FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY REGION In 89% of cases the courts heard the case in the courtroom (above nationwide average by 8%). In 89% of cases, when opening the court hearing, the court announced which case was being considered (below the nationwide average by 2%); in 83% of cases the presiding judge announced the composition of the court at the hearing (above nationwide average by 2%). In 99% of cases the monitors had no obstacles from the court in making audio recordings of the proceedings (above the nationwide average rate by 1%). In 96% of cases, when a court judgement was supposed to be pronounced, the court did this publicly (above the nationwide average rate by 2%). In 60% of cases the judges were not interested in who else except the parties to the case came to the hearing (below nationwide average by 4%). PUBLICITY IN THE SOUTHERN REGION 3,8 -5 0 5 IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE In 93% of cases the presiding judge informed the parties to the case of their right to demand the recusal of a judge (above nationwide average by 16%). 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 (matches the nationwide average rate). In 99% of 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 (above nationwide average by 1%). In 98% of cases the judge paid attention to the arguments and motions of the parties to the case and did not turn them down without due justification (matches the nationwide average rate). In 96% of cases the judge allowed the parties to get familiarized with documents and evidence in the case provided they filed respective motions (above nationwide average by 1%). The court did not restrict the parties in their right to participate in a court debate in those hearings where the debate took place (above nationwide average by 2%). In 99% of cases the monitors noted no instances of moral pressure on the trial participants in the course of the hearing of the case (above the nationwide average rate by 1%). 72 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE