You wouldn't believe it! Last week we were warning that the DNA (National Anti-Corruption Department) started inquiry on the fraud committed in the examination of candidates for positions in the CSM (Superior Council of Magistracy) mostly in order to get even with the CSM and prevent any future attempt to sanction the abuses and incompetence of the DNA. It is the only possible explanation to why the DNA prosecutors announced the press about bribe of 15,000 Euro, still without taking fast action to catch the suspects red-handed, retain them and later on release warrants. But last Monday, after ruminating over the weekend, prosecutor Lucian Papici, in charge of the inquiry, asked the CSM for consent to the arrest of prosecutors Gheorghe Dumitru and Eugen Cojocaru, a consent mandatory for such measures. And yesterday the DNA ordered that that prosecutor Gheorghe Dumitru and CSM member Gheorghe Bucur, formerly a supreme judge, should be arrested. It is out of question that in the meantime there has emerged new evidence or that someone admitted committing the crimes so that the DNA can thus explain the great delay. This is about charged prosecutors, surely not fool enough to admit their crimes. It is clear that the DNA has had the bribe evidence from the very beginning, but did not want fast action, for there have been involved certain interests and someone is to get favors. The CSM prosecutors' consent to the arrest also shows that there were relevant clues of corruption crimes. But the CSM's response was like it always is: flawed. The CSM consented that only one of the two prosecutors accused of corruption should be arrested, the man reported to have bribed. Is this stupidity or bias? Why such half measure? Can one invoke evidence against the man who gave bribe, but not also against the one who took it? I have never seen such a thing. But since this is about the DNA and the CSM, we are not to expect something reasonable, for these institutions' representatives have done what they pleased for years, without explaining it to anyone. It is obvious to me that really substantial negotiation is at stake and the case may be dead already, because the flagrant is missing. The DNA did it before: remember the story with minister Remes filmed while taking bribe? The DNA prosecutors made fools of themselves and all they managed to do was media fuss. If you remember, the same prosecutor Lucian Papici was the coordinator. Were there some true proves, it is hard to believe that they would resist the High Court, the only instance entitled to decide on a request for arrest and handle the case, because the people involved in it are top persons in Romanian Justice. They are extremely influent prosecutors in the Prosecutors' Office. It is also about supreme judge Gheorghe Bucur, claimed to be the destination of the money. He was employed by the Criminal Department for years and he was a member of the CSM too. Unless there is tough evidence, they can't even dream about a sentence against him. Lucian Papici failed this in the case of Adrian Nastase's PVC windows and also in the case of Remes and Muresan. Then how can he achieve it in a case involving top magistracy staff? As for prosecutors Ghita and Guli, the second group involved in the case, have you heard anything about them lately? For a fortnight the DNA has been refusing to show them the incriminating evidence and the case is at a standstill. I fear that, starting from this bribe case, the DNA has been pushing things on the Guli side, so that he wouldn't take over Bucharest Prosecutor's Office where mess is prevailing. Given the piles of muffled cases and the very bad management of the activity, the prosecutors working for the latter institution may cease to intercept phone calls in national security cases, since they have no ORNIS certificates.

Razvan SAVALIUC