Chapter 4 — Access to Court Proceedings and Other Access Issues Beyond international obligations on the right to a public trial, monitoring programmes should also review all domestic legislation for provisions that allow such access, as well as provisions that expand or limit the right to attend public criminal or civil proceedings, or that regulate access to indictments, verdicts or other such court documents. If programme managers also seek access to non-public hearings for their monitors, they may examine whether domestic procedural codes provide ability for certain professionals to access even non-public hearings, as may be the case for social workers in criminal proceedings involving juveniles. Depending on the interpretation of codes and judicial practice, programme managers may wish to pursue establishing a similar practice for monitoring staff. Identifying the legal framework is, however, only the first step in a comprehensive approach to ensuring the access needed to monitor trials effectively. Even if the legal framework supports monitoring, practical barriers can make monitoring and information collection difficult. For instance, the existence of a mandate will not ensure access to information where such information is not systematically managed and disseminated, or when local authorities hinder access. As a result, international law, domestic law and the programme’s mandate are only starting points in securing the necessary level of access. 4.2 Methods to increase overall programme access OSCE trial-monitoring operations have utilized various methods to increase programme access to proceedings and case information. These methods seek to involve and inform domestic stakeholders at all levels of the justice system, from representatives of institutions to legal actors involved in specific cases under observation. Building consensus with local authorities regarding the purpose of monitoring trials and the advantages monitoring has for rule of law and human rights has been the most successful way to increase access. The implementation of the steps outlined below requires careful planning and execution. Misunderstandings or scepticism on the part of the authorities are common, and failure to resolve these promptly can have adverse effects on the success of monitoring. Suggested steps include conducting initial meetings with representatives of courts, prosecutor’s offices and bar associations; developing means to identify monitoring personnel and generate information about the monitoring programme; and reaching agreements on monitoring operations. It is crucial to prepare exhaustively in advance for meetings with officials, both in terms of making an effective presentation and in anticipating their likely reactions. When preparing, it is important to remember that only half as much time is actually available to make the necessary points if interpretation is required. Moreover, it is useful to brief the interpreter in advance, to ensure he or she understands the key concepts and terminology. 4.2.1 Memorandum of understanding An MoU or agreement on access is a formal agreement setting out rights and obligations between the monitoring organization and relevant local institutions, such as the Ministry of Justice or the Supreme Court.41 An MoU should not be viewed as a legal prerequisite to conducting trial monitoring, but as a method to secure and maximize access, as well as an opportunity to build relationships with, and buy-in by, the local authorities. This will, in turn enhance the effectiveness of advocacy activities. An MoU may be sought at the commencement of a trial-monitoring programme or later, if the programme expands into a field where additional access is required. If extended access is 41  Although an MoU can cover the entire duration of a programme, it can also be more specific. For instance, the OSCE Mission to Montenegro renews its MoU for every phase of its project. The Montenegro MoU is signed by all 17 monitored courts, as well as by the Supreme Court and the State Prosecution. MoUs have also been concluded with other self-administered bodies, as was done by the programme in Moldova with the Superior Council of Magistrates. 37