CHIŞINĂU (Imedia) - Twelve journalists and press directors from Moldova asked for the resignation of Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) President Ion Muruianu on Sunday. Mr. Muruianu said on Saturday that media outlets in Moldova defamed judges and called journalists „rabid dogs."

The 12 media representatives released a statement asking Mr. Muruianu to step down because he „staged a dirty Stalinist-style attack against the press and against journalists." „Such statements cannot be tolerated for any reason," the missive continued. The journalists asked Parliament to examine Mr. Muruianu's dismissal during its next meeting.

The letter was signed by Valeriu Saharneanu, president of the Moldovan Journalists' Union; Constantin Tanase, director of the Timpul daily; Dumitru Ciubasenco, editor-in-chief of Panorama; Val Butnaru, general director of Jurnal Trust Media; Anatolie Golea, general director of Analitic Media grup - TV7; Aneta Grosu, editor-in-chief of Ziarul de Garda, a weekly investigative newspaper; Valentina Ursu, a reporter with the Chisinau office of Radio Free Europe; Constantin Marin, president of the Moldovan National Public Radio and Television Stations; Alexandru Dorogan, general director of Moldovan Public Radio; Dumitru Ciorici, media manager with www.unimedia.md; Nicolae Dabija, director of Literatura si Arta; and Veaceslav Tibuleac, director of the Vocea Basarabiei radio station.

During his Saturday speech he held in front of a yearly meeting of Moldovan judges, Mr. Muruianu spoke about the numerous losses Chisinau has suffered at the European Court of Human Rights and suggested that „there are numerous speculations and stupid insinuations about these cases.

Some can be more shocking than others. But they all have at least three goals. First, advertising for lawyers. Second, the pharisaic polishing up of the image of some judges and the slander of others. Third, the premeditated defamation of the entire legal system and, as a result, of the state.

A diabolical and destructive role is played by the mass media, which, although they are by definition the guard dogs of society, are sometimes transformed into, and I am sorry to say this, rabid dogs that become dangerous for society because of the lies they are spreading with the help of the disinformation of public opinion about all judges."

The meeting was also attended by Justice Minister Alexandru Tanase, who harshly criticized the activity of the judges.

„The problems of the justice system are the moral crisis and the corruption in the system" said Mr. Tanase during his speech.

The Minister added that „it will take a lot of time until judges manage to get rid of the shameful acts they committed on April 7, 8, and 9, 2009."

„I spoke with the father of a woman who told me that she was beaten to a pulp for refusing to take her clothes off in front of police officers. So what did the judge do? Instead of telling the prosecutors about this case, he arrested her for five days and sent her to Drochia [Imedia: a town in the North] so that her bruises could heal," Mr. Tanase added.

Commentary:

Petru Macovei: Such a high-ranking official cannot afford to make statements that insult the mass media

Petru Macovei, executive director of the Association of Independent Press, says that Mr. Muruianu attacks were „a self-defense reflex tied to previous reports in the media that have questioned his professional abilities."

„I am absolutely convinced that such a high-ranking official cannot afford to make statements that insult the mass media. The media is one of the most important pillars of democracy. Aside from the fact that every person has the right to free expression, Mr. Muruianu's invectives lead to categorical questions like - can he be the head of the SCJ? How can Mr. Muruianu, with such a categorical attitude toward the mass media, support justice if there are defamation cases in the press as long as he himself is defaming the press.

It could be that Mr. Muruianu's statements are rooted in some personal frustrations or dislikes tied to the fact that a media institution or a journalist wrote something about him. And there have indeed been some articles about his performances as a judge that media outlets have deemed as illegal. According to ECHR statistics, his name, along with the names of a number of other judges, is listed as being a guilty party, even unintentionally, when it comes to Moldova losing cases.

Based on these frustrations, amplified by a strand of public opinion outraged with what happened in April 2009, when Moldovan justice compromised itself severely and by the actions of the new Government which, I hope, is trying to bring the legal system up to the level of European values, Mr. Muruianu probably had this scandalous public episode. In any democratic state, such a public statement from a high-ranking officials would have led to his own resignation the second day. I would suggest to Mr. Muruianu to do this. Otherwise, according to the law, the Supreme Justice Council (SJC), which should have initiated a report on its own initiative, should dismiss him," Mr. Macovei concludes.

Vlad Gribincea: This case could point to the fact that the judge is not impartial when it comes to causes against the press

Vlad Gribincea, a Moldovan lawuer with the Lawyers for Human Rights organization, says that Mr. Muruianu's statement was „ill inspired and not completely thought through."

Mr. Gribincea stresses that „only the SJC can propose Mr. Muruianu's dismissal."

„The legal system needs to be trusted by citizens, especially when it comes to the person that leads the judges - the President of the Supreme Court of Justice. But when the SCJ President makes such statements, that not only hurts the image of the legal system but could also, from a certain standpoint, point to the fact that the judge is not impartial when it comes to cases against the press. For a person of good morality, these two things would have been sufficient to lead to his decision to resign. Otherwise, it will impossible to improve the image of the justice system in Moldova since the press is the main source of information about what is happening in Moldovan society, including in the legal system," Mr. Gribincea concludes.       

File:

On Monday afternoon, after Mr. Muruianu's statements made headlines in Moldovan media outlets, he released a press statement in which he expressed regret with his statements being incorrectly interpreted.

„I would like to stress that I did not mean to speak against the right to free expression, to diminish the role, or to defame the image of the Moldovan media. Moreover, I did not intend to launch a 'dirty attack' on journalists that cover the current problems of the legal system. /.../ The press has been and remains the fundamental institution in a democratic society; it guarantees the respect for the rights and liberties of citizens. I admit that my approach toward some aspects of the activities of the press has been harsh, but that was based on some articles in which journalists, against professional obligations, expressed their opinion about the activity of the entire legal system without doing proper research ahead of time, and denigrating judges with no reason and even mentioning the personal lives of judges," the press release says.

In eight of the 160 cases Moldova has lost at ECHR, Mr. Muruianu was one of the people who made the final decisions that led to losses.

Most of these cases were about limitations of the freedom of expression and of economic freedoms.

Some include famous cases like Oferta Plus, when Moldova lost over 2.5 million Euros.