80 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners to clarify the relationship between advocacy and non-interference. Guidelines could also suggest when to use open or closed questions,119 as well as whether or how to bring up specific cases in interviews, either as examples of a general trend or as the focus of the discussion. Interviewers should ask the interviewee if their statements may be used in reports or advocacy activities. Finally, judges, prosecutors and defence counsel can often provide interesting suggestions on how to remedy problems within the justice system that may be used in advocacy activities, without attribution unless permission is obtained. 9.3.2 Interviews with bar associations, legal clinics or legal aid groups Through interviews and regular communication, bar associations can convey information to monitors that is significant in understanding the challenges that defence counsel and lawyers generally face in their work. These organizations may themselves be advocates of justice-system reform and, as such, can be a valuable source of information on general problems in the justice sector and practical proposals for reform. Meetings with bar associations can also extend a programme’s circle of contacts and, thus, also be extremely useful for advocacy. Legal clinics and other legal aid groups can often provide unique insights into aspects of the justice system and problems faced by defendants who are indigent or otherwise disadvantaged. It can, therefore, be extremely useful for the personnel of trial-monitoring programmes to make contact with these groups. Lawyers may have only a loose relation with their bar. This heightens the need for monitoring personnel to consult not only with bar associations, but also with individual lawyers, in order to gain a more complete picture of the difficulties lawyers face. The practical tips mentioned earlier for interviews with judges, prosecutors and defence counsel can also be used in preparing for meetings with bar associations and other groups. 9.3.3 Interviews with defendants, especially when deprived of liberty Meeting with suspects or defendants is yet another means of gathering information on human rights challenges in the justice system. The paragraphs below underline issues that programmes should consider if they decide to hold interviews with defendants or seek access to persons deprived of their liberty. Some of the following suggestions can be also applied to interviewing parties to civil or administrative proceedings ·· Practical issues to consider in interviewing defendants Many OSCE monitoring programmes exclude communication with defendants and deem it sufficient to learn from defence lawyers the problems faced by their clients. This approach avoids the risk of exposing monitors to potentially dangerous individuals or raising false expectations among suspects that the OSCE is representing their interests in a case. Some programmes also take this approach by necessity, due to limitations in gaining access to defendants. Other programmes, however, include routine meetings with defendants, taking the view that such meetings can yield information that cannot be easily discerned otherwise. This is certainly true with regard to any problems pertaining to the effectiveness of legal representation. Also, suspects in detention are in a more vulnerable position than non-detained defendants, as the restrictions on their freedom of movement also hinder their ability to convey to the outside world any problems they face with their defence, access to justice or their well-being. Programmes that are proactive in 119  As described in Chapter 9.4, “Information gathering on the basis of questionnaires or surveys”.