VMRO-DPMNE obstructed everything that was agreed, including the SPO

Numerous journalists, politicians, NGOs, international organizations, foreign diplomatic representatives, ascertained that VMRO-DPMNE obstructed most of the Przhino Agreement provisions. This was the main reason for postponing the elections twice, and everyone (except VMRO-DPMNE) assessed that the conditions for holding elections are not met

Right after SPO’s initiative, transposed in legal form for amendment of several laws, among which is the one for extending the 18-month deadline of SPO’s investigations, was not passed, Ilija Dimovski gave the following statement:

VMRO-DPMNE sticks to its decision related to our attitude on the SPO. We do not accept new agreements and new deadlines beyond what was agreed in Przhino. We allowed everything that was agreed during those talks, said Ilija Dimovski, VMRO-DPMNE’s MP, in today’s press conference

[Source: Plus Info, Date, 04 October 2016]

EXPLANATION:

Ilija Dimovski, coordinator of VMRO-DPMNE’s parliamentary party group, tried to mask VMRO-DPMNE’s decision with an untruthful statement, especially in the part asserting that they do not accept new deadlines for SPO’s work, because “we allowed everything that was agreed during those talks”.

The truth is completely different. Analyses underpinned by many facts and also numerous journalists, politicians, NGOs, international organizations, foreign diplomatic representatives, ascertained that VMRO-DPMNE obstructed most of the Przhino Agreement provisions. This was the main reason for postponing the elections twice, and everyone (except VMRO-DPMNE) assessed that the conditions for holding elections are not met.

But this time, we are going to talk only about the provision related to the formation of the Special Prosecution Office (SPO). Of course, VMRO-DPMNE cannot play on the card that it was formed on time (the special prosecutor Katica Janeva is appointed on time, as well as the budget she projected as necessary for 2015 and 2016).

The Przhino Agreement is based on principles and has objectives. One of the main principles is “Complying with this Agreement in full and good faith”, followed by “Complying with the democratic principle of political accountability”. Neither one of them has been adhered to in SPO’s case. Because if the first principle has been adhered to, then VMRO-DPMNE as a ruling party interested in the functioning of the justice and the legal state in RM, would have pledged to extend the investigation deadline for at least as much as the Law on Criminal Procedure and the Law on (the regular) Public Prosecution Office project, and by doing so, it would have shown obedience to the Constitution. If, on the other hand, there is “political accountability”, the party will not obstruct the SPO in every possible manner, including the influence over the judiciary, which is undisputed by most of the general and expert public.

By the way, according to this analysis, only until January 2016, the implementation of the Przhino Agreement was, on average, 44 days behind schedule in each area of implementation.

After the calculation of the total amount of days behind schedule due to the obstructions of the SPO, it turns out that the Special Prosecutor, 12 months after she was inaugurated, was able to work using her full capacity for less than six months. Now, we are going to remind you only of the main impediments – Delayed moving in the temporary premises, delayed handing of the material from the Basic Public Prosecution to the Special Prosecution, evidence for “Putsch” handed six months later, three months lost due to Gjorge Ivanov’s pardon decision (later withdrawn), delayed amendments of the Law on Public Prosecution’s Servants, delayed adaptation of SPO’s new premises… In fact, all of this is confirmed by the SPO. All other delays can be blamed on other factors, among which is the court and its procedures, and those 15 days of delay because SDSM didn’t give the materials when Janeva asked it to.

These obstructions of the SPO are not evident only in domestic analyses, yet the EU, the USA, and the European Parliament gave their opinion on them. The latest requests from Brussels and Washington represent support for the SPO as well.

Therefore, Ilija Dimovski’s statement is inconsistent in terms of the justification of the party not to meet SPO’s requests for legal amendments halfway, and is also untruthful when saying they have fulfilled everything they said they would.

SOURCES:

• (04 October 2016)  Plus Info – Димовски: Не прифаќаме нови договарања и нови рокови за СЈО– [Accessed on 04 October 2016]
• (2015) Truthmeter – Договорот од Пржино, превод на македонски јазик – [Accessed on 04 October 2016]
• (27 October 2015): Radio Free Europe Западните дипломати бараат ВМРО-ДПМНЕ да го почитува договорот од Пржино – [Accessed on: 21 April 2016]
• (16 May 2016) Deutsche Welle – Брисел: Нема ни минимум услови за избори на 5 јуни -[Accessed on 04 October 2016]
• (January 2016) Network 23 – Како се спроведува Договорот од Пржино – [Accessed on 04 October 2016]
• (04 October 2016) Deutsche Welle – Власта денеска ќе покаже дали се плаши од истрагите на СЈО – [Accessed on 04 October 2016]
• (10 March 2016) European Parliament – Резолуција за Македонија – – [Accessed on 04 October 2016]

Assessed by: Teo Blazhevski

All comments and remarks regarding this and other Vistinomer articles, correction and clarification requests as well as suggestions for fact-checking politicians’ statements and political parties’ promises can be submitted by using this form