postponed the session without taking any procedural action, such as, for instance, reading the indictment, discussing the admissibility of evidence, or hearing witnesses or expert witnesses. The breakdown of these findings per each court is displayed in Charts 9 and 10. No significant difference was observed between First Instance Courts and Serious Crimes Court branches: in trials before First Instance Courts in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Court took some procedural actions only in 23.5% of the monitored hearings. This means that in 76.5% of cases hearings were adjourned to a new date without any procedural step being taken and no tangible progress being made. More precisely, First Instance Courts in the West Bank took some procedural step in a mere 18% of monitored hearings. The Tulkarm Court was the most efficient, with some progress made in 40% of hearings, while as many as 90% of hearings held in Courts in Bethlehem, Nablus and Jericho First Instance Courts were simply postponed without any progress being made. First Instance Courts in the Gaza Strip performed comparatively better, with some procedural action occurring, on average, in 37% of monitored hearings. The First Instance Court in Gaza city performed better than the Khan Yunis court in this regard, “merely” postponing an average of approximately 50% of hearings held before it. Chart 9 - Cases postponed without any progress in First instance Courts (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ramallah Bethlehem Hebron Nablus Hearings postponed Tulkarm Jenin Qalqilya Jericho Hearings with progress in the case Chart 10 - Cases postponed without any progress in Serious Crimes Court branches (%) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ramallah Bethlehem Hebron Hearings postponed Nablus Tulkarm Jenin Qalqilya Hearings with progress in the case 30 Jericho Gaza Khan Younes