a legal precondition to monitoring public trials, it may serve as an official authorization of a trial-monitoring programme in the eyes of judges and local officials. Therefore, it is a practical mechanism to broaden access and increase co-operation. While the exact content of the MoU will differ depending on the specific circumstances, the MoU should seek to include the following elements: • A statement of the legal basis for monitoring, including reference to the OSCE field operation’s mandate, OSCE commitments, the right to a public trial as set forth in international and/or domestic law, and/or other agreed basis; • A statement specifying the scope and purpose of monitoring, including what courts and proceedings will be monitored; • A detailed specification of the right of access, including access to closed hearings, specific court documents, and other files, if possible; • Other obligations and reasonable concerns of the parties. In the OSCE, programmes have negotiated MoUs that provide additional means of co-operation between the parties in addition to what may be provided by law, thereby increasing co-operation and buy-in to the programme’s goals, and expanding access. The following are some examples of specific obligations that have been included in MoUs by OSCE programmes: • The obligation of the Supreme Court to notify all courts of monitoring in writing and request their full support for trial-monitoring (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia); • The right to directly request files through the Ministry of Justice in the event files cannot be obtained from trial courts (Croatia); • The obligation of the prosecutor-general to identify cases involving domestic violence to the trial-monitoring co-ordinator (Moldova). In these ways, MoUs have provided a mechanism at the highest institutional level to secure access not only to public criminal proceedings, but to identify cases and obtain documents that may not otherwise be obtainable. Conversely, reasonable obligations undertaken by the OSCE in MoUs have included: the duty to assume a non-interventionist role with respect to individual cases; the duty to issue and disseminate a public report on its findings; and the obligation to maintain confidential information obtained in the course of monitoring. Even if authorities are unwilling to sign a formal MoU, informal consent may often be obtained and, at a minimum, the relevant authorities have been advised in advance of the purpose and methodology of monitoring. Consistent with diplomatic protocol, an MoU should also be negotiated by a representative of the monitoring organization commensurate in rank with the representative of the local authority. 5.2.2. Contact with court presidents In practice, regular access to court dockets, hearing schedules, and case information depends greatly on the willingness and ability of local courts and officials to work with the programme. Even where local courts are open to monitoring, access is often limited by insufficient case-tracking systems or other scheduling or posting practices that Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners 59