Moldova wants early release of Ivanţoc and Petrov-Popa

Sentenced for murder by PMR's legal system, Ivanţoc's and Petrov-Popa's release date is set for 2007. Moldova wants them out now

CHISINAU (Tirapol Times) - According to Moldova's official state news agency, Moldpres, the Moldovan authorities will continue their efforts towards releasing as soon as possible Andrei Ivanţoc and Tudor Petrov-Popa, in line with the the European Court of Human Rights's (ECHR) decision to this effect. This follows a meeting Wednesday of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers (CECM) which evaluated the measures taken to on ECHR's decision from 8 July 2004 in the "Ilaşcu case".

The Moldovan delegation informed the Committee of Minister about an appeal lodged by Moldovan MPs to the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, asking them to contribute, in the limits of their mandates, in obtainin the release of the two prisoners which Moldova considers political prisoners. In the 1992 armed conflict between Moldova and Pridnestrovie, both were members of the so-called "Ilaşcu group" which supported Moldova and, according to evidence presented at their trial, carried out murders and acts of sabotage against targets in Tiraspol and other parts of Pridnestrovie. The Ilaşcu group were militant supporters of Moldova's reunification with Romania and operated exclusively in what in Romanian is called Transnistria (official name: Pridnestrovie).

In 1993, after Moldovan forces retreated, the four members of the Ilaşcu group received highly controversial sentences for war crimes and terrorism, including involvement in two politically motivated assassinations of pro-independence leaders. According to evidence presented at the trial, the militant group planned and executed the 1992 killings of guardsman Alexander Gusar and independence politician Nikolai Ostapenko.

Although one member of the group initially received a death sentence, his sentence was later commuted and he was released. Nevertheless, the actions of the Ilaşcu group are still controversial: In Moldova, whose side they were on in the war, they are considered war heroes and wrongfully imprisoned for their political views. In Pridnestrovie, where they carried out their acts, they are considered war criminals and murderers, with much of the press labelling them terrorists.

Precedent for early release

Two of the four, Ilie Ilaşcu and Alexandru Leşco, were granted a reduction in their sentences as a result of international pressure. Ilaşcu obtained early release in 2001 and Leşco was set free on 2 June 2004.

Moldovan affairs analyst Charles King said that Ilaşcu's release, in particular, strengthened PMR's position on independence from Moldova:
" - I think the release of Ilaşcu probably in fact strengthens the statehood of Transdniestria," King said. "Smirnov has now shown himself to be a magnanimous leader with whom one can negotiate," adding that "this strengthens the sense of statehood and independence the Transdniestrians have long claimed."

The church has continually followed the case of the last two prisoners and report that they are being treated in a humane and satisfactory manner. A public report on their status has been released by Archbishop Nikolai Balashov who personally accompanied the human rights monitors in their visits to the prison where Andrei Ivanţoc and Tudor Petrov-Popa are held. The report confirms that that the two enjoy a satisfactory treatment, qualified medical assistance and are prepared to serve out the remaining two years of their sentence.

PMR calls detention legal, Moldova disagrees

Officially, the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica holds that the arrests and sentencing of Andrei Ivantoc and Tudor Petrov-Popa correspond to the rule of law and do not differ from any other civilized, European country. In its view, it considers itself a country and argues that just like any other country in the world, it, too, has laws against insubordination, homicide and acts aimed at overturning its statehood. As a sovereign country, it considers its courts to be legal and tasked with upholding the Constitution and the laws enacted by parliament. If PMR is a country, then it follows that it has the right to enact its own laws and ensure that they are observed within its own territory.

Moldova does not agree. With an unresolved territorial claim pending, it still consider Pridnestrovie a part of Moldova. As such, there can be no legal PMR Constitution, nor any legality of any of the state institutions which springs from such a constitution. In the eyes of Moldova, parliament and law courts in Pridnestrovie are usurping powers which, says Moldova, rightfully belongs to Moldova. In 2004, in a disputed ruling by eleven votes to six, the ECHR largely agreed with this view, holding that no other nation had yet recognized Pridnestrovie's independence and that the unrecognized country was still internationally considered a formal part of the Republic of Moldova.

This view is disputed by the facts of on the ground. Declaring independence on 2 September 1990, Pridnestrovie's came into being nearly a full year before the Republic of Moldova. Since that date, Moldovan laws have not been observed in Pridnestrovie and the country is de facto independent. It meets the requirements for statehood under international law, whose most important state creation document - the Montevideo Convention - specifically states that nonrecognition is not a barrier to statehood, noting that “the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states”. The Montevideo Convention sets out four requirements for a country to achieve statehood under international law: A permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the ability to relate to other states. Pridnestrovie meets all four requirements. The same international treaty, signed and ratified by the United States of America, also determines that "even before recognition the state has the right to [...] organize itself as it sees fit."

This, says Tiraspol, means that its courts are validly constituted and that crimes committed in the country will be prosecuted according to the letter of the law. The cases of Ivanţoc and Petrov-Popa constituted “lawful detention” ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

Expert: Recognition will improve human rights situation

" - This whole situation will be solved once Transdniester achieves formal international recognition of its statehood, says columnist and Times contributor Michael Garner. "Until then, the European schizophrenia is almost comic: When it doesn't suit us, Transdniester is not a country and none of its laws or court decisions are valid. But when we want something of our own enforced, then Transdniester is a country which must follow the ECHR's dictates."

" - Overall, however, both Moldova and Transdniester have shortcomings in the human rights field. But as long as we close the door, and refuse the work with the authorities in Tiraspol, it is hard to achieve any improvements," says Garner, who is sympathetic to the new and emerging country's claim to statehood.
" - The key to democratic improvements, also in the human rights field, is integration in the international system. This brings rights and responsibilities."

According to a communique by Moldova's Foreign Ministry's press service, the Moldovan authorities will continue their efforts, including within international organizations, particularly the Council of Europe, routed towards obtaining an early release of the two prisoners.

The statement did not mention any of Moldova's own cases, equally criticized by human rights defenders, such as the harsh 10 year sentence of opposition politician Valeriu Pasat, whom Washington and much of the European Union considers a political prisoner. (With information from Moldpres)