The League of Cities and Communes (LOC) believes that the tragedy in Măgdăcești has exposed extremely serious problems regarding the way the state of the Republic of Moldova protects citizens who are at risk, TRIBUNA reports.

“It is not enough to be told that ‘an investigation is underway.’ People have the right to know where the system failed, who was responsible for taking action, and why the intervention did not take place in time.

Given that the aggressor was subject to a restraining order and was under electronic monitoring, society expects clear, complete, and documented answers. It is necessary to identify by name the person who was directly responsible for monitoring this aggressor.

We demand that the date and time of the last inspection of the electronic bracelet be disclosed, as well as the publication of the document, report, or technical confirmation concerning its condition. If such documents do not exist, the authorities must acknowledge this.

It is necessary to establish why the system failed to issue an alert when the aggressor approached the victim.

The authorities must indicate the exact time when the loss of the bracelet’s signal was detected and the measures taken immediately afterward,” the statement reads.

According to the political formation, the failure to immediately alert the Police requires a clear explanation. The procedure applicable in such a situation and the person responsible for activating it must be made public.

The same transparency is required regarding the calls made by the victim’s daughter. We expect the entire chain of events to be reconstructed: the person who received the call, the person who relayed the information, and the person who decided how and when to intervene. If it is confirmed that immediate intervention was lacking, personal responsibility cannot be avoided.

“The National Probation Inspectorate is required to publish the total number of employees and the number directly involved in electronic monitoring. Exact data are needed on the number of employees simultaneously monitoring people under electronic supervision and on the institution’s actual capacity to provide 24-hour monitoring.

The state has a duty to disclose the total number of electronic bracelets in its possession and the number currently in working order.

A comprehensive technical assessment of the electronic monitoring system is indispensable. It should include the number of malfunctions recorded in recent years and the time required to remedy them.

We also demand official clarification regarding information that, several years ago, there was a criminal case or an investigation by the National Anticorruption Center concerning the National Probation Inspectorate’s purchase of electronic bracelets that were allegedly overpriced and of inadequate quality. The outcome of that investigation, the persons concerned, and any sanctions imposed cannot remain concealed.

The National Probation Inspectorate should publish the number of requests submitted to the Ministry of Justice for funding to purchase new electronic bracelets, the dates on which they were sent, and the responses received.

If the authorities were aware of technical problems or insufficient equipment, they must explain why these deficiencies were not remedied before such a tragedy occurred,” the party stated.

LOC also says that the person responsible within the Ministry of Justice for ensuring the financial and technical resources necessary for the operation of the system must be identified.

“We expect the publication of the amount spent annually on the electronic monitoring of aggressors and the protection of victims, with equipment, maintenance, staffing, and intervention costs listed separately.

In the same context, full transparency is required regarding public funds and external project funding used annually by non-governmental organizations working in the field of women’s rights and combating violence. Of particular relevance is the actual use of these resources and the share that effectively reaches the services responsible for protecting victims when danger arises: the Police, probation services, social services, shelters, and intervention services.

We do not dispute the importance of the work carried out by civil society organizations. However, the state has a duty to demonstrate that the funds invested in combating violence produce real safety for victims, rather than merely reports, seminars, campaigns, and projects.

The fundamental fact remains indisputable: the state knew that there was a high-risk aggressor, a protection order had been issued, and he was wearing an electronic bracelet. Nevertheless, the victim was not protected.

It is necessary to establish exactly who was responsible for seeing the alert, notifying the Police, intervening, and verifying that the equipment was functioning,” the statement further reads.

According to LOC, responsibility must be assumed.

“We do not need only internal investigations and bureaucratic explanations. We need the full truth, a minute-by-minute timeline, all relevant documents, a clear division of institutional responsibilities and, wherever there is wrongdoing, personal accountability.

A tragedy of this magnitude cannot be closed with the convenient phrase ‘the system failed.’

If the system failed: THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING HAVE NAMES! THOSE WHO KNEW HAVE NAMES! THOSE WHO FAILED TO ACT MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!” the political formation concludes.