FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY JURISDICTION ADHERENCE TO GENERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE The monitors concluded that the judges conducted the hearings in administrative offence cases: 18% impeccably – in 30 % of cases, 30% THE HEARINGS IN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCE CASES with minor violations – in 52 % of cases, with gross violations of the rules of procedure and/or participants’ rights – in 18 % of cases. 52% This is the worst rate compared to other case types. Sometimes the monitors noted that the judges “delegated” their authority to hear cases on administrative offences to their assistants or secretaries of the court. From the questionnaire of a monitor on an administrative offence case: “As a matter of fact, it was the assistant (or secretary) of the judge who conducted the hearing. It was not announced in the course of the hearing which case was being heard, by which composition of the court, which rights and obligations the person, who was being brought to justice for an administrative offence, had”. In 82% of cases the judge considered the case wearing a robe and a badge. A monitor once witnessed the judge starting the consideration of an administrative offence case without a robe and a badge, and then, without announcing a break, in presence of the participants of the trial he started putting his robe on in a careless way. The judges verified the identity of the persons, who arrived to the court hearings in administrative offence cases in 88% of cases based on IDs. The Code of Administrative Offences does not establish requirements to observe the confidentiality of the deliberations room, thus, we do not include data on this criterion. PUBLICITY The schedule of hearings in administrative offence cases was posted on the web-site of the court in 92% of cases monitored. The information about cases was posted on the court’s information board less often – in 73% of cases. In 97% of cases the monitors were allowed into the room where the consideration of the administrative offence case took place (courtroom or judges’ chambers). In one case the judge requested the monitor to leave, stating he was not considering a case but just having a conversation with people, and in another one – the judge remarked to the monitor that he should have applied for permission to visit the hearing. 52 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE