Table 19: List of cases scheduled for trial posted publicly at the courts (information by courts) Periods monitored: Courts in Chişinău Monitoring period I, April 2006 – May 2007 Yes No Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II 100% 95% 98% 97% 38% 63% 78% 79% 3% 29% 43% 40% 83% 73% 0% 5% 2% 3% 62% 37% 22% 21% 97% 71% 57% 60% 17% 27% September 2007 – November 2008 September 2007 – November 2008 September 2007 – November 2008 September 2007 – November 2008 92% 86% 84% 83% 8% 14% 16% 17% Monitoring period II, June 2007 – November 2008 Supreme Court of Justice Chişinău Court of Appeals Centru District Court Ciocana District Court Rîşcani District Court Botanica District Court Buiucani District Court Courts in the Southeast Bender Court of Appeals Anenii Noi District Court Căuşeni District Court Ştefan Vodă District Court List of cases posted publicly at the courts The monitoring data demonstrated that R�������������������������������������������� îşcani�������������������������������������� , Botanica and Centru District Courts are particularly problematic in terms of posting the lists for scheduled trial hearings. It is commendable that the Centru District Court improved considerably in the second monitoring period. Although they have exhibited some improvement, the Rîşcani and Botanica District Courts still fall behind other courts. The Buiucani District Court registered a better percentage of trial hearings posted on information boards, but it experienced a decrease in th���������������������������������������������������������������������������� e��������������������������������������������������������������������������� percentage during the second monitoring period in ��������������������������� comparison�������������� to the first monitoring period. Monitoring shows that the quality of information on lists of cases scheduled for trial is inadequate. Monitors noted that there was not sufficient, correct and updated information on�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� upcoming court hearings posted in any of the courthouses that were monitored. In the Southeast��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ,�������������������������������������������������������������������������� monitors missed several hearings because information posted on the board was wrong. Monitors experienced problems with the information posted in all courthouses in Chişinău. The most common problems were failure or delay in posting or updating information and failure to include relevant times or room numbers for hearings listed. While some judges always posted their scheduled trial hearings, others only posted information regarding when they would be on sick leave or vacation. The Chi����������������������� ş���������������������� inău Court of Appeals 52