90 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners include this omission in its appeal, this could indicate weaknesses in the effectiveness of defence counsel. If the defence does mentions this breach in the appeal, but the second-instance court rejects it without justification, this failure is a further sign of systemic dysfunction. After a monitoring programme has identified a problem and notified the authorities, it has a vested interest in monitoring whether the authorities and the justice actors acknowledge the problem and make appropriate changes or reforms. If the problem persists, the monitoring programme or the authorities will need to adapt their approaches accordingly. Keeping a record of developments – after concerns have been communicated to the authorities, made public, and solutions proposed – enables the programme to evaluate the level of co-operation by the authorities and their willingness to promote reforms.137 Monitoring whether recommendations are implemented also offers one means of evaluating a programme’s achievements. If remedies are not applied as foreseen, or if feedback indicates a flaw in the analytical process, a programme may need to revisit its approach and decide whether adjustments need to be made.138 137  The 2006 report drafted by the LSMS in Kosovo entitled “Reforms and Residual Concerns (1999 – 2005)” is a good example of how a programme can track actions taken by the authorities to implement recommendations and how it can further encourage the relevant stakeholders to intensify their efforts towards resolving shortcomings. 138  See Chapter 13, “Measuring the Impact of Systemic Trial Monitoring Activities”.