Videoсonference. Courts response to violations of human rights

Transcription

1

2 Videoсonference Courts response to violations of human rights Evidence of judges non

3

4 standards; defining the critical areas of the courts operation in need of improvement through Council of Europe Project Support to the Criminal Justice Reform in Ukraine, funded by the can provide a realistic picture of current judicial practices, identify problem areas and as is, rather than regardingthem as research (like in case

5 Procedural focus observers pay attention to violations of procedural law, without evidence or other similar questions. general monitoring

6 other participants of the proceedings on their visits schedule. a general practitioner that presence or absence of certain legally significant circumstances or facts. suspect s body) etc.

7

8 unimpeded access indicator, in addition to actual circumstances

9

10 should be posted on information boards inside the court premises

11

12

13

14 11,6 9,1 81,8 18,

15 the judge s office direct permission of the judge. session; denied access to court session noting that there s nothing interesting happening there

16

17 Courtroom vs. judge s office judges some instances hearings moved to judges offices,

18 judges in the judges offices versus courtrooms. Where hearings take place in courtrooms, access to observe judicial processes. However, where hearings took place in judges offices, such

19 against investigating judges decisions (%)

20

21 as in judge performance

22 investigating judge s ruling shall be considered

23 finding of circumstances in the case. Only one of above indicators, such as adjournment of court session for the period of 10 to 30 days, m Через 1030 днів Більше 30 днів

24

25

26 ( according to observers )

27

28

29 Lawyers motions

30 In the course of monitoring observers took notes of two parameters: а) announcement of trial

31

32 court sessions take place in the rooms (judges offices, as mentioned above) that are not monitoring how these CPC standards were followed was assessed: а) concerning all

33

34

35

36

37 s

38 defense counsel s failure to appear counsel s presence Appeals of investigating judges decisions (%) appointed by the state or hired by the

39 ; counsel s non

40 appointed by the state or hired by the

41 с " " "other " "other reasons" counsels absence s services was of essential significance for some of the accused (according to monitors i trials on the merits appellate review

42 Person s refusal of applications continue

43 2.9. Videoсonference appeal preparatory proceedings (1 instance) trial on the merits (1 instance) appeals against judgments of 1st inst

44 trial trial general ( general reference to a detailed reference (name and Prosecutor General s Office of Ukraine, National Academy of Prosecutors of Ukraine,

45 motions he Prosecutor General s Office of Ukraine, Courts response to violations of human rights the person s

46 monitors

47

48

49 2.14. Evidence of judges non questions of judges ethics are judges compliance with

50

51 investigating judge conducting court systematic proseuctor s failure to appear and absence of response judges the announced composition trial was moved to the office of judge

52 most closed proceedings predominantly by chance overcoming stiff opposition from judges and their assistants of conducted observations. The reason for that was mainly the closed nature of activity of the

53 in the cases of holding the tria access such trials ; if the request was considered without one of the parties, the degree of compliance of the the abridged procedure ; the style of judges in such proceedings differed significantly from the trial on the merits not all the rules were followed and the transparency was very conditional. ( nonmass and available ) Suspect (suspect s defense lawyer, legal complainant s representative or legal

54 Suspect s defense lawyer complainant s representative or legal prosecution. The suspect s absence was explained by the court by the availability of the suspect s

55 На підставі ухвали слідчого судді про надання дозволу на затримання з метою приводу

56 Prosecutor General s Office of Ukraine

57 suspicion (found in 52% of prosecutors requests); the suspicion and the presence of risks (found in 48% of prosecutors requests). The Table below presents the prosecutor s assessment of risks that would be considered

58 4. Prosecutor s assessment of risks to be considered (%) distortion of any of the objects or victim, the witness, the other suspect, offense or continuing a criminal The monitors observations showed that the prosecutors most often justified their requests for detention or extension of detention by the risk of suspect s absconding from pre The other risks referred to by the prosecutor include as follows: criminal record ; previous cases of violation of house arrest ; no place of permanent residence and lawful sources of income ; attempts to continue the criminal activity ; change of names ; possibility to forge the documents ; numerous attempts to escape ; recurrent inclusion into the wanted list.

