FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY JURISDICTION In 75% of cases the judges did not take interest in who was present at the hearing of a criminal case in addition to the trial participants. However, in other cases the judges required the persons present at the open court hearing to identify themselves, sometimes even to present passports. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a criminal case: “The court verified the identity of an independent attendee by passport and asked to explain the reasons for his participation in the hearing”. In 93% of cases, when opening the court hearing, the court announced which case was being considered; in 83% of cases the presiding judge announced the composition of the court at the hearing. In 99% of cases the monitors had no obstacles from the court in making audio recordings of the proceedings. In 89% of cases, when a court judgement was supposed to be pronounced, the court did this publicly. PUBLICITY IN CRIMINAL CASES 3,8 -5 0 5 IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE In 73% of criminal cases the presiding judge informed the parties of their right to demand the recusal of a judge. In 95% of cases the monitors reported that the judge 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 criminal cases the judge heard the arguments of the participants of the trial in all the cases when it was provided for by the procedural law. In 98% of cases the judge paid attention to the arguments and motions of the parties, and did not turn them down without due justification. In 95% of cases the judge allowed the parties to get familiarized with documents and evidence in the case provided they filed respective motions. 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 97% of criminal cases the judge did not exercise any moral pressure on the trial participants. In 99% of cases the court behaved impartially. IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE IN CRIMINAL CASES 4,5 -5 48 0 5 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE