RSS
INTERVIEW DNA's Kovesi: Legislation modifications attempts add to statements pressure; there is a fake news campaign
National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) prosecutor-in-chief Laura Codruta Kovesi, in an interview to AGERPRES, maintains that there are not only pressures made through statements, but also through the attempts to modify the legislation, adding that there is a fake news campaign targeting her and her colleagues.
"There are all sorts of pressures. I have noticed that this year they have been increasingly more intense, increasingly more aggressive. There aren't only pressures made through statements, even these attempts to modify the legislation represent pressures and we see the consequences of some drafts that have come to light that also determined results in the judiciary activity. They are also very aggressive, we are submitted to a campaign, I believe the term is used quite often, a fake news [campaign], there are unchecked news items on a daily basis, very many times we are placed in the position of having to disclaim certain pieces of information emerging into the public space, news are being written without asking for an opinion, without asking us. (...) The colleagues with the DNA are not intimidates," the DNA head says.
About the modifications to the justice laws, Kovesi says the prosecutors of the DNA general assembly found that this draft is a form of pressure, but maintains that the right to voice their opinion cannot be taken away from them.
"The moment when the status of independence of the magistrate is questioned, is endangered through the creation of a bill, of course everyone in the judiciary system is concerned," she explains, adding that she doesn't feel the existence of a conflict between prosecutors and judges.
According to her, there are currently over 6,300 ongoing cases at the DNA, out of which over 2,400 cases have been registered only since the beginning of the year.
AGERPRES: The proposals to modify the justice laws have generated pro and against opinions all over the judiciary system, in society and among party representatives. The DNA prosecutors' general assembly rejected most modifications. What modification in the bill affects the DNA activity the most and which is the "pressure" on the prosecutors' activity, as maintained by the general assembly?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: All prosecutors currently working with the DNA were summoned to the general assembly and we debated that bill that was posted on the Justice Ministry website. Ever since the beginning I must tell you two general conclusions: the first, we only discussed those proposals aimed at the prosecutors' activity, therefore we didn't debate on aspects aimed at the activity of judges or not connected to our activity. Secondly, we all found that these drafts are, in fact, a form of pressure against the DNA activity and not only. Among the proposed modifications, which we found as affecting the independence of prosecutors, there are those firstly aimed at moving the Judicial Inspectorate [JI] under the Ministry's coordination, then there are certain modifications directly affecting the DNA activity, namely increasing the seniority threshold, from six to eight years for prosecutors wanting to join the DNA. My colleagues and I also criticized that amendment proposal regarding the laws establishing a directorate specialising in investigating magistrates, as well as other modifications that are somehow technical and which we posted on the website.
AGERPRES: How would this pressure be exerted, what are the fears?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: The moment when the status of independence of the magistrate is questioned, is endangered through the creation of a bill, of course everyone in the judiciary system is concerned. The fact that the Judicial Inspectorate is moved to the coordination of a minister, who can be a technocrat or a politician, we have very many situations and examples in which the Justice Minister was a politician, in those cases the Judicial Inspectorate could be under the command of a politician, which could interfere in, meddle with the activity we are conducting.
AGERPRES: I the judiciary system, the favourable opinions come mostly from the judges' area. Is there a battle between judges and prosecutors, do you feel that judges want their status be better clarified against that of prosecutors?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I don't feel any kind of conflict or battle between prosecutors and judges, after all we are talking about a draft that is put up for public debate, anyone can formulate a point of view on a bill undergoing public debate. Of course there can be different opinions, there can be different arguments, but this doesn't mean there is a conflict. Even inside the DNA or even inside the prosecution structures there have been some favourable arguments or some arguments against certain modifications or against certain proposals. The fact that there are arguments into one direction or another on a possible amendment doesn't mean there is a conflict. Therefore, I don't perceive there is a conflict between prosecutors and judges at the moment, but, certainly, this idea is attempted to be made believed, an artificial conflict is attempted to be created in the public space, however, which, in our opinion, doesn't exist.
AGERPRES: How do you see the proposal to modify the procedure of appointing the DNA and DIICOT [the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism] heads and the prosecutor general by eliminating the President from the process? Minister Tudorel Toader maintains that the modification could lead to lifting the CVM [the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism], because, so far, the political factor has been involved in this procedure.
