2008 Human Rights Report: Moldova
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
February 25, 2009
Moldova* is a republic with a form of parliamentary democracy. The country has an estimated total population of 3.57 million, including 528,600 in the secessionist- controlled region of Transnistria. An estimated 900,000 citizens, including approximately 250,000 Transnistrians, live outside the country. The constitution provides for a multiparty government with power shared by the president, the executive, a unicameral parliament, and the judiciary; however, in practice, the three branches of government were heavily influenced by the president. Parliamentary elections in 2005 generally complied with most international standards for democratic elections. Communist Party leader Vladimir Voronin was reelected by parliament in 2005 as president for a second and final term. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, security forces beat persons in custody and held persons in incommunicado detention. Prison conditions remained harsh, and security forces occasionally harassed and intimidated the political opposition. There were reports of judicial and police corruption, arbitrary detention by police, and occasional illegal searches. The government attempted to influence the media and intimidate journalists, maintained some restrictions on freedom of assembly, and refused official registration to some religious groups. Persistent societal violence and discrimination against women and children; trafficking in women and girls for sexual exploitation; discrimination against Roma; difficulties registering minority religious groups; limits on workers' rights; and child labor problems were also reported.
In 1990 separatists supported by Soviet military forces declared a "Transdniester Moldovan Republic" (Transnistria) in the area along the eastern border with Ukraine. The central government had very limited authority in the region, and Transnistrian authorities governed through parallel administrative structures. The most commonly spoken language in the region was Russian, although many Transnistrians spoke Romanian and Ukrainian as their mother tongue. A 1992 cease‑fire agreement established a tripartite peacekeeping force composed of Moldovan, Russian, and Transnistrian units. Although voting in the 2005 Moldovan parliamentary election did not take place in Transnistria, over 8,000 residents of Transnistria voted at polling stations in government‑controlled
areas. Transnistrian authorities held "legislative" elections in 2005
and "presidential" elections in 2006. Transnistrian elections were
neither recognized nor monitored by international organizations.
The human rights record of the Transnistrian authorities remained poor. Authorities imposed some restrictions on the ability of residents to freely change their government and interfered with the ability of Moldovan citizens to vote in Moldovan elections. Transnistrian residents were expected to vote in the 2005 and 2006 Transnistrian elections, but were unable to stand without hindrance as candidates, while authorities prevented the media from reporting freely on candidates or issues. Torture and arbitrary arrest and detention continued to be problems, and prison conditions remained harsh. Transnistrian authorities continued to harass independent media and opposition lawmakers, restrict freedom of association, movement, and religion, and discriminate against
Romanian‑speakers.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1
Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:
a.
Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings in the country, including Transnistria.
b.
Disappearance
There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances during the year in the country, including Transnistria.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The law prohibits such practices and criminalizes inhuman treatment and torture; however, there were credible reports that police used cruel and degrading arrest and interrogation methods and that guards beat prison inmates. Under the law, inhuman treatment carries a sentence of eight to 15 years' imprisonment; torture carries a sentence of 16 to 25 years. The law provides enhanced punishments for torture committed in wartime. Coercing an individual to testify is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment, and if such coercion involves cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, it is punishable by three to eight years' imprisonment. Torture inflicted by an official in order to punish, intimidate, or obtain information from a person is punishable by two to five years' imprisonment.
The local Helsinki Committee reported that on April 3 Alexander Ivanovich Malina, an employee of the Taraclia penitentiary insulted, threatened, and beat prisoner Serghei Bezman. Bezman claimed that guards kicked him in the chest for writing complaints to officials, and they then forced him to eat his written complaint. During the year the Helsinki Committee reported that a German citizen prisoner suffered malnutrition and was forced to repair his jail cell out of his own funds. Prison authorities transferred the man to four different prisons during the year; each time he repaired his cell, he was transferred again. An ombudsman who visited Cricova Penitentiary in February interviewed two inmates who showed signs of torture. The inmates accused penitentiary officer Sergiu Perdeleanu of being responsible for their injuries. On an unannounced visit several days later, the ombudsman encountered Perdeleanu instructing the inmates to write letters to penitentiary officials denying that they had been tortured. As a result of the ombudsman's efforts, the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) opened a criminal investigation on September 21. No charges were
filed by year's end, and Perdeleanu remained on duty.
In July the UN special rapporteur on torture stated that police mistreatment remained common and that prosecutors, judges, medical staff, and staff at penitentiaries failed to promptly investigate allegations of mistreatment and torture. Torture methods included severe beatings, electro-shock, asphyxiation through gas masks, and putting needles under fingernails.
In November 2007 the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) reported that approximately one-third of the persons interviewed during CPT's prison visits made credible allegations of torture and other mistreatment.
International and local NGOs stated that judicial authorities tacitly condoned
the use of torture, and that officials engaging in torture remained unpunished.
Guards accused of torture were occasionally dismissed from their jobs or transferred to other prisons.
According to the UN special rapporteur on torture, mistreatment of suspects during their initial period in police custody was widespread. Torture was often used to obtain confessions from suspects, including in the Transnistrian region.
Although the law provides victims of torture and mistreatment the right to file complaints, in practice, they had little chance of being heard. At times courts declined to hear their complaints, and long delays in legal process caused petitioners to abandon their claims. Victims carried the burden of proving that they had been mistreated, which was difficult since prisoners often remained in detention for months before having access to courts. By the time they were able to appear in court, the physical evidence of abuse had disappeared.
On January 31, Gagauz activist and separatist Ivan Burgudji, who had been imprisoned on charges of misappropriating funds, was released from prison. In June 2007 Burgudji complained to visiting officials from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that, during his interrogation, authorities mistreated and subjected him to humiliation and that prison officials refused to provide him with prompt medical treatment for severe back pain. Burgudji was released after the charges against him were downgraded, and he received full amnesty.
On June 17, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against the country in a case involving inhuman treatment of Victor Savitchi while he was under arrest in 2000. The ECHR ordered the government to pay Savitchi, a former police inspector, 8,000 euros (approximately $12,177) in damages. A videotape of the incident showed five police officers kicking Savitchi in the chest and lower back while his hands were tied, after which they arrested him on charges of bribery. In the separatist region of Transnistria, torture and mistreatment took place in detention centers. Mistreatment of military conscripts was also reported. NGOs and international bodies working in the region reported that local "prosecutor' s offices" failed to examine detainee complaints of torture and did not initiate criminal cases against police officers engaging in torture. An independent torture monitoring mechanism did not exist in the region.
In Transnistria, the closed military court system regularly ignored reports of alleged hazing and abuse of conscripts in the Transnistrian "army." According to a Chisinau‑based NGO, some conscripts were forced to march and run in boots that were several sizes too small.
On January 2, Anatol Mospan died in a military unit in Tiraspol. Although local doctors noted heart failure as the cause of death, photographs released to the media revealed marks on his body consistent with physical abuse. Local NGOs reported that separatist authorities placed Mospan's family under surveillance for having asked central government authorities to investigate the matter. Following an investigation, the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) in Chisinau and the Supreme Soviet in Tiraspol separately announced that Mospan's heart failure was due to natural causes due resulting from heart disease.
On February 6, the body of 19-year-old Ukrainian citizen Eugen Kolobyshko, who served in a Transnistrian military unit, was found in the Dniester River. Kolobyshko's relatives reported to NGOs that his body bore signs of violent injuries and that he had complained that others in his military unit were humiliating and insulting him and extorting money from him. Following the death, the military unit offered Kolobyshko's parents 7,000 euros (approximately $9,800) in compensation. A PGO investigation was ongoing at year's end.
There were no further developments in the 2006 case of Mihai Corsacov, who accused two police officers of torture. In 2006 the ECHR ruled in favor of Corsacov; the PGO opened a criminal investigation of the officers and passed the findings to the Hincesti court to examine their merits.
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Conditions in most prisons, including those in Transnistria, remained harsh, dangerously overcrowded, and in some instances life-threatening, notably in the Balti and Tiraspol prisons. Both prisons and pretrial detention facilities fell far short of meeting international standards. Conditions were particularly harsh in pretrial and presentencing facilities, where suspects were sometimes held for months or years awaiting trial. Pretrial detention facilities remained dark and overcrowded. Inmates' access to healthcare was also inadequate. Juveniles were routinely held together with adults, and prisoners suffered from insufficient ventilation and low quality food. Prisons did not provide for recreational activities. Cell sizes did not conform to local law or international standards. Incidence of malnutrition and disease, particularly tuberculosis, was high in all prisons.
During the year the UN special rapporteur on torture noted slight improvements in the treatment of pretrial detainees and an increase in space for prisoners after the government built additional facilities. According to the rapporteur, prisoners and advocates made fewer complaints of mistreatment involving Ministry of Justice-administere d detention centers; most complaints of mistreatment involved the pretrial detention center administered by the Ministry of the Interior (MOI).
According to the rapporteur, the practice of placing some prisoners serving life sentences in year-long solitary confinement amounted to inhumane treatment. Such prisoners were placed in solitary confinement if prison officials believed they presented a threat to other inmates or as punishment for violating prison regulations.
The government permitted independent monitoring of prison conditions by local and international human rights observers, and prison officials generally allowed observers to interview inmates in private. The government cooperated with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and permitted visits to prisoners in accordance with the ICRC's standard practices.
According to the UN special rapporteur on torture, who conducted research in the country in July, the government was generally cooperative, responded to information requests, and allowed visits to all detention facilities. The rapporteur also noted that reprisals were a problem, as prisoners had at times been punished for speaking to the rapporteur.
In July Transnistrian authorities allowed the special rapporteur to visit detention facilities. The rapporteur expressed concern about the practice of permanent solitary confinement for persons sentenced to life imprisonment or execution.
Transnistrian civil society representatives complained that it was extremely difficult to gain access to Transnistrian detention facilities. Conditions in those facilities were grave, particularly in Tiraspol prison. Sick and contagious prisoners shared quarters with healthy prisoners.
d.
Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
While the law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, authorities did not observe these prohibitions in practice. An ombudsman regularly visited various places of detention, including police stations and detention rooms at psychiatric hospitals, railway stations, and the Chisinau airport. The ombudsman found that many arrestees were not registered in log books, and that railway police arbitrarily arrested citizens before their trains departed and released them after their trains left the station. Police at the airport often detained travelers for document checks, and then released them without explanation. Most of the persons placed in detention at police stations were arrested for petty crimes, insulting policemen, or for document checks, even though they were carrying valid documents.
On May 29, Moldovan border police allegedly detained and verbally harassed the chairperson of the Transnistrian youth organization Proryv as she traveled to the Transnistrian region; she was held for two hours at a Moldovan checkpoint near the city of Bender.
On May 22, in the government-controll ed village of Dorotcaia, Transnistrian authorities arrested 26-year-old Stefan Berzan for allegedly passing counterfeit currency. Berzan had earlier reported the counterfeit currency to Transnistrian police, who directed him to accompany them to the separatist-controll ed city of Grigoriopol, denying his request that Moldovan police also accompany him. According to NGO reports, Berzan was mistreated during detention and was forced to confess to the crime. On August 11, the Grigoriopol court convicted Berzan and sentenced him to six years in prison, but released him with five years' probation. On September 5, the Transnistrian Ministry of the Interior fired Berzan from his job as a fireman due to the criminal conviction.
Role of the Police and Security Apparatus
The national police force is the primary law enforcement body. It is subdivided into regional and city police commissariats, which are subordinated to the MOI. Police corruption remained a problem. The PGO is
responsible for investigating police activities. According to PGO staff, the
MOI often ignored, or only superficially examined, their reports of violations
by police. An internal affairs unit that reported to the ministry investigated
incidents of impunity and corruption. A Transparency International survey conducted between February and March reported that 51 percent of the persons interviewed said they paid bribes to the police.
In 2007, according to the latest available statistics, 600 citizens lodged complaints regarding abusive police behavior with prosecutors' offices. Following the complaints, 258 criminal cases were opened, 32 police officers
were dismissed, 12 were prosecuted for bribery, and 24 former officers were imprisoned.
Arrest and Detention
The law allows judges to issue arrest warrants based on evidence from prosecutors. Authorities must promptly inform detainees why they were arrested and describe the charges against them. Suspects may be detained without charge for 72 hours. Although the law provides accused persons the right to a court hearing, these rights were not always respected in practice. Once charged, a detainee may be released on personal recognizance pending trial. The law provides for bail, but it was rarely permitted, and the bail system did not function well. Authorities generally did not authorize bail for detainees accused of violent or serious crimes.
Detainees have the right to a defense attorney; at times this right was restricted. Authorities generally did not grant detainees access to a lawyer until 24 hours after being detained. Police often told persons that they were witnesses in a case, questioned them without a lawyer present and subsequently detained them as suspects. Detainees were often informed of the charges against them without a lawyer present. The government required the local bar association to provide an attorney to indigent defendants but did not pay legal fees; such defendants often did not have adequate counsel. Detainees were generally allowed access to family members.
The law permits pretrial detention for up to 30 days. The courts may extend pretrial detention for up to 12 months, depending on the severity of the charges. Pretrial detentions lasting several months were common.
According to a November 2006 OSCE report, trials were frequently postponed because of the absence of a key participant. In over half of the trials that were monitored, prosecutors, defense attorneys, victims, or witnesses failed to appear in court without explanation or prior notification.
Amnesty
The government generally granted amnesty to persons sentenced to less than four years in prison, which meant that such persons rarely served jail time. On July 18, the government issued a one-time amnesty for persons under the age of 21, mothers with custody of children under the age of eight, and pregnant women who had committed minor infractions.
On February 4, a court in Gagauzia granted amnesty to Gagauz activist and separatist Ivan Burgudji, who was sentenced in June 2007 to 12 years in prison on charges of embezzling 81,900 lei (approximately $7,874) in 2002 from the Gagauz regional budget and using the funds to operate an office in the Transnistrian city of Tiraspol. Moldovan police arrested Burgudji in 2006 without a warrant and did not promptly inform him of the charges against him.
On April 2, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed a July 2007 Chisinau appeals court decision granting amnesty to former defense minister Valeriu Pasat. Pasat was arrested in 2005 on charges of defrauding the government of millions of dollars and for unlawfully selling state property. In 2006, following a closed civilian trial, a court sentenced Pasat to 10 years in prison; an appeals court subsequently acquitted Pasat of some of the charges and reduced his sentence to five years. Pasat, who supported opponents of the country's president in the 2005 parliamentary elections, claimed the charges against him were politically motivated.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The law provides for an independent judiciary; however, official pressure and corruption remained problems. There continued to be credible reports that local prosecutors and judges occasionally asked for bribes in return for reducing charges or sentences, and observers asserted that courts were sometimes politically influenced.
Political factors played a role in the reappointment of judges. According to Freedom House, judges were appointed and promoted on the basis of subjective and nontransparent factors. Younger judges, who held initial five-year appointments, were particularly vulnerable to influence by the executive branch.
On April 22, national bar association president Gheorghe Amihailachioaie stated that lawyers, particularly those involved in actions against the government and those representing opposition parties, were politicized and discriminated against. Amihailachioaie also claimed that the judicial system favored the prosecution, and that judges favored the ruling authorities. One example in which courts were accused of favoring the prosecution was the case of Fiodor Ghelici. On September 24, Ghelici, owner of a transportation company, accused police of violating his right to free movement. He had been detained and subsequently convicted for a July 2 incident in which he attempted to park his four trucks in front of a government building during a protest rally. His conviction was subsequently overturned on appeal. Some politicians claimed judicial harassment. Serafim Urechean, leader of the largest opposition political party, was acquitted on May 26 of charges that he abused his office for personal gain while mayor of Chisinau. On September 8, the PGO appealed the decision.
Nicolae Andronic, leader of the Popular Republican Party, reported that the court in Buiucani was again pursuing charges against him for authorizing withdrawal of 200 tons of wheat from the state reserve as a loan to a private company during his term as deputy prime minister in 1998-99. Andronic claimed that the case was a politically motivated action and aimed at eliminating his party from the 2009 parliamentary election.
Between 1991 and year's end, the government lost 132 ECHR cases, 58 of which concerned denial of fair trial rights. Of the 28 cases lost during the year, 11 concerned, in part or in whole, denial of a fair public trial. According to a European Union (EU) report published on April 3, recent positive developments included the development of a judicial code of conduct in November 2007 and the establishment of the Department for Judicial Administration in January. The Department is responsible for monitoring the organizational, administrative, and fiscal effectiveness of the courts and for proposing improvements. The EU report also stated that implementation of reforms was lacking.
The judiciary consists of lower courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court of Justice. A separate Constitutional Court has exclusive authority in cases relating to the constitutionality of draft and final legislation, decrees, and other governmental acts. The Constitutional Court was the only court generally regarded as fair and objective. By law the PGO is autonomous and answers to parliament. It is responsible for overseeing criminal investigations, filing charges, and protecting the rule of law and civil freedoms. Prosecutors may open and close an investigation without bringing the matter before a court, which gave them considerable influence over the judicial process. Many NGOs and opposition politicians considered the PGO to be under the political control of the ruling party.
The military court system is separate but generally experienced problems with corruption and inefficiency similar to the civilian courts. The jurisdiction of military courts extends to crimes committed by active duty, reserve, and retired military personnel. Military courts can also try civilians for crimes committed against military personnel.
Trial Procedures
The law provides that defendants in criminal cases are presumed innocent; however, a prosecutor's recommendation carried considerable weight and limited this right in practice. On some occasions, judges' remarks jeopardized the presumption of innocence. NGOs expressed concern that the practice of keeping defendants in handcuffs and metal cages during court proceedings went beyond what was necessary to secure public order and derogated the presumption of innocence. Cases are presented to a judge or to panel of judges. Defendants have the right to a lawyer, to attend proceedings, to confront witnesses, and to present evidence. The law requires the local bar association to provide an attorney to indigent defendants. The practice of appointing ex officio defense lawyers without allowing them to prepare adequately was common and infringed upon the right to legal assistance. Prosecutors occasionally used bureaucratic maneuvers to restrict lawyers' access to clients. Defense attorneys were able to review evidence against their clients when preparing cases. The law provides a right to appeal convictions to a higher court.
According to a May OSCE report, legal guarantees of a fair trial functioned only partially. While recent legal reforms helped provide an improved framework for guaranteeing a fair trial, implementation remained a problem. Although the law provides for defendants to have an interpreter, the OSCE observed a shortage of interpreters, a lack of knowledge of legal terminology, and a tendency to mix Romanian and Russian terms. Nearly 40 percent of court interpreters did not translate in a fully satisfactory manner. The OSCE also noted that judges at times ordered proceedings to be conducted in Russian, even though some participants complained they could not understand the language.
During the year, the OSCE released a report, based on a six-month project that monitored thousands of hearings in hundreds of criminal cases at all levels of the justice system. The report noted that proceedings were often not open to the public; court facilities were inadequate; and a large number of judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers failed to treat victims and witnesses with respect. A 2006 OSCE report found that 80 judges in Chisinau had access to only 12 courtrooms; as a consequence, 71 percent of trial hearings were held in judges' offices, where they were often interrupted. While most judges acted professionally, others engaged in frequent ex parte communications with prosecutors and defense attorneys, creating an appearance of impropriety. Space limitations during proceedings placed victims and witnesses in close proximity to defendants. Public access to trials was hindered because many judges did not publicly post their calendars or schedules of cases. Most court clerks were not diligent about their duties and some did not properly record trial proceedings.
Delays and postponements bred disenchantment and eroded respect for trial proceedings. On June 27, the government adopted a witness law to ensure the protection of persons whose life and property are threatened as a result of their participation in trial proceedings.
Political Prisoners and Detainees
There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.
Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies
The law provides for citizens to seek damages in civil courts for human rights violations. Under the constitution, the government is liable in cases where authorities violate a person's rights by administrative means; fail to reply in a timely manner to an application for relief; or commit misconduct during prosecution. Judgments awarded in such cases were small and frequently not enforced. Citizens may also seek damages for human rights violations in the ECHR. During the year the ECHR issued 28 adverse decisions on human rights violations, bringing the overall total since 1991 to 132. While the law provides for restitution of property and compensation for victims of political repression, commissions established to receive petitions were not funded to make payments. In Chisinau, where 6 million lei (approximately $576,823) of funding was allocated for compensation, no commission existed to make payments. Applicants must prove a direct causal connection between political repression and the seizure of their properties to receive restitution.
In June 2007 parliament adopted a mediation law, which established an alternative mechanism for resolving civil and criminal cases voluntarily between parties, and set rules for the status of professional mediators. The law entered into force on July 1.
f.
Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
Although the law prohibits such actions, the government did not respect these prohibitions in practice. It was widely believed that authorities, including the MOI, the PGO, and the Security and Information Service, continued to conduct illegal searches and wiretaps. Judges may authorize legal wiretaps only in cases where a criminal investigation is underway; however, in practice the judiciary lacked the ability to prevent illegal wiretaps by security organizations and police. Courts continued to accept evidence that was obtained illegally. In contrast to previous years, there were no reports from opposition figures that government authorities illegally monitored their activities.
Section 2
Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
Although the law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, the government sometimes restricted these rights and on occasion journalists were intimidated into practicing self-censorship. According to an EU report released on April 3, a number of recent laws affecting media freedom had not been implemented in a manner that promoted media plurality. The 2006 broadcasting law requires Teleradio Moldova to be a genuine public institution, although it remained financially dependent on the government, was widely viewed as strongly pro-government in its programming, and rarely aired opposing viewpoints. The law decriminalizing defamation was widely viewed as allowing pro-government media even greater latitude to insult opposition leaders, while at the same time not being clear enough eliminate the perceived need for self-censorship by independent media, nor prevent spurious lawsuits and investigations against opposition activists and media. Individuals could generally criticize the government without restriction; however, members of the media and local NGOs believed that authorities attempted to impede criticism made by influential persons. International NGOs that monitor media practices reported that overall media freedom deteriorated despite some progress with media law reform. Freedom House considered the country's media to be "not free," a situation that remained unchanged since 2003.
The print media expressed diverse political views and commentary. There were 243 newspapers and magazines. The broadcast media were weaker in this regard because local private broadcasting was limited. The government continued to influence the media through its role in distributing broadcast licenses and its financial support for privatized media outlets, including the public radio and television broadcaster Teleradio Moldova (TRM), which covered most of the country.
The broadcasting code regulates the activity of private television and radio
stations, the government‑controlled public broadcaster TRM, and the government's main regulatory authority for broadcasting, the Audiovisual
Coordinating Council (ACC). Local media NGOs expressed concern that the code places all public television and radio stations under TRM's control, which could stifle local independent media.
The government owned the Moldpress News Agency; local and city governments subsidized approximately 25 newspapers. Political parties and professional organizations also published newspapers with circulations of less than 15,000. The government did not restrict foreign publications, bu
2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
February 25, 2009
Moldova* is a republic with a form of parliamentary democracy. The country has an estimated total population of 3.57 million, including 528,600 in the secessionist- controlled region of Transnistria. An estimated 900,000 citizens, including approximately 250,000 Transnistrians, live outside the country. The constitution provides for a multiparty government with power shared by the president, the executive, a unicameral parliament, and the judiciary; however, in practice, the three branches of government were heavily influenced by the president. Parliamentary elections in 2005 generally complied with most international standards for democratic elections. Communist Party leader Vladimir Voronin was reelected by parliament in 2005 as president for a second and final term. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, security forces beat persons in custody and held persons in incommunicado detention. Prison conditions remained harsh, and security forces occasionally harassed and intimidated the political opposition. There were reports of judicial and police corruption, arbitrary detention by police, and occasional illegal searches. The government attempted to influence the media and intimidate journalists, maintained some restrictions on freedom of assembly, and refused official registration to some religious groups. Persistent societal violence and discrimination against women and children; trafficking in women and girls for sexual exploitation; discrimination against Roma; difficulties registering minority religious groups; limits on workers' rights; and child labor problems were also reported.
In 1990 separatists supported by Soviet military forces declared a "Transdniester Moldovan Republic" (Transnistria) in the area along the eastern border with Ukraine. The central government had very limited authority in the region, and Transnistrian authorities governed through parallel administrative structures. The most commonly spoken language in the region was Russian, although many Transnistrians spoke Romanian and Ukrainian as their mother tongue. A 1992 cease‑fire agreement established a tripartite peacekeeping force composed of Moldovan, Russian, and Transnistrian units. Although voting in the 2005 Moldovan parliamentary election did not take place in Transnistria, over 8,000 residents of Transnistria voted at polling stations in government‑controlled
areas. Transnistrian authorities held "legislative" elections in 2005
and "presidential" elections in 2006. Transnistrian elections were
neither recognized nor monitored by international organizations.
The human rights record of the Transnistrian authorities remained poor. Authorities imposed some restrictions on the ability of residents to freely change their government and interfered with the ability of Moldovan citizens to vote in Moldovan elections. Transnistrian residents were expected to vote in the 2005 and 2006 Transnistrian elections, but were unable to stand without hindrance as candidates, while authorities prevented the media from reporting freely on candidates or issues. Torture and arbitrary arrest and detention continued to be problems, and prison conditions remained harsh. Transnistrian authorities continued to harass independent media and opposition lawmakers, restrict freedom of association, movement, and religion, and discriminate against
Romanian‑speakers.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1
Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:
a.
Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings in the country, including Transnistria.
b.
Disappearance
There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances during the year in the country, including Transnistria.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The law prohibits such practices and criminalizes inhuman treatment and torture; however, there were credible reports that police used cruel and degrading arrest and interrogation methods and that guards beat prison inmates. Under the law, inhuman treatment carries a sentence of eight to 15 years' imprisonment; torture carries a sentence of 16 to 25 years. The law provides enhanced punishments for torture committed in wartime. Coercing an individual to testify is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment, and if such coercion involves cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, it is punishable by three to eight years' imprisonment. Torture inflicted by an official in order to punish, intimidate, or obtain information from a person is punishable by two to five years' imprisonment.
The local Helsinki Committee reported that on April 3 Alexander Ivanovich Malina, an employee of the Taraclia penitentiary insulted, threatened, and beat prisoner Serghei Bezman. Bezman claimed that guards kicked him in the chest for writing complaints to officials, and they then forced him to eat his written complaint. During the year the Helsinki Committee reported that a German citizen prisoner suffered malnutrition and was forced to repair his jail cell out of his own funds. Prison authorities transferred the man to four different prisons during the year; each time he repaired his cell, he was transferred again. An ombudsman who visited Cricova Penitentiary in February interviewed two inmates who showed signs of torture. The inmates accused penitentiary officer Sergiu Perdeleanu of being responsible for their injuries. On an unannounced visit several days later, the ombudsman encountered Perdeleanu instructing the inmates to write letters to penitentiary officials denying that they had been tortured. As a result of the ombudsman's efforts, the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) opened a criminal investigation on September 21. No charges were
filed by year's end, and Perdeleanu remained on duty.
In July the UN special rapporteur on torture stated that police mistreatment remained common and that prosecutors, judges, medical staff, and staff at penitentiaries failed to promptly investigate allegations of mistreatment and torture. Torture methods included severe beatings, electro-shock, asphyxiation through gas masks, and putting needles under fingernails.
In November 2007 the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) reported that approximately one-third of the persons interviewed during CPT's prison visits made credible allegations of torture and other mistreatment.
International and local NGOs stated that judicial authorities tacitly condoned
the use of torture, and that officials engaging in torture remained unpunished.
Guards accused of torture were occasionally dismissed from their jobs or transferred to other prisons.
According to the UN special rapporteur on torture, mistreatment of suspects during their initial period in police custody was widespread. Torture was often used to obtain confessions from suspects, including in the Transnistrian region.
Although the law provides victims of torture and mistreatment the right to file complaints, in practice, they had little chance of being heard. At times courts declined to hear their complaints, and long delays in legal process caused petitioners to abandon their claims. Victims carried the burden of proving that they had been mistreated, which was difficult since prisoners often remained in detention for months before having access to courts. By the time they were able to appear in court, the physical evidence of abuse had disappeared.
On January 31, Gagauz activist and separatist Ivan Burgudji, who had been imprisoned on charges of misappropriating funds, was released from prison. In June 2007 Burgudji complained to visiting officials from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that, during his interrogation, authorities mistreated and subjected him to humiliation and that prison officials refused to provide him with prompt medical treatment for severe back pain. Burgudji was released after the charges against him were downgraded, and he received full amnesty.
On June 17, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against the country in a case involving inhuman treatment of Victor Savitchi while he was under arrest in 2000. The ECHR ordered the government to pay Savitchi, a former police inspector, 8,000 euros (approximately $12,177) in damages. A videotape of the incident showed five police officers kicking Savitchi in the chest and lower back while his hands were tied, after which they arrested him on charges of bribery. In the separatist region of Transnistria, torture and mistreatment took place in detention centers. Mistreatment of military conscripts was also reported. NGOs and international bodies working in the region reported that local "prosecutor' s offices" failed to examine detainee complaints of torture and did not initiate criminal cases against police officers engaging in torture. An independent torture monitoring mechanism did not exist in the region.
In Transnistria, the closed military court system regularly ignored reports of alleged hazing and abuse of conscripts in the Transnistrian "army." According to a Chisinau‑based NGO, some conscripts were forced to march and run in boots that were several sizes too small.
On January 2, Anatol Mospan died in a military unit in Tiraspol. Although local doctors noted heart failure as the cause of death, photographs released to the media revealed marks on his body consistent with physical abuse. Local NGOs reported that separatist authorities placed Mospan's family under surveillance for having asked central government authorities to investigate the matter. Following an investigation, the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) in Chisinau and the Supreme Soviet in Tiraspol separately announced that Mospan's heart failure was due to natural causes due resulting from heart disease.
On February 6, the body of 19-year-old Ukrainian citizen Eugen Kolobyshko, who served in a Transnistrian military unit, was found in the Dniester River. Kolobyshko's relatives reported to NGOs that his body bore signs of violent injuries and that he had complained that others in his military unit were humiliating and insulting him and extorting money from him. Following the death, the military unit offered Kolobyshko's parents 7,000 euros (approximately $9,800) in compensation. A PGO investigation was ongoing at year's end.
There were no further developments in the 2006 case of Mihai Corsacov, who accused two police officers of torture. In 2006 the ECHR ruled in favor of Corsacov; the PGO opened a criminal investigation of the officers and passed the findings to the Hincesti court to examine their merits.
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Conditions in most prisons, including those in Transnistria, remained harsh, dangerously overcrowded, and in some instances life-threatening, notably in the Balti and Tiraspol prisons. Both prisons and pretrial detention facilities fell far short of meeting international standards. Conditions were particularly harsh in pretrial and presentencing facilities, where suspects were sometimes held for months or years awaiting trial. Pretrial detention facilities remained dark and overcrowded. Inmates' access to healthcare was also inadequate. Juveniles were routinely held together with adults, and prisoners suffered from insufficient ventilation and low quality food. Prisons did not provide for recreational activities. Cell sizes did not conform to local law or international standards. Incidence of malnutrition and disease, particularly tuberculosis, was high in all prisons.
During the year the UN special rapporteur on torture noted slight improvements in the treatment of pretrial detainees and an increase in space for prisoners after the government built additional facilities. According to the rapporteur, prisoners and advocates made fewer complaints of mistreatment involving Ministry of Justice-administere d detention centers; most complaints of mistreatment involved the pretrial detention center administered by the Ministry of the Interior (MOI).
According to the rapporteur, the practice of placing some prisoners serving life sentences in year-long solitary confinement amounted to inhumane treatment. Such prisoners were placed in solitary confinement if prison officials believed they presented a threat to other inmates or as punishment for violating prison regulations.
The government permitted independent monitoring of prison conditions by local and international human rights observers, and prison officials generally allowed observers to interview inmates in private. The government cooperated with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and permitted visits to prisoners in accordance with the ICRC's standard practices.
According to the UN special rapporteur on torture, who conducted research in the country in July, the government was generally cooperative, responded to information requests, and allowed visits to all detention facilities. The rapporteur also noted that reprisals were a problem, as prisoners had at times been punished for speaking to the rapporteur.
In July Transnistrian authorities allowed the special rapporteur to visit detention facilities. The rapporteur expressed concern about the practice of permanent solitary confinement for persons sentenced to life imprisonment or execution.
Transnistrian civil society representatives complained that it was extremely difficult to gain access to Transnistrian detention facilities. Conditions in those facilities were grave, particularly in Tiraspol prison. Sick and contagious prisoners shared quarters with healthy prisoners.
d.
Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
While the law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, authorities did not observe these prohibitions in practice. An ombudsman regularly visited various places of detention, including police stations and detention rooms at psychiatric hospitals, railway stations, and the Chisinau airport. The ombudsman found that many arrestees were not registered in log books, and that railway police arbitrarily arrested citizens before their trains departed and released them after their trains left the station. Police at the airport often detained travelers for document checks, and then released them without explanation. Most of the persons placed in detention at police stations were arrested for petty crimes, insulting policemen, or for document checks, even though they were carrying valid documents.
On May 29, Moldovan border police allegedly detained and verbally harassed the chairperson of the Transnistrian youth organization Proryv as she traveled to the Transnistrian region; she was held for two hours at a Moldovan checkpoint near the city of Bender.
On May 22, in the government-controll ed village of Dorotcaia, Transnistrian authorities arrested 26-year-old Stefan Berzan for allegedly passing counterfeit currency. Berzan had earlier reported the counterfeit currency to Transnistrian police, who directed him to accompany them to the separatist-controll ed city of Grigoriopol, denying his request that Moldovan police also accompany him. According to NGO reports, Berzan was mistreated during detention and was forced to confess to the crime. On August 11, the Grigoriopol court convicted Berzan and sentenced him to six years in prison, but released him with five years' probation. On September 5, the Transnistrian Ministry of the Interior fired Berzan from his job as a fireman due to the criminal conviction.
Role of the Police and Security Apparatus
The national police force is the primary law enforcement body. It is subdivided into regional and city police commissariats, which are subordinated to the MOI. Police corruption remained a problem. The PGO is
responsible for investigating police activities. According to PGO staff, the
MOI often ignored, or only superficially examined, their reports of violations
by police. An internal affairs unit that reported to the ministry investigated
incidents of impunity and corruption. A Transparency International survey conducted between February and March reported that 51 percent of the persons interviewed said they paid bribes to the police.
In 2007, according to the latest available statistics, 600 citizens lodged complaints regarding abusive police behavior with prosecutors' offices. Following the complaints, 258 criminal cases were opened, 32 police officers
were dismissed, 12 were prosecuted for bribery, and 24 former officers were imprisoned.
Arrest and Detention
The law allows judges to issue arrest warrants based on evidence from prosecutors. Authorities must promptly inform detainees why they were arrested and describe the charges against them. Suspects may be detained without charge for 72 hours. Although the law provides accused persons the right to a court hearing, these rights were not always respected in practice. Once charged, a detainee may be released on personal recognizance pending trial. The law provides for bail, but it was rarely permitted, and the bail system did not function well. Authorities generally did not authorize bail for detainees accused of violent or serious crimes.
Detainees have the right to a defense attorney; at times this right was restricted. Authorities generally did not grant detainees access to a lawyer until 24 hours after being detained. Police often told persons that they were witnesses in a case, questioned them without a lawyer present and subsequently detained them as suspects. Detainees were often informed of the charges against them without a lawyer present. The government required the local bar association to provide an attorney to indigent defendants but did not pay legal fees; such defendants often did not have adequate counsel. Detainees were generally allowed access to family members.
The law permits pretrial detention for up to 30 days. The courts may extend pretrial detention for up to 12 months, depending on the severity of the charges. Pretrial detentions lasting several months were common.
According to a November 2006 OSCE report, trials were frequently postponed because of the absence of a key participant. In over half of the trials that were monitored, prosecutors, defense attorneys, victims, or witnesses failed to appear in court without explanation or prior notification.
Amnesty
The government generally granted amnesty to persons sentenced to less than four years in prison, which meant that such persons rarely served jail time. On July 18, the government issued a one-time amnesty for persons under the age of 21, mothers with custody of children under the age of eight, and pregnant women who had committed minor infractions.
On February 4, a court in Gagauzia granted amnesty to Gagauz activist and separatist Ivan Burgudji, who was sentenced in June 2007 to 12 years in prison on charges of embezzling 81,900 lei (approximately $7,874) in 2002 from the Gagauz regional budget and using the funds to operate an office in the Transnistrian city of Tiraspol. Moldovan police arrested Burgudji in 2006 without a warrant and did not promptly inform him of the charges against him.
On April 2, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed a July 2007 Chisinau appeals court decision granting amnesty to former defense minister Valeriu Pasat. Pasat was arrested in 2005 on charges of defrauding the government of millions of dollars and for unlawfully selling state property. In 2006, following a closed civilian trial, a court sentenced Pasat to 10 years in prison; an appeals court subsequently acquitted Pasat of some of the charges and reduced his sentence to five years. Pasat, who supported opponents of the country's president in the 2005 parliamentary elections, claimed the charges against him were politically motivated.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The law provides for an independent judiciary; however, official pressure and corruption remained problems. There continued to be credible reports that local prosecutors and judges occasionally asked for bribes in return for reducing charges or sentences, and observers asserted that courts were sometimes politically influenced.
Political factors played a role in the reappointment of judges. According to Freedom House, judges were appointed and promoted on the basis of subjective and nontransparent factors. Younger judges, who held initial five-year appointments, were particularly vulnerable to influence by the executive branch.
On April 22, national bar association president Gheorghe Amihailachioaie stated that lawyers, particularly those involved in actions against the government and those representing opposition parties, were politicized and discriminated against. Amihailachioaie also claimed that the judicial system favored the prosecution, and that judges favored the ruling authorities. One example in which courts were accused of favoring the prosecution was the case of Fiodor Ghelici. On September 24, Ghelici, owner of a transportation company, accused police of violating his right to free movement. He had been detained and subsequently convicted for a July 2 incident in which he attempted to park his four trucks in front of a government building during a protest rally. His conviction was subsequently overturned on appeal. Some politicians claimed judicial harassment. Serafim Urechean, leader of the largest opposition political party, was acquitted on May 26 of charges that he abused his office for personal gain while mayor of Chisinau. On September 8, the PGO appealed the decision.
Nicolae Andronic, leader of the Popular Republican Party, reported that the court in Buiucani was again pursuing charges against him for authorizing withdrawal of 200 tons of wheat from the state reserve as a loan to a private company during his term as deputy prime minister in 1998-99. Andronic claimed that the case was a politically motivated action and aimed at eliminating his party from the 2009 parliamentary election.
Between 1991 and year's end, the government lost 132 ECHR cases, 58 of which concerned denial of fair trial rights. Of the 28 cases lost during the year, 11 concerned, in part or in whole, denial of a fair public trial. According to a European Union (EU) report published on April 3, recent positive developments included the development of a judicial code of conduct in November 2007 and the establishment of the Department for Judicial Administration in January. The Department is responsible for monitoring the organizational, administrative, and fiscal effectiveness of the courts and for proposing improvements. The EU report also stated that implementation of reforms was lacking.
The judiciary consists of lower courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court of Justice. A separate Constitutional Court has exclusive authority in cases relating to the constitutionality of draft and final legislation, decrees, and other governmental acts. The Constitutional Court was the only court generally regarded as fair and objective. By law the PGO is autonomous and answers to parliament. It is responsible for overseeing criminal investigations, filing charges, and protecting the rule of law and civil freedoms. Prosecutors may open and close an investigation without bringing the matter before a court, which gave them considerable influence over the judicial process. Many NGOs and opposition politicians considered the PGO to be under the political control of the ruling party.
