In reporting facts or evidence to illustrate the application of fair-trial standards or other rules, it should be stressed to monitors that the test for reporting on evidence is not whether testimony or evidence is relevant to the merits, but how the treatment of the evidence in the circumstances of the case illustrates the application of certain rules. Often, it will be the case that such evidence should have been presented, challenged, or excluded. Therefore, when reporting evidence for such reasons, it should be reported as part of the legal analysis with focus upon how the evidence relates to the application of specific laws or standards, and not as part of an overall treatment of the merits of a case. Analysis of impartiality and fairness through a comparative or statistical approach The right to an independent and impartial tribunal is an international human right and fair-trial standard.9 Where the focus of monitoring is to assess the level of impartiality in a legal system, e.g., with regard to a class of defendants, the analysis and reporting of allegations, evidence, and the substance of indictments and judicial verdicts may provide objective evidence of bias using a comparative approach. In some OSCE programmes, such a comparative approach has been particularly useful in determining the existence The OSCE Mission to Croatia’s trial-monitoring programme: reviewing allegations and verdicts to assess impartiality of the judicial actors involved The primary focus of trial-monitoring in the OSCE Mission to Croatia has been to assess whether Croatian courts process war-crimes cases in a manner reflecting professionalism and impartiality with respect to the defendant’s national origin. In drawing conclusions regarding the existence of disparities in prosecutions on the basis of ethnic origin, analysis and reporting have focused on allegations, evidence, and factual findings in a number of ways without necessarily assessing cases on the merits. For instance: • By reference to underlying crime through analysis of whether the allegations contained in the indictment, as a legal matter, support the criminal charges; • By demonstrating lack of impartiality with regard to sentencing by citing drastically different treatment of identical facts as mitigating and aggravating circumstances in cases involving different ethnic groups; • By documenting the high rate of reversals by the Croatian Supreme Court of the verdicts of trial courts in war-crimes cases based upon the failure of courts to correctly establish facts. The programme has also cited these decisions to illustrate extreme examples of bias in judicial fact-finding. In all these ways, the treatment and analysis of allegations, evidence, and factual findings have been used to illustrate a lack of impartiality without necessarily assessing the merits of the case. This approach has furthered the programme’s aim to objectively assess whether Croatian courts process war-crimes cases in a manner reflecting professionalism and impartiality.* * The OSCE Mission to Croatia has also been engaged in additional trial-monitoring activities. 9  Art. 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners 79