Previous 56 / 93 Next

Monitors noted that judges sometimes compromised their impartiality by making inappropriate comments �� to one�� party. �� For example, a�� t the end of one hearing, the judge told the defence lawyer, in the presence of all other trial participants, “Mr. …(lawyer’s name), the discussion we had today �� will�� stay between us.” Even if their�� discussion �� had been�� a private one unrelated �� to the �� present�� hearing or case, the impression made on participants was that there was some connection between the judge and the defence lawyer tainting the judge’s impartiality. In other instances judges �� openly took a biased position towards one party. In one case, a judge never asked the defendant if he had questions for the witnesses, though he provided opportunities to the prosecutor and injured party to ask questions. In an exceptional case, a judge who was passive and manifested no interest in managing the hearing commented to the prosecutor who was very active, “Very good that you are leading the hearing, no one can stop you.” The independence of judges was drawn into question by instances, as noted in the Second TMP Report, �� in which�� a judge openly admitted that he was under pressure from the Ministry of Interior Affairs. Several monitors noted that many judges tried to rush through the parties’ pleadings and/ or the statements given by the defendant and trial participants. In one case, the judge discouraged the prosecutor from asking more questions saying�� ,�� “One more question! It’s 16.00!” In several cases, judges interrupted defence lawyers’ pleadings saying that they should only refer to something new or in �� addition �� to what they had already written in the appeal plea. In another case, �� a�� judge rushed the witnesses�� ’�� statements, making it hard for the parties to take notes. As indicated in Chapter II of this Final Report, monitors observed that at the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice panels of judges had a very high caseload and that these panels typically examined a few cases in rapid succession and then withdrew for deliberation o�� f �� several. This practice reflects organizational shortcomings that negatively affect the public’s perception of the courts and infringe upon the defendant’s right to have his/her case heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. The practice of examining several cases at one time negatively impacts the judges’ ability to concentrate on any single case, giving it the full and reasoned consideration it deserves. In addition, there is no way to ensure that proceedings in one of the cases examined will not have an unwarranted impact on the judges’ decisions in other cases heard simultaneously. 3.3. The Right to a Fair Hearing Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention guarantees everyone the right to a “fair” hearing. The European Court, in its case law, has extensively developed the meaning of this term, declaring a series of underlying due process standards for a “fair hearing” that are not expressly set forth in the text of the Convention. These standards include the following guarantees: the right of access to a court, the right to be present during proceedings, freedom from self-incrimination, equality of arms, the right to adversarial proceedings and the right to a reasoned judgment. Fair trial standards are provided, to a varying degree, in Moldovan legislation. Free access to a court is guaranteed by the Constitution78 and the Criminal Procedure Code.79 The Criminal 78 �� Art. 20 of the Constitution. 79 �� Art. 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 55

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