On behalf of the Republic of Moldova, the Constitutional Court, acting as part of Mr. Talbot, President, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, Mr. Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor DOLEA, Dna Victoria IFTODI, Mr. Victor PALMER, Mr. Zadrahimi, judges, with the participation of Mr. Marcel Lupu, Registrar, considering the appeal filed on 13 March 2017 and recorded at the same time, examining the appeal referred to in the public plenary session, taking into account the acts and proceedings of the dossier , acting on 22 may 2017 in Council Pronounce the following judgment: 1. The origin of the case lies the exception of non-constitutionality of the following provisions of the code of criminal procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 122-XV of 14 March 2003:-the phrase "and his own beliefs" in paragraph 2 of article 26;
-the phrase "the judge and the person who conducts the prosecution considers evidence according to their own conviction" in paragraph 1 of article 27;
-the phrase "representative organ of the prosecution or the judge considers evidence in accordance with their own convictions" in paragraph 2 of article 101, the exception raised by the lawyer Abiodun Raja nr. 10-516/15, pending the Court of Justice, the seat of the Centre.
2. The plea of unconstitutionality has been lodged with the Constitutional Court on 13 March 2017 by judge S. Jorge within Headquarters, Center Court, pursuant to article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). a) and g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016, and of the regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court.
3. non-constitutionality exception attributed as the author claimed, essentially, that the contested provisions, according to which the judge considers evidence in its own convictions, violates articles 114, 115 paragraphs 1 and 2. (4) paragraphs 1 and 2, 124. (1) paragraphs 1 and 2 and 125. (5) of the Constitution.
4. By decision of the Constitutional Court of 31 March 2017 referral concerning the non-constitutionality exception has been declared admissible, without prejudeca Fund case.
5. In the process of examination of constitutionality exception, the Constitutional Court requested the opinion of the Parliament, President and Government. Parliament did not submit his opinion in writing.
6. In the plenary session of the Court, the appeal was backed by the author's lawyer Abidin Raja, constitutionality exception.
7. Parliament was represented by Mr Valeriu Kuchuk, head of representation at the Constitutional Court and the law enforcement agencies of the General Directorate of the Parliament Secretariat. The Government was represented by Mr. E. Taha, Deputy Minister of Justice.
A. the main dispute Circumstances 8. In the procedure the judge of instruction within the Court of Justice, the headquarters of the Centre, is the complaint filed under A.G., based on art. 313 of the code of criminal procedure, which called for the cancellation of the minutes concerning the carrying out of a search of 26 November 2015.
9. In the process of examination of the complaint, the lawyer Abidin Raja raised the exception of non-constitutionality of some provisions of the code of criminal procedure, referred to in § 1.
10. by the conclusion of 10 February 2017, the Court ordered the lifting of non-constitutionality exception and transmission of referral to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
B. relevant Legislation 11. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (republished in the Official Gazette, no. 2016, 78, art. 140) are as follows: Article 6Separaţia and cooperation of powers "in the Republic of the legislative, Executive and judicial powers are separate and cooperate in the exercise of their prerogatives under the Constitution."


Article 114Înfăptuirea justice "Justice shall be administered solely by the name of the law courts."


Article 115Instanţele of the judicial "[...]
(4) the Organization of the courts, their jurisdiction and procedure of the Court shall be established by organic law. "


Article 116Statutul "(1) the judges of the courts are independent, impartial and irremovable under the law.
[...] "
12. The relevant provisions of law No. 544-XIII of 20 July 1995 on the status of judges (republished in M. A., 2013, no. 15-17, art. 63) are as follows: Article 1Judecătorul, spokesman of the judicial power "[...]
(3) the judges of the courts are independent, impartial and irremovable and obey only the law.
(4) the judges shall take decisions independently and impartially and without any restrictions, influences, pressures, threats or intervention, direct or indirect, from any authorities, including judicial authorities. Hierarchical organization of jurisdictions cannot affect the independence of the individual judge. "


Article 17Asigurarea independence of judges ' independence of judges is ensured by: a) the procedure of the justice;
[...] "
13. The relevant provisions of the code of criminal procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 122-XV of 14 March 2003 (reprinted in the Official Gazette, no. 2013, 248-251, art. 699) are as follows: "Article 8Prezumţia of innocence [...]
(3) Conclusions about the guilt of the person committing the offence may not be based on conjecture. All questions answered in proof of accusations which cannot be removed, under this code shall be interpreted in favour of the suspect, accused, defendant. "


Article 26Independența of the judges and their allegiance only to the law "(1) The Administration of Justice in criminal cases, judges are independent and subject only to the law. The judges judge criminal cases on the basis of law and in conditions that exclude any pressure on them.
(2) the judge judges and criminal cases according to law and their own beliefs based on researched evidence in judicial proceedings.
(3) the judge shall not be predisposed to accept the conclusions given by the prosecution over the defendant or a judgment from preconceived idea that it has committed an offence that constitutes the object of accusations. The task of the presentation of evidence is the responsibility of the Prosecutor's accusations.
[...] "


Article 27Libera appreciation of the evidence "(1) the judge and the person who conducts the prosecution considers evidence according to their own conviction, formed as a result of the research of all the samples.
(2) no conclusive evidence has no power in advance. "



Article 93Probele "[...]
(3) the factual elements can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings if they were acquired by the prosecution or by the other party in the lawsuit, in compliance with the provisions of this code.
[...] "


Article 100Administrarea of the evidence "(1) the administration of the evidence lies in the use of evidence in criminal procedure, which involves gathering and verifying evidence in favor and at the expense of the defendant, the accused, the prosecution, ex officio or at the request of other participants in the proceedings, as well as by the Court, at the request of the parties, through the processes of the evidence provided for in this code.
[...]
(4) all managed the criminal will be verified in all aspects, fully and objectively. Sample verification consists in analyzing the samples, a cross-check them with other samples, the management of new samples and checking out the source from which the samples, in accordance with the provisions of this code, by the evidence in question.
[...] "


Article 101Aprecierea of the evidence "(1) each sample to be assessed in terms of relevance, reliability, usefulness and concludenţei them, and all the evidence as a whole from the standpoint of corroborate them.
(2) the representative organ of the prosecution or the judge considers evidence in accordance with their own convictions, formed after examining their overall, in all aspects and in an objective manner, being guided by the law.
(3) no evidence has no value in advance for prosecution or court.
(4) the Court shall make its decision only those samples to which they had access on all sides equally and to provide detailed reasons for judgment the admissibility or inadmissibility of all samples.
(5) a judgment of conviction cannot be found, the decisive measure, on statements of the witness is protected or on evidence obtained as a result of carrying out special measures of investigation. "


Article 383Reluarea of the judicial research ' (1) If during the judging process, the Court finds that a particular circumstance requires delivering fair settlement for the case, the Court may resume research establishing a reasoned conclusion.
[...] "


Article 384Sentinţa Court "[...]
(3) the sentence of the Court should be lawful, well-grounded and motivated.
(4) the court sentence is based only on their samples were examined in court. "


Article 389Sentinţa, "sentence (1) Sentence prosecution shall be given only on condition that, as a result of legal research, the defendant's guilt in committing the offence was confirmed by Assembly of evidence examined by the Court.
(2) the sentence on conviction may not be based on conjecture or exclusively times mainly on witness statements submitted during prosecution and read in court in their absence.
[...] "
LAW 14. Of the non-constitutionality exception, the Court observes that it is aimed at essentially the appreciation of evidence according to his own conviction of the judge.
15. Thus, the exception refers to a set of elements and principles with constitutional value related to the principle of independence and impartiality of the judge and the realization of Justice in the name of the law.
A. ADMISSIBILITY Of 16. By its decision of 31 March 2017, the Court verified the meeting the following conditions for eligibility: (1) subject to the exception comes into the category of acts covered by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). of the Constitution) 17. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 135. (1) (a). the control of the Constitution) the constitutionality of laws, the code of criminal procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 122-XV of 14 March 2003, the competence of the Constitutional Court.
(2) the exception is raised by one of the parties or its representative, or is lifted by the Court ex officio 18. Being raised by a lawyer in the criminal James Abidi nr. 10-516/15, pending at the Court of Chișinău, referral Center headquarters regarding the plea of unconstitutionality is made by the subject in charge with this law, pursuant to article 135 paragraph 1. (1) letter a) and paragraph 2 of point g) of the Constitution, as established by the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 2 of 9 February 2016, and of the regulation on the procedure for examining complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court.
(3) the provisions of the contested to be applied to the settlement of the case 19. The Court observes that the object of the exception of unconstitutionality is MediaWiki "and his own beliefs". 26 para. (2) the judge and the person who conducts the prosecution considers evidence according to their own conviction ". 27(2). (1) and "the representative of the prosecution or the judge considers evidence in accordance with their own convictions". 101 paragraphs 1 and 2. (2) of the code of criminal procedure, to be applied to the settlement of the case.
20. the Court note that the prerogative to address the exceptions of unconstitutionality, which has been vested in it by article 135 paragraph 1. (1) (a). g) of the Constitution, requires correlation of laws and the Constitution, taking into account the principle of the supremacy of its provisions and to address the relevance of the contested dispute in the courts.
(4) there is a previous judgment of the Court has as its object the contested provisions 21. The Court points out that the contested provisions have not been the object of notification constitutionality control.
22. Therefore, the Court considers that the non-constitutionality exception cannot be rejected as inadmissible and there is no other reason to interruption of the process, in accordance with the provisions of article 60 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction.
23. the court notice that the author of the non-constitutionality exception invoked the incompatibility of the contested provisions with articles 114, 115 paragraphs 1 and 2. (4) paragraphs 1 and 2, 124. (1) paragraphs 1 and 2 and 125. (5) of the Constitution.
24. in addition, the author claimed that the exception provisions infringe the principle of the independence of the judge challenged and, therefore, although not expressly indicate the reference text of the Constitution, the Court finds, reasonably, that the alleged violation of art. 116 paragraph 1. (1) of the Constitution concerning the status of judges.

