120 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners especially where reports may be critical. Authorities consulted may include representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court, legislative bodies or other institutions. Another purpose of consultation is to provide assurance against mistakes by giving local authorities a chance to point out inaccuracies in the report. This process may identify new information or provide new perspectives, enabling a programme to correct errors and adjust conclusions. As the implementation of recommendations will require the commitment of local officials, consultations also provide opportunities to receive feedback from various institutions and actors on how to address specific problems. This process may not only help identify workable solutions from local perspectives, but may also create the necessary buy-in of local officials into the reform process, giving them an important stake in the success of the recommendations. Frank discussions during this process may also help programmes identify partners willing to assist in the reform process, as well as identify those who are indifferent or opposed to change. In this way, consultations provide an additional means of obtaining information regarding stakeholder interests. Any comments received by local authorities should be carefully examined and incorporated, as appropriate, into the final report, particularly if they point out factual errors or other mistakes. In the final analysis, however, it is the drafters of the report who decide what to include, as they take responsibility for its contents. If no comments are received by a reasonable deadline, the report may well be published even without input from the authorities. Although consultations cannot ensure that recommendations will be implemented, discussing findings in advance of issuing a public report is always good practice. Even where there seems to be little or no hope of any productive response from institutions or officials, consultations will avoid surprising officials with the publication of criticisms they did not expect. In accordance with OSCE commitments related to trial monitoring, OSCE programmes have generally been able to build a level of consensus with different local actors on the aims and goals of trial monitoring, so as to make consultations productive. ·· Joint issuance of reports A joint public report is a report that is issued in conjunction with one or more other institutions or organizations. Although the organizations need not contribute – or contribute equally – to produce the report, they publicly stand behind the report’s content, conclusions, and recommendations. The issuance of joint reports may raise the visibility and impact of reports, as well as the visibility of the issuing organizations. In addition, they demonstrate a sense of partnership and commitment in connection with the subject matter of the report that gives additional weight to the recommendations. In the OSCE context, project monitoring programmes issue joint reports with their implementing partners, including IGOs and NGOs, thereby benefiting from their local perspective as well. A second variety of joint report is issued with a national institution or authority. By issuing reports with a national authority, a report assumes the added impact that derives from official state approval. Further, state approval not only applies to findings, but also to the viewpoints expressed and recommendations made in the report. Such joint reporting may have a powerful effect on local authorities and actors, who then cannot ignore monitoring results, since official government bodies have sanctioned the findings and expressed a commitment to reform.178 However, it is very difficult to reach such a level of agreement with local authorities without heavily compromising the nature of 178  Between 2003 and 2006, two of the comprehensive war-crimes reports published by the OSCE Mission to Croatia were issued jointly with the Ministry of Justice of Croatia. The joint reports were prepared in full by the Rule of Law Section of the OSCE Mission, based on the Mission’s monitoring, before being provided to the Ministry of Justice for review. After comment by and discussion with the Ministry, the reports were published and a joint press conference was held to announce the report and recommendations. The joint issuance of the reports added to the credibility of the reports among the state authorities, including prosecutors and the judiciary. In turn, this increased the impact of the findings and awareness of international fair trial standards among local courts. Joint issuance of the reports also benefited the host country in that it was seen to be making reforms necessary for EU membership.