RESULTS OF MONITORING IN SPECIFIC CASE TYPES CASES CAUSED BY THE ARMED CONFLICT IN THE EAST OF UKRAINE The military conflict, caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation in early 2014, caused the emergence of numerous new case types in courts. While conducting the monitoring, the monitors visited 51 hearings of cases caused by the armed conflict. More specifically, the monitoring included 28 criminal proceedings, 12 administrative, 5 civil, 4 cases on administrative offences and one commercial case. The criminal proceedings were related to the participation of persons in illegal military and paramilitary units, capital treason, encroachment upon the territorial integrity of Ukraine, obstruction of operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, illegal use of weapons and ammunitions, desertion, draft evasion, and other offences committed by military personnel and draftees. Administrative cases were mostly related to appeal against the judgements or actions of the bodies of the Ministry of Defense regarding military personnel. Civil cases were related, inter alia, to the need to establish in court the fact of death of persons, which occurred on the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. The monitors evaluated that in 40% of cases the quality of the conducting of the trial was impeccable (average rate – 48%), in other cases the monitors noted minor violations – 60% (average rate – 47%). The monitors did not notice any gross violations in the course of consideration of these cases (average rate in Ukraine – 5%). In one case the presence of the monitor forced the judge to put on a robe and a badge, invite other judges – members of the panel to the courtroom, and conduct a full-fledged court hearing. According to the “publicity” criterion this case type received the score of 3.5 points (average rate in Ukraine – 3.6). In total, the publicity in these cases was similar to that of the general rate in Ukraine. From the questionnaire of a monitor in a criminal case: “The consideration of a motion to extend the duration of the remedial measures. The consideration of the case was not announced anywhere, but taking into account the fact this case was high-profile (encroachment upon territorial integrity of Ukraine), everybody knew about the consideration of this case”. At the same time, in 17% of the cases related to the armed conflict the monitors noted that the final judgement in the case was not pronounced when it was supposed to. This is 11% above the average rate in Ukraine. In three criminal cases the judges and law enforcement officers, understanding the sensitive nature of the accusations and the high public interest in these cases, deliberately created obstacles and did not allow monitors and other persons to be present in the course of the hearing of the case. In doing so, they violated the principle of publicity of court hearings. Inter alia, the information about the hearing schedule was not posted in the court building and on the court’s web-site, and when the monitors were still able to locate the beginning of proceedings, the police officers or the Security Service of Ukraine representatives physically prevented the monitors from entering the courtrooms, closed the doors, etc., referring to the respective court orders which they refused to provide for review. 78 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE