RESULTS OF MONITORING IN SPECIFIC CASE TYPES CORRUPTION-RELATED CASES Corruption-related cases were one of the focuses of the 2017 trial monitoring. The following cases were subject to monitoring: • Criminal cases, in which the person was suspected or accused of committing a corruption crime (crimes provided for by articles 210, 354, 364, 364-1, 365-2, 368-369-2; and crimes provided for by articles 191, 262, 308, 312, 313, 320, 357, 410 of the Criminal Code in case they are committed through abuse of office); • Cases on administrative offences related to corruption (articles 172-2, 172-5, 172-6, 172-7, 172-8, 172-9, 172-9-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences). The monitors observed 78 corruption-related cases, which amounted to more than 5% of all cases monitored in 2017. Among corruption-related cases, 72 cases (92%) were considered by first instance courts, 4 (5%) by courts of appeal and 2 more (3%) – by a cassation court (the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases). These were not high profile corruption cases, since, according to the data from the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine, such cases are few, and as a rule, their consideration is being protracted. By content, 71 cases (91%) were criminal cases in which the person was suspected or accused of a corruption crime, and 7 (9%) – cases on administrative offences related to corruption. The monitoring did not reveal any substantial differences by different indicators in this type of cases compared to all the others, although the number of violations recorded in corruption-related cases was higher. As far as procedure is concerned, the courts conducted the hearing impeccably in 45% of the cases (the general rate being – 48%), with small violations – 55% (the general rate being – 47%). The monitors did not register any gross violations in the course of the consideration of corruption-related cases (general rate in Ukraine – 5%). According to the “publicity” criterion, the score for this type of cases is 3.4 points (general rate in Ukraine – 3.6). In general, by most indicators the publicity in this type of case was lower by 1-2% than in other case types, but the court had failed to announce the composition of the court 9% more frequently than in other case types. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a first instance court of general jurisdiction: “While hearing a case under Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (abuse of office or service authority) the judge first passed a judgement to prohibit video recording in the course of the hearing, and then announced a break in the hearing and offered the parties to come to his chambers to find out about the date of the next hearing”. At the same time, in corruption-related cases the monitors did not note any instances of the court judgement not being pronounced publicly. In all the 46 hearings during which judgements were made, the courts pronounced them (in general, 5% of violations of this rule were recorded for all types of cases). Moreover, as mentioned in the questionnaires of monitors, almost in all cases the judgements were pronounced clearly. 76 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE