Policy dialog: The vetting as an emergency measure will create extraordinary problems

The vetting as an emergency measure will create extraordinary problems, especially since in our country it was announced in a pre-election context, vaguely defined and therefore we cannot talk about the results of that process. Experiences from the region indicate the need for special care and comprehensive debate on the vetting process, while according to experts, a better solution for our circumstances is to check the integrity and capacity through existing institutions. These are some of the conclusions expressed by the speakers at the policy dialogue “Vetting – the imposed or feasible option for the Republic of North Macedonia” held on March 6 in Skopje.

Dr. Ledi Bianku from Albania, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, stressed that judges, like all officials, should be held accountable and that what applies to ministers and political representatives should also apply to judges. As he pointed out, they should also be held accountable to the public. Bianku said the vetting in Albania was conceived as an administrative procedure, but if the content of the process is analyzed, the analysis shows that the trial against the judges is criminal.

• If you listen to politicians, they say they are fighting corruption in the judiciary. But corruption is not fought with administrative procedures but rather with criminal procedures, said Bianku.

 Bosa Nenadic, former president of Serbia’s Constitutional Court, emphasized that the consequences of policy changes were smaller than judicial reform.

• The consequences are much greater if judicial reforms are not implemented properly, Nenadic said, adding that co-operation with the international community is important in implementing reforms, but more important is the internal readiness for reform.

Dr. Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, said that we talk a lot about vetting, without giving an answer as to what kind of vetting will be carried out.

• The idea of vetting, in itself, has no bad intentions. But in principle, the terminology does not correspond to what we want to achieve. We cannot say that all 530 judges in Macedonia do not work and that they should be subjected to checks, said Lazarova Trajkovska.

She added that if a vetting is carried out, constitutional changes will be needed to regulate the permanence of judges’ mandates and the independence of the judiciary.

• Any conspiracy or opinion on vetting, as it was presented to the public, without constitutional changes is impossible. The only thing that is possible is to strengthen the capacities of the institutions and implement the laws, said Llazarova Trajkovska.

Tatjana Vasic Bozadzieva, from the Ministry of Justice, noted that the European Commission in its latest report noted that North Macedonia has made great progress in harmonizing with EU regulations. Also, in the report, as Vasic Bozadzieva said, it is concluded that in North Macedonia there is a substantial motivation and commitment in the reforms.

Vladimir Georgiev, member of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption, said the former prime minister had come out with a public opinion that the SCPC should check the property of judges and prosecutors in the country.

• That does not represent vetting. It is just one element of the whole process. The vetting, as in Albania, should delve in the analysis of the expertise, the acquired property of family members as well, whether they are related to certain criminal and political structures, which is actually something else, said Georgiev.

He added that the actions of judges and prosecutors have been criticized in recent years, that abuses of the AKMIS system have been mentioned and that there is a deep sense of erosion in public confidence in the judicial system, and that it is the backbone of the rule of law.

• According to researches done in Albania, about 80 percent of citizens said there was high corruption in the sector before the start of the vetting process. In Macedonia, according to researches, the judiciary is blamed for corruption in the country. According to the citizens’ perception of the prevalence of corruption by professions, judges and prosecutors are in the first two places. From 2001 to 2019, there is an increase in the perception of corruption of judges and prosecutors, said Georgiev.

He concluded that it should be borne in mind that conducting a full vetting poses a real danger of blocking the judicial system.

• If we decide on vetting in terms of audit, it is necessary to include international monitoring, in order to enable an objective process, concluded Georgiev.

According to Dr. Denis Presova, assistant professor at the Faculty of Law “Iustinianus Primus”, University “St. Cyril and Methodius University “, vetting is not a solution at all.

• As an emergency measure, it will create extraordinary problems that we could not deal with. We need to be careful about the type of vetting we are talking about. In our context, general re-election or purge are emphasized. This issue reopens in the pre-election context. I think that if we approach the process quickly, it will only create problems, without giving solutions. What is the purpose of the vetting? Who should we check and purge?, said Presova.

He emphasized that vetting represents, above all, administrative justice and does not constitute criminal liability.

• With vetting, we will not have criminal liability, it will not solve impunity. Vetting is a measure of transitional justice that is approached when we have serious human rights violations in which the judges themselves have been complicit. We have no solution to the issues opened by the “bombs”, and we are already talking about the next steps, said Presova.

The dialogue was organised within the project “Partnership Justice: Restoring Citizens’ Trust”, implemented by the European Policy Institute and Association ZENIT, and funded by the European Union and co-funded by the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. The project aims to contribute to restoring citizens’ trust in the Macedonian judicial sector by significantly involving civil society in substantial reforms. The ultimate beneficiaries of this project are the institutions in the field of justice.

The purpose of this dialogue was to provide a detailed discussion of the nature and consequences of the vetting process, given European standards of justice and experience in the region and to assess the need to check the Macedonian judiciary in light of European standards and lessons learned.