18 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners issuance of reports, to assist the authorities and other interested actors in implementing recommendations through advocacy and capacity-building.11 1.1.2 Limits of trial monitoring While trial monitoring may achieve a wide range of purposes, it has limitations as well. Trial monitoring may not always be the most appropriate programme option to support justice reform. Where there is no political will for reform, for instance, trial monitoring may be able to point out deficiencies, but it can achieve little in the way of prompt or systemic justice reform. Further, in situations where governments are actively complicit in violations of fair trial standards, organizations should consider whether they are prepared to undertake the type of political reporting and advocacy necessary to publicize their findings. Where monitoring takes place without such follow-up, it runs the risk of legitimizing a flawed criminal justice process. As a result, organizations must carefully consider both the strengths and limitations of trial monitoring in determining whether and how a programme can support a process of justice reform and ultimately contribute to overall increased human rights protection and respect for the rule of law. A different kind of limitation of trial monitoring arises when programmes identify concerns in court proceedings but are not in a position to check their veracity or to identify their root causes without additional methods of information gathering. For example, where the accused alleges illtreatment in the extraction of a confession, trial monitoring would be able to record this complaint and note the reaction of the court but only speculate as to the rest. Or, when a sound trial is conducted from the perspective of procedural fairness but a verdict manifestly unfair on its merits is issued, trial monitoring of only procedural issues would need to go to extra lengths to make grounded comments on this observation. Assistance in overcoming this category of limitations to trial monitoring can be offered by justice-sector monitoring, as outlined below. 1.2 Basic methodological principles underlying OSCE trial-monitoring programmes Several methodological principles underlie OSCE trial-monitoring programmes. These are described in the sections below. 1.2.1 Principle of non-intervention in the judicial process The principle of non-intervention, also referred to as non-interference, underlies the trial monitoring conducted by all OSCE programmes. This principle aims at respecting the precept of judicial independence. Independence means that “both the judiciary as an institution and the individual judges administering justice in particular cases must be able to exercise their professional responsibilities without being unduly influenced by the executive, the legislature, or any other inappropriate sources”.12 Therefore, the principle of non-intervention requires that all trial-monitoring programmes respect and enhance the independence of the courts, both through their design and through the activities of the monitors. In practice, however, the application of the principle of nonintervention to all trial-monitoring activities is not always straightforward, and there are different approaches as to how it is applied. Certain programmes implement the principle of non-intervention in an absolute manner, by avoiding direct interaction, particularly by court monitors, with individual members of the judiciary, prosecutors or lawyers, and not inquiring even about their general views except in structured forums, such as seminars. This is done in order to avoid any possibility of undermining — in practice 11  For an overview of these other advocacy activities, see Chapter 12.4 “Supporting other advocacy and capacity-building activities”. 12  Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Professional Training Series #9, 2003, p. 115.