Chapter 14 — Phasing Out and Sustainability of Systemic Trial-Monitoring Programmes lawyers, prosecutors and judges. In fact, certain writings are so informed and supported by practical examples from courtroom practice that they greatly assist monitors in their analysis and reporting. A challenge justice systems in transition may face is the shortage of forums in which legal experts and scholars can express themselves regularly. Many host countries have a limited number of legal reviews, and those that do exist may just reprint court decisions – the selection of which may not be transparent – without an appropriate level of analysis or criticism. This handicaps the ability of justice-sector professionals to keep abreast of legal debates and development in jurisprudence. It would, therefore, be useful for trial-monitoring programmes to examine the possibility of enhancing existing legal reviews and periodicals published by bar associations and other judicial bodies, or to create such a forum for monitoring legal developments. The latter option would require identifying interested and eminent academics, as well as experienced and devoted younger scholars and practitioners who would be willing and able to develop a legal periodical. Such a publication can address fair trial and human rights issues arising in domestic proceedings, comment on domestic jurisprudence and analyze the domestic legal framework. 194 Encouraging legal dialogue through such means is one way of ensuring that the educational role of monitoring reports continues after the closing down of monitoring operations. 14.1.3 Strengthening the capacity of journalists In established democracies, journalists and the media serve as watchdogs over issues covered by trial-monitoring programmes, such as controversial court cases, questionable practices, corruption or any action that might run counter to the rule of law. Many OSCE participating States benefit from having justice-system news covered by specialized reporters who have a legal background or training that ensures the accuracy of reporting. In many countries where trial monitoring takes place, however, journalists may not be independent or professional. Furthermore, the perception of the media by the public and by justice-sector actors or governmental authorities may be poor, limiting its impact. A few OSCE monitoring programmes in the past have included ad hoc capacity-building efforts for journalists. More institutionalized co-operation could be developed, with the aim of transferring relevant monitoring skills and knowledge to these recipients. Naturally, any training or other transfer of monitoring know-how would have to be filtered through and adapted to the requirements of professional journalism. 14.1.4 Strengthening the capacity of domestic human rights institutions Monitoring programmes have also looked into the possibility of national human rights institutions continuing certain monitoring functions. For instance, human rights or judicial-inspection sections in ministries of justice can be charged with responsibilities that are similar to those of systemic monitoring programmes. Ombudspersons and national human rights commissions are also important institutions that further many of these programmes’ goals. Nonetheless, prior to making any decisions relating to handover, programme managers need to consider the mandate of these bodies, as well as their limitations and advantages in the domestic context. For example, ombudspersons in several host countries are limited by law to examining only certain types of cases or to rely on individual complaints when taking note of an issue. Moreover, institutions within ministries of justice, however persuasive their recommendations can be, might not be truly independent from the executive or have the required capacity to monitor cases in the same manner as a monitoring programme does. 194  Publications can be available in hard copy and/or electronically, depending on the available funds and on how Internet savvy local jurists are. 131