I. Judges M��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� onitoring showed that many judges acted professionally and did not unjustifiably restrict public access to trials. When opening a trial hearing, judges usually verified that all parties were present and that they had been informed of and understood their rights and obligations. Many judges listened attentively and did not arbitrarily restrict pleading or arguments. Many judges asked only clarifying questions and did not become actively engaged in questioning witnesses or the defendant. Many judges appeared to act independently and impartially, addressing parties in a ������������������������������������������������ respectful�������������������������������������� manner and ensuring that proceedings were conducted in as orderly and dignified a manner as possible, considering the poor and cramped conditions of the���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� offices where many of the hearings were conducted. In terms of the performance of judges in individual courts, the highest number of concerns were noted by monitors during the first monitoring period in the R��������������������������� îş������������������������� cani and Centru District Courts in Chişinău. It is encouraging to note that both of these courts, and all other courts, made progress in the area of judicial performance during the second monitoring period. M������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� any problem areas discussed below, �������������������������������������������������� however,������������������������������������������ do not permit an overall positive conclusion regarding����������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� judges’ performance��������������������������������������������������������� ,�������������������������������������������������������� and that call for continu������������������������������ ed���������������������������� attention by the judiciary. Some judges do not devote sufficient attention and time to the important task of explaining the rights of the parties. In one case, the judge asked the defendant “Did you understand the charge?” The defendant answered “No” and nodded her head. The judge did not pause to explain the charge but continued the hearing as if there had been an answer in the affirmative. In another case, the judge asked the injured party “Do you have material or moral claims?” The injured party answered that she did not understand what that meant. The judge did not pay any attention to this answer and continued with the hearing. In another case, the defendant was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended, with a one-year probation period. The defendant asked what that meant and the judge only responded��,� “�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Y������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ou are no longer under arrest�������������������������������������������������������������� ;������������������������������������������������������������� you are free to go home.” No one explained to the defendant what the term “probation” meant and what her obligations would be during the probation period. Monitors noted that some judges do not explain to victims and witnesses that they should read their statements ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� before signing them. The statement is written down by the court clerk as the person makes the statement and may contain errors. Article 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the court clerk to read the statement (or the person who made the statement can ask to read it) before the�������������������������������������������������� party signs it. However�������������������������� ,������������������������� this requirement is not routinely followed. Judges sometimes forget to inform interpreters, victims and witnesses that they are criminally liable for their statements. Defendants are not subject to self-incrimination, but in one case the judge warned the defendant that he or she is criminally liable for his or her statement. As noted in other sections of this report, judges often make inappropriate comments that imply either presumption of guilt or a disrespectful attitude toward a defendant, victim or witness. 37