In the Republic of Moldova, concerns continue to be raised regarding practices of public coverage of criminal investigations and court proceedings that may shape public perceptions of suspects’ guilt before a final judicial decision is delivered.

Guilty ут

Such phenomena are often described by experts as “televised justice.”

Human rights organizations and representatives of national human rights institutions note that intensive media coverage of arrests, public comments by politicians, and active discussion of criminal cases on social media may create pressure on law-enforcement authorities and the judiciary, while also generating public expectations regarding specific outcomes. Such practices may undermine confidence in the independence of the judicial system and threaten the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Position of National Human Rights Institutions

The People’s Advocate (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Moldova, Ceslav Panico, has drawn attention to the fact that public and political pressure on law-enforcement bodies and courts may originate from various sources, including political statements and debates on social media.

According to him, there is a perception that such pressure may influence the activities of the police, prosecutors, and judges. As a result, some representatives of these institutions may feel compelled to consider public expectations alongside the factual circumstances of individual cases. In this regard, the Ombudsman emphasized the need to further strengthen the institutional independence of the bodies involved in the administration of justice.

Ian Feldman, Chair of the Council for the Prevention and Elimination of Discrimination and Ensuring Equality, noted that the phenomenon of “televised justice” is not limited to public criticism of judges. According to him, the public display of detained individuals in handcuffs, extensive media coverage of their transfer to court, and the widespread discussion of criminal cases in the media may create additional psychological pressure on participants in judicial proceedings. He emphasized that judicial decisions should be based exclusively on law and evidence.

Public Statements by Politicians

Certain public statements by political actors may also be perceived as potential interference in judicial processes.

Grigore Novac, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Interethnic Relations, cited an example of a televised statement made by a member of parliament who declared that “there will be verdicts this year” in certain cases. According to Novac, such predictions raise questions regarding their appropriateness in light of the principle of judicial independence.

International Standards

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly emphasized that public authorities must refrain from statements that could create the impression that a person is guilty before a court decision has been issued.

Similar guarantees are contained in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed that public officials must exercise particular caution when making statements about ongoing criminal proceedings in order to avoid undermining the presumption of innocence and public confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

Furthermore, the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, provide that the judiciary shall decide matters impartially, without any restrictions, improper influences, pressures, threats, or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter.

Application of Preventive Measures: Statistical Data

Issues related to the protection of the right to liberty and security of person in the application of preventive measures were discussed during parliamentary hearings devoted to human rights guarantees in criminal proceedings.

The data presented indicate an increase in the number of prosecutors’ requests for pre-trial detention, as well as a consistently high rate of approval by the courts.

According to the data of the Superior Council of Magistracy:

  • 2023 — 1,510 requests for pre-trial detention, of which 1,393 were approved (92.2%);

  • 2024 — 1,840 requests, of which 1,707 were approved (92.7%);

  • 2025 — 2,198 requests, of which 2,058 were approved (93.6%).

Human rights experts note that such a high approval rate of requests for pre-trial detention requires further analysis in terms of proportionality and compliance with international standards, according to which pre-trial detention should be applied as an exceptional measure when less restrictive alternatives are insufficient.

The observed trends highlight the need to further strengthen guarantees of judicial independence and respect for the presumption of innocence in the public sphere.

Experts and human rights organizations recommend:

  • refraining from public statements that could be interpreted as anticipating judicial outcomes;

  • ensuring stricter standards for media coverage of criminal investigations;

  • expanding the use of alternative preventive measures;

  • strengthening institutional safeguards protecting the independence of the judiciary.

According to human rights experts, ensuring judicial independence and compliance with international fair trial standards remain essential conditions for strengthening the rule of law and protecting human rights in the Republic of Moldova.