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I for one, even in the general assembly, I abstained from voting this modification proposal. I will tell you why and I will not voice my position concerning this modification, because I, for one, when I was appointed prosecutor general, when I was reinvested as prosecutor general, when I was appointed DNA prosecutor-in-chief and reinvested DNA prosecutor-in-chief, covered the steps of this procedure. From this point of view I don't find it fair to comment whether it is a good procedure or a procedure that needs to be modified. However, I can voice the opinion of my colleagues, who said they are against this amendment and bring to mind that, in 2015, the Superior Council of Magistrates demanded that we convene general assemblies, both for prosecutors and for judges, to voice our point of view in respect to this procedure. In 2015, at the DNA it was voted by a majority of votes that the procedure of appointing the prosecutors with leading positions in the Public Prosecution Service must be that procedure that is similar to the appointment of the president of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, namely, at the CSM proposal, the appointment to be made by Romania's President. In the general assembly that took place regarding this bill it was also voted that this proposal, on the appointment being made by the Justice Minister, not to be accepted by the colleagues. Therefore, they didn't agree to it.
AGERPRES: The Justice Minister is still the one who makes the proposals. In this context, is there a depoliticisation of the procedure?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: It is very hard for me to comment on this, there are situations in which proposals were made by ministers who weren't members of a political party, nevertheless the problem, which was also noticed by the European Commission and noted as a recommendation in all monitoring reports, was not necessarily that of the appointed and the institutions involved in the procedure, but the problem of the transparency in the procedure and selection criteria. Thus, I believe this problem must be clarified, the procedure should be a transparent one, and the selection criteria must be objective criteria and criteria ensuring the election of an as good as possible candidate. On the other hand, over the past 12-13 years, all the appointments in the leading positions of the Public Prosecution Service were made based on this procedure. I don't know if there is an analysis or a substantiation of a study showing what was wrong with this procedure, what are the most challenged aspects. Have the candidates chosen over the past 13 years not met their objectives? It is very hard to express a point of view when we don't have an explanation before us. Nonetheless, what I believe must be clarified is the transparent procedure and the selection criteria, as, in fact, the European Commission also demands.
AGERPRES: The Justice Minister has recently put forth the idea of appointing the prosecutor general by the Senate, after the US model. What is your opinion?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: Under no circumstance do I comment the Justice Minister's opinions. There have been situations when certain institutions or certain procedures of foreign legislation were also implemented in the Romanian legislation. And I could give you a few examples — such as the extended seizure, the guilt recognition agreement or another institution aimed at exonerating the responsibility of persons making denounces. There are procedures and institutions taken over from foreign legislation and adapted to the Romanian legislation, therefore nothing prevents us from taking over such institutions if we reach the conclusion that we need to do so. Nevertheless, I would like to make a little comment on the attorney general appointment in the United States of America. The Constitution of the United States of America provides the procedure of appointing the attorney general, involving two institutions, the President of the United States and the Senate. The President is the one who nominates the attorney general, the Senate is the one that confirms, after which the appointment is done by the president. The systems of Europe on the appointment of the prosecutor general are different, therefore we cannot say there is a model in Europe regarding the appointment of the prosecutor general.
AGERPRES: There is a proposal on the creation of a new prosecutor's office structure meant to investigate the crimes committed by magistrates. Is it necessary?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: As I have also pointed out in the press release, we believe it is not necessary. I don't know if there is any analysis, any study concluding that Romania is witnessing a phenomenon of criminal offenses committed by magistrates or that the number of magistrates committing criminal offenses is so high that we must have a special directorate to investigate magistrates. We also have other persons who have committed criminal offenses, if I were to refer to corruption offenses, we have police officers, we have ANAF [the National Agency for Fiscal Administration] employees, we have mayors, we have county council presidents. From the statistics, we note that the number of magistrates committing criminal offenses is much smaller than, for instance, the number of policemen committing corruption criminal offenses.
There has been this debate in the public space, on whether there should be a directorate to investigate offenses committed by magistrates. I can tell you that a confusion was also created, which I think it's high time we clarified. Inside the DNA there is a service investigating corruption offenses in justice. It isn't a service investigating prosecutors or judges, we investigate offenses, namely offenses related to corruption in justice. That is we investigate those corruption offenses that are committed by all persons participating in the act of justice, regardless of them being sides, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, notaries public, experts. All those participating in the act of justice, in general. Within this service, I will give you a very simple example, when investigations referring to corruption in justice were conducted, but on offenses not committed by prosecutors or judges. For instance, there was a situation in which a person promised a side in a trial to intervene, in exchange for an amount of money, to obtain a favourable solution in that trial. In such situations we are talking about influence peddling, which is a corruption offense, but in which there weren't any prosecutors, judges, lawyers, court clerks, or persons working in the justice system involved.
This service working inside the DNA has this role, of combating corruption offenses in justice. Why? Because, in the first place, combating corruption in the justice system became a priority for the Public Prosecution Service ten years ago. Always, this investigation manner, these typologies have been a priority in the progress reports under the CVM and, last but not least, this thing can be verified, in all public presentations the DNA made at the beginning of each year, it presented its priorities. Since 2014 until this year, each year, we have publicly announced: this year, the DNA priorities are combating corruption in the justice system, combating corruption in the system of healthcare, education, infrastructure, public procurement, fraud from European funds. Therefore, it is no novelty. But we mustn't create a confusion between investigating corruption in justice and investigating prosecutors and judges. At least, from this perspective we believe this directorate shouldn't be established, because there is no statistics showing that magistrates committing criminal offenses to the extent of this being a phenomenon for which we must have a specialist directorate.
AGERPRES: Can we clarify how this service works, by analysing the project and what would be the difference?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: It's very hard to answer, for I don't know the arguments for which a directorate for investigating magistrates is established. In the judiciary system of Romania, even many years ago, only if we take into account the last 10 or 20 years, but if we were to take into account the last 40 years there hasn't been any prosecutor's office structure to investigate certain persons. The specialisation in investigations is made on types of offenses: organised crime, information crime, corruption, corruption in public procurement, fraud with European funds, corruption in the justice system. Therefore, we did not establish structures to investigate certain categories of people.
AGERPRES: The Military Prosecutor's Office is the only specialist structure. Is a similar directorate wanted?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: Over the last period and due to the European Court of Human Rights' decision even this issue has been regulated, because when we have servicemen with civilians involved, the cases are judged by the civil courts. There is an ongoing project at the Superior Court of Magistrates and there have been many talks over the past years regarding the closing of these courts and military prosecutor's offices, which, for instance, cannot be found in Europe.
AGERPRES: Another proposal refers to the access to magistracy, to be made after the age of 30. Do you believe that a 23-year-old person is not ready to be a magistrate? You were appointed at the age of 33 as prosecutor general of Romania. Did you feel you were too young for the responsibilities of this office?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I don't know what were the criteria for choosing the 30-year age limit. There is probably an explanation that we don't know. I find it difficult to comment without seeing the arguments in favour of this amendment. But I will mention the Constitution, which stipulates that at the age of 23 one can become a member of the Deputies' Chamber in Romania's Parliament and contribute to the law-making process. Therefore, at 23 years old one is ready to draw up laws. I don't know if one must wait to be 30 in order to enforce a law. I already had 10 years of service in the prosecutor's office [when I was appointed Romania's Prosecutor General ]. At the age of 22 I was appointed prosecutor just as many colleagues have been in the Public Prosecution Service. And currently there are many prosecutors under 30 years of age. I repeat, it's very hard to comment this thing because we don't know the arguments in favour of this modification.
AGERPRES: After head of the Public Prosecution Augustin Lazar voiced his position following the Council of Prosecutors General meeting, it was said that prosecutors don't make laws but enforce them. How do you comment?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: It's true, it's very hard to comment, it's obvious that prosecutors don't make laws, prosecutors enforce laws. But when we enforce the law, we can see the implications of enforcing certain legal provisions, when we enforce certain procedures. Many times I have notified that there are problems in enforcing some legal provisions. There have been situations and they are well known, when different interpretations occurred in enforcing some legal provisions and then our role, as prosecutors, is to formulate opinions when a law that we work with or that can affect our activity is debated. I don't think, as a prosecutor, that we are denied the right to an opinion. If there is a bill under public debate, I believe that we too can make comments just as everybody else — specialised people and the civil society, and the citizens who can directly send their view point. The fact that we express a point of view when a law, that we work with is amended and we can use arguments, statistics, that can have a positive influence, I don't think this right can be taken from us.
AGERPRES: The general assembly of DNA said that switching the IJ under the authority of the Justice Ministry would undermine the independence of magistrates. Why this independence would no longer be insured, and what do you think would be the best solution?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: The question makes me overstep a little bit my capacity as DNA chief prosecutor and return to when I was Romania's prosecutor general, because one of the most important recommendations under the CVM — then in 2008, 2009, 2010 — was to establish an independent judicial inspectorate as an institution. At that time a lot of steps were taken; the law has changed, the procedures were modified precisely to make sure that the Judicial Inspectorate, which main attribute is the investigation of prosecutors and judges, is a truly independent institution. We do not know the fundamentals for the proposal, which would indicate that the IJ is not independent, that there should be greater independence, and that there are problems with the IJ. We do not know what the arguments are in favour of this proposal, but getting an institution that has as its main attribute the investigation of all prosecutors and judges subordinated to a politician can certainly result in a violation of independence or an interference with the activity of those who are in the justice system.
AGERPRES: Can you see this independence even when the IJ is self-standing, not inside CSM?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: It is very difficult for me to state an opinion far beyond my competence, but we have to see the arguments that the IJ is not working well because it operates under the authority of CSM and that it would work better if it were subordinated to the minister of justice. I think this is actually the problem.
AGERPRES: Recently, a background check at DNA has been completed. Meanwhile, CSM officials have confirmed that notes and complaints have been received from both you and the inspectors accusing a senior IJ officer of interference to disrupt the activity of the institution being verified. Also, there is a referral from the other team members to the contrary. What did you actually notice? Did the prosecutors complain of pressure coming from inspectors?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: The check was announced at the beginning of July, on July 17; it started and ended on August 25. We have provided the inspectors with all data, information and documents that had been requested from us. It is important to say that part of this check, all correspondence or the vast majority of the correspondence that we had — with the inspectors who carried out this check and with the members of the checking team — was done in writing both when we had to provide documents or certain information and when we were asked for such documents. The fact that during the check until its completion we had an exchange of correspondence with the IJ is nothing unnatural or out of step with procedures. We sent some requests both to the Judicial Inspectorate and to the members of the CSM's Prosecution Section, and we sent certain requests on procedural matters which, in our view, may or may not influence the validity of the report. We have not received any answer to that requests. Certainly, there are some requests in which we identified certain procedural issues to which and we are waiting for a response; let us wait and see how they will be resolved.
AGERPRES: Give us an example.
Laura Codruta Kovesi: It is very difficult to explain, because there are technical issues, I do not want to talk about this report before it is made public, I do not want to prejudge it. I can give you an example that I do not think influences the conclusions of the report in any way. According to the inspection procedure, at the end of the inspection, the control team must present some preliminary conclusions. As a prosecutor general for six years, I used to read all the reports made by the Judicial Inspectorate and, believe me, there were dozens of reports I read. Each time this procedure was followed, conclusions were presented to the prosecutors who had been checked. As part of the DNA control, the procedure was a little different. Sure, that does not mean it's not right, but it was different. Some of the inspectors presented the oral conclusions, some of them sent their points of view in writing. That is an aspect that we signaled to see how it will be solved. This is just an example, but there are also other technical issues that we pointed out but that are strictly aimed at procedure. The issues we reported don't have anything to do with the findings of the inspectors. We have been presented some conclusions, some very positive ones, as well as recommendations and some proposals that the inspection is about to make in regard with the project. According to the control procedure, if deficiencies are found during the course of the control activity, the inspectors will discuss with the management or the heads of the offices where these deficiencies are found, and a procedure is recommended to rectify those deficiencies before the control is over. In our case, we did not have such situations. So, once again, there are some procedural inquiries and I wondered, all my colleagues wondered if these issues should not be clarified before the report is over, precisely to avoid doubting or calling into question the report to be drawn up by the team of inspectors.
AGERPRES: Did the prosecutors complain about the fact that the procedure was not followed?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: At this point, I do not want to comment on every document that was drawn up as part of the checks. When the report is drawn up, we will send the CSM a point of view on that report. On that occasion, we will clarify whether or not there are such instances.
AGERPRES: Were other data than those mentioned in the control order been requested?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: The control order said it was a managerial control, not a thematic control. All the required data and information as part of the controlling activity were made available to the inspector. It is not an order to specify which category of documents is to be checked. This is an operational procedure of the inspection, as there are regulations to be observed in this activity. I can only confirm that the inspectors had access to criminal files. When they asked for certain criminal files, they were made available. In some instances, all criminal cases of a prosecutor with a certain length of service were requested; in other cases, files were requested randomly by inspectors. The inspectors had access to all the documents in the files so that they could check the pace of the files. They also verified how the observance of technical provisions regarding interception. The inspectors had access to everything they requested, including criminal files, regardless of whether or not prosecution had been started.
AGERPRES: Do you think this control would have another stake?
Laura Codru?a Kovesi: I cannot comment on this.
AGERPRES: There is a hypothesis in the public space that this could be a pretext for your revocation.
Laura Codruta Kovesi: Let's wait for the outcomes of the control. We went through this control procedure for six weeks. Every day we were at the disposal of the inspectors, and every day we made absolutely everything demanded of us available to the inspectors: copies of documents, reports, criminal records that had been verified, views from our senior employees or from other colleagues in the institution. We want this report to reflect reality, as found by inspectors. We will comment on the conclusions when they are published. This was a verification of us that covered the year 2016 and the first part of 2017. In 2016, DNA had its best results since its inception. From our point of view, they were the best results. From a managerial point of view, how we implemented our managerial projects had also been verified by the CSM when we were reconfirmed for office. But what's important in this 2016-2017 period is that we were an institution regularly controlled by the Judicial Inspectorate. More than 130 thematic controls or targeted controls were performed. So, as part of those inspections by different inspectors, these 130 documents were checked by various other IJ inspectors; it was not the same inspection. Some of the members of the control team that carried out this control were, for instance, part of the control teams that some months ago checked the files older than 5 years at DNA. So we have always been subjected to this verification procedure; there is nothing new to us. We have all heard allegations in public that we are not controlled. Do you find 130 checks little? That's not so. We have always been controlled.
AGERPRES: Also in the public space, allegations were made that at a meeting last week, CSM would like to dismiss the IJ management precisely to get the DNA out of the Judicial Inspectorate's control for some detected irregularities. What is your take?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I do not know whether this discussion is real or not, so I cannot comment on the rumors for revoking the inspectors, especially since that is not the DNA attribute, but I think it is important to say that the report on DNA check is not done by chief inspectors, but by the team that conducted the control at the DNA. If any of the chief inspectors suggest or attempt to write something in the report, it will be interference with the inspectors' activity. So there is no connection between revocation procedures or a procedure involving chief inspectors and what the control team did. That control team finished their work on August 25, received the documents they needed and probably started drafting the report. There is no connection. No public event that is happening now in Romania has any connection with the drafting of this report.
AGERPRES: According to new information, the Judicial Inspectorate would initiate the control of the prosecutors who investigated the file on Ordinance 13. What is your reaction?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I have not received any official announcement so far. I know that a request for disciplinary hearing was launched in the summer of this year involving three prosecutors, but I have not officially received any response from the Judicial Inspectorate. As such, I cannot comment on this.
AGERPRES: Several prosecutors have left DNA over the last few months. Have you received any explanation for their decisions? Do you have any solutions to cover vacancies? Is there a connection between the departures and the scandals of late?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: No, there is not. The number of prosecutors who have come or gone from DNA is roughly the same as in previous years. If we want hard figures, I think about 24 prosecutors have been hired by DNA since the beginning of the year and around 25 or 26 have left DNA. We see that the number of outgoing and incoming DNA prosecutors is roughly equal. Every prosecutor who decided to leave DNA made a written request to the Superior Council of Magistrates laying out the reasons for leaving the Directorate. Such mobility in the Public Prosecution Service is a natural one. If we look at the agenda of the Prosecution Section for each meeting, we will see that there are many prosecutors coming and going from and to DIICOT, from DNA, from a tribunal's prosecutorial office to the Prosecutor's Office with the Court of Appeal, from a courthouse's prosecutorial office to a tribunal's prosecutorial office. This opportunity to work in different areas is an advantage at the Public Prosecution Service. The fact that a prosecutor during his or her career wants to work in another field or to do other kinds of work is natural. So, at least as far as DNA is concerned, there is not a large staff turnover from previous years, from the last 2-3 years.
