GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS In 97% of cases the court did not exercise moral pressure on the trial participants in the course of the hearing and in 98% did not treat one of the parties better than the other. IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EQUALITY OF ARMS PRINCIPLE IN GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS 4,4 -5 0 5 CULTURE OF CONDUCTING THE TRIAL The monitors evaluated the general status of observance of ethical norms and communication culture both by the court and the trial participants as impeccable in 76% of cases. In 95% of the cases the court was neither rude, tactless nor haughty to the trial participants, and demonstrated impeccable conduct. However, there were cases of the opposite. From the questionnaires of monitors on first instance courts of general jurisdiction: “The judge was rather rude to a witness, who started stammering as a result” (a civil case). “You don’t get it, do you?” – that’s how the judge reacted to the request of one of the parties to repeat what she just said” (a civil case). In 99% of cases the court did not make any comments and actions which showed disrespect to a person by race, sex, nationality, religion, political opinions, social and economic status, physical disabilities or other forms of discrimination. In 92% of cases the judge did not get distracted from the hearing and listened to the parties attentively. This rate is much better than in administrative (87%) and commercial courts (86%). In 93% of cases the participants of the trial observed ethical norms and due communication culture. On certain occasions, the monitors noted violations of ethical norms and communication culture by the participants. The judge took relevant action only in half of these cases. From the questionnaires of monitors on first instance courts of general jurisdiction: “The defendant and his representative kept interrupting the judge and broke order, the judge reacted accordingly to ensure the hearing still took place within the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code”. “The defendant scolded the witness, and the judge did not issue any warning or inform about responsibility”. “The person who was being brought to justice for an administrative offence treated the presiding judge without respect, interrupted him, tried to manage the trial, stressed it is unbefitting for the head of the court to hear such a minor case about hooliganism”. CULTURE OF CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN GENERAL COURTS 4,1 -5 Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 0 5 25