87 CHAPTER 10 Analysis of Trial-Monitoring Findings This chapter describes the different steps in analyzing trial-monitoring observations for the purpose of drafting reports or pursuing advocacy activities. These steps include identifying and verifying problems, understanding their root causes, finding possible solutions, and monitoring developments after making the problem known. The term “monitors” is also used in this chapter to refer to legal analysts, unless a clear distinction is made. 10.1 Problem identification A core responsibility for monitors is determining whether problems exist in a justice system and, if so, identifying what the problems are. This requires sound knowledge of the law and legal reasoning to identify practices contrary to human rights standards. As monitors observe proceedings, they must consider whether any breach of due process or other domestic or international law appears to have taken place. In programmes where less experienced monitors are employed, legal analysts often take the lead in identifying the legal issues at stake, based on reports from monitors. Other programmes rely more heavily on monitors to spot matters of concern. This risks overlooking fair trial breaches if monitors have not been well trained.132 While it is unrealistic to expect monitors to know all applicable laws in advance of monitoring a case, they should have sufficient training to be perceptive in spotting potential violations. They should also be able to find the relevant legal provisions to confirm or dispel any such suspicion and be eager to continuously expand their knowledge of laws, jurisprudence and legal practices. At times, problems identified in proceedings are obvious and straightforward, as when an actor’s conduct clearly violates a legal rule. For example, if a judgement is not pronounced in a public hearing, this would contravene fair trial standards, and would merit reporting. It might often, however, be difficult to assess whether an observed action or omission is problematic. It is important for monitors to be alert and to explore further any uncertainties they have. In such instances, monitors should gather additional information to confirm whether their impression is corroborated. Being well acquainted with local human rights jurisprudence and the case law of international bodies gives monitors a more informed perspective about types of conduct that may be prohibited. On occasion, however, case law may not provide clear answers on a particular matter.133 Furthermore, the judiciary in transitional systems may encounter unprecedented problems that are not directly 132  See Chapter 8.4, “Training sessions”. 133  This is possible, for example, when there has not been a comparable case or when different courts have issued opposite ­decisions on comparable cases.