Procedure Code provides for a defendant’s right to be present at the examination of his/ her case in court80 and states that trials in absentia can be held only in certain enumerated exceptional circumstances.81 The Criminal Procedure Code contains an express prohibition against forced self-incrimination and states that no one can be forced to confess guilt or to testify against himself/herself or his/her close relatives, spouse, or fiancé.82 The Code further guarantees the equal rights of parties during case examination and the principle of adversarial proceedings,83 and requires that court judgments be legal, well grounded, and reasoned.84 The Trial Monitoring Programme, given its limited scope, did not cover the observance of all aspects of the right to a fair trial. The right of access to a court provides that everyone must be afforded the right to have any claim relating to his/her civil rights and obligations brought before a court and includes the right to a final determination of the dispute.85 This right clearly falls outside the scope of the Programme, as the Programme relates in a strict sense only to cases that are already being examined. As mentioned above, the Programme did not follow complete individual cases but specific trial hearings. Given this, no assessment could be made as to the observance of the court access guarantee. Freedom from self-incrimination is comprised of “the right of anyone charged with a criminal offence […] to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself.”86 It is aimed at protecting the defendant from “…improper compulsion by the authorities thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfillment of the aims of Article 6…”87 The protection of this right could not be observed by Programme monitors as this issue comes into question mostly during the pre-trial stage. T������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� he right to a reasoned judgment involves the courts’ obligation “to give reasons for their judgments, although this cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to all arguments.”88 The extent of the obligation depends on the nature of the decision and is determined in light of the circumstances of the case.89 All submissions fundamental to the outcome of a case must be specifically addressed in the judgment. The Programme did not 80 ��������������������������������������������������������� Art. 66 para. (2) p. 23) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 81 ����������������������������������������� Art. 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 82 ������������������������������������������������� Art. 21 para. (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 83 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Art.s 24, 314 and 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the current legislation, however, equality of arms is somewhat limited at the pre-trial stage������������������������������������������������� ,������������������������������������������������ since the defence can administer evidence only through the opposite party. For example, Art. 100 para. (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ������������������ gives the defence �������� the right ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ to talk to physical persons if the latter agree to be heard according to the procedure established by law. This wording means that the person also has the right to refuse to talk to the defence and consequently testify. In contrast, if the criminal investigation body considers it necessary to hear a person, the latter cannot refuse to testify and also bears criminal responsibility for refusing to do so. For a detailed analysis of the issue, see Igor Dolea, The principle of equality of arms and the right of the defence to administer evidence in the criminal proceedings in Moldova (in Romanian), Analele Ştiinţifice ale USM, 2004, p. 371. 84 �������������������������������������������������� Art. 384 para. (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 85 ���� See Burdov v. Russia, Judgment of the European Court, 7 May 2002, para. 34. See also Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, Judgment of the European Court, 6 March 2003, para. 27. 86 ���� See Funke v. France, Judgment of the European Court, 25 February 1993, para. 44. 87 ���� See Saunders v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of the European Court, 17 December 1996, para. 68-69. 88 ���� See Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, Judgment of the European Court, 19 April 1994, para. 19. 89 ���� See Balani v. Spain, Judgment of the European Court, 9 December 1994, para. 27. See also Ruiz Torija v. Spain, Judgment of the European Court, 9 December 1994, para. 29. 56