Moldova: Special protections for judges and prosecutors
Prosecutors and judges in the Republic of Moldova benefit from special protection mechanisms when their lives, health, or assets, as well as those of their family, are threatened due to their professional activities.
Both the Law on the Status of Prosecutors and the Law on the Status of Judges provide clear obligations for the state to implement security measures.
From escorts to home surveillance
For prosecutors, the law stipulates that law enforcement agencies are obliged to apply special protection measures when real risks exist. These may include escorts, home security, asset surveillance, and the confidentiality of personal data. Furthermore, threatening or intimidating prosecutors and their families is classified as a serious crime against justice.
In the case of judges, the legal framework is even more detailed. In addition to the 1995 law, a recent law from July 2025 regarding specialized anti-corruption panels stipulates that these judges can, upon request, also receive state protection for themselves and their families.
"This law states that, in addition to the guarantees provided by the Constitution and the Law on the Status of Judges, they can, if necessary and upon request, also receive state protection. This means a request must be submitted by the judge, most likely to the Superior Council of Magistracy, which, along with other relevant bodies, decides that this judge should receive protection for a certain period. This applies not only to the judge but also to their family members. Thus, the law, specifically Article 15, clearly states that if necessary, state protection is granted to them and their family members. Similarly, the courthouses where they work must have security systems, installations, and equipment that ensure the personal security of the magistrates," explained Ilie Chirtoacă, president of the Legal Resources Centre, to Teleradio-Moldova.
He added that there is another protection mechanism for magistrates, stipulated in the Law on the State Protection and Guard Service.
"The president [of the country] has this attribution; he can order the granting of protection to other dignitaries, individuals, and their family members, at the written request of the interested institutions or on his own initiative. For example, at least two years ago, the head of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the former director of the National Anti-Corruption Centre benefited from this state protection. State protection is obviously granted based on risk assessments, and this mechanism is most likely also available to prosecutors," Chirtoacă added.
Sergiu Caraman, president of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), notes that the protection of judges is not just an option but a legal obligation explicitly provided for since 1995. Both judges, their families, and their assets are placed under the state's protection, and in case of threats, the law obliges competent institutions to intervene.
"The mechanism provided for all judges, not just those handling corruption cases, is regulated by the Law on the Status of Judges, specifically law number 544 from 1995. This law explicitly states that judges, their family members, and their assets are under state protection when in danger. This is also the case for the judges we have been talking about recently, who have been threatened, even with death, for performing their official duties. In this case, the law I mentioned—the Law on the Status of Judges—clearly states that the judge is under state protection," the SCM president explained.
Caraman specified that the head of the court or, as the case may be, the SCM, submits the requests to the competent bodies, with the Police and the State Protection and Guard Service (SPGS) being the institutions that implement the security measures.
Livia Mitrofan: "I felt protected"
Following the conviction of Evghenia Guțul, governor of Comrat, the Police, the Superior Council of Magistracy, and the Superior Council of Prosecutors announced that several magistrates and prosecutors had been intimidated and threatened. Among them were Judge Ana Cucerescu, case prosecutor Ghenadie Epure, and current SCM member, Livia Mitrofan.
The latter, the former interim president of the Chișinău Court, told Teleradio-Moldova that although she had not officially filed a complaint for protection, she benefited from the support of law enforcement agencies after reporting the cases of intimidation.
"When I informed the law enforcement agencies that I was being intimidated, they asked me if I needed protection. I did not officially file a complaint and I mentioned that if there were to be more intimidations, I would file a complaint, but, as far as I know, at the level of internal procedures, I was monitored and guarded. And I want to say that the law enforcement agencies were very responsive. So, they reacted quickly to all the information I gave them; I was heard, they registered the cases, took action, and given how law enforcement responded, I felt protected," Mitrofan explained.
We would like to state that the new wave of threats against magistrates has exposed vulnerabilities in the justice system of the Republic of Moldova. SCM member Ion Guzun argues that the phenomenon has an unprecedented scale and a rapid response protocol from institutions is required. At the same time, experts warn that, although the state is obliged to provide protection, the authorities' reactions are sometimes delayed.
Translation by Iurie Tataru
