Executive Summary The present report is based on monitoring of trials before the Serious Crimes Court and First Instance Courts in the governorates of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Through a team composed of 11 lawyers, ISTIQLAL observed a total 12.180 court hearings over 855 court days, 266 of which in First Instance Courts in the Gaza Strip, 506 in First Instance Courts in the West Bank, and 83 days in various Serious Crimes Court branches in West Bank governorates. The data gathered, both qualitative and quantitative, allowed to draw some preliminary conclusions on the Palestinian justice system in terms of its efficiency and its compliance with human rights. The data showed a number of concerns related to the monitored courts’ capacity to process cases efficiently and timely. The present report starts by presenting some quantitative data about the monitored courts’ work (Chapter 1). It analyses the types of cases tried by the Serious Crimes Court and First Instance Courts; the number of defendants tried in the reporting period and their gender; the number of judgments issued; the trial outcomes; the sentences imposed; and the severity of such sentences. Data showed, among other things, that the vast majority of trials result in convictions, imprisonment is by far the most common punishment imposed, prison terms were in general of modest length, and that the Serious Crimes Court tended to be more lenient in determining sentencing than First Instance Courts. The report then moves on to analyse the monitored courts’ organizational and infrastructural preparedness (Chapter 2). First, ISTIQLAL examined organizational indicators such as the Courts’ ability to start hearings on time and hear cases in accordance with the court schedule. Much improvement appears to be needed in this field, since the overwhelming majority of hearings did not start accordance with the prescribed time and most courts did not follow the court schedule, thus paving the way for arbitrariness and vulnerability to undue pressure by certain lawyers. Concerning infrastructural preparedness, ISTIQLAL found that in almost all cases the assistance of security staff, court recorders and ushers was ensured. However, courts seemed to lack an adequate number of administrative staff, so that he available human resources are strained, and delays occur when someone is absent, as no replacements are available. Another indicator considered was the adequacy of courtrooms in terms of size and acoustics: while ISTIQLAL did not observe any critical situation in this regard, it did note that in some courts the available space and sound clarity are insufficient, so that the court’s workflow is often slowed down. ISTIQLAL then carried out a preliminary assessment of the courts’ efficiency in processing cases, by considering a number of indicators (Chapter 3). - A striking feature in this regard is that the vast majority of hearings, on average, resulted in a postponement, without leading to any progress in the criminal proceedings. In some courts, 9 out of 10 hearings are postponed. A number of reasons were identified for this practice, including failure of properly summoned witnesses or lawyers to appear, and failure of the court to ensure that defendants held in pre-trial detention are escorted to 8