Monitors noted a case in which the injured party was missing and the prosecutor asked the judge to postpone the hearing so that he could get his office to call the injured party and ask why she was missing. The judge asked��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������� why he could not call from his cell phone so that the hearing would not be postponed unnecessarily. To this the prosecutor answered hinting that he had to pay for the costs and was not willing to do so. Although prosecutors are given a business cell phone to be used for work-related purposes, the costs for its use seem not to be covered in all instances. Monitors observed instances of prosecutors’ inappropriate conduct, including tardiness and failure to identifying themselves to parties when replacing another prosecutor. The most frequent reason for lateness was an ongoing hearing in another case. In a few instances the prosecutor either admitted to having forgotten about the hearing or complained that he had not been informed about it���������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������ and requested that the court call him in advance for the next hearing. Moldovan prosecutors are required under the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office to wear uniforms when representing the state accusation in court. The uniform ���������������������������������� is�������������������������������� a dark-blue military-like suit with up to three gold stars as part of an epaulet on the shoulder denoting the rank of the prosecutor. Monitors observed that prosecutors tend to wear uniforms more often before the Supreme Court of Justice, before the Courts of Appeals and for high profile cases involving political figures. Throughout the monitoring and in feedback following the two prior trial monitoring reports, prosecutors complained to monitors that wearing uniforms should not be an indicator of performance. Many indicated difficulties that they face in connection with the uniform requirement, including that the uniforms are given to them in the form of material and must be made into a suit. In addition, they indicated that only ������������������� winter-weight material w���������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� as typically ������������������������������������������������������������� provided. (See more on this issue in section 3.3.) Monitors noted instances ������������������������������������������������������������������� in which����������������������������������������������������������� the prosecutor did not react to a defendant’s threatening actions towards the victim, injured party and��������������������������������������������������� /or������������������������������������������������ witnesses. ������������������������������������ S����������������������������������� pecial attention to the protection of victims, injured parties and witnesses������������������������������������������������� is fundamental���������������������������������� , especially in cases of domestic violence and trafficking in human beings. Monitors noted instances in which prosecutors’ questions seemed inappropriate. In a trafficking case, for example, a prosecutor asked the victim “you were well paid����� ,���� US ��� $�������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� 1,000–2,000 a month, why did you run away?” As indicated above, prosecutors continually entered judges’ offices before hearings with no explanations to other participants. Such conduct is in violation of a decision of the Superior Council of Magistrates. 49 Monitors saw no significant differences between the performance of prosecutors in courts in Chişinău and the Southeast. Differences were noted in prosecutorial performance before the Supreme Court of Justice. Prosecutors in these cases were usually more passive and their performance was limited to a few standard�������������������������������������������� phrases in favour of or against the appeal in cassation. After this, the prosecutor typically sat down and waited for the next case to commence, reiterating the same standard phrases in that next case. In fairness, some of the reasons for this kind of performance may be due to the nature of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice.50 49 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� See the Decision of the Superior Council of Magistrates No. 351/14 of 15 November 2007. 50 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� For example, proceedings in which the sentence is reviewed due to a change in the law. In such a case, the 41