FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY COURT TYPE In 92% of cases the judge considered the case wearing a robe and a badge. Judges of administrative courts verified the identity of the participants of the trial who arrived to the hearing in 98% of cases. The confidentiality of a deliberations room was observed in 99% of cases. This is the best score compared to other courts. However, in some cases the courtroom served as the deliberations room, and the parties and the persons present at the hearing had to go wait in the corridor. From the questionnaires of monitors about administrative courts: “Since the case was being considered in the judges’ chambers, which consisted of two rooms, the secretary of the court hearing changed the sign on the entrance door to “Deliberations Room” and remained there”. “As far as the case was considered in the judges’ chambers, the participants of the trial had to move into the corridor to provide for the confidentiality of the deliberations room”. PUBLICITY The courts posted information about the hearings on the web-site in 96% of cases which were monitored. The information on the web-site was not always complete and accurate. Hearing schedules were posted on the information board less often – in 91% of cases. In some cases the monitors noted that the cases were posted without the time of the beginning of the hearing or with such time as “00 hrs. 00 min.”, or without the court address. From the questionnaire of a monitor about an administrative court: “The court has two buildings located far from each other – on the opposite edges of the city. I was able to find that out only later since the schedule of case hearings posted on the web-site did not contain information about the location. The list of cases was generic, without addresses specified. In terms of accessibility, restricted information creates obstacles in getting to the hearing. Under those conditions we were unable to visit some of the hearings”. In 99% of cases the monitors were able to get inside the room where the case was being heard (courtrooms or judges’ chambers). In other words, the access to court hearings was free for all; however, in some cases the monitors noted the impossibility for all the interested parties to fit into the courtroom, since the case was in fact heard in the judges’ chambers. From the questionnaires of monitors about administrative courts: “In the course of the trial the requirements of openness were breached, the third parties were unable to enter the judges’ chambers as they were too small to fit all the persons willing to be present. At the same time, the court building had vacant courtrooms of bigger size”. “The court guard tried to find out from the parties before the hearing whether they did not object to the presence of monitors in the trial”. 32 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE