include a review of court decisions and therefore made no assessment of compliance with the reasoned judgment requirement. Monitors, did, however, report limited observations indirectly relating to the reasoned judgment requirement. �������������������������������� They noted a widespread lack of reasoning for declaring court hearings closed to the public. Judges many times ������������� only��������� recited that the hearing was being closed “to protect the victim’s privacy” or “in the interests of justice.” This practice was noted in the Second TMP Report and continued to be observed by monitors during the second monitoring period both in Chi���������������������������������� ş��������������������������������� inău and the Southeast. Monitors observed instances in which the Courts of Appeals ignored a defence lawyer’s request for hearing an additional witness and provided a superficial response to the lawyer’s request to change the panel of judges on grounds that they were not impartial. In the latter instance, the president of the hearing simply read out the legal provisions regarding ������������������ recusal����������� ���������� of ������� judges (Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The right to be present during proceedings requires that the defendant be present at all trial hearings.90 Correspondingly, a defendant’s absence should normally call for a postponement except (i) in cases where the authorities have acted diligently but were not able to notify the accused of the hearing;91 or (ii) as required by the administration of justice in certain cases of illness.92 Trials in absentia are not completely incompatible with the European Convention, but are highly undesirable and require strict observance of several conditions that the European Court examines in every case. A defendant can be removed from the court room (hearings in camera93) if s/he is disturbing the proceedings. These instances are exceptional. Hearings in camera can also be held without the defendant present if this is necessary to protect the victim.94 Monitors did not observe frequent violations affecting the defendant’s right to be present during proceedings. Judges consistently upheld this right and postponed hearings whenever the defendant was absent. Monitors noted, however, cases in which defendants in custody could not be present at their trials because, as the judges explained to those present, the police did not have enough fuel on that day to drive them from the penitentiaries to court. Such occurrences could reasonably be regarded as a violation of the defendant’s right to be present. Moreover, if such instances lead to repeated postponements, they could constitute a breach of the reasonable time guarantee. The principle of equality of arms demands that each party to the proceedings have a reasonable opportunity to present his/her case to the court under conditions that do not place them at a substantial disadvantage in relation to the opponent, so that a fair balance is struck between the parties.95 This principle is closely connected to the right to adversarial proceedings which requires that both parties to a criminal or civil trial have the opportunity to have knowledge of and 90 ���� See Ekbatani v. Sweden, Judgment of the European Court, 26 May 1988, para. 25. 91 ���� See Colozza v. Italy, Judgment of the European Court, 22 January 1985, para. 28. 92 ���� See Ensslin and others v. the Federal Republic of Germany, 14 DR 64. 93 �“In camera” hearings refer to hearings where one party is not present. The term is used in this Report particularly in instances where the defendant is removed from the court room (i) if s/he is disturbing the order of the court or (ii) in order to protect the interests of the victim or witness. 94 ������������������� See Art. 15 of the Recommendation R (85) 11, Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe, 28 June 1985. 95 ���� See De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, Judgment of the European Court, 24 February 1997, para. 53. 57