25. Thus, in order to elucidate the issues dealt with in the Court of constitutionality exception will operate with the provisions of articles 114, 115 paragraphs 1 and 2. (4) paragraphs 1 and 2 and 116. (1) of the Constitution, and by reference to the case-law of the European Court of Justice and of human rights (hereinafter the ECHR), and as regards the alleged infringement of article 124 paragraph 1. (1) paragraphs 1 and 2 and 125. (5) of the Constitution, they are not incidental in this question.
B. the CASE of alleged infringement to FUND articles 114, 115 paragraphs 1 and 2. (4) paragraphs 1 and 2 and 116. (1) of the Constitution on 26. In the author's opinion, the provisions of the main exception being challenged violates article 114 of the Constitution, according to which: "Justice shall be administered solely by the name of the law courts."
27. At the same time, the author considers that the contested provisions are contrary to article 115 paragraphs 1 and 2. (4) of the Constitution, which lays down: "(4) the Organization of the courts, their jurisdiction and procedure of the Court shall be established by organic law."
28. As the contested provisions to be considered, including through article 116 paragraph 1. (1) of the Constitution, according to which: "(1) the judges of the courts are independent, impartial and irremovable under the law."
1. the author of the non-constitutionality exception Arguments 29. In the non-constitutionality exception, reasoning the author argues that the judge cannot question the way tool storage a subjective and arbitrary, but only according to the law.
30. In this context, the author of the constitutionality exception noted that the judge has no right to conduct its own assessment of the conviction. However, in the author's opinion, the assessment of evidence in its own beliefs is to be decided in the way subjective, unsupported in fact bringing about justice process that is governed by the principle of objectivity.
2. Arguments of the authorities 31. According to the President of the Republic of Moldova, the independence of the judge involve dispute resolution requirement without any ingerință, exclusively on the basis of their own beliefs, based on legal consciousness and the existing legal framework. A contrary interpretation could infringe the principle of the independence of judges and the judicial system as a whole.
32. Moreover, according to a report by the Chairman mentioned that his own conviction of the judge's reasoning is not based on general, but only on the outcome of the examination and the assessment of evidence acquired in the manner established by law.
33. In his opinion, the Government argues that appreciation of the material and determine the causes according to their own beliefs constitutes a component part of the principle of independence of the judge. At the same time, his own conviction to be based on the provisions of the law, as well as samples investigated in a judicial proceeding.
34. In addition, the Government indicates that the judge's persuasion to own appreciation of the evidence during a criminal must correspond to the standard "beyond any reasonable" outlined in the European Court of human rights.
35. In the plenary session of the Parliament's public representative noted that, in the present case, the judge's persuasion has his own sense of certainty which is formed as a result of the research of all the samples. However, the code of Criminal Procedure lays down the objective criteria for assessing the evidence.
36. In conclusion, Parliament's representative argued that the contested provisions do not contravene constitutional rules cited by the author of the non-constitutionality exception.
3. Assessment of the Court 3.1. 3.1.1. General principles 37. The independence of the judge The proper functioning of the judicial authority act as a factor of primary importance in the State mechanism of Defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This requires ensuring the autonomy and independence of the judiciary.
38. Thus, constitutional provisions for separation of powers into legislative, Executive and judicial powers (article 6), concerning the independence, impartiality and immovability of judges of courts of law (art. 116 (para. 1)), organic law relating to the establishment of the Organization of the courts, their competence and procedure of the Court (article 115 (para. 4)) define the legal status of judges in the Republic of Moldova and the judiciary as a schoolteacher, independent branch of State power. 39. The independence of the judiciary as a whole and individual guarantees the independence of judges. It must exist in relation to society in general and with the parties in any dispute over which judges must rule.
40. Thus, in its previous jurisprudence, the Court underlined that the independence of the judiciary has both an indispensable feature of objective-the judicial power, as well as a subjective component, which concerns the right to rights and freedoms shall determine by an independent judge. Without independent judges, one cannot talk about a real guarantee of rights and freedoms. Accordingly, the independence of the judiciary is not an end in itself, is not a privilege of the judge, but it is a guarantee against external pressures in decision-making, being justified by the need to allow judges to carry out their role as guardians of human rights and freedoms (HCC No. 22 of 5 September 2013).
41. it is axiomatic that the settlement of a case a judge not acting on orders or instructions from any third parties inside or outside the judicial system.
42. Therefore, the Court noted that the principle of the independence of the judges assumed that judges must take decisions in complete freedom and act without any restrictions and without being subject to influences, pressures, threats or unlawful intervention, direct or indirect, regardless of which side people come over and under what reason (HCC No. 22 of 5 September 2013).
43. the court notice that a number of international legal instruments were enshrined and developed their status and rights, guarantees the independence of the magistrates thereof, based on the role of Justice in defence of the rule of law.

