The court rejected the complaint in the case of the Diaspora vs Moldova. Lawyer for the plaintiffs Eduard Digore, in a news conference at IPN, said the court’s decision hasn’t been explained and the reasons based on which it was taken are not yet known.

“We think the trial was held with violations of the right to defense, the right to justice and the right to a fair trial. These are not only words. We consider we didn’t benefit from a fair trial for a number of reasons. In an administrative lawsuit, it is the task of the state to determine the legality of the actions and the documents issued by the authorities, which is the state possesses all the proofs showing why a particular administrative document was issued,” stated the lawyer.

Eduard Digore noted that in the ordinary court of law, the public authority accused in this case was to present the evidence it possesses so that all the aspects of the case could be analyzed. The authorities presented a part of the proofs and these turned out to be incomplete. “We requested the court to oblige the authorities to provide all the proofs, but the lawyers’ request was rejected and the Law on Administrative Claims was thus violated,” he stated.

Another lawyer who represents the diaspora in this case Veronica Mihailov-Moraru said this is a new type of trial for Moldova and it represents an act of courage and shows the will of the Moldovans abroad to exercise their right to vote. “It is a trial by which we warn the authorities about the importance of respecting this right of those who are abroad as well. It was a hard trial in the first court, but it does not stop here,” stated the lawyer.

She added that lawyers’ requests to question witnesses, to present evidence and to verify the legality of the documents concerning the establishment of polling places abroad were rejected. After long debates and questions by the authorities at the stage of judicial debates, the lawyers weren’t given time to present their arguments in written form. After almost two hours of deliberations, the court rejected the applications as groundless.

“We consider this decision is not justified. We will pronounce additionally after we analyze the motivated decision,” said Veronica Mihailov-Moraru. The lawyers will request the Appeals Court to additionally examine lawyers’ requests and the conclusions reached by the ordinary court.

Moldovan who settled in London Dumitru Vicol, who is a member of the group that collected signatures for mandating the lawyers and of the initiative group that collected complaints submitted on Election Day, said he came from London especially for the new conference so as to transmit the message of those from the diaspora. He noted that the diaspora has three feelings: betrayal, mobilization and determination.

Speaking about betrayal, Dumitru Vicol referred to the strategy Diaspora 2025, which provides that the Government assumes responsibility for ensuring the rights of the diaspora and strengthening confidence. “We didn’t feel this during the elections and thus feel betrayed. They write one thing in documents, but do another one. We were surprised at the fact that the public authorities employed eight representatives to face us, the people,” he stated, asking that those from the diaspora should be treated in the same way as those who are at home, not only as sources of income and remittances.