FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY COURT TYPE PUBLICITY IN FIRST INSTANCE COURTS 3,2 -5 0 5 PUBLICITY IN COURTS OF APPEAL 4,4 -5 0 5 PUBLICITY IN CASSATION COURTS 4,8 -5 0 5 IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE In 99% of cases in first and appeal instances there were no reports of the court taking a biased attitude towards one of the parties. In cassation courts there was one case when the monitor reported that the court treated one of the parties better than the other one. In the predominant number of cases the monitors did not report the judge failing to take into account the arguments and motions of the parties or third parties in the case or their turning down without due justification. However, such problems exist in almost 5% of cases in courts of appeal. At the level of first instance courts this rate amounted to only 2%, while at higher courts there were no instances of this kind at all. There are practically no violations regarding the restriction of the parties in their right to participate in a court debate or get familiarized with documents and evidence in the case. These rights are observed in the courts of all instances. However, in courts of appeal there were cases when the court restricted the right to participate in the court debate – 3% of cases. There were also no cases of providing one party with unjustified advantages over the other. With regard to explaining the right to demand the recusal of a judge, this requirement was observed in first instance courts in 77% of cases, in courts of appeal – in 88%, in courts of higher level – in 94%. As a rule, 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, in first instance courts – in 94% of cases, in courts of appeal – in 95%, in courts of higher level – in 100%. Regarding hearing the arguments of the participants of the trial in all the cases when it was provided for by the procedural law, this requirement was observed in first instance courts and courts of appeal in 98% of cases, and in 100% of cases in higher level courts. 38 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE