REMEMBRANCE IN TIME - Index of

Corneliu PINTILESCU: The Interrogation Stages, Strategies, and Techniques of the … 133
later invoked in appeals. The effect of questionnaires was the standardization of
statements in case the investigation targeted a group of suspects. If the investigators
noticed discrepancies among certain pieces of information, they organized a confrontation
in which all the suspects with divergent statements participated. The confrontation report
signed by the participants confirmed the final version. The fact that most of the
investigations usually targeted a group instead of an individual rendered the interrogation
a complex action in need of a strategy. The officer leading the investigation at the local
level was entrusted with the application of the strategy through the coordination of the
group of investigators that worked on the case.
The strategy determined the stages of the interrogation. In the preliminary phase,
having an introductory character, the Securitate investigators asked a set of general
questions through which they were investigating some leads on the political activity of
the suspects and their possible crimes against the regime. These broad questions usually
were: “What kind of subversive activities did you carry out against the regime?” or
“What counterrevolutionary activities did you carry out?” This type of questions indicates
the investigators’ intention to feel out the situation. 10 Investigators requested suspects to
submit autobiographic accounts and lists of acquaintances in order to make their general
evaluation.
The starting point for any interrogation was the presumption of guilt. Since a person
was under investigation by the Securitate meant that his/her guilt was self-evident. The
only aspect left to be established was the kind of crime he/she committed, under what
circumstances, and in what way. The questions asked as well as the concepts used during
the interrogation undoubtedly prove that the Securitate conducted its investigation
according to the existing penal legislation as well. Further evidence in this regard is the
investigators’ stubborn efforts to give the offenses of suspects a political character – even
if it was fictitious – in order to be able to prosecute them according to the legal provisions
of the Romanian Penal Code. The aim of the interrogation was not the pursuit of truth,
but the construction of a political guilt, which implied the commission of offenses that the
regime valorized negatively from a political point of view and artificially connected to
criminal offenses stipulated in the Penal Code.
In the second stage of the interrogation, the investigators pursued certain leads
according to the existing repressive policy and the information they had. They focused on
the thorough investigation of these leads through the selection and accumulation of as
many incriminating evidence as possible. The leading investigator issued guidelines
concerning the separate investigation of the suspects after careful analysis of the
biographic data and psychological profile of each of them. Those considered vulnerable
from a biographical point of view or psychologically instable were subjected to intense
pressure until they broke. Upon finishing the inquiry on the activity of the suspect, the
investigators extended their investigation over the suspect’s acquaintances. Thus, they
obtained incriminating statements on other people as well. This strategy assured the
contamination of those who abetted or kept in contact with the suspect.
In the third stage, the investigators synthesized the obtained confessions. The most
important document was the final report of the investigation written by the leading
investigating officer. Apart from the synthesis of all the obtained statements, this
document gave new meanings to the deeds described in the statements, established the
10 NCSAS Archives, Criminal Fonds - Cluj, file 5348, vol. 1, pp. 42-44.