ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS In 86% of cases the court heard the case in the courtroom. In other cases the judges' chambers were used. The monitors noted cases when during the consideration of the case in the judges’ chambers at least one courtroom was vacant. In 98% of cases, when opening the court hearing, the court announced which case was being considered; in 94% 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 near 100% of cases, when a court judgement was supposed to be pronounced, the court did this publicly. This is the best score compared to other courts. However, in one case the monitor noted the following: From the questionnaire of a monitor about an administrative court: “The judge said he would go to the deliberations room for 30-40 minutes to prepare the ruling, but in fact stayed in the room and let the parties go, agreeing to notify them of the result of the consideration of the case by phone”. However, in 61% of cases the judges of administrative courts did not show interest in who was present at the trial in addition to the parties to the case. In each tenth case the court established the identity of the parties by their IDs. This indicator is worse than in the general courts, but better than in commercial. From the questionnaires of monitors about administrative courts: “After having verified the monitor’s ID, the court secretary kept his passport till the end of the court hearing”. “The judge asked the independent attendee to show his ID, asked many questions to find out in detail about the purpose of his presence. Besides, the judge made me introduce myself for the minutes of the hearing, and read out my rights and warned about responsibility for potential violations. In addition, the court room did not have separate seats for independent attendees”. PUBLICITY IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS 4,2 -5 0 5 IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE In 86% of cases the presiding judge informed the participants of the case about their right to demand the recusal of a judge. In 99% of cases the monitors noted that the court did not ignore the age, general level of development, psychological and physical status of the trial participants when explaining to them their procedural rights. Instances of the opposite took place less often than in general and commercial courts. Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 33