PUBLICITY In 94% of cases, when a court judgement was supposed to be pronounced, the court did this publicly. However, this announcement was not made in all the cases in due order. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “The judge read the judgement very quickly, not clearly, and it was hard to understand. I was not the only one who failed to understand the judgement of the court. The representatives of the parties to the case after leaving the court room asked each other whether they understood the judgement and agreed that it was necessary to receive a written copy to understand it”. The monitors reported instances when the participants of the trial asked the judge to clarify the meaning of the judgement after it had been pronounced, because of the judge not speaking clearly. Another monitor informed that in an administrative offence case the judgement was not pronounced, the judge only said he found the person guilty and established a fine. In yet another case, the judge instead of pronouncing the judgement said he would give the text of the judgement to the parties. The monitors also reported instances when the judge left for the deliberations room and immediately appointed the date for pronouncing the final judgement, although under the law he was supposed to pronounce the judgement in the same hearing. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “The court left for the deliberations room and noted that the judgement would be pronounced on another day”. Summing it all up, the courts mostly acted in compliance with the principle of publicity (openness). Having an ID, there was no problem getting inside the court building. As a rule, all the interested persons were admitted to the court hearing room freely. HOWEVER • every fifth case was considered by judges in their chambers, even if there was a vacant courtroom; • every fifth case was not posted on the information board in the court, and every tenth – on the court’s web-site; • in each fifth case the court did not announce the composition of the court, and in each tenth case – the case which was being considered; • in every twentieth case considered in an open court hearing, the court judgement was not pronounced publicly. BEST SCORE 4,8 points WORST SCORE Access to court hearings provided for all the interested persons, the court did not create obstacles for audio recording. 1,4 points The court did not establish the identity of persons present at the hearing (with the exception of trial participants). AVERAGE COMPLIANCE SCORE FOR THE PUBLICITY PRINCIPLE 3,7 -5 Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 0 5 15