B Explanatory
memorandum, by Mrs Durrieu and Mr Vareikis, co-rapporteurs
1 Introduction
1. The urgent debate on the functioning of democratic
institutions in Moldova was proposed by the Socialist Group with
a view to analysing the post-electoral crisis which emerged in Moldova,
following the parliamentary elections of 5 April 2009. The elections
were observed by an ad hoc committee of the Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly, chaired by Mr David Wilshire (United Kingdom, EDG) and
consisting of 14 members of the Assembly.
Note According
to a well-established practice, this matter was referred to the
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member
States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) and we were
instructed to prepare a draft report, in our capacity as co-rapporteurs
of the Monitoring Committee for Moldova.
2. The present report aims at summarising the events which followed
the parliamentary elections of 5 April, analysing the systemic shortcomings
in the functioning of Moldova’s democratic institutions highlighted
by the post-electoral crisis and suggesting a number of concrete
steps the Moldovan authorities should take, in co-operation with
the Assembly and the competent bodies of the Council of Europe,
in order to eliminate the consequences of the crisis and step up
the much needed democratic reforms. This report does not in any manner
amend or supersede the report by the ad hoc committee on the observation
of parliamentary elections of 5 April 2009 in Moldova, of which
the rapporteurs were members. To avoid duplication, we shall refer
to this report in the present document, where appropriate.
3. Moldova has been under monitoring since July 1995. The last
report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Moldova
was debated by the Assembly on 2 October 2007.
Note In its
Resolution 1572 (2007), the Assembly congratulated the Moldovan authorities
for significantly advancing along the path of democratic reforms
and adopting a number of important measures to strengthen democratic
institutions and honour commitments to the Council of Europe.
4. However, while praising the Moldovan authorities for the elaboration
and adoption of a number of important laws, in consultation with
the competent Council of Europe bodies, the Parliamentary Assembly noted
that the effective implementation of this legislation was not always
achieved and that some important reforms still needed to be implemented.
In particular, the Assembly noted, with concern, that the electoral process
in Moldova was plagued by a number of systemic problems, in particular
intimidation and pressure on candidates during the campaign, lack
of pluralism in the media coverage of the electoral campaign, as
well as inappropriate application of some election procedures. The
Assembly, therefore, invited the Moldovan authorities to carefully
study the conclusions of international observers and take the necessary
steps in order to eliminate all shortcomings in the electoral process,
before the parliamentary elections of 2009. We stressed, already
then, the political importance of the 2009 elections.
5. During our visit to Chişinău from 7 to 9 September 2008, we
reiterated that the 2009 parliamentary elections would be an essential
test for Moldova’s democracy.
NoteNote We therefore hoped that the parliamentary elections
of 5 April 2009 would reinforce the country’s democratic institutions
even further and help them to move forward along the path of European
integration. We note that this was a vain hope. To understand the reasons
underlying the post-electoral crisis and suggest a concrete way
ahead, we have analysed the events of 6 to 8 April in the light
of the commitments and obligations undertaken by Moldova, as a Council
of Europe member state, in the fields of democracy, the rule of
law and human rights.
6. We wish to thank the outgoing Speaker of the Parliament, Mr
Marian Lupu, and the members of the Moldovan delegation to the Assembly,
for their full co-operation and, in particular, for having promptly
replied to our letter of 15 April and provided us with extensive
information about the measures the authorities have taken following
the events of 7 April 2009.
2 Parliamentary
elections of 5 April 2009 and post-electoral events
7. In its statement, the International Election Observation
Mission (IEOM)
Note noted
that the April 2009 “parliamentary elections in Moldova met many
international standards and commitments but further improvements
are required to ensure an electoral process free from undue administrative
interference and to increase public confidence”.
Note
8. The observers furthermore noted that “the elections took place
in an overall pluralistic environment, offering voters distinct
political alternatives. The legal framework generally provided an
adequate basis for the conduct of a democratic election, although
important previous recommendations remain to be addressed. Election
day was well-organised and passed calmly and peacefully, with no
major incidents reported. The voting and counting process was assessed
positively by the observers, despite a number of significant procedural
shortcomings. The media provided contestants with opportunities
to convey their messages, in particular through debates and paid
airtime. The observers noted, however, that the state broadcaster
blurred the distinction between the coverage of duties of state
officials and their campaign activities. The campaign environment
was affected by frequent allegations of intimidation of voters and
candidates, and claims of misuse of administrative resources. Some
of these allegations were verified by the observers.”
Note
9. Already on 6 April 2009, when the Central Election Commission
(CEC) announced the preliminary results of the elections, it became
clear that the Party of Communists of Moldova (PCM) would remain
in a strong position. According to CEC figures, the PCM came first
with 49.48% of the votes; the key opposition parties shared the
second, third and fourth place with, respectively, 13.14% of the
votes for the Liberal Party (LP), 12.43% of the votes for the Liberal
Democratic Party of Moldova (LDPM) and 9.77% of the votes for the “Moldova
Nostra (Our Moldova)” Alliance (AMN). Other parties scored between
3.70% and 0.17% of the votes, falling short of the 6% electoral
threshold. The turnout was estimated at 59.50%. As a result of the
elections, the PCM should be allocated 60 seats in the 101-member
parliament; the 41 remaining seats will be shared between the LP
(15 seats), the LDPM (15 seats) and the AMN (11 seats). Thus, the
PCM has secured an absolute majority in the new parliament, while
falling short by just one seat of the qualified majority of three fifths
(61 seats), necessary for electing the president of the state.
10. Immediately after the announcement of the preliminary results,
the opposition parties spoke strongly against the victory of the
PCM. In particular, the leader of AMN, Mr Serafim Urechean, asserted
that “the 5 April elections were not free and fair and that massive
fraud was operated on the Election Day”.
Note In a press conference held on 6
April, he stated that AMN observers have recorded a lot of violations
of legislation both on election day and throughout the electoral
campaign. In the same interview, Mr Urechean noted that “people [would]
participate in massive protests for sure, as they [were] sick of
their lives due to the Party of Communists”.
11. The Chairman of the LDPM, Mr Vlad Filat, for his part, stated
“that his party [did] not recognise the election results and [would]
protest against them”. In a press conference, on 6 April 2009, he
said that the LDPM would begin protests. He noted that his party,
after having considered the results of the parallel counting of
ballots in some polling stations “discovered serious violations
committed during the electoral campaign”. He also spoke about “the
massive use of administrative resources, large financial inflows
used by the communists to bribe voters, criminal cases opened with
the purpose to intimidate certain opposition political leaders”.
Note
12. At a press conference held on 7 April 2009, the leader of
the LP, Mr Mihai Ghimpu, spoke about concrete evidence of electoral
fraud, namely, the introduction of some 200 000 people in the voters’
register on the basis of the so-called “residence certificates”,
issued as annexes to citizens’ identity cards. According to Mr Ghimpu, “observers
have recorded concrete cases in the Ciocana district of the capital,
where an elector came to the polling station with two annexes to
an identity card and chose one of them to vote. Also, observers
recorded cases when unknown persons were registered as residing
in apartments without the owners’ consent and they voted this way”.
According to the Deputy Chairman of the LP and Mayor of Chişinău,
Mr Dorin Chirtoaca, “in some cities, more than 40% of the electors
were included in supplementary voters’ lists”. In his view, this
was clear evidence of the irregularities in the electoral process
because, on average, the number of voters on supplementary lists
should amount to a reasonable maximum of 10%.
Note
13. Personal statements by the leaders of the opposition parties
were followed by a popular movement. Young people, apparently organised
via Internet and social networks, declared 6 April as a “national
mourning day”. Ms Natalia Morari, journalist from the “Think Moldova”
foundation, and Mr Ghenadie Brega, from the “Hyde Park” non-governmental
organisation (NGO), reportedly launched an appeal to young people
via the Internet and SMS to gather in the main square of Chişinău
around the statue of Stefan cel Mare and light a candle in order
to peacefully protest against the victory of the PCM. An important
number of young people came to the meeting point, holding and shouting
anti-communist slogans and saying that the elections were rigged.
That said, the protest ended peacefully and the young people left
the main square, resolving, however, to continue the protest on
the next day at 10 a.m.
14. The protest resumed on 7 April and, around noon, there were
reportedly some 10 000 young people on the main square between the
presidency and the parliament buildings. The protestors were joined
by the leaders of the main opposition parties (LP, LDPM, and AMN)
who spoke about irregularities in the electoral process. While many
young people protested with anti-communist slogans, some were reported
as using pro-Romanian rhetoric and shouting “We are Romanians!”
and “Unification!”. Reportedly, some of the protesters brought with
them maps of Romania and Romanian flags. According to most observers,
the young people standing in the front rows of the crowd were behaving
in an aggressive manner. The state institutions were guarded by
cordons of police officers, but they appeared to be much less numerous
than the protesters.
15. Practically all observers agree with the fact that some people
wearing black clothes were present among the protesters instigating
them to violence and encouraging physical aggression. There is no
agreement, however, about who these people were and what their real
intentions were.
16. Around 1 p.m., violence started. Reportedly, under pressure
and following provocation by some people wearing black clothes,
some protesters started throwing stones at the building of the presidency.
The police seemed incapable of protecting the building. After a
short period of clashes, the police officers withdrew, leaving the
building at the mercy of the protesters. Soon after, the flags of
the European Union and of Romania were hoisted on the roof of the
presidency building. It was reported that the protesters hoisting
the flags were assisted by the police officers guarding the building.
17. Soon after, the protesters attacked the building of the parliament.
The response of the police troops protecting the parliament was
similar: after a short but violent clash, the police withdrew, leaving
the building to the protesters, who quickly invaded it, vandalising
offices and destroying furniture, office equipment and official
documents. Given that the police did not appear to make any credible
attempt to protect the official buildings, some independent observers
and experts suggested that the protests might have been staged by the
authorities themselves. The authorities, for their part, declared
that, in order to avoid further escalation of violence and in an
attempt to calm down the protesters, they decided to let them enter
the buildings of the presidency and the parliament. At the same
time, we have to note that all reports suggest that the leaders
of the main opposition parties present on the spot were trying to
calm down the overheated crowd. They publicly condemned violence
after the events. All seem to have been incapable of coping with
these events.
18. Almost immediately, the authorities declared that the violent
protests were instigated by the opposition leaders in an attempt
to stage a coupd’état against
the Moldovan state. President Voronin, in particular, claimed that
the Romanian authorities were involved in the organisation of the
riots.
19. On this last point, we are particularly concerned about a
serious degradation of the relations between Moldova and Romania.
During the violent events of 7 April, the border between Moldova
and Romania was closed. The train connection between Chişinău and
Bucharest was cancelled on the following day. Subsequently, the
Moldovan Ambassador in Romania was recalled to Chişinău for consultations
and the Romanian Ambassador and the Deputy Head of Mission in Moldova
were declared
persona non grata.
At the same time, the visa regime for Romanian nationals travelling
to Moldova was introduced. As a result of this measure and following
the closing of the border, a number of Romanian journalists were
expelled from the country and some 20 others were refused entry
at the border. The accusation by President Voronin about Romania’s
involvement in the riots provoked a harsh reaction on the side of
Romanian authorities. The Romanian Parliament, in a joint meeting
of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, adopted a joint declaration
rejecting all accusations and stating that the actions of the Moldovan
authorities were motivated by “panic and powerlessness”. In his
address to the Romanian Parliament, the President of the country,
Mr Traian Basescu, declared that, if the oppressive actions of the
Moldovan Government continued, the Romanian authorities would be
obliged to invoke Article 7 of the Romanian Constitution which obliges
Romania to support the people of Moldova “who consider themselves
Romanians and feel like Romanians”.
Note Subsequently, the Government of
Romania simplified the procedure for granting Romanian citizenship
to certain categories of applicants, in particular to former Romanian
citizens who gained Romanian nationality by birth and who lost it for
reasons that were not their fault or whose Romanian nationality
was cancelled without their consent.
Note
20. We strongly disapprove of the statement by President Voronin
implying direct involvement of the Romanian authorities in the violent
protests. This is a very severe accusation which cannot be made
publicly without a thorough investigation. At the same time, we
consider that the response of the Romanian authorities was not appropriate
and exacerbated the tensions between the two neighbouring countries
instead of reducing them. Moldova and Romania have a complex common
history and the leaders of both countries have to speak about both
countries’ national identities with utmost caution and responsibility.
We believe that both sides have to show restraint and behave in
a responsible manner while the events of 7 April are being investigated
and all facts are being established.
21. On the night of 7 to 8 April 2009, police forces dispersed
the remaining protesters gathered in front of the presidency and
parliament building. Reportedly, more than 200 people were arrested.
During the day, more arrests occurred and the demonstrators were
reported by some witnesses to have been beaten up and taken away
in police cars. There were reports of demonstrators being manhandled
by what appeared to be plain-clothes police officers. At least three
people are reported to have died during the protests. Two are believed
to have died while in police custody. The body of a third young
man was delivered to his family on 16 April by police mentioning
suicide as the official cause of death. The family contested this
because they claimed that the body had no marks on the neck to suggest
this. During the events of 7 and 8 April and immediately after, we
received a great number of appeals from civil society organisations,
opposition leaders as well as international organisations. Some
of the appeals, in particular those circulated by the Mayor of Chişinău
and Deputy Chairman of the LP, Mr Dorin Chirtoaca, included information
about cases of individual people beaten up and tortured in police
custody, which was supported by individual testimonies and photographic
evidence. Mr Chirtoaca told us that he had been denied access to
those police stations which he had visited, in his capacity as Mayor
of Chişinău, in order to obtain information about the arrested persons.
We are extremely concerned about these allegations of massive and
severe violations of human rights.
22. In an attempt to ease tensions, the President of Moldova,
Mr Voronin, on 10 April 2009, requested the Constitutional Court
to authorise a complete recount of all ballot papers. The Constitutional
Court authorised this on 12 April and the CEC decided to proceed
with the recount on 15 April. The opposition parties, the LP, LDPM
and AMN, refused to participate in the recount. However, on 10 April
2009, they applied to the CEC asking to access and copy the voters’
lists for the purposes of making further verifications. The CEC
granted the appeal, but the PCM challenged the CEC’s decision in
a court of law, claiming that the CEC acted ultra vires (as
the law does not authorise the copying of the voters’ lists), as
well as asserting that the copying of the voters’ lists could violate
the legislation on the protection of personal data. The appeal was
granted but the opposition representatives have, reportedly, managed
in the meantime to make copies of some of the extracts from the
voters’ lists for some areas.
23. At a press conference held on 15 April 2009, the main opposition
parties, LDPM, LP and AMN, spoke about allegations of serious irregularities
in the electoral process, including allegations of widespread multiple voting,
voting without appropriate ID documents, forged signatures on voters’
lists and voters with identical ID numbers. The Election Observation
Mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR)
was provided with examples of inaccuracies that were allegedly contained
in the information submitted by the Ministry of Information Development
(MID) to local self-government authorities to facilitate the compilation
of voters’ lists. The OSCE/ODIHR experts attempted to verify a limited
number of cases of alleged fraudulent voting based on deficiencies of
the voters’ lists. While most cases appeared credible, the documentation
provided by the opposition to substantiate these claims was limited
in scale, and a comprehensive analysis is necessary for a conclusive assessment.
