data by public authorities43. It clarified that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights not only obliges states not to take any action that could violate the right under the Convention, but also stipulates that they are subject, in certain circumstances, to positive obligations to actively ensure effective respect for private and family life44. The People's Advocate draws attention to the fact that the right to respect for privacy is a very sensitive one. For these reasons, the request for the application of special investigative measures and the approval of these requests must meet all the criteria provided by the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and the international human rights treaties to which the country is a party. RECOMMENDATIONS: - The People's Advocate recommends the Superior Council of Magistracy to issue a circular to all courts reminding them of the conditions under which the requests for the application of special investigative measures may be approved, from the perspective of the fulfillment by the state of its obligations regarding the respect for private and family life, in accordance with human rights standards; - The People's Advocate recommends that the Superior Council of Prosecutors take all measures, so that the prosecutors empowered within the special investigation activity, at the request of the courts to authorize the special investigation measures, to ensure the legality of the requests and respect for private and family life, in accordance with the human rights standards assumed by the state. 42 See, for example, ECHR judgment of 6 September 1978 in the case of Klass and Others v. Germany, no. 5029/71; ECHR judgment of 2 September 2010 in the case of Uzun v. Germany, no. 35623/05; 43 See, for example, ECHR judgment of 26 March 1987 in the case of Leander v. Sweden, no. 9248/81; ECHR judgment of 4 December 2008 in the case of S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom no. 30562/04 and no. 30566/04; 44 See, for example, ECHR judgment of 17 July 2008, I v. Finland, no. 20511/03; ECHR judgment of 2 December 2008 in the case of K.U. v. Finland, no. 2872/02; 28