rT ansitional Justice and Democratic Consolidation in post-communist aE stern uE rope: Romania and Albania. and swift break with the immediate past and a way to go forward with establishing rule of law and democratic credentials. For example, as early as 1991, “the Association of Former Political Prisoners submitted to prosecutors a list of notorious communist perpetrators, including deputy head of the Securitate Alexandru Nicolschi and Minister of State Security Alexandru Drăghici. In 1998, the name of Gheorghe Crăciun, former head of the Aiud prison (1958–1964), was added to the list. All three accused died before the courts heard their cases” (Muraru 2011). The civil society umbrella group “Civic Alliance” called as early as March 1991 in its “Declaration on National Reconciliation,” that “the Communist Party leaders, not all of the four million party members, should be considered morally responsible” for communist crimes. Whereas “any reference to a person should include his/ her actions, not mere party membership,” “former Central Committee members, party activists and Securitate agents should be banned from occupying public positions until year 2000” (Ştefănescu 1995: 130–131). As Lavinia Stan wraps it up neatly, there were only a few trials taking place in post-communist Romania, because of the judiciary’s lack of willingness, but also because civil society was pushing for trials in abstract rather than concrete terms. This shows the limits of democratization efforts and establishment of a firm and impartial rule of law, which would have helped to achieve a more robust break with the past and helped Romania achieve democratic consolidation earlier on. In addition, Romania undertook restorative measures such as its Truth Commission, established in the second decade of the 1990s (Stan 2012), as well as reparative means such as rehabilitation and financial compensation that started as early as 1991 and still continues despite the delays as the below testimony in front of Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe of U.S. Congress specifically mentions: After many years of delay, Romania of course enacted legislation on private and communal property restitution in recent years, but the legislation is complex, the application process is cumbersome, and the processing of claims is both slow and opaque. Claimants have reported that they were unable to obtain from Romanian authorities’ basic documents needed to substantiate their claims.13 Table 3 Summary of competing theories in TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE14 (discussed in literature review above) and their main instruments in Romania Retributive Prediction Retributive State and Opinion (Popular) Trials in post-communist period Vetting of former officials halfhearted. Backed by civil society but not fully implemented by political elite (same as in Alb) Restorative Strongly emphasized in political discourse Active Truth Commissions Reparative Rehabilitation and Financial Compensation that started rather late but still continues (same as in Alb) 13. Property Restitution and Compensation in Post-Communist Europe: A Status Update. 108th CONGRESS 1st Session. COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE. Washington, D.C. 14. The basis of these theories was discussed in literature review above. These are empirical hypotheses/predictions based on their main tenets. 65