Background
Andrei Baştovoi, a former member of the first Parliament of Moldova, was arrested on 2 August 2011 on suspicion of attempted murder. Both his arrest and a search of his home were recorded on video. On 13 October 2011, the Ministry of Internal Affairs published a press release on its website accompanied by the video recordings. The press release identified Baştovoi by name and portrayed him as having “planned… the assassination” of company employees, stating that “sufficient evidence was gathered to prove the guilt” of the arrested individuals and that one suspect “had admitted his guilt.” The language and accompanying video created the public impression of his culpability before any court had examined the merits of the case.
Baştovoi filed a civil suit in February 2014 seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the breach of his presumption of innocence and invasion of privacy. The Chișinău District Court dismissed his claims in July 2014, finding no violation of the presumption of innocence or right to private life. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in October 2014. The Supreme Court declared his appeal on points of law inadmissible in January 2015. The criminal proceedings against Baştovoi remain pending before the Chișinău Court of Appeal after several retrials.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there was a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (presumption of innocence). The Court found that although the press release referred to Baştovoi as a “suspect,” the language used—particularly phrases such as “sufficient evidence was gathered to prove the guilt” and confirmation that a suspect “had admitted his guilt”—went far beyond a neutral informative statement about an arrest. The accompanying video footage of his arrest and home search reinforced the public perception of his culpability before trial.
The Court emphasized the importance of careful word choice by public officials when making statements about suspects in ongoing criminal proceedings. It concluded that the press release, issued at an early stage of investigation and intended for general public consumption, created an impermissible impression of guilt that prejudged the assessment of facts by the competent judicial authority. The Court rejected Moldova’s argument that Baştovoi had exhausted his remedies or that the complaint was premature, finding that civil-law remedies can be effective mechanisms for addressing presumption-of-innocence violations in ongoing criminal cases.
Key Takeaways
- Public officials must avoid language in press releases or public statements that suggests a suspect’s guilt before judicial determination, even when technically using the word “suspect.”
- Statements asserting sufficiency of evidence or admission of guilt, combined with video documentation of arrest and search, violate Article 6 § 2 regardless of investigative context.
- Civil remedies pursued before domestic courts are effective means of exhausting remedies and addressing presumption-of-innocence violations; applicants need not wait for resolution of underlying criminal proceedings.
- The context and choice of words in official statements matter more than technical compliance with neutral terminology.
Why It Matters
This judgment establishes clear limits on police and prosecution communication with the public during criminal investigations. It confirms that premature disclosures portraying suspects as guilty—even through careful framing—violate Article 6 § 2. The decision is significant for law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and ministries across Convention member states, signaling that public statements during investigations must maintain strict neutrality and avoid language or visual evidence that presupposes guilt.
The ruling also clarifies that applicants may pursue civil claims for such violations without waiting for criminal proceedings to conclude, and that effective domestic remedies need not require exhaustion of every available procedural avenue. This provides a practical avenue for vindication of presumption-of-innocence rights in Member States with developed civil-law remedies for reputational harm.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.