96 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners assessments are sought, there will be less opportunity for in-depth analysis than in is offered by open reporting systems. It is also possible that, despite the numerous questions included in questionnaires, a problematic practice arises in proceedings that is not foreseen in the questionnaire and is, thus, missed by the programme. This can concern an entirely different issue or one that is closely connected to the questions asked, but not explored specifically. For example, a questionnaire may ask whether the judge asked the injured parties whether they wished to file a property claim, but failed to ask specifically whether the injured parties understood the meaning of this right.145 A questionnaire that does not foresee possible problems with this practical aspect may render findings that do not entirely correspond to reality, unless monitors are alerted in advance to such issues and provided space to comment on them. Generally, closed systems instruct monitors to pay attention to all details of proceedings — even if they do not appear on the questionnaire — that could indicate breaches of human rights. However, there is a risk that closed systems will limit the monitors’ attention during the observation, at the expense of those elements that are not covered by the questionnaire, which might then end up being ignored or overlooked. For this very reason, while closed systems may be suitable for use when monitors with little experience are hired, they are not as effective as open systems in further building the analytical legal skills of experienced monitors. Chapter 9.8, on “Information gathering on the basis of questionnaires or surveys”, provides guidance in drafting of lists of questions. 11.3.3 A comparison of open and closed reporting systems Each system has advantages and limitations that ,might make it more or less useful and effective given the purpose and focus of a programme. The chart below compares open and closed reporting systems. Comparison of open and closed reporting systems Issue Open (narrative) report Closed (questionnaire) report Depth of analysis in individual cases • This system allows for in-depth focus and detailed analysis on particular issues in individual cases, including the treatment of problems and detailed analysis. • The project may be structured to provide specific information and analysis on application of domestic laws and fair trial standards. • This system may provide a greater level of detail for public reporting of serious fair trial or human rights violations in individual cases. Ability to provide quantification of problems throughout the justice system • This option may make it more difficult to aggregate and quantify findings on numerous and diverse issues. • As open reports become more structured and focused, there is more capacity to quantify the nature or extent of identified problems. • This system provides less in-depth narrative analysis in individual cases. • This system provides less capacity for examining more elaborate problems, or demonstrating “grey areas”, where breaches are not as straightforward. • These systems are structured to enable an easy compilation of practices noncompliant with domestic laws and fair trial standards. • This format allows for a quantitative or survey-type approach regarding practices across all cases monitored. • The quantitative focus may provide a strong basis for conclusions about the need for systemic reforms. 145  Monitors have reported cases in which the legal language used in court proceedings was not understood by the layperson, rendering it ineffective.