on individual cases, the atmosphere negatively affects the public’s and parties’ perception of the judicial system. Judges, while generally showing a good understanding of the law, often fail to devote sufficient attention and time to explaining the rights of the parties. Hearings were less formal when held in judges’ offices or by only one judge in a courtroom. Prosecutors appeared inadequately prepared in some cases. Prosecutors sometimes failed to secure the appearance of witnesses, did not bring evidence to the court and asked the parties inappropriate questions. Monitors observed a slight improvement in prosecutors’ punctuality record in the second monitoring period in Chişinău courts. Defence lawyers sometimes performed poorly. Although monitors observed poorer performance by lawyers representing legal aid clients, privately contracted lawyers were sometimes clearly not prepared for the case and read through the case file in court. In isolated cases defence lawyers behaved in an unacceptable manner towards their clients. Court clerks registered a slight improvement in performance in the second monitoring period regarding taking minutes and attitudes towards trial participants. However, monitors still observed many instances in which court clerks did not actively take minutes or took minutes very slowly and interrupted participants to ask them to repeat what they had said. Quality of interpretation was poor. As a rule interpreters did not interpret everything, usually only summarizing the questions and answers. Findings related to the rights of the defendant in a fair trial: The right to a public hearing is generally respected. The small number of courtrooms and the preference of many judges and court clerks are the main reasons for a high percentage of hearings held in the judges’ offices, which limits the right of the public to attend the court hearings. Lack of full and accurate information posted on information boards in courts is an impediment. Monitors observed improvement in the percentage of publicly posted case lists in the courts in Chişinău and a better situation in the courts located in the Southeast. The right to an independent and impartial tribunal was hampered by frequent engagement of the judges in ex-parte communications in spite of the Superior Council of Magistrates’ express prohibition, raising doubts about their impartiality. Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice deliberated on several cases simultaneously, raising questions as to whether each case is decided free of emotions or impressions derived from other cases. The right to a fair trial: The right to be present at one’s proceedings seems to be well respected. Monitors noted several apparent violations of equality of arms and adversarial rights, such as judges interrupting the defence lawyers and the tendency of many judges to engage actively in prosecutorial questioning. In the Chişinău Court of Appeals monitors noted a particular problem with judges not paying attention to lawyer’s questions or pleading unless the lawyer is well-known. Judges seem to attach less importance to continuity of representation by the defence lawyer than to the importance of having the same prosecutor represent the state throughout a case. The right to trial within a reasonable time is negatively affected by cascading delays and postponements. Judges make visible efforts to ensure the examination of the case in a