Report on the case of Nicuşor Şerban

(Jegălia commune, Călăraşi County)

1.      On the 16^th of June, representatives of APADOR-CH went to Jegălia, and then into the municipality of Călăraşi, to investigate the death of Nicuşor Şerban (31), who was shot on May 30^th, 2004.

2. Circumstances of the case

Nicuşor Şerban lived in Jegălia. According to his elder sister, Florica Şerban, Nicuşor had never been to prison, but he had been repeatedly fined for troubling public order. Only after his death had she found out that he had served a two year suspended prison sentence (the press release of the County Police Inspectorate (IPJ) in Călăraşi stated that Nicuşor Şerban had been sentenced three times: twice for theft and once for trespassing and destruction of property. The IPJ thus induced the idea that the victim was a highly dangerous person, an idea which was not supported by the length and type of the sentence he served). Florica Şerban openly acknowledged that her brother had a rather aggressive attitude, that he got very easily drunk and that he often initiated and took part in brawls at the local disco. She declared that Nicuşor, as well as other youngsters in the village, had been repeatedly beaten by the „gendarmes and masked guards who conduct raids over here every two weeks”. He had never filed any complaint, and neither had any of the villagers, because „if you have no money or friends in high places, you don’t stand a chance”. He had never filed any complaint against the chief police in Jegălia either, although the latter had threatened to kill him not long before he was actually shot dead.

On the 30^th of May, 2004, a underage girl in the village (14) went to the police station and declared that the night before (Saturday, May 29^th, to Sunday, May 30^th), when she was on her way home from the disco, Nicuşor Şerban had approached her and raped her in the church yard. Based on this single statement (the forensic examination took place later), a two-member police squad went to find Nicuşor Şerban. Around 10.30, they found him on the street, they summoned him, but he ran away through the gardens. „He ran for fear”, his sister explained. „He was afraid of being beaten”. One of the police agents fired a warning shot. They continued to chase him and when Nicuşor climbed a fence of an orchard at the end of the village, police agent Sârbu shot him twice (the two bullets hit the upper part of his body and remained inside. The spent bullet shells were found very close to they place they were fired, near the orchard fence). Nicuşor Şerban was carried in a blanket and then taken in a police car to Călăraşi. On its way, the car met the ambulance in the area of Roşeţi and moved Nicuşor Şerban into the ambulance, but he was already dead (the death certificate was issued by the Roşeţi authorities). The body was taken to the Călăraşi morgue.

Soon after the shooting, several vehicles with „masked guards” arrived into the village. The villagers believed they belonged to the Gendarmerie.

Florica Şerban had been out of the village for the day. When she returned, the villagers let her know what had happened to her brother. She went to Nicuşor Şerban’s house, but she found three policemen at the door who did not allow her in. It appeared that they were waiting for a search warrant. After long negotiations, she offered to go inside and bring them some of her brother’s clothes (trousers, underwear, shirt), which they accepted. Florica Şerban maintained that no one explained why her brother had been shot – either during the discussions at the house or at the police station, where she gave a statement strictly connected to the shirt Nicuşor had worn that day, which had been left hanging on the fence. Several prosecutors from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Călăraşi Tribunal as well as police agents from the IPJ Călăraşi had been present at the police station.

Florica Şerban said that after the 30^th of May she was never summoned for statements again. As far as she knew, no one from the family had been to any hearing in connection with the incident. She knew nothing about the investigation, but she had heard that the whole case had been taken over by the Military Prosecutor’s Office, due to the involvement of gendarmes. She had also been informed by her neighbors that agent Sârbu (the one who shot Nicuşor) had been transferred to another police station in the county.

The representatives of APADOR-CH also discussed with the owner of the orchard where the young man was shot. He had not witnessed the shooting, but he had seen everything afterwards (the wounded being carried away, the recovering of spent bullet shells, etc). The villager said that the first shot had been fired a long way from the orchard, at the beginning of the chase, from somewhere close to the „People’s Council”. He stressed that Nicuşor had nothing about himself to suggest a weapon, and that the police chase had already gathered a crowd. 

3. Discussions with the Călăraşi authorities

Prosecutor Purcărea from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Călăraşi Tribunal did not work on the Jegălia case himself, but he took part in the investigations right after the shooting. He said that the case was still with the civilian prosecution and would not be transferred to the military authorities because the gendarmes had not taken part in the incident. The „masked guards” summoned to the village on May 30^th belonged to the DPIR (Police Rapid Intervention Squad). They had been summoned following the shooting to prevent a possible reaction of the villagers.

It is unclear if Case no. 342 referred to Şerban’s death or to the rape he had been suspected of.

At the Călăraşi County Police Inspectorate, the representatives of the Association were told from the very beginning that the case lay with the Prosecutor’s Office and waited to be solved. Therefore, the IPJ was unable to provide any information. The only information available was a confirmation that agent Sârbu was moved to the Fundeni police station and a copy of the IPJ press release concerning the events on May 30^th.

4. Conclusions:

- Rape is an extremely serious crime and it must undoubtedly trigger the prompt reaction from the authorities in charge. In this case, however, the intervention of the police in Jegălia was in breach of the right to life. However serious his alleged crime, Nicuşor Şerban had to be retained and possibly arrested, judged and sentenced. By no means was he to be shot. The young man was well known to the local police, and therefore the excessive eagerness to catch him seemed to APADOR-CH rather suspicious. It gave the impression that the policemen „took advantage” of the occasion to teach him a lesson. Nothing justified the use of the firearm: Nicuşor Şerban was not endangering anyone’s life. This was the only circumstance which, according to international standards, would have justified the use of firearms by the police. But the victim did not conceal any object about him and did not react in an aggressive manner. Moreover, it was hard to believe that, had he escaped the pursuit, Şerban could have fled and vanished:

- Law no. 218/2002 on the organization and functioning of the police, citing Law no. 17/1996 on the regime of weapons and ammunitions, regulates the use of firearms by the police in ten situations and is in disagreement with international provisions. Even thus, the Romanian law stipulates that firearms may be used „to restrain perpetrators who, after committing a crime, try to run away” (law 17/1996, letter d). In this case, Nicuşor Şerban was not caught in the act and the only clue the detectives had was a mere statement, not enough to determine whether he had committed a crime. Another situation for which the law allows the use of firearms is „to restrain or detain a person under serious suspicion of crime who resists or attempts to resist arrest by using a weapon or any other object endangering other person’s life or phisical integrity” (letter f). Obviously, Nicuşor Şerban did NOT resort or try to resort in any way since the agent who shot him was at about 20-25 meters away. In conclusion, agent Sârbu used his weapon illegally;

- APADOR-CH considers that agent Sârbu’s deed falls under article 175 of the Criminal Code (murder).

 

APADOR-CH asks the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Călăraşi Tribunal to give full attention to this very serious violation of the right to life and to investigate the circumstances of Nicuşor Şerban’s death with maximum efficiency. The investigations of the prosecutors must comply with the European Convention for Human Rights and they must lead to the identification and sanctioning of all those guilty of Nicuşor Şerban’s death. Non-observance of investigation standards is in breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been  ratified by Romania.

 

Also, the Association asks that the present report be considered as a complaint and requires to be informed of its solution.

 

Manuela Ştefănescu                                                              Diana Călinescu