Note
24. On 21 April 2009, the CEC announced the final results of the
vote. During the recount, some minor deviations from initial results
were found. The differences were not substantial, however, and did
not impact on the allocation of seats in the parliament: the PCM
should obtain 60 seats, the LP and the LDPM 15 seats each and the
AMN 11 seats. We draw attention to the fact that the Speaker of
Parliament is elected by a simple majority, and that a qualified
majority of 61 votes is required for the election of the President
of the Republic. Thus the new majority can elect the Speaker of
Parliament, but falls one vote short of the number needed to elect
the President of the Republic. After the recount, the estimate of
the turnout figure was changed to 57.54%.
Note The final results were forwarded
to the Constitutional Court for certification. That said, three members
of the CEC, Mr Nicolae Garbu, Mr Mihai Busuleac and Mr Vasile Gafton,
signed the final protocol with reservations, asserting that the
CEC did not take into account a number of inaccuracies that could
be regarded as falsifications. Mr Garbu, who examined the minutes
of the electoral offices in five districts, asserted that the signatures
on the minutes of 15 April were different from those on the minutes
of 5 April, a fact which, in his view, could entail falsifications.
He suggested that the CEC should ask for additional time from the Constitutional
Court in order to make the necessary verifications and that the
Prosecutor General’s office should investigate alleged violations.
Note On 21 April, the LP filed a complaint
with the CEC claiming that it had found some 10 000 false votes
after the verification of 25% of voters’ registers. Reportedly,
the CEC refused to examine the complaint, asserting that no complaint
could be filed after the finalisation of the vote recount. The results
of the elections were validated by the Constitutional Court on 22
April 2009.
3 Shortcomings in
the functioning of democratic institutions highlighted by the post-electoral developments
3.1 Shortcomings of
the electoral legislation
25. In our 2007 report on the honouring of obligations
and commitments by Moldova, we welcomed the changes in the Electoral
Code of Moldova adopted in 2005, which lowered the electoral threshold
from 6% to 4% for political parties and from between 9% and 12%
to 8% for coalitions of political parties. This measure was expected
to increase pluralism in the parliament as, in the 2005 parliamentary
elections, the share of votes cast for contestants who failed to
clear the thresholds amounted to 16.4%.
26. In April 2008, the Electoral Code was amended again. While
some amendments were welcomed by the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission) and the OSCE/ODIHR, as they brought
some technical improvements to the organisation of the electoral
process, several important recommendations were not addressed at
all or were not addressed in an adequate manner.
Note
27. In particular, the threshold for participation in the allocation
of seats was raised again up to 6%. The votes for the contenders
who do not clear the minimum threshold are redistributed between
political parties allowed to participate in the allocation of seats
according to the d’Hondt principle. Moreover, the establishment of
coalitions of political parties was prohibited. The combined effect
of these measures did not help, in our opinion, to increase pluralism
in the parliament. As we noted earlier, according to the preliminary
results announced by the CEC, only four parties cleared the threshold
and are eligible for the allocation of seats. The votes cast for
the contenders who failed to clear the threshold represent approximately
15% of all votes cast. Therefore, unfortunately, we have, yet again,
to repeat our assessment made after the 2005 parliamentary elections
in that the Moldovan legislative framework governing elections does
not create the necessary conditions for a plurality of views to
be represented in parliament. In this respect, we would like to
reiterate the position of the Assembly that “in well-established
democracies, there should be no thresholds higher than 3% during
the parliamentary elections”
Note and
urge the Moldovan authorities to amend again the Electoral Code,
in co-operation with the Venice Commission, in order to open up
the political process for more pluralism.
28. Another amendment to the Electoral Code which raised concern
is the prohibition of people holding multiple citizenship from exercising
public functions, including becoming members of parliament. According
to Article 75, paragraph 3, of the Electoral Code, a person may
stand as a candidate with multiple citizenship, provided that, if
elected, he/she denounces citizenships other than Moldovan. In the
case of Tanase and Chirtoaca v. Moldova (judgment
of 18 November 2008, Application No. 7/08), the European Court of
Human Rights found such a requirement contrary to Article 3 of the
Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR,
ETS No. 5), as well as to the European Convention on Nationality
(ETS No. 166), which Moldova ratified on 30 November 1999. According
to estimates, there would be 22 candidates who are believed to hold
multiple citizenship on the lists of the parties which would participate
in the allocation of seats, on the basis of preliminary results
given by the CEC. In our opinion, given the rather high number of
Moldovan nationals holding multiple citizenship, the ban on the
exercise of public functions by Moldovan citizens holding multiple
citizenship has a negative effect on the participation in the political
process of a wide majority of Moldovan citizens. We thus believe
that the legal requirements in this respect should be amended to
open up for more pluralism.
29. On 17 February 2009, the Moldovan authorities challenged the
decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Tanase and Chirtoaca v. Moldova case
and the appeal is now pending before the Grand Chamber. We shall
wait until the decision of the Grand Chamber is made public to make
our final assessment.
30. Finally, the accuracy of the voters’ lists is a third issue
which raises concerns about the electoral process. According to
the amendments to the Electoral Code, it was anticipated that an
“Electronic Register of Voters” would be put in place in 2009. However,
reportedly for various reasons, including financial ones, this system was
not available for the elections of 5 April. Consequently, the voters’
list was compiled on the basis of the permanent population registry
maintained by the Ministry of Development and Information.
