Chapter 12 — Advocacy Strategies ÀÀ Functions of trial-monitoring public reports The broad distribution of public reports serves the important function of providing a common foundation of objective information on the functioning of the justice system. Trial-monitoring reports provide a unique resource to support the reform process by: • documenting practices, problems and abuses within the system, thereby eliminating the need to rely on incomplete or anecdotal information; • educating stakeholders on domestic and international standards, thereby increasing the accountability of local institutions and actors; and • providing a solid factual and analytical starting point from which to consider reforms of the system based on international standards of justice. Trial monitoring will usually provide more information than can ever be fully digested by the reader of a report. In choosing which topics to report on, managers and drafters should select only the most significant issues. Reports should generally focus on the most serious concerns and areas where reforms are most needed or possible. The gravity of the issues selected for reporting will also depend on the phase of the programme’s engagement. A newly-founded programme will normally focus on striking shortcomings, whereas a long-established programme may also delve into other, less striking aspects of non-compliance with domestic or international standards. OSCE trial-monitoring programmes have issued many types of public reports. While not all reports fit easily into a specific category, they may generally be classified as one of three basic types: general reviews of the justice system, thematic reports and reports focusing on specific crimes or cases related to discrete events. The following subchapters provide a brief overview of each, with examples for further reference. 12.2.1 Comprehensive reports related to the functioning of the justice system Since the majority of OSCE trial-monitoring programmes have the express goal of improving the overall functioning of the justice system, many programmes have chosen to issue comprehensive reports, which make generally applicable findings in support of enhancing the effective and fair application of the law. Reports of this type usually focus on the application of local law and local practices, while including an assessment of compliance with international fair trial standards. Whereas such reports may address the entirety of proceedings, more often they will focus on the public stages of proceedings – criminal, civil or administrative – as access and monitoring permit. Comprehensive reports should seek not only to point out a problem with the application of laws, but also identify the problem’s root cause. This may include providing analysis of the scope and components of a problem, to assess whether the practice at issue is caused by legislative, structural, resource, budgetary or other systemic or specific factors. The analysis may also involve a quantitative or statistical element, to put the issue into perspective. However, for a report to be considered a monitoring report, and not a legal review, the findings and conclusions must be based primarily upon the practices monitored in specific cases. It is important for reports that provide a systemic review to be based on the monitoring of a broad range of case types. While certain types of cases may be prioritized for monitoring, too narrow a selection of case types may compromise the ability to make generally applicable findings regarding the justice system as a whole. Reports providing a broad, systemic overview tend to be the most complex and demanding in terms both of monitoring methodology and report writing. However, they are an excellent place to start for programmes that intend to establish a long-term approach to monitoring. This is because they address the functioning of the entire system and, as such, they broadly engage and support the work of many institutions and actors involved in the justice system. This not only raises the profile of the 109