• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

OSCE TRIAL MONItoRING PROGRAmme FoR THE RepUBLIC OF MOLDOVA FINAL RepoRT (April 2006 – November 2008) Realised by OSCE Mission to Moldova © OSCE/ODIHR 2009 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE/ODIHR as the source. OSCE Mission to Moldova Mitropolit Dosoftei Str., 108, MD-2012, Chișinău, Republic of Moldova Tel.: +373 22 223 495 Fax: +373 22 223 496 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.osce.org/moldova ISBN 978-9975-9676-7-9 CZU 347.9:341.176 P 94 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is the third and the final report in the framework of the Trial Monitoring Programme in Moldova. While it is never possible to acknowledge adequately all the contributions of colleagues and partners both within and outside the OSCE, we would at least like to name those without whom there would have been no the final report. First of all, we would not have had data for writing the reports without the excellent work of our national trial monitors. We are very grateful for their perseverance in providing thorough and complete trial observation questionnaires, which form the basis for all our analysis, conclusions and recommendations. We would like to acknowledge the commitment and hard work of the National Co-ordinators: Laurenţiu Hadîrcă, one of the co-authors of the First and Second Analytic Reports, who worked with the OSCE Mission to Moldova until October 2007; and Ghenadie Barbă as his successor, who stayed with the Mission until January 2009. Appreciation must be extended to Liliana Calancea, the Senior Programme Assistant, who in addition to assisting the monitoring team in the daily co-ordination of the Trial Monitoring Programme entered and maintained data from thousands of reporting forms in the Trial Monitoring Database, and compiled and organized the results into graphs and charts presented in all the three reports. We extend our appreciation to Nadejda Hriptievschi, co-author of the Second Analytic Report and author of this Final Report. She contributed her experience as a national trial monitor in the Trial Monitoring Programme from its very launch and her selfless commitment to the overall process of improving the judiciary system in the Republic of Moldova is highly appreciated. We are grateful to Henrikas Mickevicius, who contributed his extensive international experience to providing the Final Report with conclusions and recommendations based on the findings compiled in all three reports. We are sincerely grateful to Igor Dolea, Ph.D, director of the Institute for Penal Reforms, who provided outstanding guidance and assistance in organizing training for new monitors and who reviewed and commented on all three reports. We appreciate the support provided by Ion Oboroceanu, director of the Căuşeni Law Centre in implementing the Trial Monitoring Programme in the Southeast of Moldova. Close partnership with local authorities has been crucial to the successful implementation of the Trial Monitoring Programme. We greatly appreciate the support and attention we received from the Superior Council of Magistrates and the General Prosecutor’s Office. The Trial Monitoring Programme has benefited greatly from the experience and support of Staff Members of the Human Rights and Rule of Law Departments of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and of the ABA Rule of Law Initiative in Moldova. Generous financial contributions from Finland, the United States, Germany, France and the United Kingdom have made the implementation of the Trial Monitoring Programme possible 3 and we sincerely hope that this interest will continue to contribute to the development of the judiciary system in Moldova so that it may adequately meet relevant international standards and OSCE commitments. On behalf of the OSCE Mission to Moldova Rita Tamm, Manager of the Trial Monitoring Programme in Moldova 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 I. INTRODUCTION 11 1.1. National and International Commitments and Obligations on the Right to a Fair Trial 11 1.2. Value of Trial Monitoring 12 1.3. Legislative Developments Relevant to the Judiciary during the Trial Monitoring Programme 13 1.4. Goals and Objectives of the Trial Monitoring Programme 15 1.5. Procedure and Time-line 16 1.6. Methodology 17 1.7. Reporting 20 1.8. Methodological Disclaimer 23 II. INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS AND PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE OF PARTICIPANTS 25 2.1. Introduction and Overview of Judiciary Organization 25 2.2. Court Premises and Facilities 27 2.3. Organizational Shortcomings 30 2.4. Professional Performance of Participants (Judges, Prosecutors and Defence Lawyers) 36 2.5. Quality of Supporting Court Staff (Court Clerks and Interpreters) 43 III. FAIR TRIAL AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT 49 3.1. The Right to a Public Hearing 50 3.2. The Right to an Independent and Impartial Tribunal 53 3.3. The Right to a Fair Hearing 55 3.4. The Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time 59 3.5. The Right to be Presumed Innocent 60 3.6. The Right to Legal