Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo Commenting the Magistrates of the Chișinău Court, Ciocana Office about the Pressures from the Prosecutors
In February 2020, Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo promised the magistrates of the Chișinău Court, Ciocana Office, that he would no longer tolerate criminal proceedings against magistrates who denote the existence of defective practices in the activity of prosecutors from the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office.
The Prosecutor General sent this official answer to the magistrates of the Ciocana Office who previously complained about the pressures to which they are and have been subjected by the anti-corruption prosecutors through an official letter.
Judges said that state accusers opened criminal proceedings on certain cases that did not have to go through the Supreme Council of Magistracy and that have been used as a tool of pressure for magistrates to accept all prosecutors’ requests.
The new Prosecutor General offered an analysis of the 62 criminal cases he examined and which were opened on behalf of some magistrates in an answer on three pages.
Stoianoglo wrote that according to some conclusions, two cases generating a large number of trials: the notifications of the deputies regarding the assets of the magistrates and those initiated based on the self-notification reports of the anti-corruption prosecutors which referred to alleged illegal actions of judges contrary to the law.
Half a year later, the anti-corruption prosecutors went down to the same court in a criminal case opened on the name of the vice-president of the court, Ghenadie Pavliuc. Members of the law enforcement forces took over the video recordings from the halls of the court on August 14. More details about this process, the prosecutor’s office did not provide.
Ghenadie Pavliuc declared for Ziarul de Garda that it is an old method that prosecutors cannot get rid of and, contrary to the general prosecutor’s promises regarding the reform, very easily go to lifting, to the investigation, without going into the essence. Pavliuc says that the actions of the state accusers come after the court’s reaction to the previous statements of the general prosecutor.
Stoianoglo accuses them that the courts of first instance and the court of appeal took into account neither by the gravity of the incriminated crimes, nor by the resonance of the case, nor of the circumstances that could determine the persons to prevent the criminal investigation and the possibility of evading their criminal responsibility.
However, the representatives of the prosecutor’s office say that nothing has changed during this period and if they will have something more to say the public opinion will be informed.