CNSAS was obliged to do in several months what it hasn't been done in ten years. With what actual effects? The sport practiced in the elections week is a loose come and go on CNSAS' (National Council for the Study of Securitate's Archives) steps. For about a tenth of the politicians that candidate this year, this is the palpable result that had been reached, after ten years of discussions about the opening of the Securitate's archives. The initial politics ten years ago, to keep the files locked, proved to be useful. Now, the initial impulse of December '89, to reveal the members of the repressive regime, theones who used to collaborate with or were informers of Ceausescu's political police, totally disappeared. What more could happen to them today, that a law comes effective? In the default of the lustration law, the current form of the law of Ticu doesn't stipulate punishments, but only the publication in the Official Gazette of a list with the ones identified as informers or collaborators. Their punishing remains a duty of the parties that promote them, to withdraw them or not from the lists, and a choice of the electorate to vote them or not. Even if they lied in the declaration they gave when deposing their candidacy, and they theoretically can be punished according to the Penal Code, until condemnation there is long way. The author can contest the results of the CNSAS' researches and it can make an appeal to Court. In order to get to court, he must not be a parliamentarian, as, in that case, he would benefit by immunity, so the one who has the chance to be reelected might get clear out if it. Moreover, the law also provides the possibility that CNSAS completely conspire a case, if the one concerned withdraws his candidacy. Not even the absence from the audiences is a punishment motive. The person concerned might contest the CNSAS proofs and just withdraw. In ot