appellate courts consistently scheduled numerous hearings for the same time, contributing to an unseemly and unsafe environment in the courthouses. Monitors noticed that trial participants, including crime victims, frequently had to wait in crammed corridors for hours to give 10-15 minutes of testimony. Defence lawyers were not provided with sufficient space at the tables designated for them in courtrooms. Panels of judges at the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice typically hear a few – but in certain instances up to 30 – appeals in rapid succession before breaking for deliberation. This practice raises concerns with regard to the quality, and consequently the fairness, of case re-evaluation on appeal. Under such circumstances, it is questionable whether judges are able to concentrate sufficiently on the relevant facts in each case. The practice raises doubts about the judges’ impartiality, as they may be influenced by other cases that are examined concurrently. The record in a number of countries demonstrates that improving professional administration (e.g., optimal internal organization; effective personnel, space and case flow management; automation of functions such as case information and recording of hearings; and attention to victims and witnesses, including their privacy and safety) considerably benefits the fairness of court hearings. Some recent steps undertaken in Moldova in this area should continue and expand. In particular, introduction of professional management in Moldovan courts or, at a minimum, training of judges and court staff in relevant management techniques should be one of the priorities of judicial reform. The capacity of Moldovan courts to comply with fair trial standards will continue to suffer until more professional management is encouraged. Problematic Professional Ethics The dominant feature of professional ethics among judges, public prosecutors and some defence lawyers is the persistence of a tradition of state-dominated criminal procedure that diminishes the significance of defence lawyers and stands in direct contradiction to the defendant’s rights to effective legal assistance and equality of arms. Vestiges of this legacy can be found in currently effective legislation. The Criminal Procedure Code provides that if defence counsel does not appear at a hearing, the judge can look into the possibility of replacing that counsel with the defendant’s consent. If replacement is not possible, the judge may adjourn the hearing. In the case of non-appearance by a public prosecutor, on the other hand, the hearing must be adjourned unconditionally. Continuity of legal assistance for the defence is thus considered less important than consistency of prosecutorial attendance. The practice of replacing shortly before hearings defence lawyers who fail to appear is common at the appellate and cassation levels. Lawyers appointed in this manner appear unprepared before a panel of judges and cannot provide an effective defence. The presence of defence lawyers is often treated as a formality, at all levels being interrupted or neglected by judges; in instances of judges openly scorned their motions, questions, pleadings and statements. Such behavior directly contradicts the right to equality of arms��.� State power is emphasized by the legal requirement (not strictly observed) that public prosecutors wear a military��������������������������������������������������������������� -�������������������������������������������������������������� style uniform during proceedings. There is no legal provision requiring defence lawyers to wear robes or uniforms. 80