Assistance and the Right to Adequate Time and Facilities 62 3.7. The Right to an Interpreter 68 5 IV. FAIR TRIAL AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES 71 4.1. The Right to Physical Security 72 4.2. The Right to be Treated with Respect 73 4.3. The Right to Privacy 74 4.4. The Right to Adequate Interpretation Facilities 75 4.5. The Right to Legal Assistance 75 4.6. The Right to a Timely Examination of the Case 76 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 77 ANNEX: 87 Sample of Questionnaire 87 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY General remarks about the Trial Monitoring Programme in the Republic of Moldova: The Trial Monitoring Programme was developed by the OSCE Mission to Moldova in partnership with OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). Monitoring started on 19 April 2006 in the following courts located in the municipality of Chişinău: Botanica, Buiucani, Centru, Ciocana and Rîşcani District Courts; the Chişinău Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice. Since September 2007 the Trial Monitoring Programme has been extended to the Southeast of the country to the following courts: Anenii Noi, Căuşeni and Ştefan Vodă District Courts and the Bender Court of Appeals. Court monitoring ended on 30 November 2008. The Trial Monitoring Programme sought to assess the observance of internationally recognized fair trial standards and corresponding individual rights of the defendant, victim and witness; and to review the de facto functioning of the courts in general to the extent that it can be observed by monitoring court proceedings. The analysis in this Final Report includes a summary of the findings for the entire monitoring period. It compares the current situation with the findings of the first two interim reports. It notes any differences between Chişinău courts and those located in the Southeast of the country. In addition, this Final Report presents the Moldovan legal community, the donor community and other interested parties with a series of recommendations on how the problems identified might be addressed. Findings related to institutional conditions: Court facilities are mostly inappropriate. The conditions of the courtrooms are largely poor. Courts lack adequate equipment. Heating remains a problem in winter. None of the courts monitored has separate entrances or special waiting rooms for victims and witnesses. Basic public facilities such as toilets and running water are generally not available to the public or are very shabby. The courts are marked by organizational shortcomings, including cascading delays and postponements; 61% of scheduled hearings were postponed in the courts in Chişinău and 85% in Southeast of Moldova. Poor punctuality is an accepted practice. Courts of Appeals have better premises and facilities than the district courts but are still overcrowded and the dominant atmosphere is chaotic. The practice of scheduling too many trials on any one day continued in Courts of Appeals and in the Supreme Court of Justice. Findings related to the professional performance of participants: Participants in all categories and all courts exhibited a lack of concentration and attention to the proceedings. Judges rarely admonished behaviour such as use of mobile phones or making inappropriate jokes or comments. Prosecutors and defence lawyers entered judges’ offices before hearings. Participants used inappropriate expressions. In addition to the effect 7 on individual cases, the atmosphere negatively affects the public’s and parties’ perception of the judicial system. Judges, while generally showing a good understanding of the law, often fail to devote sufficient attention and time to explaining the rights of the parties. Hearings were less formal when held in judges’ offices or by only one judge in a courtroom. Prosecutors appeared inadequately prepared in some cases. Prosecutors sometimes failed to secure the appearance of witnesses, did not bring evidence to the court and asked the parties inappropriate questions. Monitors observed a slight improvement in prosecutors’ punctuality record in the second monitoring period in Chişinău courts. Defence lawyers sometimes performed poorly. Although monitors observed poorer performance by lawyers representing legal aid clients, privately contracted lawyers were sometimes clearly not prepared for the case and read through the case file in court. In isolated cases defence lawyers behaved in an unacceptable manner towards their clients. Court clerks registered a slight improvement in performance in the second monitoring period regarding taking minutes and attitudes towards trial participants. However, monitors still observed many instances in which court clerks did not actively take minutes or took minutes very slowly and interrupted participants to ask them to repeat what they had said. Quality of interpretation was poor. As a rule interpreters did not interpret everything, usually only summarizing the questions and answers. Findings related to the rights of the defendant in a fair trial: The right to a public hearing is generally respected.

Load more

  93

Copy Link