Chapter 3 — Choosing an Institutional Model supported three national NGOs (Centre for Peace in Osijek, Documenta, and GOLiP) to gradually take over the monitoring, reporting and advocacy of war crimes cases. Using partnerships to support trial-monitoring operations The Moldova programme: In organizing its trial-monitoring programme in 2006, the OSCE Mission to Moldova joined forces with two primary implementing partners, both of which made significant contributions to the organization of the programme. First, the programme partnered with the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative, an international NGO that had for several years engaged in legal and criminal law reform in Moldova. The programme also partnered with the Institute for Penal Reform, a leading Moldovan NGO in the field of criminal law reform. Overall, the sharing of programme responsibilities not only broadened the participation of civil society in monitoring, but also allowed for the sharing of managerial responsibilities — subject to ultimate OSCE responsibility — for the programme, thereby greatly reducing the need for and demands on OSCE staff. The Montenegro programme: Another example of a hybrid model is the partnership between the OSCE Mission to Montenegro with the Center for Monitoring (CEMI), a specialized domestic NGO, at the commencement of the trial-monitoring programme. In this case, after engaging in building the capacity of the programme staff, CEMI initiated monitoring activities in close co-operation with the OSCE Mission. In order to achieve better synergy of operations, initially three and later two OSCE staff monitors worked directly from the premises of the NGO. The NGO committed to carrying out trial-monitoring activities even beyond the duration of the agreement with the OSCE. 3.5 General comparison of staff and project models Both the staff and project models constitute viable options for establishing a programme capable of supporting comprehensive monitoring efforts of extended duration within the host state. While the essential outcomes of monitoring are largely similar in both models, certain operational issues related to the different functional capacities of the models should be considered prior to selecting one or the other for a programme. The following chart provides a comparative overview of some of the advantages and disadvantages of the two models. 3637 36  See Chapter 4, “Access to court proceedings and other access issues” and Chapter 9, “Information gathering and verification in systemic trial monitoring”. 37  See Chapter 7, “Programme structure and staffing issues”. 33