MiG JETFIGHTERS: PASAT CASE RISES FROM THE ASHES

UNCLAS CHISINAU 000690

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/UMB

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: MASS PINR PGOV MD
SUBJECT: MiG JETFIGHTERS: PASAT CASE RISES FROM THE ASHES

REFS: A. Chisinau 0580, B. 07 Chisinau 0861

Sensitive but Unclassified. Please Protect Accordingly.


1. (SBU) Summary: Former Minister of Defense Valeriu Pasat could be
in the dock again in July, after the Supreme Court quashed his July
2007 acquittal in the case of Pasat's allegedly illegal sale of MiG
29s to the U.S. The court's decision, and a dissenting opinion,
both criticized the 2007 decision. End summary.


2. (SBU) On April 2, 2008, the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ),
following an appeal by the prosecution, cancelled the July 9, 2007,
Court of Appeals' verdict that Pasat was not guilty. (Note:
Pasat's defense lawyers successfully used testimony by former U.S.
Ambassador Stewart to argue that Pasat's sale of the MiGs was a
treaty obligation and not a commercial transaction. End note.)
Under Moldovan law, Pasat, now in Moscow, reverts to his status as a
convicted criminal. The re-opened case will be examined again by
the Court of Appeals starting July 3, 2008. If Pasat does not
return to Moldova, he will be tried in absentia. Moldovan
authorities will also request his extradition from Russia. If Pasat
does return, he could be arrested for pending cases of smuggling and
conspiracy to commit assassination and mount a coup d'etat.


3. (SBU) The SCJ majority decision, and a minority dissent, copies
of which we received recently, both criticized the July 2007
verdict. The majority stated that the appeal that led to the 2007
decision should never have been admitted, because the Appeals Court
violated retrial procedures and did not respect earlier SCJ
decisions. The minority opinion stated that the July 2007 verdict
wrongly ignored defense motions regarding Pasat's right to be
presumed innocent. The dissenting judges also argued, as have
Pasat's lawyers since the first trial in 2005, that Pasat was acting
in accordance with several treaties and agreements, particularly a
1997 agreement between the Moldovan Ministry of Defense and U.S.
Department of Defense regarding cooperation for the prevention of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and a 1997 agreement
between the U.S and Moldova that specified the price of the exported
jets.


4. (SBU) Comment: We find the timing of the reopened case
interesting. Observers attributed Pasat's release in 2007 (ref B)
to a Moscow demand for his release in return for a lifting of the
wine ban, or to Moldova's desire to look better in the light of
losses at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The wine ban,
however, is over, and Moldova continues to lose cases at the ECHR.
Contributing factors to the decision could include: President
Voronin's well-known animus towards Pasat and his "creature," PLDM
party leader Vlad Filat (ref A),and the President's desire to
impose his will on the judiciary. Or, given the complexities of the
case, the unhappiness of majority and dissenting SCJ opinions
regarding the 2007 case, and a certain amount of competition between
the SCJ and the Appeals Court, the SCJ may just be having second
thoughts. End comment.

Keiderling