hide
Free keywords:
-
Abstract:
Romania’s criminal prosecution of corruption is a controversial topic. While advocates praise the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) for its increasing results, critics voice concerns over the abusive and excessive manner how the fight against corruption is conducted. Is Romania’s anti-corruption battle an impressive success or rather a worrisome excess? The article aims to resolve this controversy by assessing anti-corruption activity conceptually and empirically. Firstly, an evaluation scheme of anti-corruption activity -- the anti-corruption evaluation chain -- is developed, which distinguishes between three stages: 1. Input (Capacity), 2. Process (Fairness, Reasonableness) and 3. Output (Results). Secondly, each dimension is measured empirically by relying on a new set of quantitative indicators and qualitative empirical evidence (e.g. analysis of judicial verdicts by the European Court of Human Rights, interviews with magistrates). The findings indicate that Romania’s fight against corruption has resulted in the augmentation of capacity (e.g. number of human and financial resources), the acceleration of results (e.g. increasing number of indicted, prosecuted and convicted persons) and aberration from the fair trial (e.g. deficient evidence gathering, violations of fundamental rights) and from the principle of reasonableness (e.g. excessive reliance on interceptions in penal cases, excessive use of pre-trial detention etc.). Overall, Romania’s criminal prosecution of corruption has derailed into an over-zealous struggle for a “noble cause” which itself has violated individual rights, the principles of fair trial and reasonableness, procedural integrity and the rule of law.
