ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCE CASES In 60% of cases the courts heard the cases in the courtroom, which is the worst score compared to other case types. From the questionnaire of a monitor on an administrative offence case: “The hearing took place in the judges’ chambers despite the fact the courtrooms were vacant”. In 52% of cases the judges were not interested in who else, except the parties to the administrative offence case, came to the hearing. In 73% of cases, when opening the court hearing, the court announced which case was being considered; in 65% of cases the presiding judge announced the composition of the court at the hearing. The monitors had no obstacles from the court in making audio recordings of the proceedings in administrative offence cases. In 89% of cases, when a court judgement was supposed to be pronounced, the court did this publicly. There were several cases when the judge did not leave for the deliberations room and announced his judgement without reading aloud the text of the ruling on the administrative offence. In two cases, the judgement was not announced at the end of the hearing, and only afterwards the respective rulings were published in the Unified State Registry of Court judgements. PUBLICITY IN CASES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCES 2,8 -5 0 5 IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE In 87% of cases the presiding judge informed the parties of their right to demand the recusal of a judge. In 96% of cases the monitors reported that 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 99% 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% the judge paid attention to the arguments and motions of the parties to the case, and did not turn them down without due justification. In 88% of cases the judge allowed the parties to get familiarized with documents and evidence in the case provided they filed respective motions. The law does not provide for debate in administrative offence cases, thus, this indicator was not measured. In 99% of cases the judge did not exercise any moral pressure on the trial participants. However, there were cases when the judge tried to deceive the person who was being brought to justice for an administrative offence to make him confess of committing the administrative offence. The judge said that this confession would serve as grounds for not bringing the person to justice for a criminal or disciplinary offence. Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 53