Before analyzing the documentary produced by Recorder on the state of Romania's justice system, one issue must be openly addressed: there is a widespread belief that some members of the Recorder team may have political connections or sympathies, particularly with USR. This perception exists and is widely discussed. From a journalistic standpoint, however, this aspect is secondary, because the judicial problems exposed exist regardless of who produced the material or their political affiliations.

Even if some believe the documentary was released at a convenient moment or that it diverts attention from issues such as rising taxes, austerity, and economic pressure on citizens, this does not invalidate the facts presented. Romania's justice system faces serious structural failures, and the documentary exposes them through concrete mechanisms rather than vague accusations.

The documentary clearly shows how major cases are blocked, delayed, or deliberately pushed toward expiration through direct violations of the law. One key mechanism involves the formation of judicial panels. The law explicitly requires random assignment of judges to prevent influence and manipulation. In practice, Recorder presents cases where this randomization is ignored and panels are altered in non-transparent ways.

Even more serious is the timing of these changes. When a case approaches the statute of limitations, the law forbids altering judicial panels. The purpose is clear: to prevent intentional delay. The documentary highlights cases where these rules are violated precisely at critical stages, resetting proceedings until the statute of limitations expires.

The statute of limitations thus becomes a central tool. Instead of cases being resolved through conviction or acquittal, they are allowed to expire. On paper, everything appears legal. In reality, accountability disappears and public trust is severely damaged.

The documentary also describes the existence of power bubbles within the justice system: networks of influence, mutual protection, and an institutional culture that rewards obedience and penalizes independence. These bubbles do not operate in isolation, but are connected to other state structures.

DNA plays an important role in this landscape. According to the documentary, prosecutorial action has become selective. The lack of response in sensitive cases and the focus on easier targets create the perception of an institution that avoids dismantling power networks.

Equally troubling is the absence of intelligence services from this picture. In theory, their role is to defend the state and prevent institutional capture. In practice, the lack of visible intervention or warning strengthens the perception of institutional collusion.

All these elements together create the image of a captured country. A state in which justice no longer acts as an arbiter, but as a shield for certain power structures. In this context, massive borrowing, rising public debt, and the near-automatic acceptance of IMF recommendations to raise taxes no longer appear as isolated economic decisions, but as parts of the same pattern.

When a state burdens its citizens with higher taxes while failing to enforce the law within its own justice system, a harsh but logical conclusion emerges: the state no longer acts in the interest of its citizens.

Regardless of who produced the documentary, the problem remains. Ignoring it for political reasons only reinforces what the material describes: a system designed to protect itself, not the truth and not the public interest.

The Recorder documentary can be watched in full for complete context, allowing each reader to draw their own conclusions.