III. Defence lawyers Monitors were instructed to pay particular attention to the professional performance of defence lawyers, whose performance is tied directly to a defendant’s right to an effective defence,51 the adversarial nature of court proceedings52 and the equality of arms principle.53 Monitors observed a wide range of competence among defence lawyers. The performance of many defence lawyers was exemplary. The client received a good legal defence and even public attending the hearing was visibly impressed. Some monitors noted that famous defence lawyers commanded greater respect than other defence lawyers and that in their presence trial proceedings were always conducted in an orderly and dignified manner. In such hearings judges and prosecutors made fewer inappropriate comments and treated the clients of esteemed lawyers with more respect. This trend was noted throughout the Programme. Monitors observed instances in which defence lawyers performed poorly. In Chişinău�������� ���������������� courts during the first monitoring period, defence lawyers were well prepared in only 44% of the hearings monitored. In 20% of hearings they were poorly prepared and in 36% their performance could either not be assessed or the hearing effectively did not take place. During the second monitoring period results were not significantly different. In 44% of hearings the lawyers were well prepared, in 13% they were poorly prepared and in 43% the performance could not be assessed. Monitors in the Southeast observed similar results, registering performances by defence lawyers that were slightly better than those observed in courts in Chişinău������������������ �������������������������� . Defence lawyers were well prepared in 47% of the monitored hearings, poorly prepared in 12% of the hearings and the performance could not be assessed in 41% of the hearings. Monitors noted particularly poor performance of legal aid lawyers. These often acted merely as a formal presence in the case and exhibited no initiative to protect the defendant’s interests. The section on the right to legal assistance in this Final Report examines this issue in detail. Monitors observed cases in which privately contracted lawyers were clearly not prepared for the case and used their time in court to read through the case file. In some cases, defendants were more active in conducting their defence than their contracted lawyers, filing petitions and expressing objections while their lawyer sat by doing nothing. Monitors noted several other less significant shortcomings in lawyers’ conduct that affected the degree to which the interests of clients were protected and the general atmosphere of court proceedings. In several instances, lawyers failed to present their license or certification at the request of the judge. Such instances were noted throughout the monitoring period both in ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Chişinău������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� and in the Southeast. Defence lawyers were frequently late for court hearings, to the frustration of the judge and other participants. In a few cases defence lawyers behaved in an unacceptable manner referring towards their own clients, prejudicing the cases. In exceptional cases defence lawyers appeared in court inebriated. In one case the client asked prosecutor does not have much to say as the procedure is very simple and straightforward. 51 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Guaranteed by Art. 26 of the Constitution; Art. 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Art.6(3)(c) of the ECHR. 52 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ Provided by Art. 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code; Art. 10(3) of the Law on Judicial Organization and Art. 6(3) of the ECHR. 53 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� Provided by Art. 24(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; Art. 6(3) of the ECHR. 42