• • Use of annexes: If in-depth monitoring information is valuable for illustrating the nature and extent of problems that require documentation, but is too voluminous for the body of the report, consider providing such information in annexes. Annexes may be used for, among other things, texts of indictments or verdicts, summaries of specific proceedings or interviews, and other information, including applicable code provisions or international standards; Less is more: Monitoring will provide more information than can ever be fully digested by the reader of a report. The drafter should keep in mind that less is more, and only the most significant issues for presentation and discussion should be selected. Attention should be focused on the most serious concerns and areas where reforms are most needed or possible. Conclusions: Conclusions should be precise and flow directly from the cases monitored and legal analysis presented. In addition to formulating conclusions in the body of the report, conclusions should also be presented in an executive summary or other accessible area for readers who will not read the entirety of the report. Most importantly, reports must refrain from setting forth conclusions that are not supported by trial-monitoring. Example: a conclusion not supported by trial-monitoring as opposed to a conclusion supported by monitoring A focus of reform efforts is often compliance of the provisions of domestic law with international trial standards (de jure compliance). For example, where domestic law does not require that a detained accused be brought in front of a judicial officer for review of detention, but allows the court to review custody solely based on the filings of the prosecutor (some ex-Soviet systems also permit prosecutorial review of detentions), then the domestic legal framework may be said to constitute a de jure violation of international fair-trial standards, which provide for such review. Trial-monitoring, however, is not needed to make this observation or argument. In fact, the issue may just as easily be identified and developed in a review of the domestic legal framework or other forum. On the other hand, where trial-monitoring observes cases where the absence of judicial review results in the inability of an individual accused to present to a judge specific exculpatory evidence or other reasons why custody is not proper, the same conclusion will be bolstered by the circumstances of a monitored case. Now trial-monitoring is being used in its unique capacity to objectively demonstrate the actual unfairness and consequences of the domestic law in practice. A discussion with local authorities regarding the gaps or contradictions between domestic law and international standards may now proceed directly from actual cases and the consequences to real individuals. In sum, while conclusions regarding de jure violations are valid in their own right, other forums exist with respect to such legislative policy debates. The utility of trial-monitoring is the ability to present findings based on the direct observation of cases consistent with its unique function as a diagnostic tool able to assess the functioning of the system. Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners 111