44. Thus, according to the principles from Bangalore, "the judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of its own assessments of the facts and in accordance with the spirit of the law, without external influences, pressures, threats, suggestions and without any mixture, directly or indirectly, regardless of from whom it originated and what reason" (UN resolution 2003/43 of 29 April 2003).
45. In its recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Member States with regard to the judges: independence, effectiveness and the responsibilities it has been established that "the goal of independence, as provided for in article 6 of the Convention, is to guarantee the fundamental right of each person to be examined his case fairly, based on enforcement only and without any improper influence."
46. Furthermore, in its recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 mentioned that "judges must have sufficient powers to be able to exercise them in order to fulfill their duties and to maintain their authority and prestige of the Court. All persons connected with the case, including public bodies or their representatives, shall submit to the authority of the judge. "
3.1.2. The impartiality of the judge 47. Impartiality is a fundamental quality of a judge and represent the essential attribute of Justice. Thus, by the oath that I shall take an oath before beginning to exercise the powers, the judge is obliged to observe the Constitution and laws of the country, human rights and freedoms, to fulfil with honour, conscience and without bias the tasks incumbent on it.
48. An impartial justice entails that the judge must judge objectively cause in the name of the law, as provided for in art. 114 of the Constitution.
49. Also note that the principle of impartiality of Court oblige judges to settle causes without bias, thus ensuring the equality of citizens before the law, as foreseen by art. 16 of the Constitution.
50. The Advisory Council of European Judges (CCJE) stated in its opinion No. 3 of 2002 that public trust and respect for the judiciary are guarantees the efficiency of the legal system. Therefore, judges should carry out their duties without favoritism and without giving proof of prejudice or preconceived ideas.
51. It also noted that the judges of the CCJE should also fulfil their functions with due respect to the principle of equal treatment of the parties, thereby avoiding discrimination, keeping the balance between the parties and making sure that everyone is heard properly.
52. In this regard, and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe held in Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 that justices should protect the rights and freedoms of all persons, on an equal basis, with due regard for their dignity in the conduct of court proceedings. Also, judges should act and be perceived as acting free of any inappropriate external influence in judicial proceedings.
53. With reference to the guarantees of a fair trial, the European Court has established that the impartiality of the judge must be assessed both according to a subjective approach, which takes into account the personal beliefs or interests of the judge in a case, and according to an objective test, which determines whether or not the judge offered sufficient guarantees to preclude any doubt motivated from this point of view (Demicoli v. Malta judgment of 27 august 1991).
54. At the same time, subjective impartiality is presumed until proven to the contrary, instead of appreciating the objective impartiality consists in the analysis of whether the circumstances that may give rise to be suspected of lack of impartiality.
55. the Court shall retain that independence and impartiality of judges are in close contact and reinforcing each other, because the judge is not independent cannot by definition be impartial.
56. The relationship of interdependence between impartiality and independence of the judges and is reflected in its recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12, that the independence of judges must be regarded as a guarantee of freedom, respect for human rights and of impartial application of the law. The impartiality and independence of judges are essential to guarantee the equality of the parties before the courts.
57. Furthermore, judges should have unrestricted freedom to settle cases impartially in accordance with the law and with its own assessment of the facts.
58. In this regard, and the Commission from Venice stated that "a judge is free to express his opinion, to establish the facts and to apply the law in all matters under its own beliefs and is not obliged to justify himself in front of anyone, not even in front of other judges and/or the President of the Court, for the way he understood the law and established facts. These are the basic guarantees to ensure the independence of the judge to judge the causes with impartiality, according to his conscience and interpretation that gave her the facts and in accordance with applicable law "(CDL-AD (2013) 005, paragraph 21).
59. In addition, the Commission noted that the Venice ' European legal systems are very varied in terms of the role assigned to the judge in relation to the legislative body, and the parties in the process. In the European legal systems there are also different legislative creation techniques, ranging from detailed and complex codes up to legal systems with more open, that leaves more space for the judge's interpretation. However, always there will be a certain element of discretion in the interpretation of laws, determine the facts and assessment of evidence. This is the essence of the judicial function and constitutes a basic element of the judge's independence "(CDL-AD (2017) 002, item 31).
60. In the context of those mentioned, note that the judicial independence of the Court imposes the condition that each judge should be entitled to freedom in the application of the law in a fair evaluation of the facts and assessment of the evidence in each individual case, after his own conviction.
3.2. Applying the principles in this question 61. The Court reiterates that, according to article 114 of the Constitution, "Justice shall be administered in the name of the law".

