FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY COURT TYPE GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS The monitors visited 1,015 court hearings in general jurisdiction courts, including: 679 cases – in first instance courts; 39 297 1015 COURT HEARINGS 297 cases – in courts of appeal; 39 hearings in cassation courts and the Supreme Court of Ukraine (review of cassation court judgements in civil, administrative and criminal cases). 679 At the time of the conducting of the monitoring, the first instance general jurisdiction courts considered civil and criminal cases, cases on administrative offences and certain types of administrative cases. Courts of appeal reviewed civil and criminal cases, and cases on administrative offences. The High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases of Ukraine served as the cassation instance in civil and criminal cases, and under outstanding circumstances its judgements could be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. ADHERENCE TO GENERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE According to the monitors, the judges of general jurisdiction courts conducted the hearings: 7% THE JUDGES OF GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS 48% impeccably in 45 % of the cases; with minor violations – in 48 % of the cases; 45% with gross violations of the rules of procedure and/or the rights of the participants of the trial – in 7 % of the cases. The general impression the monitors had regarding compliance of the general jurisdiction courts with procedural rules was significantly worse compared to administrative courts and slightly worse compared to commercial courts. This is also confirmed by a number of answers to further questions. In 86% of cases the judge considered the case wearing a robe and a badge. However, certain judges neglected this requirement. From the questionnaires of monitors on first instance courts of general jurisdiction: “At the beginning of the hearing, the judge did not wear a robe and a badge, then, in presence of the parties and the monitor she put them on”. “In fact, there was a robe; it hung over the judge’s shoulder. But it was not properly worn”. Judges of general jurisdiction courts verified the identity of the participants of the trial who arrived to the hearing in 93% of cases. 22 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE