OVERVIEW OF MONITORING FINDINGS Monitors often reported instances when court staffers were unhappy with their presence. They called one of the monitors an “eavesdropper” and suggested he should go “spy under the court’s windows”. In 81% of cases the court considered the case in the court hearing room. The authors of the report did not consider the chambers of a judge a court hearing room, even if it was used as one and a sign “Court hearing room” was put on the door. The monitors noted instances when the consideration of cases took place in the judges’ chambers despite the availability of vacant courtrooms. Sometimes, the consideration of the case in the judges’ chambers gave the judge an excuse to prohibit the presence of the public during the hearing. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a district administrative court: “The case was considered in the judges’ chambers, and the presiding judge stressed that the public may only be present in a hearing room”. In most cases (64%) the judges did not inquire who else, except for the participants, was present at the trial. In other instances, the judges required the monitors to introduce themselves, and in 4% of cases – asked them to present IDs. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “The judge asked who I was and whom I represented. I said that I was an independent attendee and came on my own; she was very surprised and did not believe me. She told the secretary of the court hearing to make a photocopy of my passport. I asked why and which norm provided for that. The judge answered that in their court there was a case when in the course of the hearing a piece of evidence (a document) was being presented, and a visitor ran up, grabbed the original, ate it and ran away. Nobody knew who that person was. Thus, the council of the court decided to require attendees to present their IDs”. In 91% of cases, when opening the court hearing, the court announced which case was being considered; in 81% of cases the presiding judge announced the composition of the court at the hearing. In 98% of cases the persons present in the court hearings, including the monitors, were able to make audio recordings without any obstacles. In several dozen cases the monitors reported obstacles from the court to making audio recordings, despite the fact that procedural law clearly establishes the right of everyone to make such records. Sometimes the monitors directly noted in their questionnaires that the court prohibited audio recordings or the judge was speaking very quietly. There also were reports that in certain high-profile cases the courts prohibited the journalists to make video recordings but did not object to audio recordings. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “One could make audio recordings. The media was allowed to make video recordings only when the final judgement in the case was announced”. For reporting purposes, the monitors themselves made audio recordings of each hearing they visited. The methodology of the monitoring did not provide for making video recordings, given that video recording could have some influence on the conducting of the trial and the behaviour of the court and the participants, thereby distorting the monitoring results. 14 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE