FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY COURT TYPE In all the cases the court heard the arguments of the participants of the trial when it was provided for by the procedural law. The court paid sufficient attention to the arguments or motions of the participants of the trial, and provided justifications when turning them down (in 98% of all cases). In 100% of cases the judges of administrative courts gave the participants the possibility to get familiarized with the evidence and other documents of the case provided they filed respective motions. The monitors did not note any cases where the court restricted the participants of the trial in their right to participate in a court debate (in those hearings, where such debate took place), and not a single case when the court exercised moral pressure on the trial participants. In 99% of cases the court treated the parties without any bias. IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS 4,8 -5 0 5 CULTURE OF CONDUCTING THE TRIAL The monitors evaluated the general status of observance of ethical norms and communication culture both by the court and the trial participants as impeccable in 84% of cases. The monitors noted three cases when the court was rude or tactless and no cases when administrative court judges made discriminatory remarks or actions. From the questionnaire of a monitor about an administrative court: “The mother of the defendant was also present in the trial as an independent attendee. The judge told her in Russian, “You are nobody here, sit down and shut up”“. In 87% of cases the judge did not get distracted from the hearing and listened to the parties attentively. In several cases the monitors noted that the judges got distracted or became inattentive (mostly judges in panels). In several cases, the monitors reported that the judges got distracted by court staffers who came to the courtroom to ask the judge to sign some documents or solve some issues. From the questionnaire of a monitor about an administrative court: “The judge chewed gum all the time, which was unacceptable and unethical, read something, did not listen to the parties. The other judge did not listen to the parties, went about his own business, leafed through some papers, read, and looked into the window”. 34 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE