Moldova doesn’t learn from own mistakes-sentencings at ECHR – director of CREDO. IPN analysis

It is not the case to blame only the legal system for the frequent sentencing of the Republic of Moldova at the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR), Sergiu Ostaf, executive director of the Resource Center for Human Rights (CREDO). Although, there are systematic errors in the legal system, too, the situation is more complex, the frequent condemning of Moldova is determined by several factors, Ostaf told [Info-Prim Neo]. A big part of the cases were initiated in the period 2000-2003 when the situation was more problematical, because of that period’s policies including decisions’ carrying out, imprisonment conditions, freedom of speech etc, Sergiu Ostaf states. According to him, the cases examined at present at ECHR are at least 3 old, with some exceptions. The expert says that the essential reasons why cases are brought to ECHR are: a) the quality of policies (legal norms on the rights stipulated by ECHR, rights’ implementation practice), the ability of justice to manage vulnerable points; b) the legal system is too vulnerable and not enough strengthened. Ostaf offers several explanations for this situation. According to him, the judges, especially those from the top of the system have an old mentality, the management of the system is deficient and unprofessional at court’s level as well as at the self-organization level. The professional education of judges, regarding ECHR, as well as the multidisciplinary evaluation of cases and consequences is imperfect; it is obsolete, morally and technologically, Ostaf states. According to Ostaf, Moldova is not learning from the good European practices, and as well not from its own mistakes-sentencings at ECHR. Learning is a common task of the Legal system (Supreme Justice Court, the association of judges, juridical commission and the commission for human rights of the Parliament and especially of the Ministry of Justice). For example, after the case of “Busuioc vs. Moldova” from 2005 (sanctioning for opinions), the Parliament, possibly at the initiative of the Ministry of Justice, should have changed immediately the Civil Code which is not sufficiently clear on this respect and the Ministry of Justice, Superior Council of Magistrates should have called up a series of seminars in order to explain the significance of the case. The Supreme Justice Court should have examined and make some conclusions on all recent cases that could cause similar problems. Another relevant case is “Ziliberberg vs. Moldova” from 2005 (the obligatory presence and the right to plead in self-defense in administrative cases). The code on administrative contraventions, although if stipulates financial sanctions and the administrative arrest it does not guarantee properly the procedural rights. From the moment the decision is made, the state only satisfies the financial requests of the petitioners but it does not change the provisions of the administrative code, the practice of guaranteeing procedural rights etc. Sergiu Ostaf considers that some actions undertaken recently by the Moldovan authorities in order to make the courts more accountable could have double effects, including negative. For example, the amendments allowing the sanctioning of the judges, whose decisions led to the condemning of Moldova at ECHR, could have negative consequences exceeding the positive expectations. The idea was to make judges more responsible for the decisions they make, using an economic, financial method. In fact, this is a situation of pressure over judges and the whole legal system. The new legislative provisions can be justified only in case if a premeditated, malicious aim of the judge is proven. The director of CREDO considers that the practice of the European countries offers models of alternative policies for implementing the same objectives, including: 1) systematic improve of the vulnerable legislative norms; 2) professional training of judges; 3) offering to each judge a database with the decisions of ECHR; 40 clear and constructive messages presented by the persons of the political field and of the legal system. IPN NOTE: Until now, Moldova was condemned in 34 cases at ECHR, of which 14 in 2005.