40 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners that meeting judges in advance improves access to hearings and materials, and facilitates the resolution of any problems that may arise. Moreover, a programme’s eventual recommendations are more likely to be implemented if there is mutual trust between the programme staff and justice actors. Good practices regarding introductory meetings with individual judges apply mutatis mutandis to individual prosecutors covering the monitored courts, as well as to defence counsel active in the relevant courts, if this is possible. These meetings help build the perception of a monitor’s objectivity vis-à-vis all actors involved in the process, can lead to access to information that may be unobtainable otherwise, and can increase the effectiveness of advocacy addressing the conduct of these categories of actors. 4.2.4 Identification and informational materials on the monitoring programme In several programmes, initial access and co-operation were greatly increased by presenting identification and informational materials, such as a copy of the MoU, letters issued by local authorities to the courts regarding co-operation, or letters issued by programme managers to court presidents or other officials describing the programme. Experience also indicates that access progressively improves as monitoring continues and legal actors become more familiar and comfortable with the role of monitors. In general, programmes seek to make their monitors easily identifiable for a variety of reasons. These include the security of monitors, the desire for transparency and the wish to demonstrate the programme’s presence as a means to increase co-operation with the justice sector. This applies also when a programme intends to gain access to non-public proceedings. More specifically, to help ensure access to each individual hearing, monitors should be ready to present all official documents regarding the programme when they carry out their duties. In addition, some programmes have prepared brochures to introduce the programme to judges, court officials and other legal actors. To maximize transparency, brochures should contain information regarding the programme’s purposes and scope, as well as identification of the implementing partners and names of the individual monitors. Such materials are best presented well in advance of a hearing, such as at the introductory meetings. The preparation and use of identification badges stating the name of the monitor and affiliation with the programme have also had a positive effect in securing access. Such badges may be particularly helpful when monitors are not OSCE staff and where gaining physical access to courthouses or courtrooms is difficult. In project-model programmes, badges may also provide a measure of confidence to the monitor through her/his identification with the monitoring programme. Once inside the courtroom, identification materials alert all actors and participants to the presence and identity of the monitor. Certain programmes have sought at times to monitor public hearings without previously announcing themselves to the legal actors involved or identifying themselves as staff of the monitoring programme. In following such an approach, monitors have observed that court officials often act differently when they are unaware that they are being monitored. For instance, concerns have come to light regarding the court’s treatment of the parties or the lack of public access to trials. Although monitoring hearings unannounced may reveal a more “realistic” picture of the proceedings, trialmonitoring programmes should consider carefully whether the value of this outweighs the advantages generated by a more transparent approach.