CORRUPTION-RELATED CASES According to the criterion “impartiality of the court and observance of the equality of arms principle” – these proceedings scored 4.6 points (general score – 4.8). Observance of ethical norms and communication culture both by the court and the parties was evaluated as “impeccable” in 85% of cases, while the general result is 78%. At the same time, during the trial in 14% of cases the judges got distracted from the proceedings or listened to the parties inattentively. In two cases the judges were openly rude, tactless, showed disrespect to the parties and demonstrated misconduct in other ways. However, a worrisome situation was observed regarding the observation by judges of the rules of procedure on the removal of witnesses from the courtroom before the beginning of the hearing of the merits of the case, as well as regarding the process of their interrogation. In 43% of cases the witness, who was to be questioned, was not removed before the interrogation, and he/she participated in the trial (by 16% more often than in all other cases in which monitoring was conducted). From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “First of all, the witness was present in the courtroom before his interrogation. Second, the judge opened the interrogation himself, asked him questions and did not react to the objections of the defense that under Article 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine the witness was first to be interrogated by the prosecutor, then the defense, and the court was allowed to ask the witness questions only after the interrogation by both parties ended. In addition, the judge prohibited the defense lawyer to ask the witness suggestive questions, and engaged into an argument with the attorney regarding this, requiring him to justify it based on the provisions of the Code …. The witness was vague several times, but the court did not require him to give a clear answer “yes” or “no”. The judge openly laughed at the witness’s words”. In 5 cases of 71 (7%), the accused was kept in a separate booth or cage, although he did not behave aggressively in the hearing. Based on the monitors’ testimonies, in two hearings of corruption-related cases the witnesses and other participants of the trial were subjected to moral pressure. Inter alia, in one case the judge, in the monitors’ point of view, put pressure on the defendant scaring him with the fact that in absence of a lawyer his situation will be very bad. In addition, 16 men in military uniform came to a court hearing regarding the administrative responsibility for a corruption-related administrative offence, likely, to put pressure on the judge and the prosecutor. The situation with the courts’ compliance with the requirements of the procedural law regarding the explanation to the participants of the trial of their rights and obligations is also worrisome. In 13 hearings of this type of cases the court did not explain their rights and obligations to the trial participants, although it was required by the law. Considering that this explanation was to be provided in 54 hearings visited by the monitors, the level of violation of this requirement of procedural law amounts to 24%. The breach of confidentiality of the deliberations room was not recorded in any cases related to corruption. Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 77