of systemic prosecutorial or judicial bias in a post-conflict environment. Importantly, in using such a comparative approach, analysis and reporting of the underlying allegations and verdicts in criminal matters does usually not require analysis of the merits of individual decisions.10 Rather, conclusions are based more broadly on a comparative approach to the treatment of similar allegations and facts in different cases. 6.4.3 Hearing-based monitoring Hearing-based monitoring refers to a monitoring methodology that focuses on monitoring single hearings from many different cases rather than entire cases from start to finish. Through careful selection of the procedures and practices monitored in individual hearings, a hearing-based methodology has the capacity to provide an assessment of systemic practices. In this way, conclusions regarding the functioning of a justice system may be made, including whether such systemic practices are consistent with international fair-trial standards without having to follow individual cases from pretrial stages through appeal over a period of months or years. A hearing-based methodology may be especially useful where the purpose of monitoring is to support justice reform through an assessment of how specific procedures are implemented. It is also useful where access limitations or time constraints limit the complete monitoring of individual cases to completion. On the other hand, hearingbased monitoring will not support in-depth monitoring of individual cases for the purpose of making conclusions about the application of fair-trial standards at the final conclusion of a case, or be suitable for many special-purpose monitoring programmes (see Chapter 3.4, “Special-purpose projects”). Nevertheless, hearing-based monitoring is a logical outgrowth of the function of monitoring as a diagnostic tool to support justice reform and will be most appropriate in such monitoring contexts. In practice, the key to successful hearing-based monitoring is to identify the procedures and issues in advance that will be systematically observed in specific hearings. Although not previously referred to as such, the case-reporting system of the Kazakhstan programme described earlier at 6.3.2 reflects a hearing-based monitoring methodology. For instance, none of the issues identified in Kazakhstan’s questionnaire seek to provide a definitive conclusion as to whether the presumption of innocence was violated in the case. Nonetheless, the monitoring of the specific procedures and practices will provide quantitative findings of practices in individual hearings that may not be consistent more broadly with a justice system that incorporates international fairtrial standards. Importantly, both open and closed reporting systems may be utilized for such monitoring. Some issues that are particularly susceptible to hearing-based monitoring and that have been successfully monitored by past programmes using such an approach include: • The frequency of defence counsel representation in proceedings, as well as in relation to specific types of crimes and defendants; 10  Some trial-monitoring reports prepared by the OSCE Mission to Croatia have, however, cited the merits of individual decisions to illustrate extreme examples of bias in judicial fact-finding and weighing of facts. 80 Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners