As noted above in Chapter �������������������������������������������������������������������� II section 2.3., throughout the monitoring period, monitors observed that victims and witnesses typically were punctual for the first hearings in a case, but later became less committed in their attendance because of the numerous delays and postponements. Monitors observed that judges frequently failed to remind victims and witnesses that they had the right to read their statements before signing them. Monitors noted few����������� �������������� instances in which judges provided such a reminder. Given the difficulties that many victims and witnesses face in travelling to court, it is unlikely that they would ����������������������������� ����������������������� subsequently return to review the minutes of the hearing (which includes their statements) for accuracy within the three�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� -������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� day period provided by law. The ����������������������������������������������������� effective result ������������������������������������ is that the majority of victims and witnesses do not review the statement they have signed, even though they are criminally liable for its���������� ������������� content. 4.3. The Right to Privacy Referring to the interests of victims and witnesses in the course of criminal proceedings, the European Court stated, “The life, liberty or security of a person may be at stake, as may interests coming generally within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention. Such interests of witnesses and victims are in principle protected by other, substantive provisions of the Convention, which imply that Contracting States should organize their criminal proceedings in such a way that those interests are not unjustifiably imperiled.”153 In cases of trafficking and domestic violence, protection of privacy is of particular importance to victims and witnesses alike. Both international standards154 and domestic law155 require states to protect the victim’s private life and identity means of doing so, including closed hearings and/or non-disclosure of identity and/or change of name, among others. Monitors observed that in general judges took into account the right to privacy of victims and witnesses. Monitors noted several cases in which judges decided not to hold public hearings to protect the interests of the victim. In appropriate cases, this is a legitimate and necessary measure required to protect the privacy of victims. Limiting the access of the public to court hearings in these cases prevents the public disclosure of confidential information about the victim in accordance with his or her privacy rights. Monitors noted, however, that such decisions to close hearings were often taken unilaterally by the judge without consulting the victim. In some instances this may contradict the wishes of the victim. Judges, therefore, should take into account the desires of the victim when deciding whether to close a hearing to protect the victim’s privacy. During both the first and the second monitoring periods monitors noted a few instances in which judges asked inappropriate questions about the intimate life of the victim that appeared to have no relevance to the substance of the case. 153 Doorson v. The Netherlands, Application No. 20524/92, 26 March 1996, para. 70. 154 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� See, for example, Art. 11 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, 16 May 2005. 155 ����������������������������������������������������������� See Art. 12 of Law No.1458-XIII, 28 January 1998, Op. cit. 74