Chapter 2 — Conducting a Preliminary Assessment preliminary assessment. Programme staff should be encouraged to keep an open mind and identify additional problems that may fall within the programme’s mandate as it progresses. In practice, criminal justice systems tend to attract the attention of most monitoring programmes, at least at the early stages. Nonetheless, the preliminary assessment should also carefully consider whether to monitor civil and administrative proceedings, since these can also have profound effects on a person’s rights and legal interests. A crucial issue to assess is the level of political will or the authorities’ interest in engaging in a process of reform. In some states, a well-defined reform process may already be underway. In others, trial monitoring may be a first step in identifying specific problems and presenting compelling evidence on the need for reform. Meetings with justice-system officials can help identify where support for reform may exist in the government and what type of reforms are considered to be needed, as well as where indifference or resistance may be expected. The reactions expressed will serve as an initial indicator of how trial monitoring will feed into a wider reform process and a gauge of the extent to which the government or individual officials are ready to co-operate in or resist a reform process. If it becomes apparent that the political will for comprehensive justice reforms does not exist in a country, or that an extensive trial-monitoring programme is unwelcome, an organization may endeavour to negotiate access for concrete projects, either ad hoc or of limited scope, in an effort to gradually build confidence. If no political will for such efforts exists, it may be the case that further engagement should be postponed. A preliminary assessment should also take into account the interest and capacity on the part of local or international organizations to become partners in, or co-operate with, a monitoring programme. Consultations may reveal the existence of organizations able to engage in legal analysis or advocacy, or to help with programme development, training, staffing or other needs. In addition, meetings with local and international organizations are opportunities to determine whether prior monitoring efforts have been undertaken and whether sufficient capacity exists for domestic groups to conduct monitoring independently.22 This process allows for an assessment of the past involvement of civil society in justice issues and a determination of whether there is a need to build domestic capacity through the programme. Moreover, such consultations will enable programme planners to design a monitoring programme that avoids the duplication or lack of co-ordination with existing efforts. 2.1.2 Organizational capacities The decision on whether to undertake a trial-monitoring programme and what sort of methodology to adopt will depend on an organization’s mandate, resources and anticipated access. Taking these factors into account will help an organization to determine the focus, scale, form and duration of a possible programme and to avoid making plans that are not operationally feasible. For some organizations, the mandate may shape the focus of monitoring. As an example, for an organization with a broad mandate, systemic trial monitoring or broad justice-sector monitoring might be appropriate, while an organization with a limited mandate might opt for thematic or ad hoc monitoring. This choice, in turn, will dictate the focus of the programme, the number of cases that should be monitored, the number and location of courts that should be followed, and the ideal duration of monitoring operations.23 These factors then suggest the number of monitors that will be needed, as well as the monitoring methodology, e.g., whether all or only some hearings in a case should be monitored. 22  See Chapter 3.3, “Domestic trial monitoring organizations or coalitions”. 23  For example, the assessment should consider how long it will take to monitor enough cases to reach credible conclusions. Programmes that aim at capacity building may also require longer time-frames. 25