FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY JURISDICTION judges failed to inform the trial participants of their rights and obligations. At the same time, the monitors noted positive examples. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a criminal case: “The judge explained to the defendant her rights quite in detail, taking into account that she did not have any defense counsel, her old age (a pensioner) and evident disability (used a cane to walk)”. In approximately each fourth case both in first instance courts and courts of appeal the substance of the accusation was not explained to the defendant. A key problem is that the judges usually do not protect the physical immunity of persons. In 7 cases the monitors witnessed the defendant making claims about the use of physical violence or threat of such violence against him/her; however, the judge took any action to verify this statement only once. The other 6 claims remained unattended. At the same time, two defendants clearly had physical injuries which could mean that violence was used against them, but the judges did not react to those facts in any way. In 15% of criminal cases the defendants were not located close to their counsel, as they were locked in booths or cages, and also because of the small size of the rooms where the hearings took place. This did not provide for efficient defense. From the questionnaires of monitors on criminal cases: “The attorney was sitting very far from the accused, and in fact her presence was just a formality”. “The attorney was unable to sit near the defendant, since he was locked in a cage”. Certain monitoring data showed an accusatory bias in criminal proceedings. Out of 145 judgements made in the course of the court hearings where monitors were present, 90 judgements (62%) were in favour of the prosecution (prosecutors and investigators). The judges and investigative judges agreed with the opinion of the defense in 45 judgements (31%). Other 10 judgements (7%) approved guilty pleas and settlement agreements. The findings of the monitoring showed that in 87% of cases the judges observed the presumption of innocence, the right to defense and other specific rights of the parties in criminal proceedings. The monitors noted a number of cases where the court clearly violated the presumption of innocence. Inter alia, according to one questionnaire, the judge, before making her judgement, asked the defendant why he was killing people. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a criminal case: “After the hearing was over, the judge addressed the defendant, “I hope to live long enough to see you locked in jail for 10 years”“. In addition, some of the established facts showed the bias of certain judges. In the majority of cases in first instance courts and courts of appeal the defendants were seated in a glass booth or a barred cage. However, the defendants were aggressive only in two cases. In fact, in one of those cases the defendant was sitting on a bench outside the cage or glass booth. 50 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE