were tortured by the police as a result of the April 7, 2009 events. The opinions were stated in the program “Moldova live” on the public TV channel “Moldova 1”, IPN reports.

Ion Guzun, jurist of the Legal Resources Center, said justice was selective in relation to the young people who were ill-treated and the police officers who used torture. “If we examine the situation at the Appeals Court, we will see that all those who are condemned are handcuffed directly in the courtroom and escorted to jail to serve their time there. Gheorghe Papuc and Ion Perju and other functionaries who got jail terms for their acts after the April 7, 2009 events were allowed to go,” said the jurist.

Natalia Molosag, trainer of a Soros Foundation Moldova project to train lawyers, said the prosecutor should have taken measures to prevent Gheorghe Papuc and Ion Perju from leaving the courtroom. “It seems that the two were warned by somebody that they will be convicted. Justice was selective in relation to the participants in the protests. There were convicted the most active participants, but decision makers, including from police commissariats that allowed using torture, weren’t convicted. The courts of law passed sentences in cases that involved protest participants during a year, while the trials involving those who used torture go on,” she stated.

Ion Caracuian, head of the Prosecutor General’s Office Torture Combating Division, noted that the prosecutors did their job the best concerning the April 7, 2009 events. “We started criminal cases against those who destroyed property and also against those who used torture. Of the 108 cases regarding the use of torture, 31 were started following prosecutors’ inquiries. The prosecutor brings evidence in court, but does not conduct the process and is not responsible for the passing of sentences and their implementation,” he said.

Dorel Musteata, a member of the Supreme Council of Magistrates, said the judges are not culpable as the law allows trying cases in other places if necessity, while the courts of law are not empowered to arrest and escort convicts. “If the court had called the police, the culprits would have suspected that they would be arrested. However, when they withdraw for deliberations, the judges do not know what decision they will take,” he stated.