Chapter 11 — Internal Reporting Systems The domestic legal standard may be found in: 5 (1) BiH/5(1) RS/5(1) FBiH:Right to be given free assistance of an interpreter if he/she cannot speak/understand the language of law enforcement authorities; 185 (5) BiH/96(5) RS/99(5) FBiH: Right to free interpreter and translation. 11.4.2 Simplifying the reporting of facts For programmes monitoring trials solely to establish whether particular procedural violations occur, the details of specific cases may be irrelevant to the programme’s purpose of analyzing the application of domestic law or fair trial standards. When this is the case, detailed reporting of testimony, documents and other evidence presented at trial has the potential to unnecessarily complicate or lengthen reports, as well as to unduly shift attention from procedural issues to the merits of a case. For these reasons, programme managers should design efficient reporting systems that limit the reporting of evidence to what is strictly necessary to the purpose of the programme. This is relevant even for programmes where reporting on evidence and facts is important to the focus of monitoring.148 In both cases, therefore, the strategies below should be kept in mind in order to limit and focus the reporting of evidence: ÀÀ Reporting facts to illustrate the application of fair trial standards or other issues Reporting facts and evidence often helps illustrate the application of domestic laws or fair trial standards. In particular, the exercise of the right to confront witnesses, to present evidence and to be represented by effective defence counsel may be difficult to assess fully without some reference to the facts of the case. For example: • If a conviction is based upon illegally seized evidence, a compelled confession or the testimony of a defendant who was not provided with instructions regarding her/his rights, discussion of the content and significance of evidence may help illustrate the nature of the violation; or • Where monitoring seeks to document the need for – or effectiveness of – witness-protection measures, such as where earlier statements are recanted, a comparison between an earlier incriminating statement and the testimony at trial may highlight such a need. In reporting facts or evidence to illustrate the application of fair trial standards or other rules, it should be stressed to monitors that the test for reporting on testimony or evidence is not whether it is relevant to the merits, but how the treatment of the evidence in the circumstances of the case illustrates the application of certain rules or standards. Often, it will be the case that such evidence should have been presented or, if it was presented, it should have been challenged or excluded. Evidence described for such reasons should be reported as part of the legal analysis, underlining how it relates to the application of specific legal provisions or standards, not as it relates to the merits of a case. ÀÀ Analysis of impartiality and fairness through a comparative or statistical approach Where the focus of monitoring on assessing the level of independence and impartiality of judges, it can be useful to adopt a comparative approach to analyzing and reporting on allegations, evidence and the substance of indictments, judicial verdicts and reversals by higher instance courts. This may provide objective evidence of systemic prosecutorial or judicial bias. In using such a comparative approach, reporting of the underlying allegations and verdicts will normally not require an analysis of 148  Certain thematic monitoring programmes, for instance, focus not only on the procedure but also on the merit of the observed cases (Chapter 15.3). This includes detailed observation and reporting on facts, testimony and other evidence. War crimes monitoring conducted by the OSCE Mission to Serbia represents a case in point. 101