There have been personal and professional reasons. Some colleagues have passed the exam for a professional degree and went on to capitalise on that, while other colleagues had to relocate with their families. There are various reasons pertaining to each magistrate.
AGERPRES: What happens to the file on the media leakage of the DNA meeting transcripts? Have you found the source of the leakage? Have anything changed in the way you do meetings at DNA?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: No. This is an ongoing case. I cannot provide additional information. We are working the same way. We have no fears, the situation will be clarified.
AGERPRES: You have previously argued that there are media pressures made by politicians and defendants. Do you feel they have increased or decreased? Have they affected in any way the job of prosecutors? Are there any other pressures besides those exercised through statements?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: Yes, there are all sorts of pressures. I have noticed that this year they are becoming more and more intense, more and more aggressive. There is not just pressure through statements; even these attempts to modify legislation are pressures and we can see the consequences of some projects that have emerged publicly and that have generated results in the judicial activity. They are also very aggressive, and we have been subjected to a campaign of fake news. There is unverified daily news and many times we are in a position to deny certain public information. News stories are being written without us being asked for an opinion. We have very often found that the stories published are based on unrealistic aspects. It is very difficult every day; you do not have the physical time to respond to all these things that appear. But, we have responded institutionally. I have notified the Supreme Council of Magistrates. I have notified the National Audiovisual Council, we have clarified in our responses to journalists all these instances. But I can tell you that my DNA colleagues are not intimidated. We are accustomed to such campaign. We can notice, of course, that it has been much intensified lately and it has been more aggressive; many times the professional framework has been overstepped and there have been personal attacks against prosecutors and their private life, but we will continue to do our job. This is a signal that we are on the right track and that we are touching areas where we did not reach before or perhaps where some were not expecting us to reach. Regardless of the position held by certain individuals, regardless of their function, regardless of their personal wealth, we will continue to make our investigations as professional as they have been so far. I have always argued that only courageous and professional people work for DNA.
AGERPRES: How would you rank them in terms of intensity in the 15 years since the establishment of the institution?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I think that over the last year, or at least since January, the attacks have been much more numerous, much more aggressive. I think I did not feel such a level even when I was the general prosecutor. There are attacks that, once again, go beyond the professional sphere in some instances. Not only is the institution attacked, but also its people.
AGERPRES: There is a perception that DNA has slowed down its actions. Is that justified?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: No, it is not, if we look at statistics. Since the beginning of the year we have drawn up approximately the same number of indictments, over 209 indictments and admissions of guilt, and over 590 people have been sued. We continue to do our job same as before. Certainly, there are files that have taken longer to investigate because we had to re-adjust all our material and human resources to the legislative provisions that emerged as a result of the publication of Constitutional Court rulings. We have warned since then, at least last since last year, that the pace of solving some cases will be different, precisely because we have to reconfigure staff and the use of resources.
AGERPRES: How many files is DNA handling right now?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: We are working on more than 6,300 cases, at this point. Among these, more than 2,400 have been registered since the beginning of the year, with the average per prosecutor standing somewhere between 70 and 80 cases. Nevertheless, some prosecutors have up to 90 cases at the same time, while they also must conduct a direct investigation, given that, unlike other prosecution structures, the DNA prosecutors need to actually make the investigation. Which is why we filed a requested with the Ministry of Justice ever since last year to increase our number of employees, with prosecutors, policemen and court clerks. We received support and we received more policemen. I redistributed them to the Technical Service and to operations related to the enforcement of the technical surveillance warrants. However, we went to the Ministry several times, even in August we went, to explain there what are our necessities in terms of human resources. We are always reiterating these requests and we are addressing those people who are responsible for supporting this activity that has to do with ensuring the human resources for the DNA.
AGERPRES: And did you get it?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: Up to now, no. But I'm positive that they are analyzing my proposal.
AGERPRES: An investigation has been initiated recently at the CNAS (National Health Insurance House). Is there a case where a minister is involved? Do you have any new cases where such individuals holding important offices in the state are suspects? Ministers maybe?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: Cases that fall under the DNA jurisdiction. High—and medium-level corruption that is.
AGERPRES: How about ministers?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: This I can not answer.
