The role of special investigative activity in the national security architecture of the Republic of Moldova: between the objective of resilience and the dysfunctionality of the investigative mechanism

URL: https://dspace.academy.police.md/the-role-of-special-investigative-activity-in-the-national-security-architecture-of-the-republic-of-moldova-between-the-objective-of-resilience-and-the-dysfunctionality-of-the-investigative-mechanism/

Data: 2026

The adoption of Law No.249/2025 on the national security of the Republic of Moldova marks an important stage in the reconfiguration of the national security architecture, through the explicit integration of the field of public order and safety. In this context, special investigative activity, regulated by Law No.59/2012, gains increased relevance, extending beyond the traditional sphere of crime prevention and increasingly intersecting with the logic of national security. The study examines the place and role of this type of activity within the new institutional and normative framework, highlighting the tensions generated by the coexistence of multiple legal regimes governing special investigations: extraprocedural crime prevention and public order enforcement, criminal proceedings, and intelligence and counterintelligence activities carried out by the Security and Intelligence Service. Although recent reforms suggest a tendency toward institutional integration, the analysis reveals the existence of systemic inconsistencies at the level of legal instruments, stemming from the absence of a coherent conceptual model regarding the use and evidentiary valorization of results obtained through intrusive measures. The research demonstrates that, despite efforts to align with European standards, the Republic of Moldova risks developing a formal national security architecture insufficiently supported by effective operational instruments, particularly in the field of public order. This vulnerability arises from the fact that special investigative activity, as a primary tool for knowledge and anticipation, is subject to excessive procedural requirements more specific to the evidentiary phase than to the intelligence-gathering stage, thereby limiting its preventive effectiveness.