In the context of the competition for the selection and appointment of the People’s Advocate, we notice that some candidates, in an attempt to promote their image before the competition and argue their intentions to participate in it, have chosen to denigrate the People’s Advocate Office. Thus, false hypotheses are increasingly launched regarding the lack of independence of the People’s Advocate Office in relation to some political actors, its lack of transparency and inefficiency, as well as the need to reform the institution.
We strongly condemn the affirmations that the People’s Advocate Office “was an instrument for those who were at governance in order to silence the voice of the citizens!” and to “divide our society and create antagonistic classes that serve different clans.”
Some candidates made public statements stating that the People’s Advocate Office would be guilty of violating human rights in our country and for this reason we would be permanently “charged on global level that Moldova does not observe human rights”. It was also rumored that the People’s Advocate is to blame for increasing the number of recommendations for the country in the Universal Periodic Review of the Republic of Moldova and for the large number of convictions at the ECHR.
Thus, the perceptions of some candidates regarding the activity and attributions of the People’s Advocate Office demonstrate the lack of knowledge about its specific profile, about the framework that establishes the activity of a National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights and the current activity of the institution.
We remind that the People’s Advocate cannot replace the state bodies with executive attributions, but ensures the observance of human rights by public authorities, persons with positions of responsibility and other institutions regardless of the legal form of organization by monitoring and reporting on observance of human rights at national and international level, by contributing to the improvement of human rights law, by promoting human rights.
The Ombudsman can report on human rights issues endlessly, but it is the responsibility of the state to respect, protect and realize human rights in accordance with the relevant international treaties.
Regarding the insistent circulation on the need for a cardinal restructuring of the PAO, we would like to draw the attention to the public opinion and all stakeholders that the institution has undergone a reform process since 2014, by adopting a new law, Law no. 52 on People’s Advocate. By establishing a new organizational structure, implementing internal processes in accordance with the latest trends in organizational management, we managed to streamline the activity of the institution, a fact appreciated by our international partners – Global Alliance for National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), which structure – SCA accredited in 2018 the People’s Advocate Office with the highest status, statute A. In accordance with the Paris Principles, Statute A confirms that the institution fully complies with these principles.
We appreciate these and other statements as attacks on the People’s Advocate Office, as unfounded, unprofessional statements by some candidates who want to promote their image in public at the cost of denigrating the image of the institution.
We, also, remind that one of the basic criteria for choosing the People’s Advocate is the impeccable image, the respect that a person enjoys in society and his/her notoriety.
Team of the People’s Advocate Office
