[- Mr. Sarban, You came victorious in the case “Sarban vs. R.Moldova at the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) on September 13”. What do you think about the decision a year after?] I would like to express once again my sincere gratitude to the persons who supported me during that very difficult period of my life when I was detained. Without their disinterested support I am not sure we would be able to have this discussion now… I said it then and I repeat it: the judges of ECHR, who solve thousands of requests from all Europe, are examining the cases faster and more accurately. [- What happened after the decision was made, how do those who imprisoned you illegally reacted?] They reacted very originally… Ignoring the decision of the ECHR, the Court rejected on September 20, 2005 my request on canceling the preliminary measure – the arrest; but the prosecutor solicited the Court to dismiss me from my office because I was staying in prison, and allegedly “I was jeopardizing the Municipal Council’s activity”. On September 27 the Court considered a preliminary measure. On October 12, again at my request, not ex officio as it would be normal; - the Court complied with the decision of ECHR. It replaced the illegal 10 month arrest with house arrest. Only on September 17, the arrest was repealed and replaced with a non-detention measure – the obligation not to leave the country. On February 16, 2006, I cashed the sum settled by the Court for moral compensation and law suit expenses, absolutely accidentally finding out about this transfer, although on January 4, 2006, the day when the decision came into force, I asked the representative of the Government to inform me about the transfer. It is true that these funds were very useful to me, but the problem is that this money comes from tax payers, who work really hard and not from those who constantly commit offences, those who blindly executed someone’s orders. [- Did someone present any apologize, has someone discussed with you on this issue?] Nothing like that happened. I did not receive any answers even to the letters sent by me in 2005 to the General Prosecution Office and Parliament regarding the infringements admitted in my case. It seems to me that this kind of attitude does not refer only to me personally, it is part of a certain situation. Let us remember the way the Prosecution office treated the two lawyers who “dared” to address to the High Court in order to protect the rights of a citizen. It is because they “damage” the image of the country. Those who deliberately are not publishing the decisions of ECHR in the Official Monitor newspaper as the legislation requires, are also probably thinking about the image of the country. The decision in my case was not published even a year after it was publicized. The fact that it was published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice can not substitute in any way the legal provisions. On the other hand, how many citizens have access to this web site?! Could not this situation be considered as limiting citizens’ access to information related to the practice of the Court? Or maybe authorities protect their obedient executors by not publishing ECHR decisions? I repeat - it is not only about me. Recently, the Information Bureau of the Council of Europe in Moldova published a book on 16 decisions made by ECHR and distributed them to judges and other specialists. Previously, 20 cases won by citizens were presented in 2005 in a special issue of the Bulletin of the Supreme Justice Court. Thus, the number of cases lost by Moldova is constantly increasing. Only 13 cases were printed in MO, including 12 in special numbers, according to the aforementioned bulletin. In an interpellation addressed to the Minister of Justice and to the Governmental Agent on June 2, 2006, the MP Ion Plesca referred to the subject of publishing the decisions of ECHR in MO, as well as the issue related to the financial loss generated by the case Moldova has lost in Strasbourg and on punishing the civil servants who are responsible of these violation. I believe this interpellation was ignored… Same strategy, isn’t it? [- What are you doing at present and what are your future plans?] I came back to work but because of some health problems I was forced to go on a sick leave, a chance I hadn’t in these almost two horrible years. On September 26 the examination of the penal case will be resumed. Thus, my future will be marked by these two issues.