OVERVIEW OF MONITORING FINDINGS Law of Ukraine On the Judiciary and Status of Judges (Article 11 as of the time of monitoring): “Court decisions, court hearings and information on cases considered by the court are open, except for cases stipulated by law…. Information about a court hearing the case, the parties to the dispute and the subject matter of the claim, the date of receipt of the claim, or a statement of appeal, cassation complaint, application for review of a court decision, the current status of the proceedings, venue, date and time of the court session, transfer of a case from one court to another, shall be open and immediately published on the official web-portal of the judiciary in Ukraine, except in cases stipulated by law …. Consideration of cases in courts shall be open, except in cases stipulated by law. Any person may be present at an open court hearing… Persons present in the courtroom and media representatives may take photographs, make video and audio recordings in the courtroom, using portable video and audio devices without a specific permission of the court, but subject to the restrictions established by law. … The court proceedings shall be conducted exclusively in a courtroom specifically equipped for that — in a court hearing room suitable to accommodate the parties and other trial participants, and enables them to enjoy their procedural rights and fulfill procedural obligations”. The principle of publicity protects the parties to the trial and public from secretive administration of justice, and serves as one of the means to ensure public trust in judiciary. “Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done”, stated the English judge Lord Hewart in one of his judgements1. In order to verify to which extent this principle got embedded into Ukraine’s adjudication practice, the monitors noted whether or not: • the hearing in the case was publicly announced; • access to the court hearing was provided to all those interested; • the hearing took place in the courtroom; • the court verified the identity of all those persons present in the courtroom who were not parties to the trial; • the court announced the case and the composition of the court; • the court publicly pronounced the judgement in cases it had to be made public. The monitors were almost always able to access the court building where the hearing took place. In many cases (37%) the court security required them to show IDs; sometimes – present their personal belongings for inspection and/or go through the metal detector ramp. Sometimes they managed to get inside only after a discussion with the guard, which included answering questions on whether the monitor was a journalist, where he lived, etc. In addition, internal procedures in certain courts required the monitors to take certain actions, for example, call the respective court staffer by phone and then wait for him/her to come. In some cases, the monitors were not allowed into the courtroom in case the parties to the case had not arrived. Such obstacles were identified in the Supreme Court of Ukraine, some high, appeal and first instance courts. 1 12 Rex v. Sussex Justices, 1, King‘s Bench Reports, 256, at 259 (1924). MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE