Discussions between authorities and civil society on judicial reform implementation: „We are on different sides of the fence, but we should come down on one”

Victoria Dodon
18/03/2017
Foto: CIJM

According to official data, 90% of the justice sector reform strategy, launched in 2011, was implemented. Though the authorities claim that this is a success and  several achievements were attained in this field, civil society representatives emphasize that a range  of initiatives good on paper only, have been implemented with a number of deficiencies.  Both of them admit that they have slightly different views on how reform should be implemented and that, for now, state authorities and NGOs  are on different sides of the fence. Expectations, problems and challenges of a constructive dialogue on changes in the judiciary were discussed at the public debate "Building bridges of trust between civil society and the justice sector". This event was organized in Chisinau, on Friday, March 17 by Freedom House and the Center for Investigative Journalism in Moldova. 

US Ambassador to Moldova, James D. Pettit stressed that justice sector reform was one of the biggest challenges facing today authorities and development partners as they want to create a democratic and responsive state to citizens. "Reform is not important just  because justice is important, ensuring due respect for human rights and regulating a democratic society,  but from a multitude of other reasons, for example, because it is designed to ensure a competitive business environment, where investors can be sure that they will get fair treatment in court. Both the involvement of people from the judiciary system, of common citizens and of civil society representatives is necessary for a better functioning of the judiciary", said the diplomat.

Justice Minister Vladimir Cebotari emphasized that  according to indicators, 90% of the  justice sector reform strategy has  been implemented. "I agree that we should not  assess the strategy by numbers, but we cannot  deny this indicator and the fact that 2016 was a year when we were in a rush to work out bills, promote them for approval and any attempt to develop parallel projects encountered resistance and were criticized at the start", said the minister. The official was displeased that several initiatives of the ministry he manages, have been repeatedly criticized by NGOs, emphasizing that many of them are assessed rather on political criteria  than on professionalism.

"Indeed, there is criticism regarding the implementation of some  laws and perhaps, we should say that we must  boost their implementation, but some processes have a natural way of development and require certain steps to be fully implemented. (...)  Current stage should be recognized as an achievement, not only of ours, but of our partners and civil society, without which  we could not mean today about 90%. We must admit failures and assume them. However, at the Ministry of Justice, we regret that our efforts are not always criticized exclusively based on professionalism, but   on political criteria. We see a politicization of discussions about reforms implementation. We do not want that", said Cebotari.

Moreover, his colleagues from the judiciary said that NGOs’ criticism is not justified and the recent successes attained by the representatives of the judiciary were neglected and poorly communicated to citizens.

Victor Micu, chairman of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) listed several partnerships and collaboration agreements which CSM has established with  relevant NGOs. He pointed that problems exist, "but still there is progress which must be highlighted ". "We have never refused collaboration, but sometimes I ask myself what is the real purpose of NGOs? They must help the structures of the judiciary and come up with concrete proposals. Sometimes, I do not understand the attitude of some representatives of the civil society.  They prefer rather to criticize than to come up with concrete recommendations. It is very easy to criticize. It seems that some NGOs criticize continuously, even when a concrete reform is carried out in a sector. The better  the reform is achieved, the more we are criticized. I want constructive criticism and solutions", said Micu.

Photo: CIJM

Mircea Rosioru, chairman of the Superior Council of Prosecutors (SCP) referred on how the civil society perceived prosecution reform. He stressed that the working group  for institution reformation was managed by a representative of civil society  and this has not happened in any other country.

"This has generated enormous resistance and criticism on behalf of some prosecutors or former prosecutors. Prosecutors whom I collaborated in this working group were subjected to extraordinary acts of terror either because of corporate or departmental interests and their skepticism in relation with the members of the working group. I endured: but I accepted all suggestions from civil society. The final product and the package of laws passed in Parliament have a margin of error of less than 1%. However, critics started: the law is not good, it does not work, it was worked out under the table. I wonder why? For me, such signals were incomprehensible", said Rosioru.

Head of  SCP was dissatisfied by  criticism about how the general prosecutor and his deputy-ministers were elected. “Then, they passed  to implementation, including election of the general prosecutor. There were several stages, each of them was transmitted online, the contest was monitored in detail, we asked for feedback from civil society on each of the six candidates in the contest and we did not get any feedback.  But when the candidate was designated, there were reactions. I can realize when the society does not like one candidate or another, but I do not accept allegations of fake and non- transparent competition", concluded Mircea Rosioru.

Representative of the civil society: "It seems we are on different sides of the fence, but we should come down on one”

Olesea Stamate, president of the Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER), an organization that has monitored implementation of the justice sector reform strategy together with Promo-Lex association found a number of improvements, especially in the reform coordination and cooperation with civil society.

"Many things have changed for the better, but there is a major frustration of civil society at macro level, on sector functioning as a whole: sometimes, consultations have a formal character; some overnight projects are promoted in the absence of any consultation and violate all transparency norms; boycotting some events of civil society because it criticizes specific initiatives or bills; avoiding appropriate implementation of  some laws, for example, the National Integrity Authority. It seems that we are on different sides of the fence, while we should come down on one. I hope that  we will return when the supreme interest will be the same: the interest of the country and of its citizens ", said the expert.

Otherwise,  the view of the chairman of  AGER with respect to positioning  on two different sides of the fence  is shared by  general prosecutor Eduard Harunjen - " regrettable thing that this happened because of our and everyone’s fault." "The first step for restarting this relationship is to join us. Not  to applaud us,  or to  select good events and give it to the public- this would be a luxury for us, but to inform you, because very often you operate with some assumptions, issues which are the result of manipulation of distortion of reality, without informing you first hand, while you always had this opportunity. The biggest problem is that you have a high degree of credibility before our development partners and when some matters that state representatives do with abnegation, self-sacrifice, regardless of unprecedented pressures and criticism, these should be encouraged. Only development partners can realize these, see them and make the state promote these best practices, which does not happen", said Harunjen.

Lilia Carasciuc, executive director of Transparency International Moldova replied that civil society served as a watchdog and must criticize government’s actions. "Yes, we must come and praise when things are positive, but we must be focused on results. From this point of view, in the process of doing  reform, or organizing a contest when someone is proposed for a management position, post of judge, I expect that the designated person undergoes evaluation. If  someone ranks 2 or 3, but still gets the post, this raises questions immediately. I expect that informants and those who talk about possible corruption cases are not just protected but listened to. Instead, we hear about lawyers who defend the rights of people and are persecuted, about cases such as of former  employee of Posta Moldovei, who revealed a smuggling scheme in mass and the criminal case  to this effect, about how they start  prosecution against some judges", said Lilia Carasciuc. 

“When I worked with CSM and other representatives from this system, I never claimed that we ultimately know the truth. This is not owned by any authority. They somehow reach a consensus. We want justice to serve the interests of citizens, which is why, we need upright judges. Our organization makes efforts in this regard, and one of the mechanisms is monitoring the colleges and provide tools  for promoting upright people in this system", added Galina Bostan, chairperson of the Center for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption.

In turn, Vlad Gribincea, chairman of the Center for Legal Resources tried to propose some solutions in the dialogue between NGOs and the authorities: "What must be done? Increasing involvement, return to the previous format when the Ministry of Justice fully engaged civil society in working groups of the ministry is a solution. Consistency of taking decisions is very important.  Nobody likes to agree on things, and finally adopt something totally different. This creates a hint that civil society is used for political games. It is also time to set mutual trust between us. I do not think that currently, the civil society is the biggest enemy of the Republic of Moldova".

Victoria Dodon
18/03/2017




Textele de pe pagina web a Centrului de Investigații Jurnalistice www.anticoruptie.md sunt realizate de jurnaliști, cu respectarea normelor deontologice și sunt protejate de dreptul de autor. Preluarea textelor știrilor și a investigațiilor jurnalistice se realizează în limita maximă de 500 de semne. În mod obligatoriu, în cazul paginilor web (portaluri, agenții, instituţii media sau bloguri) trebuie indicat şi linkul direct la articolul preluat de pe www.anticoruptie.md în primul alineat, iar în cazul posturilor de radio și TV – se citează obligatoriu sursa.

Preluarea integrală a textelor se poate realiza doar în condiţiile unui acord prealabil semnat cu Centrul de Investigații Jurnalistice.



Follow us on Telegram

Comments