Monitors paid attention to the professional obligations of the court clerks. Monitors’ general impression was that court clerks registered minutes with due attention, even more so during the second monitoring period. During the first monitoring period in Chişinău courts, court clerks registered minutes selectively or not at all in 15% of the hearings monitored. In the second monitoring period in these courts, court clerks registered minutes selectively or not at all in only 6% of the hearings. In the Southeast the situation was similar. Clerks registered minutes selectively or not at all in 6% of the hearings monitored. Biggest problems with court clerks’ performance during the first monitoring period were observed (i) in the Supreme Court of Justice, where court clerks registered minutes selectively or not at all in 51% of hearings; (ii) in the Chişinău Court of Appeals, where court clerks registered minutes selectively or not at all in 43% of hearings; and (iii) in the Buiucani District Court, where court clerks registered minutes selectively or not at all in 12% of hearings. Each of these three courts registered significant improvements in recording minutes during the second monitoring period. Percentages dropped to 20% in the Supreme Court of Justice, 5% in the Chişinău Court of Appeals and 6% in the Buiucani District Court. A number of factors may have contributed to this improvement, including the entry into force on 1 January 2008 of the Law on the Status and Organization of Court Clerks’ Activity in the Courts (hereinafter “Law on Court Clerks”)56 and training sessions for the court clerks organized by the National Institute of Justice. In spite of these commendable improvements, monitors still observed many instances in which court clerks did������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� not actively register minutes. In some rare cases court clerks declared that they were tired and could not work. In other cases clerks gave a party a blank piece of paper to sign, saying that the clerk would write down the statements made������������ ���������������� during the hearing later. Monitors noted isolated cases in ������������������������������������������������ which���������������������������������������� the court clerk ����������������������� gave������������������� the impression of inaccurately or incompletely recording minutes as exemplified in the following vignette: Vignette: The judge spoke Russian during the hearing. Although an interpreter was present, the judge himself translated and reworded the statements into Romanian and dictated to the court clerk what to enter into the minutes. Not only the judge but the interpreter, the defence lawyer and the prosecutor were also involved in writing the minutes, often asking the clerk, “Did you write that down?” Monitors received the impression that none of the participants trusted the court clerk to write the minutes accurately. Monitors noted that in instances in �������������������������������������������������������� which������������������������������������������������ the prosecutor or the defence lawyer mentioned that they had a written plea, the court clerk ������������������������������������������� would ������������������������������������� not record anything in the minutes, indicating that he or she would attach the written plea that would subsequently be ��������� ������ sent. While this practice may be convenient and time saving, it ����������������������������������� is of questionable accuracy: there ������ is no guarantee that the lawyer or prosecutor will not introduce changes from���������������� �������������������� the oral plea. Monitors noted that some court clerks ���������������������������������������������������� did not ������������������������������������������������ carry out some of their �������������������� required functions��. 57 For example, few court clerks checked who was present at the hearing. In such cases, this requirement had to be fulfilled�������������� ����������������������� by the judge. 56 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� See the Law on the Status and Organization of the Court Clerks’ Activity in the Courts, No. 59 of 15 March 2007, which entered into force on 1 January 2008. 57 ����������������������������������������������������������������� As required by Art. 318 para. (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 44