FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY COURT TYPE At the time of monitoring the commercial code did not contain a direct requirement to announce which case was being heard, but this was presumed by the general requirement about the publicity of commercial proceedings (Article 4). In accordance with Article 74 of the Commercial Procedure Code the judge shall announce the composition of the court. In 89% of cases, when opening the hearing, the court announced the case that was being heard; in 71% of cases the presiding judge announced the composition of the court. In 97% of cases the monitors had no obstacles from the court in making audio recordings of the proceedings. In 94% of cases, when a court judgement was supposed to be pronounced, the court did this publicly. However, there were cases when the judge did not read the whole text of the judgement but rather gave a brief overview of its content. From the questionnaires of monitors about commercial courts: “The court did not publicly pronounce the ruling about the approval of the settlement agreement. The court limited itself to mentioning that the court had approved the agreement, and that the parties would receive written copies of the ruling later”. “The judge noted that he would prepare a ruling on approval of the motion to dismiss the arrest”. PUBLICITY IN COMMERCIAL COURTS 3,1 -5 0 5 IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE In 70% of cases the presiding judge informed the participants of the case about their right to demand the recusal of a judge. This is a much lower rate than in general and administrative courts. In 99% of cases the monitors noted that the court did not ignore the age, general level of development, psychological and physical status of the trial participants when explaining to them their procedural rights. In 99% of cases the court heard the arguments of the participants of the trial in all the cases when it was provided for by the procedural law. The court paid sufficient attention to the arguments or motions of the participants of the trial, and provided justifications when turning them down (in 98% of all cases). 28 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE