falling in between the two. The results are displayed in Chart 4 (Serious Crimes Court branches) and Chart 5 (First Instance Courts). Generally, there appears to be a stark difference in severity of prison sentences imposed by the Serious Crimes Court and First Instance Courts. The former imposed sentences equal to the legal minimum in a the majority of cases: this tendency was more evident in branches such as Tulkarm, Hebron, Jenin and Jericho, where minimal prison sentences were around 80% of the total, while the Ramallah branch imposed sentences equal to the minimum in just above 50% of cases. On the other hand, First Instance Courts imposed minimal prison sentences in a much lower percentage of cases: no court imposed minimum sentences in more than 50% of cases, and some courts such as Tulkarm and Jenin did so in less than 10% of cases. Both in Serious Crimes Court and First Instance Court trials, maximum prison sentences represented a minority. By far, the strictest Court was the Serious Crimes Court branch in Ramallah, which imposed maximum prison sentences in almost 40% of all convictions. First Instance Courts tended to impose sentences falling within the minimum and maximum statutory ranges, a likely sign that such courts put an effort in tailoring the sentencing to the gravity of the offence and the accused: on the contrary, Serious Crimes Court branches appeared to lack such approach, always imposing, with rare exceptions, sentences equal either to the minimum or the maximum. c) Severity of sentencing by crime type In Serious Crimes Court judgments, narcotics-related crimes and treason/collaboration with the enemy were the two crime categories where sentences equal to the legal maximum were more often imposed, compared to crimes such rape/sexual assault crimes where maximum Chart 6 Severity of sentencing by crime type - Serious Crimes Court 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Legal maximum In between Legal minimum 19