Petre Roman: Closing the Revolution case, a good start to putting Revolution back on place it deserves
Petre Roman (photo), Premier of the provisional government set up in December 1989, stated that the court’s decision to close the Revolution case “is a good start to putting the Revolution back where it deserves,” claiming that this does not prevent the descendants of some of the victims to continue asking for justice.
“It’s a good start to putting the Revolution back on the place it deserves because all of what we have built as a free nation so far stems from there, from the moment of the revolution. (…) The circumstances and context in which the high number of victims was registered are known. They are all connected to the dictator starting the repression. They all stem from there,” Petre Roman stated for Mediafax when asked for his comments on the decision.
Petre Roman added that the only thing that preoccupies him is that “the December 1989 Revolution should be given the recognition the Constitutional text indicates.”
“The only thing that interests and preoccupies me is that the Romanian Revolution should be put in the place that the Constitutional text itself indicates,” the former Premier stated.
Petre Roman opined that the High Court’s Prosecutor’s Office’s decision to close the Revolution case does not prevent those who consider themselves to be the descendants of the victims from continuing to seek justice in the legal system.
“I believe that this closing of the December 1989 Revolution case does not and cannot prevent those who consider themselves the descendants of some of the victims from continuing to ask for justice in the legal system. This seems obvious to me, this is why we are living in a state we want to call a rule of law state, so that those who believe their interests are hurt – irrespective of what those interests are, in this case of a family nature let’s say – could have their interests defended within the judiciary,” Roman added.
Alina Mungiu Pippidi: Prosecutor’s Office should investigate who buried the crimes
Political analyst Alina Mungiu-Pippidi stated for Mediafax that it is difficult to investigate now what was not investigated 25 years ago in relation to the 1989 Revolution, the case closed on Friday being “useless.” Nevertheless, she suggested that the Prosecutor’s Office should open a new case focusing on those who “buried” the crimes.
Alina Mungiu Pippidi stated that there are persons who already have been held accountable for the December 1989 Revolution, General Victor Atanasie Stanculescu being one of them.
“What the Prosecutor’s Office is saying, that there are people who have paid for it, is true, General Stanculescu, who is also summoned in the other case (concerning the Miners’ Riots – editor’s note) is one of them. The things they were investigating did not have clear culprits. Wherever guilt was clear it was attributed, justice had its say. Apart from that, the case was fairly useless because the crimes were buried and they were buried a very long time ago. However, what I would suggest to the Prosecutor’s Office is that, since you summon General Florescu (Mugurel Florescu – editor’s note) in the other case (Miners’ Riot case – editor’s note), you should open a new case focusing on who buried the Revolution’s crimes,” Alina Mungiu Pippidi said.
Likewise, she pointed out that 20 years ago, when she was in charge of the ‘Expres’ weekly, she personally saw the full Revolution case file which explicitly said that “there should be no ballistics analysis in the case of those deaths.”
“So basically I personally saw proof that there was no desire for a clear investigation to take place in order to establish whose the guns that killed people in Bucharest were. These documents existed, we published some of them back then. I would investigate who buried this case, who buried the crimes and who led such an incompetent investigation considering that 25 years later you have no other option but to close it and state that those who gave the order to shoot have already been sentenced. Apart from this, only a big mystery remains and obviously it’s very difficult to investigate today what you haven’t investigated 25 years ago,” Alina Mungiu Pippidi added, pointing out that unless a new case is opened this situation will remain in history as proof of “a big cover-up.”
“Proof of a cover-up exists and, since it does, I would suggest to the Prosecutor’s Office to open another case in which to investigate this, especially since those involved are among us, we see them on television,” Alina Mungiu Pippidi said.
Caramitru: The decision disgusts me. It’s not possible, people died
Actor Ion Caramitru stated for Mediafax that the “aberrant” decision to close the December 1989 Revolution case disgusts and shocks him, pointing out that it seems to be “a counter-weight to the opening of the Miners’ Riots case” and something like this could have taken place only in Romania.
“The fact that the Miners’ Riots case opens and the Revolution case closes, I believe only here, in Romania, can this happen. People who were behind the Miners’ Riots are the ones who hijacked the Revolution. This cannot be bereft of interest and it seems hilarious and tragic at the same time,” Ion Caramitru said.
Likewise, the actor pointed out that he also represents the Association of Revolutionaries Without Privileges, an association he set up along with Radu Filipescu in order “to maintain a certain morality in relation to what happened in 1989.”
“How can some prosecutors come and say it closes when we are talking about people who died, statements, an investigation carried out by General Voinea (Dan Voinea – editor’s note), which was carried all the way through with thoroughness and he was then replaced precisely in order for the action to stop. It seems to be a counter-weight to the opening of the Miners’ Riots case. This can’t be, it’s aberrant, people died, more people than in the Miners’ Riots. There are decisions that are kept in the Military Archives, in the Securitate Archives, in the Militia Archives. It is known, there was a Revolution trial in which certain people were sentenced on the basis of evidence. That evidence cannot be bereft of interest now. Without being a specialist, I find it aberrant from a legal standpoint,” Ion Caramitru added.