At the operational level of a trial-monitoring programme, an agreed position with national authorities as the primary stakeholders in the process of reform serves to increase the effectiveness of trial-monitoring. In practice, enhancing such understanding with respect to trial-monitoring operations means achieving a level of mutual understanding with national authorities regarding the purpose and role of monitoring. Effectuating this principle requires: entering into agreements; building working relationships; sharing information; explaining programme goals and methods; making constructive recommendations; and working with officials to support the implementation of recommendations. An agreed position is therefore also an important operational principle for programmes outside the OSCE framework. This manual provides strategies and practices to improve co-operation, co-ordination, and mutual understanding regarding the purpose and role of monitoring. 1.3 Limits of trial-monitoring While trial-monitoring may achieve a wide range of purposes, it has limitations as well. Trial-monitoring may not always be the most appropriate programme option for every context where support is needed for justice reform. First, trial-monitoring should be distinguished from other activities or tools that support rule-of-law reform. For instance, trial-monitoring should be distinguished from other information-gathering activities that may be employed to assess the conditions of a particular justice system, such as conducting surveys and interviews, or reviewing official court records or statistics. Likewise, trial-monitoring should be distinguished from legal or legislative reviews of domestic law. Such reviews may be useful to identify gaps or areas of the law that are not in strict compliance on their face with international fair-trial standards, as well as identify areas for trial-monitoring. Through such activities, some types of information may be obtained much more directly, efficiently, and inexpensively by methods that do not require trials to be monitored. Similarly, monitoring to gather information where procedural fairness is not addressed removes trial-monitoring from its connection to fair-trial standards. It should be kept in mind that the unique capacity of trial-monitoring is in its ability to objectively identify and assess how a legal system operates through direct, first-hand observation of legal proceedings. Should monitoring move away from this focus on observing procedure and seek to collect mere statistics or data on types of cases, the full capacities of monitoring will not be realized. As an example, collecting factual information for the sole purpose of supporting effective criminal prosecutions or to obtain information about types of criminal activity goes beyond the purpose of trial-monitoring. Not only does such a focus remove monitoring from its connection to fair-trial standards, but the methodology of monitoring lends itself to the observation of the judicial process, not to investigative activity, which in large part takes place outside the courtroom. Such a focus may also cast monitors as non-neutral observers inconsistent with the host state’s commitment to allow trial-monitoring in furtherance of the state’s underlying commitments to ensuring the right to a fair trial. Finally, as with any tool, trial-monitoring is not always appropriate for every situation 22 Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners