cases, however, were noted in ��������������������������������������������������������������� which������������������������������������������������������� the lawyer was privately contracted and he or she was ���� poorly prepared (e.g., giving the impression he or she had not read the case file and not asking any questions, only mentioning, “I support client’s request or appeal.” There is a clear need to give priority to raising professional standards among defence lawyers in general to implement the right to an effective��������������������������������� defence in criminal proceedings. A more detailed description of defence lawyers’ performance is set forth ����������������������������� above. It�������������� is, however, worth reiterating that �������������������������������������������������������������������� 13������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� % of postponements in ��������������������������������������� Chişinău������������������������������� and 10% in the Southeast were due to the absence or late arrival of defence lawyers. Some defence lawyers complained that this resulted from the practice of judges and prosecutors often setting the time of hearings without consulting the defence lawyer. The high incidence of postponements owing to the absence of defence lawyers is harmful to clients, particularly those who are incarcerated. When the errors of defence counsel are manifest or sufficiently brought to the attention of the authorities the latter must take measures to ensure the right to effective defence, especially in cases involving legal aid.134 Article 70 paragraph (4) p. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a criminal investigative body or court can request that the Territorial Office of the National Legal Aid Council (the relevant District Bar prior to 1 July 2008) change the legal aid lawyer if s/he is not able to provide effective legal assistance. Monitors observed few instances in which judges reprimanded defence lawyers for poor performance. In one case the judge told a defence lawyer that he had not filed an appeal on time and warned the lawyer that the Bar Council would be so informed. In many more instances, however, when defence lawyers, especially legal aid lawyers, were passive and did not actively defend their clients, judges did not replace them or make them fulfill their obligations. Judges were frequently aware that defence lawyers were not prepared, but tolerated the defence lawyers’ inadequate efforts without taking measures to ensure an effective defence. Defence lawyers occasionally complained that their requests are not respected on an equal level with those of the prosecutors. Monitors observed instances in which the judge ignored defence lawyers or limited their ability to defend their clients effectively. In several hearings monitors noted that judges interrupted the defence, laughed or talked among themselves while the defence made statements, or did not permit defence lawyers to ask questions. The first two monitoring reports revealed the problematic practice in Chişinău courts ���������� of ��� appointing legal aid lawyers ��������������������������������������������������������������� shortly�������������������������������������������������������� before the hearing. ����������������������������������� T���������������������������������� his practice continued during the second monitoring period. The practice raises serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of the defence�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� given the ������������������������������������������������������������������������� inadequate time and facilities afforded to (i) prepare the defence, (ii) discuss the defence strategy with the client in a meaningful way and (iii) provide quality representation to the client. The problem of appointing legal aid lawyers (or “ex-officio lawyers” as they were denoted in the two previous reports) shortly before the hearing was extensively discussed in the two prior reports. This Final Report confirms that this practice continues, systematically before the Chişinău Court of Appeals ��������������������������������� and the Supreme Court of Justice, and in rare cases before the District Courts. Monitors noted an improvement in District Courts over the course of the monitoring: judges began to prefer to give additional� time to ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� find �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� a defence lawyer rather than appoint a lawyer on the spot with������������� out���������� time for preparation. 134 ���� See Czekalla v. Portugal, Judgment of 10 October 2002, para. 60-71. 67