Report on three death cases in the Vaslui county
On October 29-th, 2002, the APADOR - CH representatives have made investigations regarding the three deaths cases that took place under unclear circumstances, in the Vaslui county.
1. Ovidiu Ginga (aged 33)
He died on July 19-th, 2002, on account of a skull - cerebral wound. One or two days before, he was stopped by two public guardians, hit and taken by force to the police station where a fine was imposed on him for disorderly conduct. In all appearances, Ginga was sent home by the police officers instead of being taken to a hospital. A short while after all these, he was brought to the hospital but he was not registered as “hospitalized” in none of the evidences, the only conclusion being that he was already dead and, therefore, he was taken over directly by the mortuary. At the headquarters of the Public Guardians Corps from Vaslui, the representatives of the association have been informed that no measure had been taken against the two involved guardians as it had been considered that they had acted legally. On the other side, the investigation carried out by the Prosecution office had not been concluded yet, or, at least, that had been the conclusion of the discussion with the prosecutor on duty from the Prosecution department with the Vaslui tribunal (the prosecutor in charge with this case had temporarily left the locality). The fact that there was no solution coming from the Prosecution office might have suggested that there were doubts regarding this case.
Ovidiu Ginga had his domicile at his mother’s. Unfortunately, his mother couldn’t have been possibly contacted by the representatives of the association (nobody was at home, and the woman was unemployed). At the Prosecution department, the representatives of the association were told that Ovidiu Ginga had a concubine - an unidentified one - at whose place he lived.
As neither his mother, nor his supposed concubine have lodged any complaint, APADOR - CH requests from the Prosecution department to consider this report as a complaint in the case of Ovidiu Ginga’s death.
2. Andrei Sauciuc (aged 63)
He died on April 22-nd, 2002, in the IPJ Vaslui lockups. The APADOR - CH representatives went to the Zorleni commune (at a distance of about 30km from Vaslui) where they discussed with his wife and a nephew. It was found out that he had suffered from a heart illness for many years and that he had daily used to take handfuls of medicines. After his confinement, his wife went twice to visit him (the third time didn’t take place as Sauciuc had died two days before). During the first visit, she brought the medicines (nitroglycerine, miofilin). During the second visit, she was told not to bring the medicines any longer as the police was going to insure them for the detained. His wife’s and nephew’s conviction was that the policemen didn’t give him the necessary medicines, a fact which led to Sauciuc’s death.
Three weeks after his death, on May 10-th, 2002, the Prosecution office gave the solution of not initiating the investigations. The representatives of the association find it unclear with regard to which Prosecution department had done any kind of investigations and, if so, with reference to what aspects. Sauciuc’s death happened in April when the police forces were still military. Therefore, the investigation had to be effected by the Bacau military Prosecution office. In the long run, the solution was given by the Prosecution office with the Vaslui tribunal, a thing that would mean that no investigation was done regarding the circumstances of Sauciuc’s death in the police lockups of the Vaslui IPJ, that Prosecution department having, during the respective period of time, no legal competence of investigating any police staff.
APADOR - CH considers that there has to be investigated the aspect regarding the giving - or not giving - the needed medicines to a person suffering from a heart illness during his detention in the lockups of the Vaslui IPJ. The police has this legal obligation and is held responsible for the physical and psychical integrity of the persons held in its custody.
APADOR - CH requests from the Prosecution department to carry on investigations regarding the way in which the Vaslui IPJ insured for Andrei Sauciuc the compulsory medical assistance.
3. Ion Baiera (aged 32)
The Buda village, Osesti commune, is placed at about 40 km from Vaslui. The residence of the Ivanciu family, where Ion Baiera was shot, is placed on the outskirts of the village. According to what Constantin Ivanciu (the father) and Mihai Ivanciu (Constantin’s son) said - with confirmations from the relatives who were present at the discussion carried on with the APADOR - CH representatives - on the morning of October 11-th, 2002, around 8.30 - 9.00 a.m., Ion Baiera broke into Ivanciu’s family courtyard, telling them that the policemen were after him. It must be mentioned that Ion Baiera had been wanted by the police ever since September 2001, as he had been absconding from serving a 4-year and a half sentence for robbery. For more than one year, the policemen had not been able to catch him. It must also be made clear that Mihai Ivanciu didn’t have, by any means, any kind of friendship relationship with the pursued one, a circumstance which implied that an eventual “complicity” between the two would be hard to imagine.
