Chapter 17 — Mandate, Principles and Aims of Ad Hoc Trial Monitoring The context in which ad hoc monitoring activities take place is often politically sensitive, and the prospect of additional scrutiny may be even less appealing to the authorities than in other types of trial-monitoring projects. Acceptance of the monitoring will be facilitated by clear communication of the activity’s aims, methodology and envisioned outputs to all stakeholders. Such communication will help all actors – from the government and judiciary to civil society – to understand the monitoring activity and form appropriate expectations with regard to its results. In OSCE experience, relevant information is often conveyed to the authorities in official correspondence before the start of monitoring. Project managers should strive to supplement this with meetings and briefings with all stakeholders, to minimize the risk of misinterpretation and miscommunication. Aims and background of ad hoc monitoring projects: ODIHR Trial Monitoring in Belarus (2011) Pursuant to an exchange of letters between the Director of ODIHR and the Permanent Representative of Belarus to the OSCE, an ad hoc trial-monitoring activity was deployed to monitor the criminal proceedings against persons charged with offences related to the violence that followed the presidential elections of 19 December 2010. The monitoring pursued three aims: • to assess the compliance of the monitored trials with relevant domestic and international fair trial standards; • to identify concerns and areas for improvement in the criminal justice system; and • To present the Belarusian authorities with recommendations aimed at improving the administration of criminal justice in line with their OSCE commitments. ODIHR and OSCE Centre in Tashkent Trial Monitoring in Uzbekistan (2005) Following the violence on 13 and 14 May 2005 in Andijan, an ad hoc trial-monitoring activity was organized by ODIHR in co-operation with the OSCE Centre in Tashkent, upon agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan. Between September and November 2005, the project it observed the criminal proceedings of 15 individuals charged with violent crimes and other serious offences against the state. The monitoring aimed to: • assess the proceedings for compliance with international fair trial standards and OSCE commitments; and • establish and maintain a dialogue with the Government of Uzbekistan on issues related to fair trial standards. Ad hoc monitoring activities have certain distinct features that set them apart from systemic and thematic monitoring described in Part III and Part IV, respectively. As their name suggests, ad hoc monitoring activities do not constitute a part of a planned reform assistance programme but, rather, are triggered by specific proceedings the monitoring organization regards as warranting such a response. The monitored trials are often highly publicized and may be perceived as controversial and/ or politically sensitive. Operationally, most ad hoc activities have a limited duration, are organized in a short period of time and, therefore, face special logistical and administrative challenges. By their nature, ad hoc projects have a limited scope, focusing on the specific cases related to the events that served as the catalyst for monitoring. They seek to gain access primarily to the particular proceedings resulting from those events. Like other types of trial monitoring, however, they are aimed at assessing compliance with fair trial and human rights standards, and they issue public reports to make their findings and analysis available to the public and the authorities. The following chapters provide some details and guidance on the operation of ad hoc projects. It should be emphasized that many aspects of systemic and thematic monitoring operations described in earlier chapters are also applicable to ad hoc monitoring, taking into account the differences dictated by the special circumstances of ad hoc activities. 145