129 CHAPTER 14 Phasing Out and Sustainability of Systemic Trial-Monitoring Programmes The closing phase in project management is probably the most neglected on both the theoretical and practical levels. Closing down operations can refer to completing a specific phase of a programme’s operations or to closing the programme as a whole. Bringing an entire programme to an end involves intense efforts to ensure that all aspects of its work and its administrative components are completed. Closing a phase of a programme is less demanding, since it is smaller in scale and staff members and structures remain in place to assist with any loose ends that the programme may have left unaddressed. The point at which a systemic trial-monitoring programme wraps up its operations, or some aspects of its operations, will depend on multiple factors. These can be political, financial or substantive. Political considerations can be complex. In some cases, they can result in an OSCE field operation no longer having a mandate to carry out certain operations, or being closed entirely. Financial considerations pertain to the availability of continued funding for a trial-monitoring programme. Considerations of substance might be that the monitoring programme has successfully completed its overall goal or more specific objectives. This chapter first outlines sustainability issues to consider when bringing a programme to an end, and then describes other considerations that should be taken into account as a programme is ending. 14.1 Activities to support the sustainability of monitoring work Systemic trial-monitoring programmes often promote judicial reforms by providing a review or oversight function that may be absent in justice systems in transition. Ideally, a country’s own institutions and citizens should be able to take on this oversight role independently when an international programme comes to an end. If this is not the case, a sudden closure of operations could have negative effects on the justice system and lead to the unravelling of programme achievements. In order to avoid leaving a vacuum behind, long before a programme shuts down, programme managers should consider how its work can be sustained. Arguably, systemic programmes should aim from the start at developing local reforms and sufficient local capacity so that an international programme will no longer be needed. Programme managers examining the sustainability of trial-monitoring programmes should identify which domestic institutions or organizations might be in a position to provide adequate review or oversight when the programme closes. In developed democracies, many checks and balances exist to prevent abuses or to right the wrongs in a legal system. Mechanisms within the system include: adversarial proceedings, in which all parties are bound by codes of ethics; effective disciplinary procedures for all judicial actors; higher courts that review the merits and legality of lower court decisions; national human rights institutions, including ombudspersons; and supranational courts or bodies, before which individuals can bring their grievances. Examples of review mechanisms outside the justice system are: media that can expose deficiencies and be watchdogs on behalf of the public; academics or other jurists and think tanks who comment professionally on judicial decisions