refrain from doing or saying anything that might imply that the defendant is guilty. When examining evidence adduced by the prosecution, the judge should give the defendant benefit of the doubt. The presumption of innocence of all accused is guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Certain aspects of the European Court’s interpretation of the right to be presumed innocent were beyond the scope of the Trial Monitoring Programme assessment (e.g., evaluation of evidence and allowing presumptions of law and fact). This section describes only observations regarding the attitude of the judge and other participants towards the defendant during the trial. Monitors noted that the defendant’s right to be presumed innocent was usually upheld. There were several instances, however, in which judges’ comments or attitude������������������������ s����������������������� toward defendants (as demonstrated either by comments or the manner in which judges addressed questions to the defendants or defence lawyers) indicated a clear breach of the defendants’ right to be presumed innocent. This type of comments and attitudes were noted in the Second TMP Report and continued during the second monitoring period in both Chişinău and the Southeast. Vignette: The judge stated to the defendants, before completion of the trial and the pronouncement of judgment: “Tell me where you have lied, as you are guilty anyhow and you cannot deceive me.” Violations of the right to be presumed innocent included instances in which judges demonstrated a lack of interest in the parties’ statements, giving the impression that they had already reached a verdict. In other cases, judges gave the impression that they had already taken a position on the case prior to examining the entirety of the evidence. Vignette: In one case at the Chişinău Court of Appeals, where there was not enough space to fit all trial participants and one defendant sat next to his lawyer, the judge addressed the defence lawyer: “The place of the defendant is behind bars or in the second or third row in the courtroom… not behind you.” Vignette: In another case, the judge addressed the defendant’s mother, who sought permission to attend the hearing: “So you have raised a prostitute and now come to the hearing?” The remarks above demonstrate judicial bias and do not inspire confidence that the judiciary is making appropriate efforts to uphold the fair trial rights of defendants. Throughout the monitoring period, monitors noted instances in which judges were in too much of a hurry to finish the case, allowing insufficient time for the presentation and assessment of the evidence or rushing the ������������������������������������������������� defence lawyer, the prosecutor or the defendant. Rushing defendants was even noted during the presentation of the defendant’s final statement, an important aspect of Moldovan trial proceedings. Such pressure might be justified as a means of meeting the reasonable time requirement, but the practice should be carefully limited and implemented to preclude deleterious effects on other important rights of the defendant. To protect the defendant’s right to presumption of innocence, prosecutors must be careful in presenting the indictment in court. Although the prosecutor should be convincing in presenting the charge, she/he should avoid using terms, phrases or expressions that presume 61