The military court system is separate but generally experienced problems with corruption and inefficiency similar to the civilian courts. The jurisdiction of military courts extends to crimes committed by active duty, reserve, and retired military personnel. Military courts can also try civilians for crimes committed against military personnel.
Trial Procedures
The law provides that defendants in criminal cases are presumed innocent; however, a prosecutor's recommendation carried considerable weight and limited this right in practice. On some occasions, judges' remarks jeopardized the presumption of innocence. NGOs expressed concern that the practice of keeping defendants in handcuffs and metal cages during court proceedings went beyond what was necessary to secure public order and derogated the presumption of innocence. Cases are presented to a judge or to panel of judges. Defendants have the right to a lawyer, to attend proceedings, to confront witnesses, and to present evidence. The law requires the local bar association to provide an attorney to indigent defendants. The practice of appointing ex officio defense lawyers without allowing them to prepare adequately was common and infringed upon the right to legal assistance. Prosecutors occasionally used bureaucratic maneuvers to restrict lawyers' access to clients. Defense attorneys were able to review evidence against their clients when preparing cases. The law provides a right to appeal convictions to a higher court.
According to a May OSCE report, legal guarantees of a fair trial functioned only partially. While recent legal reforms helped provide an improved framework for guaranteeing a fair trial, implementation remained a problem. Although the law provides for defendants to have an interpreter, the OSCE observed a shortage of interpreters, a lack of knowledge of legal terminology, and a tendency to mix Romanian and Russian terms. Nearly 40 percent of court interpreters did not translate in a fully satisfactory manner. The OSCE also noted that judges at times ordered proceedings to be conducted in Russian, even though some participants complained they could not understand the language.
During the year, the OSCE released a report, based on a six-month project that monitored thousands of hearings in hundreds of criminal cases at all levels of the justice system. The report noted that proceedings were often not open to the public; court facilities were inadequate; and a large number of judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers failed to treat victims and witnesses with respect. A 2006 OSCE report found that 80 judges in Chisinau had access to only 12 courtrooms; as a consequence, 71 percent of trial hearings were held in judges' offices, where they were often interrupted. While most judges acted professionally, others engaged in frequent ex parte communications with prosecutors and defense attorneys, creating an appearance of impropriety. Space limitations during proceedings placed victims and witnesses in close proximity to defendants. Public access to trials was hindered because many judges did not publicly post their calendars or schedules of cases. Most court clerks were not diligent about their duties and some did not properly record trial proceedings.
Delays and postponements bred disenchantment and eroded respect for trial proceedings. On June 27, the government adopted a witness law to ensure the protection of persons whose life and property are threatened as a result of their participation in trial proceedings.
Political Prisoners and Detainees
There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.
Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies
The law provides for citizens to seek damages in civil courts for human rights violations. Under the constitution, the government is liable in cases where authorities violate a person's rights by administrative means; fail to reply in a timely manner to an application for relief; or commit misconduct during prosecution. Judgments awarded in such cases were small and frequently not enforced. Citizens may also seek damages for human rights violations in the ECHR. During the year the ECHR issued 28 adverse decisions on human rights violations, bringing the overall total since 1991 to 132. While the law provides for restitution of property and compensation for victims of political repression, commissions established to receive petitions were not funded to make payments. In Chisinau, where 6 million lei (approximately $576,823) of funding was allocated for compensation, no commission existed to make payments. Applicants must prove a direct causal connection between political repression and the seizure of their properties to receive restitution.
In June 2007 parliament adopted a mediation law, which established an alternative mechanism for resolving civil and criminal cases voluntarily between parties, and set rules for the status of professional mediators. The law entered into force on July 1.
f.
Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
Although the law prohibits such actions, the government did not respect these prohibitions in practice. It was widely believed that authorities, including the MOI, the PGO, and the Security and Information Service, continued to conduct illegal searches and wiretaps. Judges may authorize legal wiretaps only in cases where a criminal investigation is underway; however, in practice the judiciary lacked the ability to prevent illegal wiretaps by security organizations and police. Courts continued to accept evidence that was obtained illegally. In contrast to previous years, there were no reports from opposition figures that government authorities illegally monitored their activities.
Section 2
Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
Although the law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, the government sometimes restricted these rights and on occasion journalists were intimidated into practicing self-censorship. According to an EU report released on April 3, a number of recent laws affecting media freedom had not been implemented in a manner that promoted media plurality. The 2006 broadcasting law requires Teleradio Moldova to be a genuine public institution, although it remained financially dependent on the government, was widely viewed as strongly pro-government in its programming, and rarely aired opposing viewpoints. The law decriminalizing defamation was widely viewed as allowing pro-government media even greater latitude to insult opposition leaders, while at the same time not being clear enough eliminate the perceived need for self-censorship by independent media, nor prevent spurious lawsuits and investigations against opposition activists and media. Individuals could generally criticize the government without restriction; however, members of the media and local NGOs believed that authorities attempted to impede criticism made by influential persons. International NGOs that monitor media practices reported that overall media freedom deteriorated despite some progress with media law reform. Freedom House considered the country's media to be "not free," a situation that remained unchanged since 2003.
The print media expressed diverse political views and commentary. There were 243 newspapers and magazines. The broadcast media were weaker in this regard because local private broadcasting was limited. The government continued to influence the media through its role in distributing broadcast licenses and its financial support for privatized media outlets, including the public radio and television broadcaster Teleradio Moldova (TRM), which covered most of the country.
The broadcasting code regulates the activity of private television and radio
stations, the government‑controlled public broadcaster TRM, and the government's main regulatory authority for broadcasting, the Audiovisual
Coordinating Council (ACC). Local media NGOs expressed concern that the code places all public television and radio stations under TRM's control, which could stifle local independent media.
The government owned the Moldpress News Agency; local and city governments subsidized approximately 25 newspapers. Political parties and professional organizations also published newspapers with circulations of less than 15,000. The government did not restrict foreign publications, bu