comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed.96 It implies the availability to both parties of all evidence presented to the judge that could influence his/her decision, including evidence presented by an independent magistrate. The European Court has decided that national law can ensure this requirement in various ways. What is required is that the “opposite party” be informed when evidence is put forward and be given a chance to comment on it.97 An inherent part of a “fair hearing” is the defendant’s opportunity to comment on evidence pertinent to facts in dispute even if the facts relate to a point of procedure rather than the alleged offence as such.98 Monitors observed that, i��������������������������������������������������������������������� n general, judges respected the equality of arms and the ���������������� adversarial ������������ nature of proceedings, showing the same respect for both prosecution and defence, providing equal opportunities for both parties to present their position and additional evidence. Judges generally afforded both the prosecution and defence the time and opportunity to comment on new evidence. As indicated below, however, monitors note�� d� several apparent violations of equality of arms and adversarial rights. Monitors observed neither significant changes relating to the protection of such rights during the monitoring period nor significant differences in the protection of such rights between Chişinău and the Southeast. Accordingly, the findings set forth below refer to the entire monitoring period and both monitored areas. Monitors observed that in a few cases judges interrupted defence lawyers when they were asking questions or making their pleas. This practice was observed less frequently in ������������ relation to ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� prosecutors. Monitors noted that when hearings were held in judges’ offices with limited space at a desk, defence lawyers were usually sitting in chairs and taking notes on their laps while prosecutors were usually seated at the desks. In one case the prosecutor shared the desk with the judge. As discussed above, monitors noted the �������������������������������������������������� tendency of many judges to engage actively in questioning the defendant, injured parties, experts and witnesses, asking questions that would normally be expected from the prosecutor. This affects both the appearance of impartiality of the judge and the right to an adversarial proceeding. In the Chişinău Court of Appeals monitors noted a problem with judges not paying attention to lawyer’s questions or pleadings unless the lawyer is well-know�� n�. On several occasions monitors noted that judges approved prosecutors’ requests to read the ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ written ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� statements of witnesses given at the criminal investigation stage, ��������������� in the absence of these witnesses, ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� in spite of defence lawyers’ objections that ������������������������������ there was no evidence that ��� it was impossible to summon the witness to court. Monitors noted that the Moldovan legal framework seems to place the parties in unequal positions. For example, the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office99 requires prosecutors to wear uniforms. This requirement is discussed in more detail in Chapter II above. The current uniform 96 ���� See Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, Judgment of the European Court, 23 June 1993, para. 63. 97 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� C. Bîrsan, European Convention on Human Rights. Commentary by article (in Romanian: Convenţia Europeană a Drepturilor Omului, Comentarii pe articole), Bucureşti, Editura ALL PECK, 2005, p. 512-513. 98 ���� See Kamasinski v. Austria, Judgment of the European Court, 19 December 1989, para. 102. 99 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Art. 36 of the Law on Prosecutor’s Office of 14 March 2003, applicable during the Trial Monitoring Programme implementation period. Similar provisions are included in Art. 55 of the new Law on Prosecutor’s Office of 25 December 2008. 58