Chapter 11 — Internal Reporting Systems Consequences of access limitations • Restrictions on access to court proceedings, documents and files may provide less opportunity and information to perform in-depth analysis of more elaborate issues characteristic of open reports. • Questionnaire format allows compiling information across many cases and drawing conclusions on specific issues, which are usually easier to observe, even without access to the entire record of an individual case. Number of reports • As reports increase, conclusions may be more definite, but management of all information becomes more difficult, with a greater chance that case information will not be utilized. • As reports increase, information management is less problematic, as more quantifiable data directly increases the credibility of findings. Short-term monitoring/ monitoring of few cases • The detailed analysis of individual cases and highlighting of problems can provide a solid basis for reporting on emerging issues, even on the basis of few monitored cases. • Conclusions based upon quantitative analysis require a longer time-frame to monitor and a sufficient number of monitored cases to make reliable findings. Monitor experience • This option requires more monitoring experience and analytical ability to spot issues and independently apply standards to formulate conclusions. • Questionnaires provide more structure for less experienced monitors or those who have had less legal training. Strengths/ weaknesses • This system is excellent where a programme seeks to take an in-depth look at proceedings in individual cases, uncover more elaborate problems, or focus on a narrow set of issues with a high level of analysis. • The objective survey-type of approach is more suitable for providing quantifiable findings about how a system functions, both on problems and good practices. • The focus is on qualitative results, hence making quantitative conclusions (including statistics) may not always be consistent with this reporting format. • There is a risk of undue focus on issues to the exclusion of good practices, if monitors focus only on violations. • Monitors are given wider discretion to focus on various issues in reporting. • This system encourages monitors to build narrative and analytical reporting skills, adding to their professional development. • This option provides legal analysts with a first-level analysis that they can use verbatim, or upon which they can easily build their narrative for external reports. • This allows for the collection of data on widespread and select issues during a monitoring term. • There is a risk of a lack of in-depth analysis and being less nuanced in comparison with the open narrative report. • With this system it is difficult to assess the quality of collected data. • It is more difficult to provide in-depth and complete public reporting on individual cases. • This option does not serve the purpose of building the analytical reporting skills of monitors. • This system requires that legal analysts undertake the first step of “converting” the raw information into a narrative analysis. 11.3.4 Hybrid formats - open organized format Some monitoring programmes have combined aspects of open and closed reporting systems to produce a “hybrid” system, also sometimes called an “open organized” system. A hybrid format is open in the sense that it requires narrative analysis of issues based upon the discretion of the monitor, but the reporting template is more tightly organized around specific issues, ensuring more consistent issue coverage and easier compilation of findings. Such a format may be helpful for a programme 97