FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY JURISDICTION the judges verbally asked who was present at the hearing. In 3% of cases the judges required the persons present at the open court hearing to present IDs. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a civil case: “With regard to the participation of an independent attendee – the judge did not prevent me from participating in the hearing, but she asked twice whom I represented, and when she understood I were just a visitor – a member of the community (which I stated to her right away) – she started asking why I chose this case and not some other, why I decided to visit a case presided by her rather than some other judge, and asked me to show her my passport. She then told me where to sit. During the whole hearing she kept looking at me. At the end of the hearing I (the monitor) was the first one to leave, as I was seated near the doors, the judge used that to request the parties to stay for a moment, the representatives of the parties left the room 12 minutes later”. In 91% of cases, when opening the court hearing, the court announced which case was being considered; in 83% of cases the presiding judge announced the composition of the court at the hearing. In 99% of cases the monitors had no obstacles from the court in making audio recordings of the proceedings. In 99% of cases, when a court judgement was supposed to be pronounced, the court did this publicly. As a rule, the judges pronounced only the introduction and the dispositive parts of the judgement. At the same time, the monitors made remarks regarding the way the judgement was pronounced. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a civil case: “The judge pronounced the judgement in such a way that you could make no sense of its content at all”. PUBLICITY IN CIVIL CASES 3,9 -5 0 5 IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE In 73% of civil cases the presiding judge informed the parties of their right to demand the recusal of a judge. In 92% of cases the monitors reported the judge did not ignore the age, general level of development, psychological and physical status of the trial participants when explaining to them their procedural rights. In 96% of cases the judge heard the arguments of the participants of the trial in all the cases when it was provided for by the procedural law. In 96% of cases the judge paid attention to the arguments and motions of the parties, and did not turn them down without due justification. 44 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE