Table 13: Judges wearing robes during trial proceedings (information by court) Periods monitored: Courts in Chişinău Monitoring period I, April 2006 – May 2007 Yes No Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II Monitoring period I Monitoring period II 100% 100% 99% 99% 47% 45% 66% 81% 45% 54% 74% 86% 52% 68% 0% 0% 1% 1% 53% 55% 34% 19% 55% 46% 26% 14% 48% 32% September 2007 – November 2008 September 2007 – November 2008 September 2007 – November 2008 September 2007 – November 2008 100% 97% 76% 83% 0% 3% 24% 17% Monitoring period II, June 2007 – November 2008 Supreme Court of Justice Chişinău Court of Appeals Centru District Court Ciocana District Court Rîşcani District Court Botanica District Court Buiucani District Court Courts in the Southeast Bender Court of Appeals Anenii Noi District Court Căuşeni District Court Ştefan Vodă District Court Judges wearing robes during trials T����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� he practice of wearing robes seems to be much more embedded in judges’ routines ������������ in the Southeast where judges did not wear robes in only 7% of the hearings monitored. In comparison,��������������������������������������������������������������������� 31% of�������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� judges did ������������������������������������������������������ not �������������������������������������������������� wear robes in Chişinău for�������������������� ����������������������� the entire period. In some cases monitors noted that judges inaccurately informed defendants about the law on legal aid����������������������������������������������������������������������������� , sometimes suggest���������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� ing������������������������������������������������������� indirectly that the defendant engage a certain lawyer present in the court room. Vignette: The hearing was supposed to be a preliminary hearing. The defendant did not have money to contract a defence lawyer and was not assisted by a lawyer at the hearing. The prosecutor was in a hurry and the hearing was postponed. The judge said to the defendant: “You should look for a defence lawyer, as you are charged with a serious offence and the article provides for 10 years and more.” The defendant mentioned that she had no money for a defence lawyer. The judge mentioned that she could try to file a request for a legal aid lawyer, but indicated that this would be difficult because legal aid lawyers are assigned for underage persons, elderly people and persons held under arrest. [Note: This is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Art. 69 of the Criminal 39