Previous 36 / 93 Next

and the centre of the district where the court is situated arrive in the centre around 11:00 a.m. This situation may be one of the main causes for hearing delays. The problem could be addressed by changing the practice of scheduling such early start times for hearings to a more practical time when �� witnesses �� are coming from outlying villages. Monitors noted that judges scheduled hearings for the same times that had been set aside for judicial staff meetings, especially in the Chişinău District Courts. This problem was noted most often in connection with Monday morning staff meetings. In such cases, trial participants arriv�� ing�� at the scheduled time and were required to wait for the judge and/or the court clerk to finish their meeting. This problem could be solved by not scheduling trial hearings at the same time as judicial staff meetings or other pre-existing commitments. Another problem area noted by monitors is the inefficient functioning of, and uninviting hearing atmosphere in, the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice. Of particular concern is the state of affairs in the Chişinău and Bender Courts of Appeals. M�� onitor�� s observ�� ed similar shortcomings in both these courts. In general, the court premises and facilities seem to be better in the Courts of Appeals, i.e., the courtrooms are larger than in the District Courts�� ,�� allowing better accommodation of parties and other trial observers. The courthouses, however, are still overcrowded�� ,�� especially the corridors, and the dominant atmosphere is one of chaos. The Courts of Appeals need to pay special care to how “justice is done” and how it is “seen to be done,” particularly since�� appeal�� s�� are�� lodged only by part�� ies� unhappy with the outcome in �� the �� court�� of�� first instance. One significant problem highlighted in the first two trial monitoring reports was the practice of scheduling all trials for a given day at the same time, 10:00 a.m., in the Courts of Appeals and in the Supreme Court of Justice. M�� onitors noted a slight change in this respect in the Chişinău Court of Appeals, which started scheduling trials at �� different hours. The general situation and atmosphere, however, did not improve significantly in the Chişinău Court of Appeals. Too many participants are still called for the same time, too many instances of persons waiting for hours to give 10-15 minutes of testimony persist, and too many hearings are postponed. Monitors noted the same situation for the Bender Court of Appeals, but indicated the problem was of a “smaller scale.” M�� onitor�� s observed�� questionable practices in�� the examination and deliberation of�� cases in� �� the Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court of Justice. M�� onitors noted that in the Chişinău Court of Appeals 25-30 cases were usually scheduled per panel, while in the Supreme Court of Justice �� the number was �� 20-25 case�� s�� . The panels at the Chişinău Court of Appeals would usually examine 10-15 cases, and then break for 30-45 minutes of deliberation. Similarly, in the Supreme Court of Justice the panels would usually examine 5-10 cases then break for deliberation. In the Bender Court of Appeals the panels would examine fewer cases per day, but would still hear a few cases before breaking for deliberation. This practice of hearing a number of cases and then breaking for deliberation raises questions regarding the judges’ ability to analyze and decide on �� each�� case without influence from othe�� r�� s.�� T�� he short time allocated for each case raises concerns as to how deeply the judges have analyzed the case and taken into account testimony given in court. Monitors noted that due to scheduling too many cases at once, there �� was often too little space for lawyers �� at the tables designated for them�� ,�� and they �� had �� to sit or stand somewhere else in the courtroom. Monitors noted that participants �� find �� it impossible to follow many cases in the Courts of Appeals because they�� cannot hear all of the testimony. This is due to reasons such as poor 35

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

ODIHR (2010) Trial Monitoring Programme for the Republic of Moldova: Final Report

Document

Preview

Name of the author: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/c/70945.pdf

Country

Europe: Moldova

Theme

Procedural safeguards: Procedural safeguards - general

Language: English

Source

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE): Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)

Document Type

Report: Thematic Report

Year

2010

Primary Documents

70945.pdf
English
Download View

Atlas of Torture

Select target paragraph3

ODIHR (2010) Trial Monitoring Programme for the Republic of Moldova: Final Report

Primary Documents

Notifications