AGERPRES: How about the number of acquittals? Is there a statistic available of the number of persons who were acquitted, but they were remanded in custody at some point? Did you discover mistakes made by the prosecutors? Some defendants made accusations that certain cases were ordered politically, which is also why there is this proposal to make magistrates accountable.
Laura Codruta Kovesi: If we refer to acquittals, I can tell you that, this year, let's just take the first half of it, for this is how we conduct our analyses, by considering a 6-month period. Well, in the first six months of this year the number of acquittals was by 35 smaller compared with the percentage recorded in the same period of 2016. Therefore, the number of acquittals dropped down to 67, from 104, if I am not wrong, in 2017. This means that, out of the 67 persons who were acquitted (...) 50 had received sentences in the first instance between 1 and 5 years, before the acquittal was pronounced. In all these cases, we analyse the reasons that led to the acquittal. And there are such cases when the acquittal was pronounced because of the decriminalization of some offenses or different interpretations of the CCR [Constitutional Court of Romania] decisions. In a significant number of files, the acquittal decision came after 10 years, after 8 years, after 9 years. This year we have situations when we received acquittal solutions in cases from 2006, 2007, 2008, from many years ago. The evidence probably changed in the meantime or at least the things that were there, in the case file. However, the important thing is that, at the end of every year, we analyse the causes that led to the acquittal and we establish if the prosecutors were the ones who were wrong or they were not. In respect to the totally unfounded accusations that we are making political files, I repeat that this is not true, I said it before and I will say it again, our cases are based on solid evidence. The acquittal percentage recorded by the DNA in the recent years was established at about 10 per cent, which means that 90 per cent of our files end with convictions.
AGERPRES: Do you analyse the cases that ended in acquittals?
Laura Codruta Kovesi. Yes. Regardless whether the result was a conviction or an acquittal, we are analyzing our work at every meeting. We are having a weekly meeting with the prosecutors who participate in the proceedings and we analyse these solutions. First of all to see what we did wrong and if we have such acquittal solutions and then to see the court practice. For us, as I said earlier, the practice of the High Court of Cassation and Justice is the reference point in terms of jurisprudence depending on which we reorient our activity. It is very important that, in relation to certain analogies and to certain procedure flaws, see how the judges rule, in order to be able to keep a unitary practice at the DNA. And there is another thing that is very important. All these analyses are sent to the CSM too, and we also send them to the prosecutor general and to the Minister of Justice, when we are making our Activity Report. This is not an analysis that stays at the DNA. We are obliged by the law to send this statistical results to these institutions. And these activity reports always include such data regarding the situation of acquittals and convictions.
AGERPRES: What is your opinion about the proposal regarding the accountability of magistrates?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: There is a procedure stipulated by law according to which magistrates can be made accountable in case of judiciary errors, gross negligence or bad faith. We criticized this proposal, while we did not have the final form of the bill, for this is a procedure without clear criteria. Therefore, prosecutors, judges, magistrates, are already accountable. We already have this procedure in the law that says they are. So we don't know. Is it that this procedure proved not to be efficient? It was not enforced? We do not have any analysis available to see what determined the change. And the new draft doesn't say what are the terms within which you can be made accountable. Or, it is important to establish the terms you can be made accountable before the law as a prosecutor or a judge. And I will give you an example. You can send to prison a person that committed an offense and then comes a decision of the Constitutional Court, saying that text of law is unconstitutional, and then the person who is sent to trial invokes this decision and obtains an acquittal solution. There were situations, if I'm not mistaken, about the offense of withholding tax, when they decriminalized the offense, after a decision of the Constitutional Court. I wonder, in a case like this, should the prosecutor answer with his own estate, for he sent that case to trial, when the law was still in force? Are those who make such laws that are subsequently declared unconstitutional to be hold accountable too? Is the judge set to pay with his own estate in such cases when he enforces a valid law about which he can't possible foresee that it will be declared unconstitutional. We never denied and I think that nobody ever from inside the judiciary system said that we should not be held accountable for our activity. Of course, depending on the kind of errors that you make or the manner in which you carry your activity — in bad faith or gross negligence, as the laws says. But a form of accountability has to have clear criteria and a clear procedure. This is what we criticized.
AGERPRES: You more than once refused to appear before the parliamentary committee of inquiry into the 2009 elections. You sent some notes. Did you ever take into consideration to respond to this request? Why do you refuse?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: Because I observe the law and the Constitution. When I was the prosecutor general, I was invited to appear before Parliament, in 2007, I did the same. The same as now I filed a request with the CSM. All I did was observe the laws in force. More than that, I replied to all the notification that I received from this committee.
AGERPRES: The head of the committee of inquiry into the 2009 elections explained that, after making the report, he received a proposal for a legislative initiative saying that those people who hold public offices and refuse to show up at the hearings of an inquiry committee of Parliament should lose their office and they should not be allowed to exercise such public office again for a three-year period.
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I won't comment on that. I will voice my opinion on draft laws when they are published and only if they are related to our activity. I do not comment at this point.
AGERPRES: There are two decisions to resume ruling in the cases of the Presidents of the Deputies' Chamber and the Senate. And there could also follow the cases involving Gabriel Oprea, Dan Sova, Sebastian Ghita, after the retirement of one judge. What is your opinion about these decisions? Do they affect your activity?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: It is the decision of judges how to handle these files and I can not comment.
AGERPRES: Is there a risk of a write-off?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I cannot comment on cases pending trial.
AGERPRES: What do you do with such cases in which denouncers later change their statement and claim that they were forced to make false accusations? Recently, the former Minister Darius Valcov said that he was misled in the case of the deal regarding the admission of facts.
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I won't comment on particular cases. I can only say that defendants, when they are being heard, they have their lawyers with them. It may one or several lawyers, but every time the statements are taken in the presence of the lawyers. The criminal procedure code even stipulates an extra guarantee, so that these hearings are caught on tape. The admission of facts is not something that the prosecutor records by himself. This is something that he does after the defendant admitted his facts and asks for an arrangement to be concluded in this respect. Basically it's a discussion between the two of them. Every time, this procedure is carried out with the lawyers in attendance.
AGERPRES: The Speaker of the Deputies Chamber, Liviu Dragnea, said that the searches conducted by the DNA at the Ministry for the Relationship with Parliament were an exaggeration and that there were too many forces used by the investigators compared with the object of the investigation. How do you reply to this?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I do not comment on the statements of politicians.
AGERPRES: From the statements made by President Klaus Iohannis it seems that you have his support. What is your relation with Prime Minister Mihai Tudose?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I always had an institutional relation with the Prime Minister. When there is need for that we interact. However, with the current head of the Executive I never spoke, we never met.
AGERPRES: Do you have something to reproach yourself, in respect to the institutional relations, with the intelligence services or the politicians? How about with respect to the DNA?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I do not. DNA has been correct in its inter-institutional relations and with respect to its efficiency I believe that the statistical results of the latest years shows us that the Directorate investigated high-level corruption. At least from a statistical viewpoint, over the past 3-4 years we had the best results since the establishment of this institution. Yes, there are, probably, certain things that happened inside the institution that we can reproach ourselves or that we can say we are dissatisfied with, but I don't think that we have in Romania such flawless institutions. The important thing is that, when facing a problem, find the right manner to deal with it and solve it. And in such situations too I believe that every times there were problems inside the DNA, we reacted and we had them solved.
AGERPRES: What is your opinion about the meetings between the Minister of Justice and the US Ambassador and the British one? Did you received some signals from the foreign partners about the changes in the Justice field?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I cannot comment on such meetings. As far as I am concerned, we have meetings with representatives of the embassies and with the ambassadors. Even tomorrow we will have such a protocol meetings with an anti-corruption institution from Ukraine. So you see that we discuss with the embassies and we discuss with the ambassadors about matters that have to do with our activity. But I cannot comment on the activity of other institutions. With respect to the modifications that were proposed lately, the only reactions were the public ones, when I read the press releases of various embassies.
AGERPRES: What was the toughest moment for you since taking over the leadership of DNA and up to now?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: I will tell you about that when I will no longer be with DNA.
AGERPRES: Did you ever consider, in the light of the recent developments, to resign from DNA?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: No, this is completely out of question. I will continue to do my job. Together with the team that I work with, we will continue to do our jobs as we have done it so far.
AGERPRES: Do you see yourself doing something else than working with the DNA? Will you continue to work in the system or are you considering building a career in other field?
Laura Codruta Kovesi: Maybe I'll be a mom, why not?