31. The quality of the population registry varies between municipalities
and, consequently, negatively affects the quality of the voters’
register, opening the door for manipulations. As noted in the report
of the ad hoc committee on the observation of the parliamentary
elections in Moldova,
Note the difference between
the number of voters on the electoral lists compiled on the basis
of municipal registers and the initial data of the CEC from the
2005 parliamentary elections, amounts to approximately 315 641 voters,
which represents an increase of over 10% with respect to the 2005
elections. This difference has raised serious concerns among observers
and leaders of opposition parties about the accuracy of the voters’
lists.
32. During the election observation, we saw people voting with
their ID cards without being included in the main voters’ register;
their names were added to the so-called “supplementary register
of voters”. According to the preliminary data provided by the CEC,
117 563 people were included in the supplementary register. This represents
around 7.55% of voters who participated in the ballot. We consider
that this is a high figure. In the context of Moldova, it appears
difficult to check accurately why so many voters were not included
in the voters’ register because a large proportion of the country’s
population is believed to be residing abroad. We therefore urge
the Moldovan authorities to work further on the reform of the voters’
register in order to eliminate all inaccuracies promptly, and, in
any case, before the next elections (whether local or national).
3.2 Campaign environment
and lack of media pluralism
33. In our report on the fact-finding visit to Moldova
from 7 to 9 September 2008, we noted that “the adoption of new [electoral]
legislation was part of the process of building a strong parliamentary
democracy” and that “this legislation has to be implemented properly”.
We also “called on the authorities to create an environment which
would be conducive to the holding of a democratic, free and fair
election and ensure that all electoral contestants be given equal
rights and opportunities in the electoral process”, including as
regards “access to the media”.
Note
34. It appears that the authorities have failed to fully implement
this recommendation. In the statement of preliminary findings and
conclusions, the IEOM noted that “while the campaign environment
was generally pluralistic, there were frequent allegations of candidate
and voter intimidation and police involvement, some of which were
verified. Months prior to the elections, criminal and tax investigations
were launched against a number of opposition leaders and party activists.
Candidates involved complained that their campaigning was affected
by fear of possible repercussions.”
Note
35. With respect to media pluralism, the IEOM noted that, although
“the media provided contestants with opportunities to convey their
messages, in particular through debates and paid airtime”, non-paid
speaking time was allocated by ballot. Nevertheless, the IEOM noted
that the state-funded channels had blurred the distinction between
the coverage of duties of state officials and their campaign activities.
Note Similar problems were encountered
during the 2007 local elections
Note and the publicly-funded
national TV and radio channels Moldova 1 and Radio Moldova still
fall short of the requirements of a genuine public service broadcaster. General
opinion, however, does seem to be that the opposition opted to use
these media more to engage in argument than to develop its programmes.
36. It is therefore clear that the very same problems relating
to the campaign environment and media pluralism for the 2009 parliamentary
elections were highlighted in our last report on the honouring of
obligations and commitments by Moldova,
Note debated in October
2007. With respect to the electoral environment, in its
Resolution 1572 (2007), the Assembly invited the Moldovan authorities to “carefully
study and take into account the conclusions of the international
observers of the local elections of June 2007 with a view to eliminating
all shortcomings with respect to European standards for democratic
elections in order to conduct totally free, fair, and democratic
parliamentary elections in 2009”.
Note Unfortunately,
we have to note, with regret, that the authorities have failed to
implement this recommendation of the Assembly.
3.3 Lack of trust in
institutions and need for a shared vision of the country’s future
37. While the shortcomings of the legislative framework,
the lack of media pluralism, the problems affecting the campaign
environment and the opposition parties’ strategies of course present
serious challenges to the proper functioning of Moldova’s democratic
institutions, we find it even more alarming that the people of Moldova,
especially the younger generation, have lost trust in the country’s
democratic institutions and the existence of a normal political
process. As we have already seen, mass protests, involving great
numbers of young people, started spontaneously and were driven by
an overall feeling of disappointment, because the young voters could
not identify with the results of the elections, neither could they
trust the electoral process. In our opinion, this shows that Moldova’s
people urgently need a new and shared-by-all vision for the country’s future,
built around democracy and European integration.
38. It is true that the “presidential majority” in the previous
legislature (which consisted of the PCM and the Popular Christian
Democratic Party) had declared European integration to be its strategic
objective. However, the fact that those who participated in the
protests of 6 to 8 April did not accept the results of the elections
and the victory of the Party of Communists of Moldova could indicate
that the benefits of the country’s strategic course to European
integration are not clearly visible and accessible to them. This
is extremely worrying because, as we said in our earlier reports,
Moldova has chosen the path of European integration.
39. At the same time, from our frequent and long discussions with
Moldova’s key stakeholders, NGO activists and ordinary citizens
within the framework of our numerous fact-finding visits to the
country, we have gained the impression that the voters equally do
not consider that the programmes and proposals of the key opposition
parties represent a credible political alternative. We have noted
already in the report on our fact-finding visit to Moldova from
7 to 9 September 2008 that “the opposition parties are experiencing
real difficulties in showing a capacity to offer an alternative
and organise their activities for this purpose”.
Note We believe that this statement
has been confirmed by the results of the parliamentary elections
of 5 April 2009, and by the fact that some of yesterday’s leaders
are now no longer members of parliament.
40. In this context, we believe that the development of a shared
vision for the country’s future, based on the principles of democratic
European integration, is the most serious challenge for the post-electoral
period and, in this respect, we call upon all stakeholders to shoulder
their responsibilities and start working towards achieving this
goal, without further delays. We stress that violence should be
unequivocally condemned and that all human rights violations have
to be thoroughly investigated and sanctioned. We believe that all stakeholders,
including the parliamentary majority and the opposition, as well
as extra-parliamentary parties, should work together to reform the
country’s institutions in order to implement democratic standards
and open up the political process to pluralism. The election of
the president of the country will, in our opinion, be an important
moment in “confidence-building” between the majority and the opposition,
as well as between society and institutions. The effectiveness of
the dialogue between the majority and the opposition on this important issue
will ultimately help the citizens regain confidence in the state
and develop a new common vision for the country’s future.
41. The forthcoming election of the president of the country will
be a new essential step for Moldova. This important and historical
step should be taken by the parliament. Everyone should fully assume
his or her own responsibilities vis-à-vis the history of Moldova.
4 Serious concerns
about the violations of human rights during the post-electoral period
4.1 Need for verification
of ill-treatment of and detention conditions of people arrested
following the events of 7 April 2009
42. As mentioned earlier, journalists, as well as domestic
and international NGO activists, have provided credible evidence
confirming that around 200 people were arrested by the police after
the events of 7 April with extreme brutality. The Mayor of Chişinău
and Deputy Chair of the Liberal Party claims that the numbers of
those arrested are considerably higher. The figure of 800 people
was mentioned in one of his statements. He told us that his party
had created a database which included the cases of 318 persons whose
rights had been violated. The Liberal Party continues to collect
eyewitness accounts. A significant number of cases of ill-treatment, torture
and detention in inhuman and degrading conditions have been identified
and confirmed by Amnesty International and the OSCE Mission to Moldova.
43. According to the Moldovan Ministry of the Interior, as of
11 April 2009, 129 people were detained. Of these, 88 people had
been sentenced to administrative detention for between two and fifteen
days, 22 people had been fined and four people had been released.
Fifteen people had not yet been charged. A further 86 people have
been detained on suspicion of committing criminal acts.
44. According to Amnesty International, local NGOs have testimony
from over 100 detainees, their families or lawyers, claiming that
they have been beaten or subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment.
Note The United Nations Human Rights
Adviser, who visited the Penitentiary Centre No. 13 (SIZO No. 13)
where a great number of arrested persons were and are still detained,
together with the National Preventive Mechanism against Torture,
Note confirmed in a report
which was made available to us that he personally saw acts of cruel
and unusual punishment inflicted on the detainees. According to
the same report, the arrested persons claimed to have been held
under inhuman conditions, with 25 to 28 individuals kept in an 8
square metre cell with only limited access to water and sanitary
facilities.
45. According to information provided by the OSCE Mission to Moldova,
on 10 April, the Deputy Chair of the National Prevention Mechanism
against Torture alleged that defence lawyers do not have access
to places of detention to see their clients, who are interrogated
without the presence of a lawyer. Judges are allegedly brought to
police stations to issue arrest warrants.
46. According to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s
Office, as of 21 April 2009, only the organisers of the protests
and people with previous criminal records remained in detention
in penitentiary institutions. Some 98 persons arrested after the
events of 7 April were released, according to an official statement.
Reportedly, the Prosecutor General’s Office asked for the release
of the detainees following the appeal to amnesty the participants
in the riots formulated by President Voronin in a television address
of 15 April. Reportedly, following the statement of President Voronin,
the Speaker of the Parliament, Mr Marian Lupu, spoke in the press
about the need to apply the proposed amnesty not only to the protesters
but also to the police officers involved in the violent incidents.
47. An independent, transparent and credible investigation into
the post-electoral events and into the circumstances which led to
these must be begun immediately. The right to demonstrate is essential
in a democracy. And it is also a government’s duty to ensure its
citizens’ right to security when public order is disturbed. It is
always difficult to reconcile respect for these reciprocal rights.
But for all that, there is no right which allows public buildings
such as the parliament and presidency to be destroyed and burned
down, thus endangering the lives of the persons inside them. Truth
and justice must be expressed, in Moldova as elsewhere. We express
our concern about the idea of introducing an amnesty for the members
of the police involved in the violence. We agree with Amnesty International
that “amnesties for such abuses are inconsistent with international
law and the state’s duty to bring to justice those responsible for
such abuses and to ensure reparation for the victims”.
Note All credible allegations of human
rights violations should also be independently, transparently and
thoroughly investigated, and those found guilty should be sanctioned.
48. During the days which followed the events of 7 April 2009,
we received a written information letter about the arrest of the
former Presidential Adviser, Mr Sergiu Mocanu, on charges of usurpation
of state authority. He is currently under a twenty-five-day pre-trial
detention. Mr Mocanu claims to have no links with the demonstrations.
Another high-profile case was opened against Mr Gabriel Stati, a
prominent Moldovan businessman, who was arrested at Odessa Airport
on 9 April. The Moldovan Prosecutor General has requested the extradition
of Mr Stati to Moldova, on the grounds of alleged participation
in the organisation of mass disorder.
