3.1. The Right to a Public Hearing The right to a public hearing is a unique component of the right to a fair trial. Whereas all the other component rights serve exclusively the rights and interests of the defendants, the right to a public trial has a more general, societal dimension. From the viewpoint of defendants in criminal cases or parties in civil cases, the public character of court proceedings “protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny”64 and thereby protects parties from the exercise of arbitrary state power. The right to a public trial is instrumental in securing public trust in the judiciary and serves as “one of the means whereby confidence in the courts, superior and inferior, can be maintained.”65 Additional rationales for public trials are that they educate the public; they have therapeutic value for the community; the presence of outsiders may serve as a check on judicial power; the publicity of a trial may enhance fact-finding by bringing new evidence to light������������������������������������������������������������������������������� or���������������������������������������������������������������������������� by persuading those who testify to speak more truthfully than if permitted to testify in private.66 As ���������������������������������������������������������������������� part of the obligation to ensure the public nature of a trial, the authorities must make information on the date and place of hearings available to the public. This is particularly important if a trial hearing is not held in a courtroom equipped as such. If the hearing is not held in a courtroom, the appropriate authorities must take additional measures to facilitate the attendance of the public and media.67 Public court proceedings are guaranteed by the Moldovan Constitution (art. 117), Criminal Procedure Code (art. 18) and the Law on Judicial Organization (art. 10). The Criminal Procedure Code allows for some exceptions from the rule of holding all trial hearings in public, similar to those spelled out in Article 6, when public access to a trial (including all trial hearings) may be restricted by a reasoned court order based on morality, public order, or national security; protection of the interests of minors or the private life of parties to the proceedings; or special circumstances indicating that publicity may damage the interests of justice.68 Art. 316 para 4 provides for an additional exception, namely when “the presiding judge at the trial hearing may limit the access of the public to the hearing, taking into account the conditions in which the case is examined.” The last provision may be reconsidered as it is too vaguely worded, giving unlimited powers to the presiding judge to limit the access of the public to the hearing. Monitor�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� s observed���������������������������������������������������������������������������� that generally the right to a public hearing is well respected. ����������� T���������� he public (including trial monitors) were �������������������������������������������������������������� granted access to most trial hearings and, if not always welcomed, their presence was at least largely tolerated. As indicated below, however, access to trial hearings was not uniform throughout the Programme. An important impediment to the exercise of the right to a public hearing is the resistance of some judges, defence lawyers and prosecutors. Throughout the Programme monitors noted incidents in which judges declared hearings closed to the public without explanation. Monitors noted a trend among some judges to declare hearings closed when the presence 64 Pretto and Others v. Italy, Judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A, No. 71, at 21-22. See also Axen v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of 8 December 1983, para. 25. 65 ���� See Axen v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of 8 December 1983, para. 25. 66 ���������������� Judith Resnick, Due Process: A Public Dimension, 39 Univ. Florida L. Rev. 405, 419 (1987). 67 ���� See Riepan v. Austria, Judgment of the European Court, 14 February 2001, para. 29. 68 ������������������������������������������� Art. 18 para. 2, Criminal Procedure Code. 50