52 CHAPTER 6 Main Aims, Outputs and Methods of Systemic Trial Monitoring Systemic trial monitoring describes a long-term programme that not only concentrates on the trial as its main information-gathering source, but also looks into the functioning of other parts of the justice system. The main aim of such programmes has been to contribute to broader reforms in justice systems. The end goal is to support the development of judicial structures that are independent and that function effectively and in compliance with human rights standards. Systemic programmes generally rely on a “bottom-up” approach to gather their findings, but they issue their recommendations based on a “top-down” analysis. Namely, trial monitoring identifies in detail any problems with court or other legal practices, and attempts to track the root causes as high up in the system as possible. For instance, in observing excessively lengthy proceedings it may identify problems such as the lack of legal provisions for default judgements in civil cases or shortages in judicial personnel. In issuing recommendations, systemic programmes address the top levels of the system, first by, for example, suggesting changes to legislation, and then by addressing the conduct of actors in the administration of justice, such as by highlighting the need for further training of judges. Systemic programmes work best in environments where local stakeholders have acknowledged that reforms are needed and are prepared to take steps towards reform. Systemic trial monitoring also endeavours to develop the capacity of actors within the justice system to identify and remedy any problems on their own.60 In theory, the development of such capacity, together with the implementation of reforms, would signify the point at which a systemic trial-monitoring programme has completed its work. Information gathered through systemic trial monitoring has been used in a variety of ways. Issuing reports is the principal means of alerting the authorities to challenges observed. These reports always include recommendations directed at bodies that can effectuate changes. However, in light of the expertise that such programmes are able to develop, their continuous presence on the ground and their leverage in the field, they have also been able to accelerate reforms through additional advocacy activities. Other outputs have included commenting on draft laws, building the capacity of justice actors, providing advice on human rights aspects of institutional reforms, promoting outreach to the public in war crimes cases, and other such activities. Systemic trial-monitoring programmes are generally based on a wide mandate that provides broad access to information. Correspondingly, they extend their operations to as many courts and fields of law as their capabilities allow, as part of a long-term commitment. In practice, their scope of monitoring does not exclude any area of law. While priorities are identified, they may change over time. 60  For instance, if a programme is noting that defence counsel routinely does not challenge decisions that declare the proceedings closed without any justification, this may lead defence counsel to readjust and consider more frequently to appeal such decisions before the trial court or before higher courts, in line with the programme’s recommendation, thus enabling a change in those practices that contravene the right to a public trial.