of the prosecutors is a holdover from Soviet uniforms and resembles a military uniform. The uniform has distinctive attributes stemming from the time when the prosecution office had the function of “general supervision of the law,” putting prosecutors above the judiciary. The fact that only prosecutors have uniforms, not defence lawyers, creates the impression of placing the parties in unequal positions or Parliament should consider mandating either that both defence lawyers and the prosecution should be required to wear a robe, distinguishing them from the other parties; or that none should. 3.4. The Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time The European Court has provided a particularly rich body of case law on the right to be tried within a reasonable time. According to some estimates, the reasonable time guarantee is addressed in more European Court judgments than any other issue.100 In terms of numbers, it has been the subject of almost one-third of judgments delivered since 1968.101 There are several reasons why the right to trial within a reasonable time is given such importance. The common rationale lies in the truism that justice delayed is justice denied. From a defendant’s perspective, it is unfair to have a trial that lasts an unjustifiably long time; psychological insecurity inevitably accompanies criminal proceedings. From a more general perspective of legal certainty, the guarantee of reasonable time is based on the fundamental due process principle that a trial which lasts an unreasonably long time becomes tainted with injustice and in general undermines the course of justice. The European Court has explained that the aim of the reasonable time guarantee is to protect, “…all parties to court proceedings […] against excessive procedural delays,”102 and to guarantee the, “…rendering [of ] justice without delays which might jeopardize its effectiveness and credibility.”103 Through its wealth of case law, the European Court has progressively developed the meaning of the guarantee of reasonable time and has established that an assessment of whether the length of court proceedings is reasonable or not must be based on the following criteria: the complexity of the factual or legal issues raised by the case; the conduct of the applicant; the conduct of the State’s judicial and administrative authorities; and what is at stake for the applicant.104 Moldovan law expressly enshrines the principle of holding criminal proceedings (criminal investigations and trials) within a reasonable time.105 The criteria used to assess the reasonableness of the length of proceedings are similar to, and mirror, the ones developed by the European Court. Under Moldovan law, the responsibility for ensuring observance of the guarantee of reasonable time is assigned to the prosecutor at the criminal investigation stage and to the court during trial proceedings.106 100 ����������������������������������� N. Mole, C. Harby, Op. cit, p. 24. 101 ��������������� Frederic Edel, The length of civil and criminal proceedings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Human Rights Files No. 16), 10 July 2007. 102 ���� See Stogmuller v. Austria, Judgment of the European Court, 10 November 1969, para. 5. 103 ���� See H v. France, Judgment of the European Court, 24 October 1989, para. 58. 104 ���� See Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, Judgment of the European Court, 13 July 1983, para. 24; see also Buchholz v. Germany, Judgment of the European Court, 6 May 1981, para. 49. 105 �������������������������������������������� See Art. 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 106 ������������������������������������������������������ See Art. 20 para. (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 59