Despite the fact that public reporting on specific cases may serve an important political role and publicly demonstrate serious problems with the judicial system, for a number of reasons these reports will often be less suited to support a comprehensive reform process of the criminal justice system. First, from the standpoint of methodology, the cases monitored will most often present special circumstances and challenges that, in part, formed the basis for monitoring in the first instance. As these cases usually represent only a small percentage of cases in the system, findings and conclusions cannot automatically be assumed to provide a thorough evaluation that applies across all cases and parts of the system. Also, as a practical matter, the subject matter of such cases is often tied to political or other issues that, from the perspective of local actors, may transcend the overall functioning of the justice system. This political reality infuses in such reports a political component that can limit its audience and impact how reform efforts are perceived in some quarters for purposes of comprehensive judicial reform. Therefore, while such reports, similar to thematic reports, may yield recommendations for reforms based upon international standards, both the methodology and political context make such reports a less suitable starting point for engaging local authorities on comprehensive reform. 8.2 Other public reporting The three types of general public reports described above aim to provide in-depth treatment of particular subject matter based upon monitoring efforts and information that has been compiled over the course of an extended monitoring term. As a result, most large public reports require lengthy drafting, consultation, and production efforts. One way for programmes to supplement periodic public reporting is through the issuance of short monthly reports that allow for more regular contact and feedback to local actors and authorities. Monthly reports may be especially useful for programmes that have established visibility and credibility through an initial public report and are engaged in a comprehensive reform process by providing a more regular means to provide information and raise awareness of issues. Monthly reports may also serve as informal professional newsletters in regions where professional periodicals or other training is limited. In such contexts, the monitoring results and other information in monthly reports may provide the only regular source of information on national practice received by all courts and legal actors. Example: regular monthly reporting at the OSCE Mission in Kosovo Starting in January 2005, in response to the challenge of communicating more regularly with the local legal community, the OSCE’s legal systems monitoring unit at the Mission in Kosovo began issuing short monthly practice reports in addition to its yearly reviews. Monthly reports are up to three pages long and hand-delivered every month by monitors to courts and judges. These reports include examples of both good and problematic practices relating to cases monitored during the period with reference to applicable local and international law. The experience of LSMS staff is that reports have both greatly raised the visibility of the programme and have increased positive interaction and information exchange with local judges, prosecutors, and lawyers who regularly read the reports. 108 Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners