14.09.2012

PRESS RELEASE

The Office for public Information and Press within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice is commissioned to release the following public information:

In what concerns the investigation related to the defendant VLAD NICOLAE, the forensic report regarding the victim A.A. has been sent to the prosecutors. The General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice has decided to reverse the previous decision not to prosecute the afore mentioned defendant, as regards the case relating to victim S.P.

I. On August 13, 2012, the forensic report drafted by the National Institute of Forensic and Legal Medicine „Prof.Dr. Mina Minovici” has been attached to the case, report drafted following the forensic investigation of the victim A.A. on March 2nd, 2012. According to the report, the victim suffered from serious and varied trauma – multiple ecchymosis, haematoma, wounds, excoriations, multiple rib fractures, and vaginal injuries.  The report confirmed the fact that these wounds would have been caused by repeated hits with a rigid object and compression between solids or flat areas (compression of the victim’s chest with the attacker’s knees).  In what concerns the vaginal trauma, the report established that they could have been caused as a result of a brutal sexual intercourse. At the same time, it was established that it would have taken 30 days to heal these trauma in a medical facility, and that these trauma endangered the victim’s life.

We underline the fact that the victim died on Aprilie 14, 2012, and that the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest has decided on April 17, 2012 to get an autopsy of the body. It is mentioned by the medical certificate of ascertaining the demise, section „Other morbid factors that contributed to death”- „bilateral rib fracture with calus semisoft”.  It was established that the defendant VLAD NICOLAE anticipated the possibility that the victim will decease and accepted this possibility because a large part of the hits was directed to vital parts, such as the head and the chest, and that the attack took a lot of time (over 40 minutes, according to the victim’s statement), keeping in mind the state of the victim (a person aged of 85 years).  

Considering these elements, it was established that there were serious indications that the defendant VLAD NICOLAE has perpetrated a qualified murder and very serious murder against the victim A.A., deeds regulated by art. 174 of the Criminal Code, related to art. 175 alin. 1 lit. H and art. 176 alin. 1 lit. D of the Criminal Code. In this case, it was decided to extend the investigation and to start the prosecution.

          According to the evidences, on March 1st, 2012, around 20:30 hrs, the defendant VLAD NICOLAE, after forcing a door, has breached into the house of the victim A.A. (aged 85, who was living alone) from Bucharest. After that, the defendant has hit the victim, has stolen money and food, and has had a sexual intercourse (oral and vaginal intercourse) using violence. After the attack, the victim was hospitalized until April 14, 2012, when she deceased.  

By the ordinance issued on August 29, 2012, by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, it was decided to extend the investigation and start the prosecution against the defendant VLAD NICOLAE for rape (art. 197 of the Criminal Code), robbery (art. 211 alin. 1, alin. 2 lit. B and alin. 2 lit. C of the Criminal Code), illegal deprivation of liberty (art. 189 alin 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code)  and trespassing (art. 192 alin. 1 and 2 of the Crminal Code).

By the decision issued on August 22nd, 2012 by the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the case has been transferred from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of First Instance of Bucharest – 1^st district to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to High Court of Cassation and Justice, Section of Criminal Investigation, to start the prosecution. Before this, the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of First Instance of Bucharest – 1^st district has decided on March 2^nd, 2012, to start the prosecution in rem for rape and robbery.

II. Regarding the crimes perpetrated against the victim S.T. (on August 5 and 6, 2012), the decision of the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice from August 22^nd, 2012, the case was transferred from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Ilfov to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to High Court of Cassation and Justice, Section of Criminal Investigation, to start the prosecution.

The investigation conducted up to this moment, it was established that during the night of August 5 and 6, 2012, the defendant VLAD NICOLAE, has breached into the house of the victim S.T. (aged 74, who was living alone in a single room appartment) in Baloteşti, and has had a sexual intercourse with the victim, using violence. Then the defendant murdered the victim through asphyxia, strangulating her and compressing her chest. After mrdering the victim, the defendant removed her clothes, and threw them in a bucket found in the appartment’s bathroom. The defendant tried to simulate a domestic event and remove the traces that could have led to the conclusion that the victim has been murdered and that himself was the perpetrator, the defendant VLAD NICOLAE has turned on the gas connection from the cooking machine in the kitchen, unplugging  at the same time the socket of the gas detector. Afterwards, he left the accommodation, locking the door with a key. On August 6, 2012, the body of the victim S.T. was found by the witness S.V. (her daughter in law), who entered the appartment using a spare key.

Considering that, before murdering the victim S.T., the defendant VLAD NICOLAE has been murdering another victim (against A.A., described above), it was decided to change the legal classification from qualified murder (art. 174 from the Criminal Code, art. 175 alin. 1 lit. h from the Criminal Code) into qualified murder and very serious murder (art. 174 of the Criminal Code, art. 175 alin. 1 lit. h of the Criminal Code, art. 176 alin. 1 lit. c from the Criminal Code).

Considering art. 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and art.  228 alin. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was decided to extend the investigation and start the prosecution against the defendant VLAD NICOLAE for qualified murder and very serious murder (art. 174 of the Criminal Code, art. 175 alin. 1 lit. h of the Criminal Code and art. 176 alin. 1 lit. d of the Criminal Code (regarding the deed perpetrated on March 1st, 2012, against the victim A.A.); considering art. 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, changing the legal classification of the murder perpetrated by the defendant from qualified murder  (art. 174 from the Criminal Code, art. 175 alin. 1 lit. h from the Criminal Code) into qualified murder and very serious murder (art. 174 of the Criminal Code, art. 175 alin. 1 lit. h of the Criminal Code, art. 176 alin. 1 lit. c from the Criminal Code) related to the deed perpetrated on August 5 and 6, 2012, against the victim S.T.; considering art. 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was decided to start the prosecution VLAD NICOLAE for qualified murder and very serious murder (art. 174 of the Criminal Code, art. 175 alin. 1 lit. h of the Criminal Code, art. 176 alin. 1 lit. d from the Criminal Code) – regarding the deed perpetrated against the victim A.A. on March 1st, 2012; for qualified murder and very serious murder (art. 174 of the Criminal Code, art. 175 alin. 1 lit. h of the Criminal Code, art. 176 alin. 1 lit. c from the Criminal Code) (regarding the deed perpetrated against the victim S.T. during the night of August 5 and 6, 2012)

III. In what concerns the crime perpetrated against the victim P.S., continuing the investigation, the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice  has decided to transfer the case from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of First Instance of Buftea to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to High Court of Cassation and Justice, Section of Criminal Investigation because the analysis, drafted according to art. 64 alin. 3 of the Law no. 304/2004, of the case and the decision issued by the prosecutor, concluded that these were not conducted in a legal way, because of the following reasons:

On July 20, 2010, the Police of the city of Otopeni has been informed that, during the night of July 19 and 20, 2012, an unidentified male has breached, by breaking a window, into the residence of the victim P.S. (aged 75, bedridden, who was living alone) from

Baloteşti, county of Ilfov, then used violence for having a sexual intercourse with her. The case has been registered at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of First Instance of Buftea.

In this case, the investigating authorities have established the perpetration of rape (art. 197 alin. 1 from the Criminal Code), trespassing (art. 192 alin. 1 and 2 from the Criminal Code), and destruction (art. 217 alin. 1 from the Criminal Code).  During the investigation, the victim P.S. has identified Mr. VLAD NICOLAE as the perpetrator, using a photography of this one.

Despite all these, the police authorities have suggested, issuing a report on September 3, 2010, not to start the prosecution against Mr. VLAD NICOLAE for beating or other forms of violence (art. 180 alin. 1 of the Criminal Code), trespassing (art. 192 alin. 1 of the Criminal Code), and destruction (art. 217 alin. 1 of the Criminal Code). This proposal was motivated using art. 10 alin. 1 lit. h from the Code of Criminal Procedure, justifying that the victim has been withdrawing the initial complaint.

The proposal drafted by the police authorities has been confirmed by the prosecutor, that, issuing a decision on December 2nd, 2010, has decided not to start the prosecution against Mr. VLAD NICOLAE for beating or other forms of violence (art. 180 alin. 1 of the Criminal Code), trespassing (art. 192 alin. 1 of the Criminal Code), and destruction (art. 217 alin. 1 of the Criminal Code).   The legal ground for this decision was art. 228 alin. 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

            The fact that the decision has not met all the legal requirements was based on the lack of integration of all the crimes perpetrated; thus, it was established that there was no legal decision regarding the crime of rape, although the victim has stated to the police that she was forced to have a sexual intercourse. Then, in what regards the trespassing, this crime was wrongly classified and related to art. 192 alin. 1 of the Criminal Code (a legal proceeding allowing to withdraw the initial complaint as a direct cause for not starting the prosecution).  In reality, considering that the crime has been perpetrated during night time, the correct legal classification would have been art. 192 alin 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code (a legal proceeding not allowing to withdraw the initial complaint as a direct cause for not starting the prosecution).

It was this established that the proposal not to start the prosecution, based on art. 10 alin. 1 lit. h of the Code of Criminal Procedure – related to trespassing, missed the legal ground.

Considering that the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of First Instance of Buftea had a heavy workload, the seriousness of the case, the need to solve the case in a short amount of time, without exceeding the reasonable time spent from the date of approaching the investigating authorities,,

Considering that Mr. VLAD NICOLAE was under investigation, in the case of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice,  as defendant, for perpetrating a repeated trespassing and for breaching illegally and repeatedly in the house of the victim P.S. from Balotesti, county of Ilfov, between May and August 2010, 

On the grounds of art. 64 alin. 3 form the Law no. 304/2004 and of art. 209 alin. 4¹ from the Code of Criminal Procedure, the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice has decided to refute the initial decision and to take over the case.