- - - - the hearing. ISTIQLAL also examined the measures that courts took to address these issues, which in many cases were insufficiently effective. Another effectiveness indicator was the length of trial postponements, which varied among courts, but mostly ranged between one and two months. On average, postponements by Serious Crimes Court were much shorter than those by First Instance Courts. The amount of time that Courts devoted to trial activities also varied among courts, ranging from an average of under two to five hours daily. On average, Serious Crimes Court branches devoted longer daily hours to hearings than First Instance Courts. The Serious Crimes Court and First Instance Courts also differed substantively when considering the overall duration of criminal proceedings. While the Serious Crimes Court concluded over 80% of cases before it in under a year, First Instance Courts achieved the same result in less than 50% of cases. Almost 20% of cases before First Instance Courts have been pending for 5 years or more. An issue that adversely impacted the overall effectiveness of criminal trials in the reporting period was the replacement of a number of judges, which led to changes in the composition of a considerable number of trial panels (over one third of monitored cases), thus leading to considerable delays. In a last section of this report, ISTIQLAL considered a number of indicators of the compliance of monitored trials with fundamental rights (Chapter 4). ISTIQLAL found no apparent violations of the right to a tribunal established by law, the right to an impartial tribunal, or the right of equality (including gender equality) before the law. Problematic areas included the right to personal liberty: ISTIQLAL observed a frequent use of pre-trial detention, also for petty offences such as theft or attempted theft, and sporadic cases where pre-trial detention exceeded the maximum terms foreseen by law; also, court monitors noted that Courts did not always properly assess grounds for detention, often relying on Prosecution arguments which, in turn, are based on information received from security agencies. ISTIQLAL also expresses concerns regarding the use of physical coercion in criminal investigations and inside the courtroom. A number of defendants claimed before the court that they had been subjected to violence while being questioned by the police, but Courts not always included these remarks in the minutes and defendants were subjected to medical examination in a law percentage of cases. Courts also allowed law enforcement staff to use physical force against detained defendants while taking them inside or outside the courtroom, or to discipline them for disturbing the proceedings. Based on the above observations, ISTIQLAL recommends, among other things (Chapter 5): To the legislature:   Establish by law an overall maximum duration (e.g. two years) for pre-trial detention of a defendant without a conviction. Give First Instance Courts the power to impose penalties on witnesses who fail to appear at the scheduled hearing, 9