Back to Ursu Case V The "Diary" Trial

Chronology of the trials related to Gheorghe Ursu's investigation and assassination in 1985, at the Bucharest Military Tribunal (TMTB)

The Murder Trial of former Ceausescu's Militia colonels Tudor Stanica, Creanga Mihail and plt. Burcea Stefan - for the assassination of Gheorghe Ursu

Indictment by the Military Prosecutor Dan Voinea was sent to court on November 22, 2000.

December 6, 2000 - Murder trial starts, judge is Liviu Parvu. Postponement granted at defendants' request.

January 8, 2001 - Postponement granted at defendants' request.

January 29, 2001 - Postponement by the judge, who called the Ministry of Interior as a "responsible party" for the civil suit, although the victims did not request it.

February 19, 2001 - Postponement granted at defendants' request.

March 11, 2001 - Judge Parvu dismisses the case, at the defense's request, for fictitious reasons.

March 12, 2001 – Judge Parvu accepts, with suspect easiness, the defense’s request to dismiss the case, for a fictitious procedural pretext. The victim’ family and the prosecution appeal this decision.

October 1, 2001 – The appeal is tried, after an extremely long delay (seven months) by the Bucharest Military Appeals Court, which establishes that Mr. Parvu's reasons for dismissal were illegal.

November 10, 2001 - The Bucharest Military Appeals Court sends the case back to trial to TMTB.

November 26, 2001 - Strangely enough, the case is assigned again to Mr. Parvu, although normally a different judge should take on a case which was once dismissed. A postponement is granted at defendant’s request.

December 12, 2001 - The victim's attorney requests a change of judge. The request is judged by Mr. Surghie (the former Securitate officer, and judge in the "Ursu Diary” case - see below). Mr. Surghie denies the request in a secret proceeding.

December 17, 2001 – Mr. Parvu continues to preside the case, and grants a postponement at defendant’s request.

January 16, 2002 – First actual trial proceedings begin. Defendants and victim’s son (Andrei Ursu) give depositions. Mr. Parvu visibly tries to intimidate Mr. Ursu, and cuts short his deposition.

February 6, 2002 – During witness depositions (particularly those of Popa Dan, Palamariu Florin, Clita Marian and Constandache Ion), Mr. Parvu denies the victim’s attorney, Mrs. Crangariu, from asking numerous questions, basically stopping her from pleading her case. On the other hand, he allows Mr. Clita, a dangerous criminal, to threaten and disparage Mrs. Crangariu and the victim’s family. He is even amused by Mr. Clita’s outrageous outbursts. Through his questioning, judge Parvu intimidates the witnesses, visibly trying to weaken their testimony against the defendants.

February 27, 2002 – Judge Parvu continues his biased questioning of witnesses. This time, he also allows the defendants themselves, who come in the courtroom with bodyguards, and in many cases had been the witnesses’ superiors, to intimidate and otherwise influence the witnesses, such as Mr. Munteanu Ion, Scarlet Gheorghe,. Although through his interrogation style, the judge tried to intimidate witnesses himself, many stood by their earlier strong accusations: Mr. Pascale, Mr. Harsu, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caracostea. Others recanted, visibly afraid, their accounts which they had maintained for the prior 10 years (Mr. Munteanu, Mr. Manda, Mr. Radu). Mr. Parvu also starts disallowing the victims’ attorney from copying the court proceedings in a timely fashion, again impeding her from pleading the case.

March 20, 2002 – As a result of numerous newspaper articles critical of Mr. Parvu’s handling of the case, a TV crew and leading human rights journalist and director Lucia Hossu Longin (“Memorial of Pain”) obtain permission to film the proceedings. (The film will be stalled by the Romanian media authorities for more than a year; it was finally shown at midnight, and a weekday morning, on June 12, 2003…). As soon as a witness (Mrs. Ganciu) produced damaging testimony against the defendants, Mr. Parvu stopped Mrs. Longin from filming. He continued the proceedings by trying to “soften-up” Mrs. Ganciu’s account, as well as that of Mr. Udrea. The latter was simply terrified by Mr. Tudor Stanica’s presence in the courtroom. Mr. Parvu denied the victims’ attorney’s request for separate examination of this witness. The victims’ attorney, Mrs. Crangariu, requested, in the interest of the proceedings’ fairness and impartiality, the preventive arrest of the defendants. Mr. Parvu was outraged and lashed out at Mrs. Crangariu, in a display of anger incompatible with a Court of Law, for her “daring” to request the defendants’ arrest. It must be said that the same military tribunal held many other defendants arrested during trial for much more minor accusations than murder, such as stealing flour.

April 10, 2002 – Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses. Judge Parvu delays again, as he did (and will continue to do) at each court date, giving copies of the proceedings to the victims’ attorney.

April 29, 2002 - Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses.

May 22, 2002 - Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses. In the judges lack of action to bring the witnesses to court, a new delaying tactic becomes obvious.

June 12, 2002 – The last two scheduled witnesses finally show up. They stand by their accusations. But judge Parvu adopts a new tack again: he accepts the defendants request for more witnesses, who had no knowledge about the case.

July 3, 2002 - Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses.

July 24, 2002 - Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses. Even more witnesses proposed by the defense (Mr. Streanga, Mr. Carpen) are accepted by judge Parvu, although these witnesses had no connection with the killing, nor credibility, being declared friends of Mr. Tudor Stanica’s.

September 11, 2002 – The Ursu family sends a formal complaint about the way the trials are mishandled and delayed, to the Justice Minister, Mrs. Rodica Stanoiu. This complaint was never officially answered by the Ministry.

September 12, 2002 – Four witnesses, without any link to the case are examined (among them, Toader Florica was a women’s prison warden who had never heard of Gheorghe Ursu…).

October 9, 2002 – One witness, judge Ulmeanu Petruta, changes her previous testimonies; the judge makes no attempt to reconcile her different stories. She even denies having ever given another testimony, against existing written documentation with her own signature. The journalists present in the audience are appalled and report, as they did so often for this case, the strange events occurring in judge Parvu’s courtroom.

October 23, 2003 - Judge Parvu denies again timely copies of the proceedings to the victims’ attorney. In the past, he had sometimes invoked various pretexts, such as “lack of toner”. Then the Gheorghe Ursu Foundation donated toner to the Military Tribunal. Yet again, they pretended the Xerox machine to be broken. This time, the victims’ attorney comes with her own copier. Yet Judge Parvu simply does not approve of the “private copier usage” in the Bucharest Military Tribunal, even if used by their own staff!

October 30, 2002 – One of Mr. Stanica’s friends (Mr. Carpen), with no connection to the case, is examined as a witness.

November 21, 2002 - Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses. Gheorghe Ursu’s Securitate dossier is added as evidence, showing the Securitate involvement in his investigation. Mr. Baicoianu, another underworld figure from Mr. Tudor Stanica’s entourage, with no connection to the case, is accepted as a “witness”.

December 11, 2002 – Witness Ionetec, a doctor, is examined, who testifies the defendants kept the victim without medical help until nothing could be done to save him. New witnesses without knowledge of the case were accepted by judge Parvu.

January 8, 2002 – Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses.

January 29, 2003 - Several witnesses are examined. The only one proposed by the victim’s attorney, Dr. Marinescu, maintains her depositions and corroborates others’, to prove without a doubt the victim had been purposely kept, in huge screaming pain and advancing peritonitis, by the defendants, until the medical intervention would be useless.

February 19, 2003 – During the examination of witnesses Damian and Baicoianu, who contradict themselves against prior depositions, judge Parvu makes no effort to find the truth.

March 12, 2003 - The Ursu family hands a second formal complaint about the way the trials are mishandled and delayed, to the Justice Minister’s adviser, Mrs. Lia Ciplea. Neither this complaint would ever be officially answered.

Former Securitate officers examined as witnesses bring new evidence that the Ursu case was in the attention of the Securitate and Communist Party leadership in 1985, and that the Securitate chief at the time decided to incarcerate the dissident under a non-political pretext.

April 2, 2003 - Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses.

April 23, 2003 - Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses.

May 14, 2003 – One last witness, high-ranking Securitate officer Vasile Gheorghe, himself under investigation for murder by Mr. Dan Voinea, is examined. A large number of new witness accounts that surfaced during another investigation are sent by the Military Magistrate general Dan Voinea to judge Parvu. They are all accusing the two defendants of murder, not only against Gheorghe Ursu, but other victims as well. Under pressure to act, and amid increased media attention, judge Parvu, using an illegal procedural pretext, relieves himself from the case and sends it to the Bucharest Civil Court of Appeals.

June 15, 2003 – Among a flurry of news reports about the outrageous mishandling and cover-up perpetrated in the Ursu case for years, radio BBC broadcasts during “The week’s interview”, a conversation with Andrei Ursu, the victim’s son, along with commentaries about the pervasive corruption and subservience of the Romanian judiciary to the old Securitate interests.

June 26, 2003 – A new judge, Viorel Podar, takes on the case. He immediately rejects the defendants new delaying attempts, and proposes for discussion the re-framing of the accusation from instigation to (co)-authorship to murder. The media reports this change of attitude with satisfaction and hope.

July 14, 2003 – Judge Podar convicts former Militia colonels Tudor Stanica and Creanga Mihail to 11 years in prison for the killing of anti-dictatorship dissident Gheorghe Ursu. He issues a warrant for their immediate arrest.

July 15, 2003 – The Romanian newspapers print this news on the front page, radio and TV stations report it throughout the day, as a major victory for justice in Romania, and hope that maybe judicial reform is on the way. Many European newspapers and agencies re-transmit the news.

July 16, 2003 – The Romanian Police (rife with former subordinates of Tudor Stanica’s) have still not arrested the convicts. Police chief Tutilescu declares that “the two are hiding somewhere in the country, together, and waiting for the resolution of their appeal”. Many news commentators remarked the apparent contradiction between the amount of detail provided by the Police chief and his institution inability to find the fugitives. An general arrest warrant is issued in their name.

August 1, 2003 – Seemingly as a result of the fugitive defendants’ appeal, the Supreme Court sets one of the shortest dates in its history: the victim’s family is announced on Friday August 1^st at 3:00 PM of a court date on August 4, at 9:00 AM !

August 4^th, 2003 – During the first proceedings at the Supreme Court, under presiding judge Nineta Anghelina, along with judges Marioara Prodan and Ana Maria Dascalu, assisted by Alexandru Carstea and prosecutor Nicoleta Grigorescu, it is announced that the Appeals court’s Prosecutor’s office (through prosecutors George Balan and Carmen Savescu) also appealed judge Podar’s sentencing, for an obscure and ludicrous procedural pretext. It now becomes obvious that the institutions that were supposed to accuse and apprehend the criminals – the Prosecutor’s office and the Police, have decided to save Tudor Stanica and Creanga Mihail. A new court date was set, again in suspiciously record time, for August 25. The usual Supreme Court delays, and particularly those in the prior Ursu cases, had been of over six months.

August 5-15, 2003 - Front page newspaper articles report that the two have been seen around their houses in Bucharest, yet the Police had done nothing to arrest them. Moreover, police chiefs declare that the fugitives arrest “is not a priority”. Other reports reveal that “Torturer [Tudor Stanica] is the beneficiary of his friendship with Florin Sandu, the General Police Inspectorate (IGP) chief, so those from IGP knew where he was…”

The "Diary" Trial - of former Romanian Intelligence Service and Securitate general Grigorescu Eugen, for the destruction or stealing of Gheorghe Ursu's diary

Indictment by the Military Prosecutor Dan Voinea was sent to court on December 23, 2000.

May 8, 2001 - First court date. Judge Surghie Florin - a former secret service officer with the infamous "Unit 0215", with ties in Securitate, sends the case to the Supreme Court for a fictitious reason. It would later be proven this was a clear delaying tactic, with no legal basis.

2001-2002 - For the next one and a half years, the case is bounced back and forth between judge Surghie and upper courts. First, the Supreme court sends the case back for trial. Judge Surghie dismisses the case again, for another fictitious reason. This time, the Military Court of Appeals annuls his decision and sends the case back for trial. Upon massive media campaign against the illegalities committed by judge Surghie, the case is assigned to another judge, Filimon Horatiu.

June 26, 2002 - Judge Filimon declares in court - against basic procedural law - that he considers the defendant not guilty. He lashes out at the victims' attorney for objecting. He then verbally abuses the representative of the Gheorghe Ursu Foundation for taking notes during the trial (!). The victims' attorney recuses him. On the same day, in the absence of the victims' attorney, the recusation is judged by none other than… Judge Parvu. Who obviously denies it. The Gheorghe Ursu Foundation issues a press communiqué in this regard, and the press widely criticizes Judge’s Filimon’s actions, demanding his dismissal. Yet there is no answer from the Justice Ministry.

July 29, 2002 – A single witness is examined. Judge Filimon acknowledges he had worked in a secret unit under the control of the Securitate (“Romtehnica”).

September 4, 2002 – Judge Filimon allows the defendant to openly guide the witnesses (Mr. Bancila and Mr. Dinu), his former subordinates in the Securitate and the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) during their testimonies. He also continuously harasses the representative of the Gheorghe Ursu Foundation and the victim’s attorney.

October 2, 2002 – Again in front of judge Filimon and with his acquiescence, during the proceedings the defendant continuously talks to the one witness present (Petre Morosanu). The victims’ attorney’s complaint is left unanswered by the judge.

October 23, 2002 - Trial is postponed for lack of witnesses.

November 13, 2002 – Although a one-hour postponement was requested by the victim’s attorney, due to a schedule conflict, judge Filimon on purpose starts with the “Ursu” case early (which he had never done before), so as to make sure Mrs. Crangariu misses the examination of the one witness present, Mr. Ionel. Judge Filimon won’t grant another session. Yet this witness maintains his accusations against the defendant, which are corroborated by the written evidence.

December 4, 2002 – Judge Filimon denies all of the victim’s legitimate requests: to follow up with an SRI unit on an important document that may expose the fate of the diary, to examine Mr. Ionel again, and to examine Mr. Crisan, the defense attorney, who himself, as a Securitate and SRI officer, had manipulated Gheorghe Ursu’s diary. Trial is postponed for lack of some evidence from SRI.

January 22, 2003 - Trial is postponed for lack of evidence from SRI.

February 12, 2003 – Judge Filimon changes the framing of the defendant’s actions, to an insignificant one (a “professional mistake”), and absolves him, against all the evidence presented, and the witness accounts (even that from his former subordinates). The press reacts promptly, outraged by this new example of blatant collusion between the old Securitate and the current judicial representatives. Both the victim’s family and prosecutor George Rusu appeal the sentence. To date, there is no appeal date set.

Back to Ursu Case go to the top of the page