Director of National Probation Inspectorate resigns after tragedy in central Moldova settlement; electronic monitoring system to be reformed

Viorel Sochirca, director of the National Probation Inspectorate (INP), has resigned following the tragedy in Magdacesti. Justice Minister Veaceslav Cojuhari has made statements to this effect, who said that the probation system had failed and urgently needed improvement.

According to the minister, the tragedy in Magdacesti exposed deficiencies in the way the electronic monitoring system operates and in the cooperation between institutions responsible for protecting victims.

“The tragedy that has shaken society in recent days showed that the electronic monitoring system failed to provide the victim with the necessary protection. The lack of resources, procedural gaps and deficiencies in the use of equipment outside the country cannot mitigate the seriousness of this tragedy. To understand the scale of the electronic monitoring system, 354 people are currently being monitored. More than half of them, 190, are domestic violence offenders. Domestic violence is currently the largest category in the entire electronic monitoring system, which shows how important it is for this mechanism to work without gaps. What we must do now is urgently correct the procedures where they have failed and allocate resources where necessary. We will propose that the General Police Inspectorate  have direct access to the monitoring system, so that it can intervene promptly. We will also recommend that domestic violence offenders, even if they are not prohibited from leaving the country, be flagged at border crossings, so that information can be shared between institutions. A domestic violence offender returned to the country, and the lack of a real-time data flow between Probation, the Police and the Border Police left the victim exposed to a danger that should have been prevented,” Cojuhari said.

According to information presented by the Justice Minister, on July 13, the victim filed a request with the Criuleni Prosecutor’s Office seeking protection. On July 16, the Criuleni Court issued a protection order for a period of 30 days. On August 3, the offender allegedly violated the order by initiating a phone call to the victim, an act recorded by the criminal investigation officer. On August 24, the victim requested the issuance of a new protection order.

On August 25, the Criuleni Court issued a new protection order, which was sent the same day by the Criuleni Probation Office to the Electronic Monitoring Directorate. The Criuleni Police Inspectorate was informed that the offender had to report to the authorities. That same day, at 16:50, the electronic monitoring equipment was attached to the offender at the Criuleni Probation Office. The victim subsequently received the special devices meant for monitoring.

Also on August 25, the GPS signal from the equipment disappeared from the monitoring platform, although the SIM signal continued transmitting data without indicating the location. Inspectors contacted the offender, who said he was in Orhei and would report in person to the inspectorate. At 20:34, he contacted the Electronic Monitoring Directorate and said that he was going to leave Moldova for four or five days.

Subsequent checks by the Border Police confirmed that the man was outside the country between August 25 and 30. On August 26, the probation counselor repeatedly contacted the offender, but his phone was switched off.

On August 28, a counselor from the Criuleni Probation Office spoke with him by phone, and the man said he was in Germany. On August 31, an inspector from the Electronic Monitoring Directorate tried to contact him more times during the morning, but received no answer. At 9:17 a.m. that same day, the 112 Emergency Service received information about the murder.

During the investigation at the crime scene, it was determined that the electronic monitoring device was not on the deceased person’s body.

According to the cited source, the protection order did not impose any restrictions on the offender’s leaving the territory of Moldova, nor was he flagged at the state border. Therefore, his entries into and exits from the country could not be monitored through this mechanism. Furthermore, after he returned to the country, the monitoring equipment did not become visible on the platform because of the loss of the GPS signal.

The case in Magdacesti has sparked discussions about the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring mechanism and cooperation between the institutions involved.

A 42-year-old woman and her 47-year-old husband died after the man allegedly shot the woman and subsequently took his own life. The woman had a protection order. The tragedy occurred on August 31, 2026.