{Info-Prim Neo analysis} Moldova’s prosecutor general has been already punished for the killing of Sorin Paciu on December 23 and things are rather clear in this respect. The investigations will center on the guiltiness or innocence of the private individual Valeriu Zubko. Thins is how I think the created situation should be considered at the moment – by distinctly separating the two hypostases of the national prosecution service chief. The punishment is a moral one as the prosecutor general found himself in the center of a terrible public scandal that affected both his image and credibility in this post and the image of the justice system of Moldova in general. The blame for such a state of affairs is fully borne by the prosecutor general: either he was or wasn’t at that hunting or he killed or didn’t kill a man during that hunting. The real blame resides in the fact that the prosecutor and all his services kept the killing secret from the public opinion for about 13 days. Thus, the prosecutor general shouldn’t be now angry because this case was disseminated for political purposes, as he asserted, as it would have been worse for Moldovan society if it hadn’t been disseminated. I think the prosecutors justified their behavior at least for themselves if not for others because this case involves several public servants holding rather important posts. But this mentality generates and promotes partial and selective transparency and partial and selective democracy in society. All these things could have been avoided if at least the press service of the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) had issued quickly a communiqué. Given that its press service has been very active over the last few years, the non-issuing of a communiqué was probably decided at very high level within the PGO and the prosecutor general couldn’t have been avoided. The situation will not change even if it turns out that the prosecutor general was abroad during those days. Elementary logic and universal practice say that such persons cannot go away without making sure that they will be reached in emergencies, no matter where they are. Even if the situation was different and the decision to hush this case up was taken in the absence of the prosecutor general, the atmosphere at the PGO revealed by this case is detrimental to the prosecutor general, who was unable to create another atmosphere during three years. I think this is what Prime Minister Vlad Filat meant or should have meant when he said that the prosecutor should tender his resignation of honor. Another kind of resignation is within the remit of other institutions and refers more to the private individual Valeriu Zubko. In normal societies, the two hypostases are not confused. Unfortunately, Valeriu Zubko did not refer to this aspect in the statement he made public. He preferred to put himself in the place of a victim of political intrigue. In fact, this intrigue is not at all excluded and the atmosphere inside the prosecution service only generates and stimulates it. The weak ring always attracted intrigue and those who want to improve things; I mean to reform the prosecution service as a major element in the justice sector reform. Looking at things this way, the resignation ‘of honor’ of the prosecutor general would come as a logical ending of the punishment that the person who now holds this post already received. It is also dictated by the common sense rule imposed by the necessity of ensuring favorable working conditions for a parliamentary commission that may be set up to investigate this case that became serious and of national importance. Given the stated reasons, the prosecution service does not enjoy all the credibility needed to deal with this case itself, especially when the prosecutor general is accused of direct conflict of interest groundlessly or reasonably. That future parliamentary commission of inquiry must include, besides specialists and experts from the prosecution service and the police, a head that will represent the parliamentary opposition and one or several foreign experts who wouldn’t be influenced politically, financially or otherwise. If not, this commission will repeat the fate of those that investigated the April 7, 2009 events, but didn’t want or couldn’t discover the murder of another Moldovan national. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]