Ruskoska Must Implement Same Measures for the Journalist and for the Mole
Prosecutor Vilma Ruskovska, in a TV interview when asked if they had found the mole and whether an investigation was started into the leak of documents from the “Racket” case, gave the following statement that can be deemed inconsistent
Prosecutor Vilma Ruskovska, in a TV interview when asked if they had found the mole and whether an investigation was started into the leak of documents from the “Racket” case, gave the following statement that can be deemed inconsistent:
Unfortunately, no… No investigation has been started because it would cause inconvenience for many people who have come into contact with the case… a greater number of people in fact. Imagine, now we would have to take a dozen people’s phones, maybe even more, to expertize them, so it is not pleasant … look, if you are not guilty and somebody took your phone for at least a month, two, three, and it will certainly take that long because there are only few people working in forensics and there are many cases in line for expertize, imagine how would you feel ….
[Source: 24 Отворено – Интервју со Вилма Русковска(од 15-21 мин.), date: 29 October 2019]
The chief prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Prosecuting Organized Crime and Corruption Vilma Ruskovska, as a guest on the program “24 Otvoreno”, made a statement regarding the “Racket” case, which can be deemed inconsistent in two respects.
But first, let us remind the public that a photocopy of the document, classified as an official secret, was published by a journalist on the portal Infomax, after which the Skopje Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the journalist for disclosing an official secret, threatening him with imprisonment from three months to five years.
Starting from this official statement by the Prosecutor’s Office, we come to the first aspect of Prosecutor Ruskovska’s inconsistency. Namely, in the last paragraph of the statement the following sentence is written:
As to the circumstances in which this report was extracted from the case file and how it was handed over to the accused journalist for publication, the prosecution will institute criminal proceedings if it determines and provides evidence on who had committed it.
This paragraph is quite clear. It will institute criminal proceedings if it determines and provides evidence on who had committed it. The Prosecutor’s Office needs to start an investigation in order to establish this, because no other body can do it, either under the Constitution or under the law.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office is the only independent state body that prosecutes perpetrators of criminal acts and other criminal offenses and performs other activities determined by law. (Constitution of the RNM, Article 106, line one and Law on Public Prosecutor’s Office, Article 2)
The prosecution, as Ruskovska said, did not start an investigation. The second aspect of the inconsistency of the statement is precisely why they have not started an investigation. She says, “it would cause inconvenience for many people” …” a dozen maybe more.” Why is this inconsistent?
Because according to the Constitution, one of the fundamental values of the state is “the rule of law” (Article 8), and “Citizens before the Constitution and laws are equal” (Article 9, line 2).
The public may interpret Ruskovska’s statement that some citizens are in a privileged position and some are in a subordinate position. The journalist against whom charges were pressed was not allowed to disclose an official secret, but the mole who handed the official secret also committed a crime. However, before justice, the journalist and the mole are not treated equally, because “it would be unpleasant for many people” who actually work in the justice institutions.
Due to the given arguments and according to the methodology of “Truthmeter”, we deem the statement of Prosecutor Ruskovska as inconsistent.
Assessed by Teofil Blaževski