While in principle all criminal cases before the First Instance Courts in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip should be open to the public, courts must take utmost care in balancing this right with considerations related to protection of vulnerable victims, such as minors, or victims of sexual crimes. Where these cases are not tried behind closed doors, the court should resort to protective measures in order to safeguard the victims’ safety, privacy and dignity, and avoid secondary victimization. Although rape and sexual assault cases represented 14% of cases before the Serious Crimes Court and 6% of cases before the First Instance Courts (see above, chapter 1), courts limited the publicity of these trials in a marginal number of cases. ISTIQLAL observed that in very rare cases of did one party request that the hearing be conducted confidentially; however, in most such cases the court rejected such requests, and the trial was held in public. However, some other bodies accept the confidentiality of the hearing as some cases require privacy. ISTIQLAL noticed, for example, in the Gaza First Instance Court that four confidential hearings were held at the request of the defence attorney, most of which concerning women, among which were “rape” cases, “attempted murder”, “adultery”. 8. reywp pa ei erRaRgir aR pwi owtRyis tytersp arsi R One of the fundamental trial rights is to be informed of the reasons for arrest and, generally, of the charges raised against oneself. This right is essential in order for the defendant to prepare his/her defence. ISTIQLAL observed no violations of this particular right. Trial monitors observed that at the beginning of all monitored trials, the indictment was read to the accused, who was sometimes also informed in an easy and simple language of the charges against him/her. Sometimes, especially when a case was transferred from a court to another, First Instance Courts and the High Crimes Court wanted to make sure that the defendant was aware of the charges and thus proceeded to read them once again. The accused was also always given the floor in order to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges. In this latter case, a date was set for a new hearing for the start of evidentiary proceedings. When the accused pleaded guilty, ISTIQLAL monitors observed cases where Courts, such as the Khan Yunis and Gaza First Instance Courts, proceeded directly to sentencing the accused, without hearing any other evidence. This occurred also in some cases, already noted above, where defendants pleaded guilty just in order to be released from pre-trial detention, even though they stated that they did not commit the crime. This appears to be a clear violation of the law, as according to the Palestinian CPC, Article 214 para. 3, for a confession to be valid “It must be an express and conclusive acknowledgment by the accused that he committed the crime.” ISTIQLAL believes that courts should exercise utmost care when assessing whether a defendant’s confession is made freely and in full knowledge of the legal consequences and corresponds to an admission of guilt. 45