A/HRC/45/CRP.9 complained that the conduct of the ‘judges’ left an impression that the proceedings were merely show trials and the ‘judges’ simply followed formal procedural rules without any intent to consider the merits of the case.169 In this regard, individuals interviewed said that ‘judges’ did not listen to their or their lawyers’ statements, tolerated flaws of evidence presented by the ‘prosecution’, or failed to examine the evidence at all. OHCHR further notes that the systematic use of in camera ‘trials’ creates conditions for judges to express their bias freely. F. Right to a public trial and right to be tried in one’s presence 130. International human rights law stipulates that trials in criminal cases must generally be held orally and publicly, which ensures the transparency of proceedings and provides an important safeguard for the interest of the individual.170 In conflict related cases, the right to be tried in one’s presence and to a public trial is also protected by international humanitarian law. 131. In territory controlled by both self-proclaimed ‘republics’, conflict-related ‘criminal cases’ were predominantly considered in closed ‘hearings’.171 ‘Judges’ justified the in camera ‘hearings’ by the need to protect ‘state secrets’, 172 however OHCHR observed that such decisions were taken in an almost automatic manner, without a thorough assessment of the reasonable grounds for this decision in each specific case. 132. In particular, ‘courts’ did not consider the reasonableness of holding only the parts of the hearings that involve ‘state secrets’ in camera. In territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’, usually only two ‘hearings’ were open to the public: the initial preliminary hearing during which the ‘court’ decides whether ‘trial’ will be held in camera, and the pronouncement of the ‘verdict’. In one emblematic case, the ‘judge’ informed OHCHR prior to the preliminary hearing that the ‘trial’ would be closed, before the relevant motion of the ‘prosecution’ had even been submitted.173 133. In territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, all ‘court hearings’ in conflictrelated ‘criminal cases’ that OHCHR followed were closed to the public. In addition, since their creation, the ‘supreme courts’ of self-proclaimed ‘republics’, which have ‘jurisdiction’ to try grave crimes at first instance, have held all ‘hearings’ in camera too.174 International human rights organisations, including OHCHR, were not allowed to observe closed ‘hearings’ despite regular requests for access. 134. Holding ‘criminal trials’ in camera without reasonable justification amounts to a violation of the right to a public trial, and raises questions about the fairness of such processes. While international human rights standards allow a court to exclude the public from a hearing for reasons of national security, the practice of holding an entire trial in camera without justification does not meet the requirement of this exception from the general principle of publicity. 135. OHCHR is concerned about the widespread denial of the right to be tried in one’s presence in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’. This right constitutes a major guarantee of the right to a fair trial in accordance with international human rights standards. 175 OHCHR documented 18 cases where defendants had not been brought for some ‘court 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 OHCHR interviews, 12 and 16 January 2018, 14 and 15 January 2020. HRC, General Comment No. 32, para. 28. With the exception of cases of incitement to hatred and unlawful possession of weaponry. According to the ‘legislation’ of the ‘republics’, the ‘court’ may conduct ‘hearings in camera’ when a state secret may be disclosed, the defendant is a minor, the crime is related to sexual assault, or to ensure the security of the parties to criminal proceedings. OHCHR trial monitoring, June 2018. OHCHR interviews 8 July 2019 and 2 January 2020. ICCPR, article 14.3(b). 29