At the end of May, ZdG published an article about a case involving two prosecutors and three policemen, detained for a bribe of about 70,000 euros. The article displayed new disclosures, blackmail accusations, and documents included in that criminal case. The newly disclosed information showed a possible implication of Ruslan Popov, the sentenced prosecutor’s chief when they allegedly took the bribe.

After the article and documents appeared in the public space, what do you think happened? No, the prosecutor general didn’t take any notice. I do not know if any parallel investigation was initiated to really verify the involvement in the case of the current assistant of the Prosecutor General. All I know is that prosecutors initiated other criminal cases on the businessman who decided to talk about this – a subject we will return to later.

The most interesting case of those that were opened is one on the “Disclosure of criminal investigation data.” What’s the goal of it? To find out how ZdG found those case documents. Thus, on Tuesday, as the article’s author, I was summoned, as a witness, to a hearing. The Prosecutors asked who provided me with those documents.

For the first time, in over 10 years of journalism, I had a hearing in a criminal case, although I have been writing hundreds of articles about corruption. The prosecutor knew, and I knew, even the source that made possible the publication of those documents knew – THE JOURNALIST DOES NOT DISCLOSE HIS/HER SOURCES. This time, it was just as a witness. Next time, I could be suspected or accused. Whatever status the prosecutors give you, this is a sacred rule – the journalist protects his sources with all means. The ECtHR says it, the law on freedom of expression says it, and the Moldovan Code of Criminal Procedure says the same. The hearing went without pressure. The prosecutor did his homework and probably read the ECtHR jurisprudence before this. So everyone did their job. I really have nothing to complain about.

But I have a wish: for prosecutors to react exactly as in this case to all the articles journalists write. To verify all the facts invoked in the press articles. To go more in-depth where journalists can’t go. Fortunately for the justice authorities, many published articles disclose information that can be a starting point in significant criminal cases. There should be desire and courage to do that. Because prosecutors and investigative journalists should have common goals: to contribute to the fight against corruption, to live in a transparent society, and to have access to as much information as possible. And publicly to disclose it without hesitation.

Unfortunately, the lack of access to information makes it impossible for journalists to operate at full capacity. If journalists had access as prosecutors or investigating officers do, they could certainly do much more, and the investigations would turn into Court sentences.