Who Is Protecting Who?
Of all European principles and ideas it certainly looks like Romania is well off at the chapter "not guilty until proven guilty presumption". We are badly at every other chapter, starting with market economy and ending with the human rights, but we do great at the innocence presumption. This can be seen every time our government members are in the opposition of declaring consumptively to the journals that no one has the right to comment upon corruption cases X or Y (where X or Y belong to their crowd, since other corruption cases are commenting them quite well) so long as they haven't been definitively sentenced by the justice.
Or, the mass-media and the civic society intimidation with this argument represents a profoundly anti-democratically and non-European practice. Just as the European Union exigencies have become sort of an ideal alibi for any kind of power measures, no matter how absurd or non-European are, "not guilty until proven guilty presumption" turned into some kind of corruption balm. The power is cleaning its corrupted men with the use of the justice department, which it constantly pressing and is perfuming them with the use of the "not guilty until proven guilty presumption".
Obviously, we are sustaining this principle as a fundamental value of the civilized societies. Still it does not have to prevent us from seeing the whole context justice is made (or not). The last major corruption scandal, the one of policemen that were protecting gangs of fuel are offering an ideal material that reveals us how arbitrary is the act of justice being made and how difficult is the context in which it is forced to develop.
Let's say, in the virtue of the "not guilty until proven guilty presumption" that the tens of the above mentioned cops are innocent. Let's say that, in spite of numerous proves and the fact that many of them recognized their guilt, they still remain not guilty until the final sentence. Yet, the following aspects are remaining.
The second allotment of 14 cops was released in the virtue of breaking an Anti-Corruption Parquet settlement, the one that demands that the anti-corruption processes to be judged by a complete of 2 judges. The opinions are shared: on behalf of the military magistrates it was a blonde, a "blonde" or a correct proceeding.
Then, the cops were re-arrested. Anything is possible, because the Anti-Corruption Parquet foresights ado not really match the ones of the new Penal Procedure Code that says that the arrest is arranged by one judge. The fact that the magistrates have the freedom to decide anything that is perfectly suited to the legislation heavily adopted by PSD is of no coherence. And the General Prosecutor used the occasion especially to regain, with a "good" appeal the hundreds of appeals he suffocated the justice with.
The harmonization of the Anti-Corruption Parquet with the new Code in an important matter such this one should have been piece of cake for the experienced lawyers PSD has in the Parliament. Still, as long as they are keeping practicing law, who can prevent them from deciding in their practice interest rather than of those that, voted for them? Because PSD declined including in the famous Parquet the incompatibility in practicing law and every public dignity, tolerating thus an obvious perpetual conflict of interests.
Or maybe the parliamentarian's lawyers didn't have the time to pass to debates. Even one of the lawyers that defended the spirited policemen, the PSD parliamentarian Cornel Badoiu argumented that he is pleading in "his spare time"; he didn't mention yet, which Romanians Court Laws are functioning in the evening or in week-end.
The journalists that were assisting the discharge of the spirited policemen were attacked and hunted away by their families, all these happening under the impassive eyes of other police officers. This behavior that is constantly repeating when the accused one is one of "them" clearly indicates that the Romanian Police is continuing being an autarchic institution where the law is a less essential accessory, making way for all kinds of habits and personal interests. No one thought to sanction the policemen that were benevolent assisting to the journalists attack. Even more, no one of their chiefs though impropriate that the cops themselves to threaten the journalists of breaking their video camera "unless they take a hick".
Beyond the judicial system in itself this case is revealing other abnormalities that are belonging to the Romanian Police and the instrument of few inquiries that dare to penetrate its insides. Thus, it is unbelievable that a corruption network that has been functioning since 4 years and implicates hundreds of cops not to benefit from high level complicity of that special section and even more, from higher level coverage. It is impossible that in a police section such a thing remains unheard of. Everything is known in an organization in which relations among members and information are vital, even if, unfortunately, within the Police department the general rule is to cover everything up.
Let's say, for instance, according to the innocent until proven guilty presumption that the guilt of these tens of cops is nothing but hypotheses until the final sentence. Still, these hypotheses must include chiefs, too. Otherwise, it is nothing but dust in the eyes of the electorate that is vainly waiting for the results of the anti-corruption fight and which has to be satisfied with small nothings, because not one of the true important chief has fallen so far in Romania.
The police represent the institution that most benefited from the most benevolent attitude from the post-revolution governments, with no exception. Even a former political prisoner as Gavril Dejeu had as a quick result with the vicious machine of the Police department as soon as he becomes a minister. But it is quite easier to understand why this costly phenomenon for the Romanian society happened. A new independent police department, just as an independent Justice department means that there is the risk that at some point they are allowing themselves to make inquiries, to arrest and to sentence ministers and parliamentarians, thing that still is unthinkable of in our society.
Romania has nothing to do with the democratic democracy as long as their citizens are paying their taxes and dues to sustain some institutions that instead of making justice they are protecting the bigger corruption of dignitaries and is silently organizing their "small" corruption. This is why, for the first time after the Revolution the time has finally come to question ourselves in a serious manner about the ways in which all this money is being spent.