Previous 24 / 93 Next

It should be noted that although the monitoring data has been analyzed for all hearings monitored, some data has been calculated using �� a�� limited �� number �� of hearings. This is because the �� questionnaire used in compiling the database �� was�� updated with new que�� stions� as new issues �� were�� identified. Questionnaires already �� entered�� into the database without data �� on�� a specific que�� stion�� which �� was�� added later are not reflected in the count of hearings for that question. The Trial Monitoring Programme �� was�� implemented during �� a period of an extensive reform of �� Moldovan judiciary. There �� is still criticism �� assert�� ing�� that, notwithstanding many positive accomplishments, problems remain.31 An objective of this Final Report is further to inform the national authorities, the international community, civil society and the general public on the actual�� functioning of the judicial system�� . The aim is to help these institutions �� tailor their activities in addressing the problems identified. In the longer term�� ,�� the information gathered should contribute to better administration of justice and to better observance of fair trial standards and human rights in the Republic of Moldova. 1.8. Methodological Disclaimer Most data gathered by trial monitors – e.g., whether or not the judge wore robes, or how many minutes the hearing was delayed – are subject to quantitative analysis. Other data – how well the judge knew law relevant to a case, or how judges or other court officials acted towards victims or the accused – are not. This presents a limitation on findings: the most important data gathered in the course of the project tended to be those not subject to quantitative analysis. No one would seriously argue that whether a judge wears robes is remotely as important as whether he or she knows the law; no one could argue that a few 31 �� See the European Commission observations that judicial reform is an area in which Moldova is still lagging behind: “Further reform of the judiciary, in particular to ensure its independence, is needed. […] [Though some progress is noted,]Further reforms of the judiciary remain a priority” (European Commission’s ENP Progress Report on Moldova {COM (2006) 726 final), pages 3 and 4, http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/ sec06_1506-2_en.pdf. Strengthening the judiciary is still one of the highest policy objectives of Moldova for 2007-2013 in the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Agenda, Republic of Moldova, Country Strategy Paper 2007–2013, pages 4 and 33, http://www.delmda.ec.europa.eu/eu_and_moldova/pdf/ enpi_csp_moldova_en.pdf. Freedom House assessment that, “The reform of the judiciary has so far failed to address a series of practical problems ranging from judiciary overload to lack of sufficient office space and qualified personnel, to low salaries, insufficient financial resources allocated from the state budget, poor quality of judgments, poor implementation of judgments, poor independence of the judiciary (page 5); precarious state of the judiciary; low public trust; insufficient number of judges and auxiliary personnel (pages 19 and 20)” (Freedom House Report, Nations in Transit 2007 – Moldova), http://www.freedomhouse. hu//images/fdh_galleries/NIT2007/nt-moldova-proof-ii.pdf ). UN Committee against Torture and the UN Human Rights Committee, “…allegations of a dysfunctional criminal justice system, caused in part by a lack of independence on the part of the judiciary and the prosecutors. The Committee Against Torture has called on Moldova to take effective measures to ensure a fully independent judiciary (and prosecution service), in conformity with the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.” EU Country Strategy Paper 2004-2006, National Indicative Programme 2005-2006 / Moldova, page 15, http:// ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/moldova/csp/csp04_06_nip05_06.pdf. American Bar Association (ABA) Rule of Law Initiative for Moldova’s Judicial Reform Index comparing findings on 30 f�� actor�� s related to the judiciary from 2002 to 2006 noting that slightly more than half received neutral correlations, while 12 f�� actor�� s were rated negatively and only 2 positively, ABA Rule of Law Initiative, Judicial Reform Index for Moldova, 2007, Volume II, at http://www.abanet.org/rol/publications/moldova_judicial_reform_index_ 01_2007_en.pdf. 23

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

ODIHR (2010) Trial Monitoring Programme for the Republic of Moldova: Final Report

Document

Preview

Name of the author: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/c/70945.pdf

Country

Europe: Moldova

Theme

Procedural safeguards: Procedural safeguards - general

Language: English

Source

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE): Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)

Document Type

Report: Thematic Report

Year

2010

Primary Documents

70945.pdf
English
Download View

Atlas of Torture

Select target paragraph3

ODIHR (2010) Trial Monitoring Programme for the Republic of Moldova: Final Report

Primary Documents

Notifications