49. According to information provided by the OSCE Mission to Moldova,
criminal investigations have been reportedly opened against leaders
of the Liberal Democratic Party, namely Mr Vlad Filat, Mr Alexandru
Tanase and Mr Vitali Nagacevschi, for inciting mass disorder. On
9 April, the son of Mr Nagacevschi was arrested and taken to the
central police commissariat in Chişinău. He was detained for one
hour and then released.
50. On 20 April 2009, we received a copy of a letter addressed
by the Ministry of Justice to local NGOs which are members of the
coalition “Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections – Coalition
2009”. These NGOs were requested to provide information on the measures
they should have taken, according to the law, in order to prevent
and stop the violent incidents of 7 April 2009, in their capacity
as “organisers” of the public manifestations. The organisations
were requested to provide this information within ten days. However,
in response to the ministry’s request, the “Civic Coalition for
Free and Fair Elections – Coalition 2009” declared that it was not
the organiser of the event and therefore had nothing to report upon.
51. We strongly condemn all violations of human rights and call
upon the competent authorities of Moldova to conduct an independent,
transparent and through investigation into all reported cases. We
are particularly concerned about the fate of young people, some
of whom appear to be still in detention and have suffered from ill-treatment.
In this respect, we call upon the Moldovan authorities to fully
co-operate with the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CPT). Equally, we consider that the Ministry of Justice and other
competent authorities should make all necessary verifications before
taking actions in accordance with the law against the legal organisers of
the protests. The actions of the authorities should be fully transparent
and aim at building up trust between the institutions and civil
society instead of creating further tensions.
52. We learned that, on 21 April 2009, President Voronin established
a state commission to “draft measures to prevent anti-constitutional
actions and eliminate their consequences”. The Chairman of the Legal
Affairs Committee of the parliament and member of the Moldovan delegation
to the Assembly, Mr Vladimir Turcan, was appointed chairman of this
commission which brings together MPs, ministers, as well as civil
society representatives and journalists.
Note While, in principle, the establishment
of a joint commission involving politicians, state officials and
civil society activists should contribute to restoring trust in
democratic institutions and processes, we consider that the establishment
of the commission should in no manner prevent the investigation
of alleged human rights violations or be used as an excuse for failure
to take appropriate actions on this front. The mandate of this commission
should be clearly defined, its members appointed in full transparency
and guarantees of its independence should be clearly established.
In particular, the composition of the commission should reflect
the plurality of views in Moldovan society and include not only
politicians representing the majority, but also those representing
the opposition. We remain at the disposal of the Moldovan authorities
for providing them with appropriate advice in this respect.
53. In the light of the above, it is clear that, in spite of the
fact that the authorities have in recent years taken steps to reform
the police and penitentiary institutions, more efforts are required.
We therefore believe that, to eliminate the possibility of similar
incidents recurring, the authorities should, without further delay,
develop a concrete action plan to step up the reform of the police
and of the penitentiary institutions, in co-operation with the Council
of Europe.
4.2 Restrictions on
access to information and freedom of the media
54. In the wake of the events of 7 April, we received
numerous reports containing allegations of restrictions on the freedom
of the media. Reportedly, 20 Romanian journalists and three Georgian
television crews travelling to report from Chişinău were prevented
from entering Moldova. Others entered freely. At least five Romanian
journalists already reporting from Moldova were told to leave the
country after the introduction of the visa regime for Romanian nationals
on 9 April 2009.
55. Reportedly, during the events of 7 to 10 April, police were
seen attacking and threatening journalists, as well as destroying
filming equipment and tapes.
Note At least three journalists were
detained and later released and the police carried out a search
of the flat of one journalist.
56. Reportedly, Internet access in Chişinău via the network of
the national provider Moldtelecom was interrupted on 7 April and
in the morning of 8 April. Access to some websites, including the
social networking website Facebook and news sites supporting the
opposition, such as unimedia.md, ape.md, timpul.md, jurnaltv.md
and jurnal.md, were temporarily inaccessible on 11 April.
57. We condemn the above-mentioned restrictions on access to information
and violations of the freedom of the media, which are unacceptable
in a Council of Europe member state, and expect the authorities
to take all the necessary steps to eliminate the consequences of
these violations. We subscribe, in this respect, to the statement
of our colleague Mr Andrew McIntosh, (United Kingdom, SOC), Chair
of the Assembly Sub-Committee on the Media, in that “freedom of
expression and information is a cornerstone of democracy. Public confidence
and democratic stability can only be restored if the public is able
to receive unrestricted, unbiased and truthful information through
their own choice of media”.
Note
5 Challenges for
the future and recommendations
58. In the light of the above, we believe that the systemic
problems highlighted in the present report have seriously undermined
the trust of Moldovan citizens in the political process, as well
as in the country’s democratic institutions which do not function
in full compliance with democratic standards and the principles
of the rule of law and the protection of human rights. The lack
of confidence in the democratic process seems to have been the basis
of the protest, which started on 6 April 2009, in front of the buildings
of the presidency and the parliament, by mainly young people who
did not accept the results of the elections.
59. It is regrettable that the spontaneous peaceful protest degenerated,
on 7 April 2009, into a violent attack on, and devastation of, the
buildings of the presidency and the parliament and the destruction
of public property. The use of disproportionate force by police
officers when arresting the protesters and the reported ill-treatment
or even torture practised during the ensuing detentions is even
more regrettable and cannot be tolerated in a Council of Europe
member state aspiring to build a pluralist democratic society, respecting
the principles of the rule of law and protection of human rights.
60. In order to restore confidence in the country’s democratic
institutions, we believe that the authorities should, without further
delay, fully implement the Assembly recommendations contained in
Resolution 1572 (2007).
61. We also consider that the countries adjoining Moldova, particularly
Romania, Ukraine and Russia, must play a constructive role in calming
the tensions and promote dialogue between all the political players,
while respecting the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
62. At the same time, we emphasise that all Moldovan political
players must themselves shoulder their responsibilities in order
to resolve the current political crisis and to restart a normal
political process. To this end, we recommend that the following
priority measures be taken by the authorities as well as all political stakeholders,
including the opposition parties:
- all
political stakeholders should recognise the decision of the Constitutional
Court confirming the results of the elections; this should not be
interpreted as entailing an obligation to accept the merits of that decision;
anyone who disputes the result of the elections has the right to
challenge this decision by any legal means available to them, including
the European Court of Human Rights;
- the authorities and all political stakeholders should
immediately and resolutely condemn violence and commit themselves
to using only democratic political means to defend their positions,
ideas and programmes;
- an independent, transparent and credible inquiry into
the post-electoral events and into the circumstances which led to
these must be begun immediately, in addition to the independent investigation
into all the aforementioned allegations of human rights violations;
- the parties which successfully cleared the electoral threshold
and will participate in the allocation of seats in the parliament
should engage in a constructive dialogue within the framework of
the parliamentary process in order to resolve the current political
crisis and put the political process back on the right track; democratic
debate must now take place in parliament; the election of the future
president of the country should offer a concrete opportunity to
restore confidence in the democratic process;
- at the same time, the parliamentary majority and the opposition
should engage in an inclusive political dialogue with a wide participation
of extra-parliamentary forces and civil society in order to develop
their new vision for the country’s future, on the basis of democratic
principles and European integration they subscribed to;
- the new parliament should promptly draw up and adopt an
action plan with concrete measures and deadlines on the implementation
of the Assembly recommendations contained in this resolution, as
well as commitments taken but not honoured so far, as established
in Resolution 1572 (2007) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Moldova.
63. We consider that the Assembly should continue to give its
attention to the situation in Moldova and urge its Monitoring Committee
to examine, at its next meeting prior to the June 2009 part-session,
the progress made by the Moldovan authorities in implementation
of the present resolution and the previous resolutions, and to propose
any further measures that the situation may require it to take.
____________
Reporting committee:
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member
States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Reference to committee:
Reference 3529 of 27 April 2009
Draft resolution approved
by the committee on 28 April 2009
Members of the committee:
Mr Serhiy Holovaty (Chairperson),
Mr György Frunda (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mr Konstantin
Kosachev (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Leonid Slutsky (3rd Vice-Chairperson),
Mr Aydin Abbasov, Avet Adonts,
Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr Miloš Aligrudić,
Mrs Meritxell Batet Lamaña, Mr Ryszard Bender,
Mr József Berényi, Mr Luc
vandenBrande,
Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Sergej
Chelemendik, Ms Lise Christoffersen,
Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Georges Colombier,
Mr Telmo Correia, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Mr Joseph DebonoGrech,
Mr Juris Dobelis, Mrs Josette Durrieu, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Ms Mirjana Ferić-Vac, Mr Giuseppe Galati,
Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr József Gedei, Mr Marcel Glesener, Mr Charles Goerens, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Michael Hagberg, Mr Holger Haibach, Ms
Gultakin Hejibayli, Mr Michael Hancock,
Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs
Olha Herasym’yuk, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Kastriot Islami, Mr
Mladen Ivanić, Mr Miloš Jevtić,
Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr
Emmanouil Kefaloyiannis,
Mr Hakki Keskin, Mrs Katerina Konečná, Mr Jaakko Laakso, Mrs Sabine
Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger,
Mr Göran Lindblad, Mr René van der Linden, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Mr
Bernard Marquet, Mr Dick Marty, Mr Miloš Melčák,
Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, Mr João Bosco Mota Amaral, Mrs Yuliya Novikova, Mr Theodoros Pangalos,
Mr Alexander Pochinok, Mr
Ivan Popescu, Ms Maria Postoico, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr John Prescott, Mrs
Mailis Reps, Mr Andrea Rigoni, Mr Ilir Rusmali, Mr Armen Rustamyan,
Mr Indrek Saar, Mr Oliver Sambevski,
Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Samad Seyidov,
Mr Christoph Strässer, Mrs Chiora Taktakishvili, Mr Mihai Tudose, Mrs Öslem Türköne, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr José Vera Jardim,
Mr Piotr Wach, Mr Robert
Walter, Mr David Wilshire,
Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Mrs Karin S. Woldseth,
Mrs Gisela Wurm, Mr Boris Zala, Mr Andrej Zernovski.
NB: The names of the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold
Secretariat of the committee:
Mrs Chatzivassiliou, Mr Klein, Ms Trévisan, Mr Karpenko
