Preventive detention is unconstitutional if the culprit didn’t admit guilt, the offense wasn’t committed by physical or mental constraints and didn’t end with harm to the life and health of the person or wasn’t committed by an organized criminal group. The Constitutional Court passed such a judgment on October 30 following a challenge filed by judges of the Chisinau City Court and the Chisinau Appeals Court, a lawyer and a number of Liberal MPs.

According to the authors of the challenge, the disputed provisions run counter to the principle of presumption of innocence, the right to silence and the right to freedom and safety.

The Court decided that the judgement will produce legal effects as of August 17 this year. This way the persons placed in preventive detention based on the provisions declared unconstitutional should be set free in the shortest period of time.

Under the Court’s judgement, any deprivation of liberty should be legal. The legality requirement is not met by simply respecting the relevant internal law. The internal law should comply with the Constitution and the European Convention, including the general principles stipulated or envisioned by these.

The challenged provisions force the person to admit to the charges so as not to be placed under arrest. This is a violation of the right to freedom and safety.

Consequently, the Court held that the text “and in the case of offenses committed without using physical or mental constraints, which didn’t end with harm to the life and health of the person or weren’t committed by an organized criminal group or criminal organization, when the accused didn’t accept blame” from Article 185, par. (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is contrary to Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.