62. the Court notes that, according to the rules of criminal procedure acts contested, the judge considers the evidence according to his own conviction.
63. the Court points out that the legal texts must be understood and applied challenged in light of the constitutional principles concerning the realization of Justice in the name of the law. At the same time, they will be linked to the entire regulatory assessment, which provides sufficient guarantees for carrying out this operation only under the law, based on objective criteria, in addition to arbitrariului and respecting the right of the accused person to a fair trial.
64. the court notice that unfettered evidence is closely linked to the rule in all aspects of research, fully and objectively of the circumstances of the case and the evidence.
65. Thus, the Court noted that the provisions according to which the samples are subjected to the free appraisals of the judge is to be interpreted in the sense of his own persuasion is formed as a result of the research of all the samples.
66. the Court underlines that the notion of "own persuasion", which is used in the text of the Bill criticized, no sense of subjective opinion, but that of the certainty gained judge after examining all of the evidence as a whole, in all respects, objectively and being guided by the law.
67. The Court also notes that the legislature has established clear criteria for assessing the evidence. Thus, according to art. 101 paragraphs 1 and 2. (1) of the code of criminal procedure, each sample is to be assessed in terms of relevance, reliability, usefulness and concludenţei them, and all the evidence as a whole from the standpoint of corroborate them.
68. the court notice that unfettered evidence excludes the possibility of giving a what powers established in advance of a sample. No evidence cannot be ascertained beforehand, but the appreciation of each sample is made by the Court following examination of all the evidence together, for the purpose of recognizing the truth.
69. his own appreciation of the evidence Or after conviction should not be confused with appreciation after that impression is the product of some older form emotional.
70. Equally, the Court noted that the free appreciation of evidence does not mean arbitrariness, but freedom to appreciate the evidence reasonably and impartial, and the results of the assessment of evidence are exhibited by the Court in procedural acts, which shall be duly justified and objective in all aspects of the law. Motivation is expressed by the fact that the admission of evidence and the rejection of others judge is obliged to state the reasons for such a solution.
71. As regards the reasoning of judgments, the European Court held that the role of reasoned decisions is to demonstrate to the parties that they were hearsay. Furthermore, a reasoned decision gives the party an opportunity to challenge, and the opportunity to have the decision reviewed by a higher court. Only by adopting a reasoned decision can be a public scrutiny of the administration of Justice (Suominen v. Finland judgment of 1 July 2003).
72. the court notice that, according to art. 389 of the code of criminal procedure, the sentence of conviction shall be given only on condition that, as a result of legal research, the defendant's guilt in committing the offence was confirmed by Assembly of evidence examined by the Court. The sentence of conviction may not be based on conjecture or exclusively times mainly on witness statements submitted during prosecution and read in court in their absence.
73. Also according to art. 101 paragraphs 1 and 2. (5) of the code of criminal procedure, the judgment of conviction cannot be found, the decisive measure, on statements of the witness is protected or on evidence obtained as a result of carrying out special measures of investigation.
74. Therefore, note that a Court sentence of condemnation can be given only in the situation when all evidence in defence were countered by the evidence in the indictment, being removed all doubts concerning the innocence of the person. For this reason, to the extent that the judge cannot reach a conclusion, the code of Criminal Procedure lays down in article 21. 383 right judge to resume judicial investigation if it finds that a particular circumstance requires delivering fair settlement for the case.
75. At the same time, the Court indicates that, according to art. 119 of the Constitution, the interested parties may exercise according to law the legal remedies against judgments. Thus, according to art. 409 para. (2) of the code of criminal procedure, in the light of the effect devolutiv, the Court of appeal is bound as, apart from the reasons invoked and claims brought by the caller, to examine issues of fact and law of the case, but not the caller's situation worse. In addition, the Court observes that article. 414 para. (4) of the code of criminal procedure establishes the right of the appellate court is to give a new appreciation of the evidence, if the Court Fund has admitted an error in the finding of guilt. Therefore, incorrect decisions can be corrected by means of the remedies provided by law.
76. Moreover, the European Court has noted in its case-law only where a Court of judicial review jurisdiction to examine both the facts and issues of law and study on the whole issue of guilt, it may not, on grounds relating to the fairness of the proceedings, to cut the items in question without a direct appreciation of the statements of the person who claims that he did not commit the act considered as offense (Ekbatani v. Sweden judgment of 26 May 1988; Constantinescu v. Romania judgment of 27 June 2000).
77. Moreover, the European Court has noted that, in the context of a procedure of appeal against a sentence of acquittal which had made the subject of an appeal, should be at the sole discretion of the facts to be given to whether there are sufficient grounds for the applicant's conviction. As a result, the jurisdiction of the Board of appeal ought to have informed in fact and in law and to study the whole question of guilt or innocence (Danylo v. Romania judgment of 8 March 2007).