Baiera entered into a very small room (of about 6 m²), one of the household annexes, where two children, aged one year and a month and three years and two months, respectively, could also be found. After several minutes, the policemen Mihai Cristea (from the Delesti commune) and Vasile Lica (from the Osesti commune) entered the courtyard, went to the annexed building, asked Baiera what his name was (he declared a false identity) and invited him to the police station. Baiera resisted cuffing and, as a consequence, the policemen used some paralyzing spray (or a tear one) in that tiny room where the two children were. The children were immediately taken out into the courtyard by their parents, but the effects of the inflicted shock were visible even after two weeks from the incident. Then, under the very eyes of Constantin, Mihai, his wife and the two children, the following scene took place: the policemen got out of the tiny annex and placed themselves at a distance of about 5 m from the door. Every time Baiera tried to get out from the gas filled room, they fired (according to the Vaslui Prosecution department there have been fired eight gunshots, out of which six were “warning” ones. The witnesses allege that none of the shots was fired as a “ warning “ one). Finally, the policemen hit Baiera into the abdomen (at the level of his stomach, Constantin Ivanciu said). Baiera fell on the threshold; he was carried by the two agents for about one hundred meters up to the place where the personal car of one of them was parked. Then, they left for the hospital but, on their way, they met the ambulance and delivered Baiera to it. At the county hospital, only Baiera’s death could be ascertained. Certain newspapermen who reported on the case saw that Baiera had blood on his face and they drew the conclusion that he was also shot in the head. The eye witnesses allege that, while in their courtyard, Ion Baiera was shot only in his stomach, that he was alive when he was taken by the policemen and that, in their own opinions, the pursued one was shot in the head too, after he was introduced into the car of one of the two police agents.
From the courtyard of the Ivanciu family, the following objects have been taken: an axe (which, Mihai Ivanciu alleges, he touched only to move it from somebody’s ” handy” position to a safe one), a rake, a pitch fork, a kitchen knife (which, the policemen say, would have been used by Baiera in order to threaten them , although the knife was taken afterwards, during the search, from under a girder of the tiny room). This aspect could be simply made clear if the dactiloscopic expertise were done so that it would result in showing if Baiera’s finger prints were to be found - or not - on that knife. All the confiscated objects would have served as “ arms” to the members of the Ivanciu family who would have opposed to Baiera’s arresting. Or, during the incident, Mihai Ivanciu and his wife held one child each in their arms, while Constantin Ivanciu stood still near the fence. There existed one eyewitness, Vasile Cantor, who can confirm that the policemen were not aggressed by the Ivanciu family. Moreover, had the policemen been assaulted with “ side arms”, why didn’t they also shoot at the aggressors too?
Mihai Ivanciu lodged a complaint at the Ministry of Justice and at the Presidency. The APADOR - CH representatives explained to him whom he must have addressed his complaint to so that it could have been efficient. It must be specified that the Ivanciu family complains only with regard to the way in which the policemen acted: tear gases in a very small space where two children could also be found, the confiscation of certain tools which were absolutely usual for any kind of peasant farmstead under the pretext of using these as “side arms” against the policemen. The Ivanciu family alleges the fact that they don’t have - and they have never had - any kind of interest in protecting Ion Baiera. Moreover, Mihai Ivanciu might have had a previous conflict with Baiera over some woman.
According to the information given by the Prosecution office with the Vaslui tribunal, one may exclude the version of shooting Baiera in the head, there remaining only the wound from his abdomen as the cause of his death. The association makes clear the fact that, as, in all appearances, Ion Baiera had no close relative who could have assumed his case, the present report must be taken under consideration by the Vaslui Prosecution office as a complaint.
As a conclusion, APADOR - CH requests the following from the Prosecuting office with the Vaslui tribunal:
1. it should precisely establish if Ion Baiera was shot both in his stomach and in his head. If he was shot in his head too, there should be specified the moment when this happened;
2. it should establish if the using of the tear gas within a space of a maximum of 6 m² in which there were also two children had any kind of justification;
3. it should analyze if the confiscation of certain tools which are absolutely necessary to working on any kind of peasant farmstead (axe, rake, pitchfork, etc) has any kind of connection (if yes, in what specific way) with Ion Baiera’s being shot;
4. the association considers that the eight gunshots (none of them being a “warning” one, in a “vertical” plane, considering what the eye witnesses said) fired by the two policemen jeopardized the three adults’ lives (the grandfather’s, Constantin, the father’s, Mihai and his wife’s) and also the two minors’, all of them being within an area of 10 m² (the courtyard in front of the annex) during the shooting;
5. in the opinion of the association, the implied policemen proved to be lacking professionalism and they ignored the principle of proportionality during the interventions on account of the following reasons:
- Baiera hasn’t been caught since September 2001, ever since he has been placed under general pursuit. How was it possible that, for over one year, the policemen haven’t been able to spot him and hold him?
- Ion Baiera had to serve a sentence of 4 years and a half for robbery. Nothing, not even his absconding from serving his sentence, can justify the killing of an unimportant offender by the policemen;
- the using of tear gas within such a small space is inadmissible, so much more as two children, one of them one year and the other one three years old, respectively, were in that room at that time;
- the confiscation of certain tools usually used on any kind of peasant farmstead, in the police attempt to justify the full force intervention, is an attempt of misleading the entitled authorities in their carrying out investigations on this case.
Finally, APADOR - CH claims from the Prosecution office with the Vaslui tribunal to examine, with utmost attention, both the killing of Ion Baiera, and the attempt of involving the Ivanciu family. From the point of view of the association, there has taken place an abuse of the policemen, both under the aspect of the force intervention against Ion Baiera, which resulted in the death of the pursued one, and with regard to the procedures undertaken by the policemen during their descent in the courtyard of the Ivanciu family. The association stresses upon the major danger which the policemen’s intervention (tear gas, eight gunshots) meant to the members of the Ivanciu family, including the two children.
Manuela
Stefanescu
Valerian Stan