D. Types of trial waiver system 77. The practices uncovered by the survey research are diverse and take place within very different legal frameworks. Without attempting a comprehensive taxonomy of types of trial waiver system, we have set out some of the different practices that were mentioned in the surveys which fell within the given definition of trial waiver system. 78. The first distinction to be made is between formal and informal systems. The Phase 1 surveys reflected primarily trial waiver systems that were recognised by law, either in statute or in case law. We know however that informal negotiation, particularly around facts and charges, also takes place in many countries around the edges of formal systems or where trial waivers are not deemed to exist. These systems have not been captured by this research. 79. For the purposes of understanding the data we have gathered in relation to the different trial waiver systems in operation across the globe, we have categorised them according to the reliance on charge, fact and sentence incentives, defined as follows: • Sentence incentives: The type of punishment and/or the length of sentence may be reduced in exchange for a concession by the defendant. • Fact incentives: The facts of the case may be presented in a manner that is beneficial to the defendant and/or certain facts may not be introduced into evidence in exchange for a concession by the defendant. • Charge incentives: Charges against the defendant may be reduced and/or terminated in exchange for a concession by the defendant. • Cooperation agreement/crown witness system: The defendant agrees to assist with the investigation and/ or prosecution of offences (including, but not limited to, by testifying against others), in exchange for some benefit from the state, most commonly in the form of reduced charges and/or lower sentences. 80. According to our research, around 68% of jurisdictions with trial waiver systems permit sentence incentives, 44% permit charge incentives and 12% permit fact incentives. In addition, around half of jurisdictions with trial waiver systems provide for crown witness systems or cooperation agreements.94 81. Of course, these are not always cleanly defined and separable categories, and in practice it is difficult to have, for example, charge incentives without some level of fact negotiation, or sentencing incentives that do not involve some ability to drop or amend charges. This complexity has been captured to some extent by the identification of jurisdictions that feature more than one type of system. 37 jurisdictions have only one type – the majority of these are sentencing incentives or cooperation agreements; 18 jurisdictions feature two types of trial waiver system; eight feature three types; and three jurisdictions allow for all four types. The three jurisdictions which allow for all four types – the US, England and Wales, and Australia – are the classic common law examples in which prosecutors have a largely unfettered ability to negotiate directly with defendants. At the other end of the spectrum, in 20 of the surveyed jurisdictions, respondents indicated that trial waivers are “part of the full criminal trial,” as reflected in surveys from Costa Rica and Egypt amongst others. 82.  Within these categories, substantial variation also exists. Of the countries which fall in the category of sentence incentives, some jurisdictions allow for sentencing below statutory guidelines. In Costa Rica, for example, the “special procedure” permits defendants to serve as little as one third of the minimum sentence. Other jurisdictions allow for the payment of a fine in place of, or to reduce the length of, imprisonment (as in Georgia) while others (such as Armenia, Germany and South Africa) do not allow for sentences falling below given guidelines. Judges also have differing levels of discretion over sentencing across jurisdictions. For example, some jurisdictions regulate discounts by statute (for example, in Turkey, different discounts are available for different offences i.e. one quarter discount for trading in organ and tissues, two thirds discount for deprivation of freedom, and a half discount for larceny), and others more loosely by case law or custom (for example, it is generally customary for defendants in Hong Kong to receive a one third discount for pleading guilty). Some jurisdictions, such as Canada, generally 94. A full table of findings in relation to types of plea bargaining available in each of the studied jurisdictions is available at Annex I. 42.