Detained in Moldova: Your Rights in the First 72 Hours

A detained person has the right to the assistance of defence counsel from the moment of detention, before any questioning. This is not a right that activates later, at some 'more serious' stage of the case — it is available immediately, and the investigation body is obliged to inform the person of it and to ensure it can genuinely be exercised.

If the person has no chosen lawyer and lacks the means to engage one, counsel is provided under the state-guaranteed legal aid system, in accordance with the legislation on state-guaranteed legal assistance. In certain situations — including cases involving minors, persons whose condition prevents them from defending themselves, and offences carrying severe penalties — the assistance of counsel is mandatory regardless of the person's wishes.

The practical recommendation is simple and carries more value than any other: ask for a lawyer and give no statements until counsel arrives. A detained person is not obliged to incriminate themselves and cannot suffer adverse consequences for declining to make a statement. Statements given under pressure, without counsel, during the first hours of maximum stress are what cause the most difficulty later, and retracting them at a later stage is always harder than avoiding them at the outset.

Meetings with counsel are confidential, without limitation on their number or duration, including before the first questioning.

Detention is recorded in a formal record, drawn up within the short period prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure from the moment liberty was restricted. This document is not an administrative formality: it fixes the exact hour from which the 72 hours run, the grounds for detention, the alleged offence and the rights communicated. The hour recorded in it is what a judge will later verify.

The detained person has the right to read the record before signing it and to have their objections entered. If the stated time does not match reality, if rights were not explained, or if their state of health was not noted, these matters must be recorded in the document. Signing without reading, on an invitation to 'speed things up', in practice eliminates any later opportunity to contest those circumstances.

The detained person also has the right to inform a relative or another close person of the detention and of where they are held, within the period prescribed by law from the moment of detention. They have the right to an interpreter if they do not know the language of the proceedings, the right to a medical examination with any injuries recorded, and the right to be told what the suspicion consists of.

The medical examination deserves separate mention: if the person has injuries when placed in the detention facility, or if injuries appear afterwards, documenting them is the only practical way to prove ill-treatment.

On expiry there are only two lawful possibilities: release, or presentation before the investigating judge with an application for a preventive measure. The prosecutor makes the application and the judge decides after a hearing at which the person and their counsel have the right to be heard and to present arguments.

Pre-trial arrest is not ordered because a person is suspected, but only where concrete grounds are demonstrated: a risk of absconding, a risk of influencing witnesses or destroying evidence, or a risk of committing a further offence. The gravity of the alleged offence is not by itself a sufficient ground, and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights is consistent on this point.

Pre-trial arrest is ordered for a limited period, extendable by reasoned judicial decisions within the maximum limits set by the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are shorter for minors. Each extension requires a fresh examination of the grounds — they are not presumed to persist automatically.

Less severe alternatives exist, and the defence can argue for them: an obligation not to leave the locality or the country, a personal guarantee or one given by an organisation, provisional release under judicial control or on bail, and house arrest. A prepared defence arrives at the hearing with documents — employment, a settled address, dependants, health condition — because the judge decides on what is actually put before them.

The investigating judge's decision applying pre-trial arrest can be challenged by appeal to the court of appeal, within the short period prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, running from delivery. The period is measured in days, not weeks, and missing it closes this route — which is why the decision to challenge must be taken immediately, not once the situation 'becomes clearer'.

Independently of the appeal, the defence may at any point during the investigation request revocation or replacement of the preventive measure where the grounds that justified it have changed or ceased to exist. Presenting new circumstances — a documented health problem, the disappearance of any risk of influencing witnesses once they have been questioned, a credible guarantor — is in practice as effective a route as an appeal.

Detention found to be unlawful can have further consequences: exclusion of evidence obtained in breach of procedural rights and, under the legislation on compensation for damage caused by unlawful acts of the criminal investigation bodies and the courts, a right to compensation for unlawful deprivation of liberty.

If someone close to you has been detained, the most useful thing you can do is contact a lawyer immediately and pass on the person's full name, where they are being held and the approximate time of detention. The 72-hour clock runs without interruption, weekends included.