IMPARTIALITY AND OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “The judge did not ignore that the plaintiff was an elderly person and did not hear well, so he spoke very loudly and repeated the question several times to make sure the plaintiff understood”. In 98% of cases the court heard the arguments of the participants of the trial in all the cases when it was provided for by the procedural law. Sometimes the monitors noted deviations from this rule. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “The court did not ask the opinion of the defendants regarding the possibility to hear the case in absence of the defense council [the defendants had lawyers, but they failed to appear at the hearing]”. The court mostly (in 98% of cases) paid sufficient attention to the arguments or motions of the participants of the trial and provided justifications when turning them down. In 95% of cases the court gave the participants the possibility to get familiarized with the evidence and other documents in the case provided they filed respective motions. In 99% of cases the court did not restrict the participants of the trial in their right to participate in a court debate (in those hearings, where such debate took place). In 98% of cases the court did not exercise moral pressure on the trial participants in the course of the hearing and did not treat one of the parties better than the other. At the same time, the monitors described instances when the conduct of the judge did not appear to be impartial. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a court of appeal of general jurisdiction: “The court treated the defendant much better. In the course of the trial certain judges talked to him, and told him that the first instance court was very light on him, they also hinted that the panel treated him lightly as well”. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “The mimics and tone of the judge showed a positive attitude to the defendant, and a haughty one – to the victim”. Summing it up, the judges in the course of the trial mostly behaved themselves impartially and observed the principle of equality. HOWEVER: almost in each fourth case the judge did not explain the right to demand recusal of a judge. BEST SCORE 4,8 points WORST SCORE The court heard the arguments of the participants of the trial and did not limit their right to participate in a court debate. 2,7 points The presiding judge informed the participants of their right to demand the recusal of a judge. AVERAGE COMPLIANCE SCORE FOR IMPARTIALITY AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE 4,5 -5 Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 0 5 17