116 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners striking and recurring examples, as well as by those most representative of a trend or systemic problem. However, if a rare case serves to substantiate a more general trend, quoting it alone may suffice to illustrate a point.174 • Use of case names. The decision on whether to provide case names ultimately depends on the purpose of reporting. Citing an example by name is rarely necessary in a report seeking to identify general practices and trends. Conversely, when monitoring focuses on specific cases, crimes or events, it may serve the purpose of monitoring to provide the case name for political or documentation purposes. Certain reports have also quoted the names of judges or other justice actors in their public examples of breaches. Nonetheless, most programmes refrain from this practice, as it attaches a stigma to the individuals, can invite negative reactions on their part or by supportive authorities, or might lead to retribution being taken against them. Overall, programmes have attempted to reduce as much as possible the identification of cases and actors in their examples, in order to focus on the problem and not the subjects. Inevitably, though, in many circumstances the actors may be identifiable by peers or by the public, especially if the report focuses on a high-profile case is concerned. • Use of statistics. Statistics can have a powerful impact in illustrating the scope or severity of a problem for programmes using quantitative analysis. Official statistics may also supplement qualitative monitoring and reporting of specific types of crimes, helping to demonstrate imbalances in the numbers of arrests, prosecutions, dismissals or verdicts. However, not all statistics are useful for corroborating an assertion, and they must be used carefully. For instance, the percentage of defendants represented by counsel in all cases monitored may not be significant when many cases involve minor offences. Statistics regarding the percentage of defendants informed of their right to defence counsel in these same cases would much better illustrate an issue relevant to fair trial standards. Moreover, overburdening reports with statistics can diminish the readers’ interest, whereas combining vivid examples and striking statistics can have a profound impact. The use of charts can also provide graphic illustrations. ÀÀ Conclusions Conclusions should be precise and flow directly from the cases monitored and legal analysis presented. In addition to formulating conclusions in the body of the report – either under each separate issue, at the end of a chapter, or at the report’s end – key conclusions should also be summarized in the executive summary for readers who will not read the entirety of the report. Reports must refrain from setting forth conclusions that are not supported by monitoring. ÀÀ Recommendations The recommendations section of the report is a key opportunity to promote both specific improvements in practice and broader legal reforms. Recommendations also form the basis of advocacy activities and can jump start the advocacy process. They represent one of the most important parts of any report and should be given careful consideration by the highest levels of monitoring programme management. A broad range of actors should be brought into the process of formulating recommendations,. From the programme side, legal analysts and the heads of programmes should participate, since they have the broadest perspective of the functioning of the justice system. Monitors should also provide input, since they have insights to the particular problems and their root causes. It is also advisable to consult in advance with the targets of recommendations, usually local institutions, as they will be 174  For instance, in reviewing pre-trial custody when an investigation order or indictment exists, judges may not examine the persistence of a reasonable suspicion, as international standards require. Although a programme may not come across multiple cases of this problem, identifying and reporting on a single egregious case can serve to illustrate the more general problem. For example, one monitoring report cited a case in which the detained suspect’s alibi was that he was in prison when the crime was committed, but this was repeatedly not taken into consideration by the competent authorities; see the Review of the Criminal Justice System “Crime, Detention and Punishment”, OSCE Mission in Kosovo, p. 19 (2004).