FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY COURT TYPE In 89% of cases when opening the court hearing, the court announced which case was being considered; in 80% 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. However, there were several cases where the judges attempted to deceive those present in the room regarding the rules for making audio recordings. From the questionnaires of monitors on first instance courts of general jurisdiction: “The judge refused to allow audio recording saying that it was prohibited to use mobile phones during the hearing”. “The judge and the parties did not object to the audio recording, but at the end of the hearing the judge noted that the monitor should receive from the parties their consent to disclose their personal information in case the information on this hearing will be disclosed through the media”. In 92% of cases, when a court judgement was supposed to be pronounced, the court did this publicly. However, this announcement was not made in all the cases in due order. The judges usually pronounced only the introductory and dispositive parts of the judgement, although by law this was supposed to be done only as an exception in complex cases (with the exception of criminal cases, where the sentences were usually read completely). PUBLICITY IN GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS 3,7 -5 0 5 IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE In 77% of cases the presiding judge informed the participants of the case about their right to demand the recusal of a judge. This is a higher rate than in commercial courts, but it is lower than in administrative. In 94% 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. However, opposite cases occurred more frequently than in administrative and commercial courts. 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. The court paid sufficient attention to the arguments or motions of the participants of the trial, and provided justifications when turning them down (in 97% of all cases). In 94% of cases the judges of general courts gave the participants the possibility to get familiarized with the evidence and other documents in the case provided they filed respective motions. At the same time, no deviations from this rule were reported in commercial and administrative courts. In 98% 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). 24 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE