GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “The defense lawyer did not have the power of attorney ... the judge believed his words” (criminal case). The confidentiality of a deliberations room was observed in 93% of cases. From the questionnaires of monitors on first instance courts of general jurisdiction: “A person dressed in civilian clothes was always present in the deliberations room”. “While the judge was in the deliberations room, people came in and left his chambers [which served as the deliberations room] all the time”. PUBLICITY Court hearings must be announced both on the web-site of the court and on the information board. The courts posted information about the hearings on the web-site in 93% of cases which were monitored. However, the information on the web-site was not always complete and correct. Hearing schedules were posted on the information board less often – in 81% of cases. In 98% of cases the monitors were able to get inside the room where the case was being heard (courtrooms or judges’ chambers). In certain cases, the monitors noted they were able to enter the courtroom only after an identity check. In the course of the monitoring there were cases when the interested persons were not admitted to the courtroom. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “The court passed a ruling to ban independent attendees from the courtroom. At the same time, live video streaming was available in another room, although it shut down from time to time” (criminal case). However, one of the monitors was able to participate in an on-site court hearing which took place at a penitentiary institution. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “It was an on-site hearing in a correctional facility, the process of getting clearance to participate was long and complicated” (criminal case). In 79% of cases the court heard the case in the courtroom. The monitors noted cases when the consideration of the case started in the courtroom and then continued in the judges’ chambers. In 10% of cases the monitors noted that during the hearing in the judges’ chambers at least one courtroom was vacant. In most cases (70%) the judges of general jurisdiction courts did not inquire who was present at the hearing in addition to the trial participants. This indicator was much better than in other courts. This is largely explained by the fact that the judges of general jurisdiction courts are more used to the presence of the public in court hearings. Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 23