The head of the Constitutional Court, Alexandru Tanase, is against the deprivation of immunity of Moldovan deputies, although recently the Constitutional Court allowed the amendment of the relevant article of the Constitution. Alexandru Tanase argued his opinion in an interview to Radio Europa Libera.
Despite the fact that he voted for this issue, the head of the Constitutional Court has its own opinion about the immunity of deputies.
"If we analyze the statistics, I'm talking about the last six years, the Porsecutor General demanded the deprivation of parliamentary immunity twice. Once the immunity was removed, once– not. This shows that the investigative problems regarding the parliamentarians in fact don't exist ... The deprivation of immunity is required only for the detention, arrest and search, in other cases there are no obstacles. At the present time there are several parliamentarians under investigation and it means that the mechanism works. So that I want to understand the meaning of these amendments"– said Alexandru Tanase.
The head of the Constitutional Court believes that the bill aims are hidden and the modification can make the legislators more vulnerable and reduce their independence.
A case happened the last year confirms this idea. This is the moment when, in the pretext of the fight against corruption the Parliament adopted a resonant law about the testing of professional integrity. Later the Venice Commission criticized it and soon the main part of the law was declared unconstitutional. So when we want to check someone's integrity we must not reduce their fundamental rights and freedoms. You can not ask for integrity, reducing the right to a fair trial, privacy and property.
According to Tanase, the bill will make the deputies vulnerable.
"They will be affected by a number of actions from which they are protected today. For example, the deputy can be detained. This means that there will be no judicial control of detention before the trial, and I do not know whether certain decisions will be independent... In a situation when we have quite a fragile political system, when the judicial system isn't independent, I think that such modification of the legislation is extremely risky".
Alexandru Tanase also said that such initiatives will have serious consequences if they represent a message for parliamentary groups or political associations outside the parliament and government.
When we initiate a constitutional reform we must take into account the purpose and the practical consequences of it. From my point of view, the vulnerability of parliamentarians to the repressive state institutions serves neither the development of democracy, nor the parliamentary as the basis of democracy.
We note that the deputies can lose their parliamentary immunity since the autumn parliamentary session, because the Constitutional Court gave a positive opinion on the bill on April, 16.
The document will be discussed for six months, after which the decision of the Court will expire.