Judge Stanislav Pavlovschi is a renowned human rights activist and served as judge at the ECHR between 2001 and 2008, he also served as a Minister of Justice in President Sandau’s Government. In recent statements, Judge Pavlovschi have addressed serious criticism against the Sandu Government, warning that they are dismantling the independence of the judiciary. Judge Stanislav Pavlovschi also warns that Ilan Shor might not have received a fair trial in Moldova.

Among other things, Judge Pavlovschi has stated that:

Political interference with judicial activity is a secret deal. Nobody does it publicly. Accordingly, it is impossible to precisely evaluate the exact level of political or other illegal forms of interference with judicial activity. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous if I started denying political interference with judicial and prosecutorial activities. Moldovan media contains many publications which discover high-level officials’ addresses and messages in which they demand criminal convictions of their political opponents.¹

In relation to banning political Parties

Banning political parties is a very serious and delicate matter. To be banned, a political party must commit certain illegal acts which are attributable to the whole party as a political entity. If several members of a party commit illegal acts in their capacity, and these illegal acts have not been authorized by the party as an entity, this party cannot be held liable and, accordingly, banned. This is the standard that is to be applied. All of us remember the unrest and riots that followed the last presidential election in the United States, but American authorities have never suggested banning the Republican party. This is the only correct approach. Everybody shall respond for their own acts.

Unfortunately, the Moldovan judicial authorities preferred to take a different approach. Being a committed democrat, I look very skeptically at all types of bans, limitations, and restrictions on political activity and consider that they can only be applied when the application of other forms of legal deterrence, like, for instance, individual liability, is clearly impossible. Excessive use by a state of various restrictions and limitations in exercising political rights would mean that that state has serious problems with democracy.¹

In relation to Ilan Shor:

I would say that Mr. Shor is not just a politician or a businessman. To some extent, Mr. Shor is a phenomenon of Moldovan politics. He appeared on the Moldovan political horizon suddenly, and immediately occupied a niche that nobody had ever occupied. He encouraged massive support for the socially vulnerable part of the population, and here I speak first of all about pensioners.

Also, having been elected the mayor of Orhei, Mr. Shor started the modernization of that town, as well as several villages of the Orhei region. Of course, ordinary people immediately noticed the difference. Dozens of thousands of Moldovans have expressed their support.

As a result, the rating of Mr. Shor and the political party he led was constantly growing. Practically, the political party led by Mr. Shor has occupied the second row in the list of Moldovan political parties. This situation provoked irritation among other politicians and high-level dignitaries. They have started perceiving Mr. Shor as their enemy, who threatens their political well-being. All the power of the state institutions has been directed against him and the “Shor” political party led by him. In the eyes of society, both Mr. Shor and his party were presented as a kind of “public enemies.”

So, every effort was made to destroy him and his party. And now we see that Mr. Shor has left Moldova, and the party has been banned. I do not know whether Mr. Shor has or has not committed any crime, because I have never had a chance to study his criminal file, but I am sure that a political party cannot and shall not be banned because of the individual activity of one of its members. A party is a live mechanism composed of dozens of thousands of members who have never had any involvement in any criminal activity, and by definition, they cannot be held liable for the activities about which they did not know. In short, it would not be wrong to say that Mr. Shor is a hostage to the success and success of his party.

At the same time, it is worth mentioning that the origins of Mr. Shor’s money caused debates in Moldovan society. There are opinions that his money comes from various fraud schemes. The Moldovan authorities have investigated criminal allegations against Mr. Shor, but to the best of my knowledge, not all versions have been tried. For instance, Mr. Shor’s lawyers have requested financial-accounting expertise in order to determine if Mr. Shor has caused any damage by his actions. Unfortunately, such work has not been done, and now the issue of damage has not been cleared up. And there are other such doubts in Mr. Shor’s case that remain unclarified.¹

I used to be a politician, but in August 2019, disappointed with what was going on in Moldovan politics, I decided to cease my political activity and concentrate my efforts on professional and social work. Accordingly, I am not a supporter of any political party from Moldova. On the other hand, I am a convinced pro-European and frankly think that the cause of European integration is the only course of action available to the Republic of Moldova. As to your question about whether Mr. Shor had or had not had a fair trial, in my opinion, the answer is negative.

Far too many public officials made him a criminal in the eyes of our society, breaching the principle of the presumption of innocence. Far too many so-called “experts” expressed their opinions concerning his guilt that we could say that the judges in his case acted independently. Of course, judges live among us, and they can also be influenced by various TV programs and talk shows. And if, for years, people keep repeating that somebody is a criminal, judges involuntarily start believing it. That is why in the US, for instance, jurors are prohibited from watching TV while exercising their judicial functions. This is not the case in Moldova.¹

On Extradition:

From my experience as a Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, I would say that when a state decides on extradition of a defendant or a convicted person, that state must answer for itself on several questions. The first and most important question is whether a person will or will not be exposed to degrading and inhuman treatment after extradition. If the answer is positive, extradition shall not take place. This is the standard that should be applied to such situations.

If you look at the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights, you will see that breaches of Article 3 of the Convention of Human Rights are one of the most widespread types of violations found by the Court in the cases against Moldova. These statistics are generally accessible and can be seen at “echr.coe.int.” I do not want to interfere with the Israeli authority’s sovereign powers to decide on the fate of their citizens, but I am sure they will proceed fairly and according to the principles of the rule of law.¹

On whether Mr Shor would receive fair and just treatment if extradited?

I hardly think so. Mr. Shor is far too irritating, and far too many influential persons are interested in his disappearance from the political horizon of Moldova. But I may be wrong. Let us wait and see. I recall one of James Bond’s movies when M. discussing with James Band, says “Sometimes justice triumphs.” And James Bond replied, “Sometimes - yes!” Maybe this will be the situation of Mr. Shor. Who knows?¹

1.Stanislav Pavlovschi – Brilliant legal mind stands up to Moldovan gov’t [Internet]. The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. [cited 2024 Jan 6]. Available from: https://www.jpost.com/international/article-751781

‌