Democratization: Legislative Support While the ODIHR uses this approach in all OSCE states, special efforts have been made within the framework of a joint programme with the European Commission with regard to Central Asia, where the work of legislators is often impeded by the scarcity of legal resources. The programme’s priorities include closely following legislative developments in the region, improving access to legal information, ensuring followup on ODIHR recommendations, and promoting local networks of legal expertise. A legislative assistance co-ordinator for Central Asia was appointed to increase the ODIHR’s capacity in these areas and to mobilize the relevant expertise to fulfil these objectives. When addressing issues of relevance to lawmakers in a number of OSCE participating States, the ODIHR may consider alternatives to providing expertise on individual laws. One option is to offer expertise through the drafting of guidelines aimed at informing those responsible for drafting legislation of the development and requirements of international law on the topic considered. Guidelines may include examples of national legislation illustrating various means of satisfying the requirements of international law. The ODIHR began drafting guidelines on freedom of assembly in 2004 in response to the fact that a number of states were taking more interest in the issue and were developing or amending legislation on this subject. The ODIHR further elaborated the guidelines in consultation with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, taking into account legal developments observed across the OSCE region. In 2006, the text of the guidelines was subject to broad consultations among law-drafters, politicians, legal professionals, police officers, local officials, trade unionists, and NGOs from various OSCE regions. Four roundtables were organized in Tbilisi, Belgrade, Almaty, and Warsaw, where good practices were identified, as were specific challenges and concerns faced in regulating and handling public assemblies. The draft guidelines were then finalized with the support of a panel of nine ODIHR experts representing different 50 Annual Report  legal systems. To be published in 2007 in both English and Russian, the guidelines will serve as a reference document for drafting, reviewing, and monitoring the implementation of legislation on freedom of assembly. II. Improving legislative efficiency and transparency A successful piece of legislation usually goes through a number of stages from conception to adoption. Schematically outlined, it begins with an analysis of the proposed policy, combined with, or followed by, an assessment of the potential impact of the legislation (including its financial impact). A legislative agenda and timetables are established to ensure that adequate time is provided for the preparation of various legislative stages. The legislation is drafted in accordance with pre-established work plans and following standardized drafting techniques. Those who will be affected by the legislation — interest groups, NGOs, citizens — are given an opportunity to comment on the draft legislation. And finally, the functioning and effectiveness of the legislation are monitored and assessed on a regular basis. While reviewing individual pieces of legislation, the ODIHR has found that some or all of these stages are missing or not properly regulated or conducted in the legislative processes of countries undergoing political transition or conducting major legislative reforms, resulting in inefficient legislative processes that lack transparency. In response, the ODIHR developed a pilot methodology that aims to make legislative processes more efficient, open, and transparent. The point of departure is that any technicalassistance scheme needs to be preceded by an assessment of the legislative process. The assessment phase specifically aims to ensure that any assistance provided is based on actual needs and to provide a basis for effective co-ordination of the international community’s efforts. This methodology was consolidated in 2006 on the basis of experiences with the first such assessment conducted in Georgia in 2005.