Radu Starinschi, sentenced to two years of imprisonment by the Court of Appeals (CA) Chisinau, remains at liberty. After the Constitutional Court (CC), which declared unconstitutional the amendments to the Criminal Code relating to the limitation on files of April 7, 2009, the judges backtracked and ordered the extinction of sentence until the examining by the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ).

Radu Starinschi was chief of Criminal Police in Central Police Station during the events of April 2009 and was sentenced to two years imprisonment with execution on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014, by a panel of judges of the Court of Appeals (CA) Chisinau, formed by Alexander Shpac, Dina Rotarciuc and Nichifor Corochii, last two, until recently, members of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM). Under the law, ruling of CA was enforceable. However, he was not handcuffed in the courtroom, magistrates indicating in the decision that the punishment was to be calculated from the time of arrest of the defendant. Subsequently, the clerk of one of the judges explained that the ruling would be implemented only after June 12th, the day that was to be given a reasoned judgment of the court.

Judges had backtracked

On May 27, 2014, ie two weeks after issuing the sentence, the Constitutional Court (CC) declared unconstitutional law which canceled the limitation period in cases of torture, including from prison, on the young people during the events of April 2009. Law had been approved by Parliament on April 4, 2014, almost five years after April 7, 2009 and a few days before the limitation period on less serious crimes, which included torture, to expire, and offenses no longer to be criminally punished.

After CC’s decision on 16th of June 2014, a panel of judges consisting of Ion Pleshca, Dina Rotarciuc, Nichifor Corochii, the last two being the ones who issued the sentence on May 13, 2014, backtracked and ordered to cancel execution of punishment set to defendant Radu Starinschi until examining of the appeal filed by the convict at Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ). The reason that the CA College Chisinau reached such a conclusion was namely that, on May 27, 2014, were declared unconstitutional by the Parliament amendments to art. 60 Penal Code, and it is not possible scrapping of own decisions. The information was confirmed by Natalia Moloshag, Sergiu Cretu’s lawyer, the victim in this case, but also by prosecutor Radu Sali, who argued the state prosecution in file the examination at CA Chisinau.

Starinschi’s lawyer wants her client’s acquittal

In other words, Radu Starinschi is at liberty, at least until a final decision on the case, issued by the Supreme Court. Most likely, however, is that he will not be able to get behind bars, even if he would be convicted by the Supreme Court, and that is because the period of limitation for the crime imputed to him expired in April 2014. “Because of the machinery of Moldovan judiciary, he has got away with it. It would be quite different if he was condemned until April 8th, 2014”, says Natalia Moloshag. Laura Urschi, Radu Starinschi’s lawyer, said that the judges from the Appeal did not change their decision, but changed its way of execution. Asked what she thinks about this judgment, the lawyer told us that, from her point of view, Radu Starinschi should be acquitted, because there is no evidence to prove his guilt. She declined to say whether on the 12th of June, when the reasoned sentence was pronounced at CA Chisinau, and by June 16th, when the judges backtracked, Starinschi was closed or not.

Lawyers we spoke to told us that the judges of the Appeal proceeded legally, as declaring unconstitutional a law is a reason for revision of a judgment. “I never heard such a thing to happen, but, CC declared right as unconstitutional that change, because we have a basic principle in the criminal sphere – non-retroactivity of criminal law, that person may be held liable solely on the basis of that law which was in force at the time of the offense, and if later something is changed, can not be interpreted against him. CA Chisinau could not blame him from the beginning, because at the time when the decision was pronounced already had expired limitation period. So they somehow have fixed their mistake. They shouldn’t have left the delivery until May 13th. If they finalized the case until April 7, 2014, that was another thing”, explains a lawyer.

V.M.