<\/p>\n
The Independent Evaluation Commission for assessing the integrity of candidates for positions in the self-administration bodies of judges and prosecutors (\u201cthe Pre-Vetting Commission\u201d) has issued a public response to the report \u201cPre-Vetting Phases: the Unseen Face of Justice Reform\u201d, published by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in February 2025 on the FES-Moldova website.<\/p>\n
In a letter addressed to FES, the Commission expressed its \u201cdeep concern about the content of this report in light of multiple shortcomings in the report, including seriously flawed methodology.\u201d According to the Commission, the report relies primarily on the views of candidates who failed the evaluation process and \u201cnever gave the Pre-Vetting Commission an opportunity to provide clarifications or answer questions\u201d, which contradicts international monitoring standards, such as those applied by OSCE\/ODIHR.<\/p>\n
The Commission also pointed out the report\u2019s failure to address Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) decisions upholding the Commission\u2019s evaluations, and its lack of attention to resumed evaluation decisions, which followed the SCJ\u2019s rulings. As of 31 January 2025, \u201cthe Pre-Vetting Commission had issued 21 resumed evaluation decisions, 18 of which were appealed to the SCJ. The SCJ had upheld 12 resumed evaluation decisions out of the 18 that were appealed and ordered one re-evaluation.<\/p>\n
The report further alleged the improper use of information obtained from the National Anticorruption Center (NAC) and the Security and Intelligence Service (SIS). The Commission firmly rejected these claims, stating that \u201call of these requests were lawful,\u00a0proportionate and fully consistent with the evaluation criteria and the Commission\u2019s mandate under Law No. 26\/2022,\u201d and emphasized that \u201cthe Pre-Vetting Commission never failed a candidate based exclusively on information from SIS or NAC.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Commission also criticized the report\u2019s misapplication of the presumption of innocence, clarifying that this principle applies strictly to criminal proceedings and \u201cdoes not apply\u201d to the pre-vetting process. The report\u2019s repeated references to this principle \u201creflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and scope of constitutional guarantees.\u201d<\/p>\n
Additionally, the Commission raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest, noting that the report\u2019s lead author, presented as an independent expert, is \u201ca practicing lawyer in the Republic of Moldova who has represented one of the SCJ judges, Mariana Ursachi (Pitic),\u201d who herself failed the vetting process and was part of the SCJ panel that annulled several Commission decisions in 2023.<\/p>\n
The Pre-Vetting Commission acknowledges the value of professional and unbiased monitoring and reporting on its work. And the Commission regrets \u201cthat the authors of the FES report did not use a robust and credible methodology to provide readers a useful report on the pre-vetting process in the Republic of Moldova. Instead, the FES report chose to completely ignore the SCJ decisions on resumed evaluations and SCJ decisions on initial evaluations that upheld the Pre-Vetting Commission\u2019s decisions, relied primarily on opinions of candidates that failed the evaluation and anecdotal reports without determining their merit or reliability, as well as news articles and broadcasts,\u201d the Commission stated in conclusion.<\/p>\n
The Commission called on FES to publish its full response \u201cin order to permit readers to fairly assess the FES report\u2019s observations and conclusions\u201d. FES has agreed to do so.<\/p>\n