20 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners while monitoring may sometimes focus on specific rules or standards, to the exclusion of others, it must not do so in a manner that appears to align itself with any one side on the merits of a case. Rather, even when the conduct of a specific actor gives rise to a breach of due process, objective monitoring requires that the conduct of other actors is also examined and any contribution to the breach recorded. For instance, when a trial is prolonged for an excessive period of time, a monitor would need to consider, among other points, the trial-management skills of the court, possible administrative delays in obtaining expert reports, lack of preparation by the prosecution, and intentional delaying by the defence. When systemic or thematic trial monitoring is conducted, the principle of objectivity requires a balanced approach to a programme’s selection of trials and observation of proceedings, as well as to its formulations of findings, conclusions and recommendations. This might not be the case for ad hoc monitoring, which may focus on a single trial or on a pre-determined set of trials. Another crucial element that might impact on a trial-monitoring programme’s objectivity or its external image is the source of funding to conduct the activity. External donors might impose conditions in exchange for funding of trial-monitoring activities. Therefore, programme managers should take into account the political and legal conditions, as well as the mandates under which they work, and be mindful, strategic and transparent in fundraising. Even when the allocation of funds is not subject to any conditions, the perception of objectivity may still be affected by the choice of a donor. This is all the more true in the case of thematic monitoring14 and ad hoc trial monitoring15 of politically sensitive cases. 1.2.3. Principle of agreement OSCE participating States have undertaken commitments to comply with a set of rules and principles in the administration of justice. Among the most important of these are commitments to ensure the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial tribunal.16 In order to give effect to these commitments and others relating to fair trials, participating States have agreed to permit trial monitoring.17 OSCE commitments reinforce other international obligations to provide fair trials. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Taken together, these international legal obligations and commitments serve as both legal and political support for trial monitoring as a tool to support the development of judicial systems, consistent with international standards and principles of justice. At the operational level, achieving a common understanding with national authorities regarding the purpose of monitoring serves to secure access18 to courts for monitors and to increase the effectiveness of trial monitoring. Such an understanding can be attained by entering into agreements, building working relationships, sharing information, explaining programme goals and methods, making constructive recommendations, and working with officials to support the implementation of recommendations. 14  See Part IV, on “Thematic trial monitoring”. 15  See Part V, on “Ad hoc trial monitoring”. 16  See, for instance, Concluding Document of the Vienna Meeting, Vienna 1989, paragraph 13.9. 17  Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, Copenhagen 1990, paragraph 12. 18  Also see Chapter 4, “Access to court proceedings”.