Monitoring indicated that delays and postponements of trial hearings were the rule rather than the exception in all monitored courts, as detailed above, Chapter II section 2.3. Postponements of trial hearings were accepted as a matter of practice, with 62% ������� of all scheduled hearings postponed. This high percentage of postponed hearings may be primarily explained by the tradition of examining a case in several hearings spread over a period of time rather than examining a case in a single sitting. In any event, it is a very high percentage. The percentage of postponements resulting from prosecutors failing to appear (7% in Chişinău and 10% in the Southeast) and defence lawyers failing to appear (13% in Chişinău and 10% in the Southeast) were particularly troubling. These officials have a professional duty to be on time. Monitors �������������������������������������������������������� noted instances in which the defence lawyer or the prosecutor justified their failure to appear at the previous hearing (which was postponed) by citing an overlap with other hearings. This appears to be a systemic problem that could be resolved by all three groups of participants (judiciary, prosecutor’s office and defence lawyers) putting more effort into the coordinated and efficient scheduling of hearings. Monitors observed that judges often rush trial participants in their pleadings or when they are addressing questions to witnesses, justifying their hurry with the need to ensure that proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time. This attitude is hard to square with the tolerance of postponements. In several instances a hearing was postponed because the judge was missing (for staff meetings, vacations or unknown reasons) or because the judge arrived too late and the parties had already left. In some instances�������������������� judges appeared to postpone hearings for no particular reason. These instances were especially troublesome in cases where the defendant was i���������� ����������� n custody. Delays and postponements negatively affect the defendant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time. They also negatively affect the quality of witness examinations as many witnesses become tired of the constant delays and postponements and discontinue their appearance at hearings. Although improvements were noted in the time of commencement of trial hearings during the full monitoring period, the courts still need to make greater efforts in this area. 3.5. The Right to be Presumed Innocent Article 6 paragraph 2 of the European Convention states, “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” As the European Court put it, the presumption of innocence embodied in Article 6 paragraph 2 and the various rights, a non-exhaustive list of which appears in paragraph 3, are constituent elements, amongst others, of the notion of a fair trial in criminal proceedings.107 This right requires that “[w]hen carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused.”108 Consequently, the judge and other public authorities109 should have an impartial attitude toward the defendant and 107 ���� See Deweer v. Belgium, Judgment of 27 February 1980, para. 56. 108 ���� See Barbera, Messegue and Joabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, para. 77. 109 ������������������ See, for example, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, Judgment of 10 February 1995, para. 36 and 37, in which the Court found the remarks of two senior police officers made at a press conference held during the judicial investigation and supported by the Ministry of Interior violated the right to be presumed innocent, as they were, “…clearly a declaration of the applicant’s guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly, prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority.” 60