PRESS RELEASE AND PUBLIC REQUEST
Threats of physical reprisal against a Member of Parliament and his family members require an immediate response from law enforcement bodies and the leadership of Parliament
The parliamentary faction of the “Democracy at Home” Party hereby informs the public and the competent institutions of an exceptionally serious incident that occurred on the evening of 10 September 2026, after the plenary sitting of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova had ended.
At approximately 19:00, in the car park of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, in the presence of a significant number of MPs, including Deputy Speaker of Parliament Vlad Batrîncea, members of the Democracy at Home faction and other persons, MP Lilian Carp approached the President of the Democracy at Home Party, MP Vasile Costiuc.
According to the accounts of those present at the incident, during this interaction threats of physical reprisal were made against Vasile Costiuc, as well as threats targeting members of his family.
We believe that such acts clearly go beyond the limits of political polemic, a verbal conflict, or the freedom of expression inherent in parliamentary debate.
Threatening to use violence against a Member of Parliament, and all the more so extending such threats to members of his family, is a matter that must be examined by the competent bodies under criminal law, not downplayed as a “political dispute”.
I. REQUEST TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE AND THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BODIES
Article 155 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova criminalises threats to kill or to cause serious harm to bodily integrity or health where there is a danger that such threats will be carried out.
We do not seek to take the place of the criminal investigation body, nor do we put forward in advance any conclusion as to the final legal classification of the facts.
We do, however, call on the Prosecutor General’s Office and the competent bodies to examine urgently whether the circumstances of the incident meet the constituent elements of a criminal offence, including the offence under Article 155 of the Criminal Code or other acts provided for by criminal law.
The Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that the criminal investigation body may be notified by a complaint, a denunciation, or through the direct detection of a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. (Legis)
In this context, we request:
- the lawful registration and examination of the information concerning the incident of 10 September 2026;
- the urgent questioning of all persons who directly witnessed the incident;
- the questioning of MP Vasile Costiuc regarding the nature, wording, context and character of the threats;
- the identification of all persons present in the Parliament car park at the time of the incident;
- the immediate seizure, preservation and examination of CCTV footage from the Parliament car park, the building’s entrances and exits, and the adjacent areas;
- the preservation of any audio-video recordings made by those present;
- the verification of access data and other technical information that may confirm the sequence of events;
- a legal assessment of all statements made and actions taken during the incident;
- a determination of whether the threats were sufficiently serious and real to meet the conditions set out by law;
- the adoption of the legal measures necessary to prevent any further acts of intimidation, pressure or retaliation against the targeted person, his family or the witnesses to the incident.
We stress the need for the urgent preservation of the video evidence, so that it is not automatically deleted, overwritten, lost or rendered unavailable.
II. REQUEST TO THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT
We address the Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova and request:
- that the measures necessary to preserve all video recordings and other data held by Parliament be ordered immediately;
- that these be handed over to the criminal investigation bodies upon their lawful request;
- that the members of Parliament’s security services on duty at the time of the incident be identified;
- that the incident also be examined in light of the rules of parliamentary conduct and the institution’s obligation to ensure the security of MPs.
Parliament has an institutional obligation to ensure an environment in which the parliamentary mandate can be exercised free from intimidation, threats, or pressure exerted through the prospect of physical violence.
Institutional silence cannot be an answer in a case like this.
III. THE POSITION OF MP LILIAN CARP ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
The gravity of the situation is compounded by the fact that the MP at the centre of these allegations serves as Chair of the Committee on National Security, Defence and Public Order.
Under the Rules of Procedure of Parliament, standing committees are working bodies of Parliament, accountable and subordinate to it, and the chairs of standing committees are elected by Parliament and may be dismissed before the end of their term. (Legis)
Accordingly, we call on the leadership of the Party of Action and Solidarity and the PAS parliamentary faction to initiate and support the parliamentary procedure required to remove Lilian Carp from the post of Chair of the Committee on National Security, Defence and Public Order and to replace him as a member of this committee while the circumstances of the case are being clarified.
The formal decision rests with Parliament, in accordance with the procedures set out in its Rules of Procedure.
Such a measure does not establish criminal guilt and does not violate the presumption of innocence.
It is a measure of political accountability and of protecting the credibility of a sensitive parliamentary institution until the facts are established.
It is deeply problematic that a person facing allegations of threatening violence against a fellow MP and his family should continue, without any institutional response, to chair precisely the committee responsible for national security, defence and public order.
IV. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE DOES NOT MEAN AN ABSENCE OF POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY
We wish to emphasise explicitly: we respect the principle of the presumption of innocence, and we are not asking anyone to pass judgment before an investigation has been conducted.
However, the presumption of innocence in criminal matters cannot be confused with the absence of political and institutional accountability.
There is a fundamental difference between:
criminal liability, which can be established only in accordance with the law, by the competent bodies and, ultimately, by a court;
and
political and institutional accountability, which concerns the trust required to hold a leadership position in Parliament.
Our request concerns precisely this second dimension.
V. WE WILL NOT ACCEPT PRESSURE ON WITNESSES
We call on all state institutions to guarantee that the MPs and other persons who witnessed the incident will be able to give statements freely, without pressure, intimidation or political consequences.
Any attempt to influence witnesses, to coordinate accounts, or to destroy or conceal evidence must be documented and examined in accordance with the law.
Given the political and institutional positions of those involved, it is essential that the facts be verified in a manner that rules out any appearance of political interference.
VI. ADDRESS TO EXTERNAL PARTNERS
We will officially inform the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Moldova, the embassies of the EU Member States, the Embassy of the United States of America, the Council of Europe and the other international partners of the Republic of Moldova of the circumstances of the incident.
We are not asking our external partners to rule on anyone’s guilt.
We do, however, ask them to follow how the institutions of the Republic of Moldova respond to a serious allegation that a representative of the opposition and his family were threatened by a representative of the parliamentary majority holding a key position in the field of security.
Democracy and the rule of law are not measured solely by the adoption of laws or by official statements.
They are tested above all when the law must be applied to someone who holds political power.
VII. OUR POSITION
For the “Democracy at Home” Party, threatening violence against a political opponent and his family is a red line.
We will not accept intimidation.
We will not accept pressure.
We will not accept that holding public office, belonging to the parliamentary majority or chairing an important committee should give anyone the impression that they are above the law.
We demand a lawful, thorough and impartial investigation.
We demand the immediate preservation of evidence.
We demand that all witnesses be heard.
We demand that Parliament assume its institutional responsibility.
We demand that PAS assume its political responsibility.
No one is above the law.
And when the allegations concern threats of physical reprisal against a Member of Parliament and the members of his family, the state has a duty to respond not with silence and political protection, but with the law, due process and accountability.
Parliamentary Faction of the “Democracy at Home” Party
Chișinău, 11 September 2026