59 The monitors observations indicate that the courts in their rulings in 54.1% of cases took prosecutors requests is

60 6. References of the court to justify the satisfaction of the prosecutors requests

61

62 Prosecutor General s Office of

63 complainant or complainant s defense lawyer, representative and the investigator or prosecutor а) the actions, decisions or inaction of the investigator/prosecutor were found unlawful а) the court satisfied the complaint in case the applicant provided the evidence of а) in most cases (74.0%) the judges satis

64 Prosecutor General s Office of Ukraine

65 Prosecutor General s Office of Ukraine

66

67

68

69 or the need to ensure the trial participants right to protection, which depending on the situation to scheduled for the end of the working day had certain peculiarities (according to the monitors): а) the trial, includ 5 minutes ; b) the sound recording in such cases was not carried out, as the chairman ordered the clerk of the court session without being noticed by the third parties Suspect (suspect s defense lawyer, legal Applicant, victim, victim s representative

70 Suspect s defense lawyer 78 Suspect s legal representative 6 Applicant, victim, victim s representative or a trial without the suspect s participation

71

72 cases don t review the rulings of the investigating judges in respect of the investigation by the

73 that are essential to establish the

74 References to justify the satisfaction of prosecutor s requests (%)

75

76 absolutely unreal bail feasibility of the bail the prosecutor argued that the issue of alternative bail could not be raised because the suspect lived in Crimea.

77

78

79

80 e victim s representative and legal representative, the civil claimant, the civil claimant s representative and legal representative, the civil defendant receipt of the indictment act (request), the court held the trial: 59% of monitors indicated that it was not mentioned during the trial ; 14.8% believe that it was within 5 days ; 11.5% within ; 13.9% within more than 15 days. proceedings, the victim, the victim s representative and legal representative, the civil the civil claimant s representative and prosecutor, the accused, the defense lawyer, the victim, the victim s representative and legal representative, the civil claimant, the civil claimant s representative, the rep

81 Victim or victim s representative

82

83 Prosecutor General s Office of Ukraine Prosecutor s Office to th

84 Prosecutor General s Office of Ukraine 4

85 with doors closed

86

87

88

89 Prosecutors General Office of Ukraine

90 than 30 days (9.0%). These circumstances have created a risk of fragmentation and non

91

92

93 explained that that defendant s presence is not necessary and in 16/3% Prosecutors General Office of Ukraine

94 prosecutor briefed on indictment 75,5 court asked prosecutor to read indictment 35,1 parties submitted motions about pronouncement of indictment in full 2,4 pronouncement of indictment lasted for more than 30 minutes 3,4 presiding judge explained essence of charges to defendants 23,4 a judge asked defendants as to whether nature of charges is understandable to him/her 72,3 defendant or his/her defense counsel had questions as to the nature of charges 4,2 court gave answers to questions as to the nature of charges 6,4 presiding judge asked parties to express their positions as to the charges 35,1 defendant and his/her defense lawyer were given an opportunity to explain their position as to the nature of charges 48,

95 examined and the way in which it shall be examined are set in court s ruling and, if necessary, Results of observation over the first stage of evidences examination are reflected in the

96 5. Circumstances of the beginning stage of evidences examination (%)

97 starts with the presiding judge s proposal to testify about criminal proceedings, after which t

98

99

100 court s request, may remain in courtroom. comprehensive court consideration while adhering to requirements as to the order of witnesses

101

102

103

104

105 possession. The defense, upon public prosecutor s request, is required to grant access and

106

107

108

109

110 In some cases, the monitors attended the highprofile sessions (e.g., involving the excessive loyalty of judges to the s. The monitors found it quite difficult to determine within which period as of the receipt of an appeal the court exercised its consideration. The 54.3% of monitors indicated that it was impossible to determine based on the content of the trial ; 36.2believed that it was within a month ; 9.5% in excess of the twomonth period.

111 criminal proceedings whose participation in accordance with the CPC or appellate court s

112

113

114 motions were filed.

115

116 i

117

118 "no court records on the day of "C "sentencing in the absence of the victim"; "court trial

119 decision s announcement in other cases only

120

121

122

123

124 To Prosecutor General s Office of Ukraine:

125 listed in the recommendations to the Prosecutor General

126

127 s work, the organization and planning by as improving the organization of the courts operation