CIVIL CASES In 96% of cases the judge did not restrict the parties in their right to get familiarized with documents and evidence in the case provided they filed respective motions. In 96% of cases the judge did not restrict the parties in their right to participate in a court debate (in those hearings where the debate took place). In 96% of cases the judge did not exercise any moral pressure on the trial participants, and did not treat one of the parties better than the other. IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE IN CIVIL CASES 4,3 -5 0 5 CULTURE OF CONDUCTING THE TRIAL The monitors evaluated the general status of observance of ethical norms and communication culture both by the court and the trial participants as impeccable in 71% of civil cases. This is the lowest rate compared to other courts. In 91% of cases the court did not allow rudeness, tactlessness, contempt to the participants of the trial, and demonstrated impeccable conduct. However, there were other instances. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a civil case: “The judge yelled at the parties”. In 99% of cases the court did not make any comments and actions which showed disrespect to a person by race, sex, nationality, religion, political opinions, social and economic status, physical disabilities or other forms of discrimination. In 89% of cases the judge did not get distracted from the hearing and listened to the parties attentively. From the questionnaires of monitors on civil cases: “The presiding judge listened attentively, while the others [judges] worked on something on their laptops”. “The judges listened to the representatives inattentively. They talked to each other from the very beginning of the hearing. They did it so loudly that they interrupted the representative’s arguments. When the representative of the plaintiff justified his position, they did not pay any attention at all. Having understood this, the representative of the plaintiff made a pause so that the judges would pay attention to him. Instead, the presiding judge, without abandoning her lively discussion, automatically asked the representative of the defendant to state his opinion. However, the discussion between the judges was so loud and intense that they hardly paid attention to the representative of the defendant as well”. Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 45