78. At the same time, the Court recalled that with regard to the process of assessing the evidence in the case-law of the European Court was the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" ("beyond reasonable doubt"), which implies that, in order to be given a life sentence, the charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
79. The existence of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt constitutes an essential component of the right to a fair trial and establishes the responsibility of the prosecution to prove all requirement elements of guilt in a manner suitable to remove the doubt (judgment of the ECHR Bagnall v. Romania, of 6 December 2006; judgment of ECHR Orhan v. Turkey of 18 June 2002 judgment of the ECHR Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978).
80. In addition, the Court noted that this standard of proof can be fully understood only by reference to the principle of in dubio pro reo, which, in turn, constitutes a guarantee of the presumption of innocence. Thus, according to art. 8 of the code of criminal procedure, the findings about the guilt of the person committing the offence may not be based on conjecture, and all questions answered in proof of accusations which cannot be removed shall be interpreted in favour of the suspect, accused, defendant.
81. For these reasons, the court appealed from in mind that provisions of the criminal procedure code are without prejudice to articles 114, 115 paragraphs 1 and 2. (4) paragraphs 1 and 2 and 116. (1) of the Constitution.
For these reasons, under articles 135 para. (1) (a). a) and g) and 140 of the Constitution, 26 of the law on the Constitutional Court, 6, 61, 62 lit. a) and e) and 68 of the code of constitutional jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court DECIDES: 1. reject the plea of unconstitutionality raised by lawyer Abidin Raja in file No. 10-516/15, pending the Court of Justice, the seat of the Centre.
2. recognizes the constitutional phrase: "and his own beliefs" in paragraph 2 of article 26;
-the phrase "the judge and the person who conducts the prosecution considers evidence according to their own conviction" in paragraph 1 of article 27;
-the phrase "representative organ of the prosecution or the judge considers evidence in accordance with their own convictions" in paragraph 2 of article 101 of the code of criminal procedure of the Republic of Moldova nr. 122-XV of 14 March 2003.
3. This decision is final, cannot be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force on the date of its adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT