The Centre for Legal Resources is asking for the declassification of the Protocol for cooperation between the Public Ministry and the Romanian Intelligence Service

25.01.2017

Mr. Prosecutor General of the General Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice,

Augustin Lazăr,

 

The Public Ministry [also known under the name of General Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice] offered today clarifications on the Protocol closed between this institution and the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul Român de Informații – SRI), clarifications which rather raise questions:

  • For example, we are being told that “Closing a protocol of cooperation between the Public Ministry and the Romanian Intelligence Service was justified by the legal framework which was in force at the time, according to which the implementation of technical surveillance measures was being done through the SRI.

We are asking you to specify what was the legal framework in force at that time which allowed the SRI to implement such measures in criminal cases. The Centre for Legal Resources considers that there was no such legal framework. We are asking you to not make reference to Decisions of the Supreme Council of National Defence, given that, as you well know, these are not published in the Official Gazette [i.e. they are not available to the public]. At the same time, these Decisions cannot make additions to the law.

  • It is also stated in today’s press statement, of January 25th, that “the intelligence officers – in some cases the work was done also with workers of the Ministry of Interior not just of the SRI – have carried out no criminal investigation activities of any kind” and “the contribution of intelligence officers was strictly that of implementing the technical surveillance measures authorized by the court.

We draw your attention to the reasoning of the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 51/2016, which is compulsory, according to which the special surveillance or investigation methods are evidentiary procedures which lead to obtaining the means of evidence (§ 31), which can only be obtained by the criminal investigation bodies, resulting by consequence that the SRI has carried out criminal investigation activities.

  • The statement also maintains that “concretely, the tasks of intelligence officers within the operative teams were strictly limited to the implementation of the technical surveillance measures (example – installing the equipment for environmental tapping) and carrying out the operative surveillance activities (example – stakeouts).

This is false. The means of evidence, meaning the reports capturing what resulted from the implementation of the technical surveillance mandates, were being done also by SRI officers.

So that the public opinion may have a complete clarification on the way in which the law was followed by the institutions from the justice system (clarification on which exactly these are is also needed) which signed protocols of cooperation in the area of criminal procedure with institutions falling outside the justice system,

Because the simple cessation of the effects of this Protocol (in the present case, regarding the Public Ministry) following decisions of the Constitutional Court, do not grant to it, post-festum, neither legality not legitimacy,

The Centre for Legal Resources is asking the Public Ministry to carry out the legal proceedings in order to declassify the Protocol between the Public Ministry and the Romanian Intelligence Service.

 

Georgiana Iorgulescu

Executive director

Centre for Legal Resources

 

For additional comments, interviews or other questions, please contact Georgiana Iorgulescu – 0722 505 181

WP-Backgrounds by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann