Chapter 12 — Advocacy Strategies must take steps to ensure that the use of information does not compromise the programme’s ability to deliver on its primary purposes. For this reason, information-sharing controls must be put in place to protect the integrity of the programme in general, as well as, more specifically, the release of confidential information that has been obtained by virtue of monitoring closed hearings and access to non-public documents.182 The following methods may be considered for non-public information-sharing: • Editing and clearance. To protect confidential information included in reports or legal opinions of monitors that may not be final or directly relevant to other parties, programmes should consider removing such information from case reports to be provided to external parties. Extracts might include the basic hearing information and summary of testimony, but omit confidential information, as well as the monitor’s legal analysis. Alternatively, a programme might consider releasing only secondary reporting to external parties, once it has been vetted and cleared. • Concluding an MoU. For information sharing that occurs on a regular basis with a specific organization, programmes may consider the signing of an MoU. The MoU can specify the type of information to be shared, the contemplated uses of such information and the manner in which it is to be exchanged, including designating mutual contact points. The process of negotiating and concluding an MoU allows a programme to clarify its methodology and aims to the counterpart and provides valuable assurances regarding how information is to be used. Addressing the timing and method of information sharing further enables a regularized exchange that minimizes ad hoc requests and unanticipated burdens on staff. • Formulating an information-sharing protocol. In general, a programme can adopt an information-sharing protocol – an internal set of rules and guidance – that is consistent with the principle of confidentiality and the practical needs of the programme. Such a protocol eliminates uncertainty regarding information sharing by establishing what may be shared, in what form, and with whom. In this way, information sharing by the programmes is based on a consistent and well-thought-out approach, and not decided ad hoc as external requests are made.183 12.4 Supporting other advocacy and capacity-building activities Apart from issuing reports, trial-monitoring programmes can, and arguably should, undertake a variety of other advocacy activities to ensure their conclusions are widely disseminated and their recommendations are promptly and effectively implemented. The extent to which this is possible may depend on a programme’s human and financial capacity, as well as its expertise. Chapters 12.4.1 to 12.4.4 describe advocacy activities OSCE programmes have undertaken to support the implementation of recommendations. 12.4.1 Undertaking outreach activities to disseminate monitoring findings and programme views In addition to issuing and disseminating trial-monitoring reports, programmes have made their findings known through various forums, where they have also presented their views on how to improve domestic justice systems. OSCE trial-monitoring programmes are regularly invited to address specialized conferences and meetings, both in host countries and abroad. These include events 182  The principle of confidentiality and the corresponding monitor’s duty of confidentiality are discussed more generally in Chapter 5.4, Chapter 8.1.4 and Chapter 9.3.8. 183  In 2005, the Coalition All for Fair Trials in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia developed a rulebook for the retention and release of case information related to its monitoring project involving trafficking cases. The rule book provides for a three-level confidentiality system. First, basic information relating to the existence of cases and number of cases monitored by the Coalition is deemed accessible to any interested parties. Second, certain statistical data regarding defendants and other specifically defined information regarding victims may be released to specified actors for specified purposes. Finally, information obtained from court documents, closed hearings, or protected by court order may not be released by the Coalition to third parties under any circumstances. 123