144 CHAPTER 17 Mandate, Principles and Aims of Ad Hoc Trial Monitoring International and domestic organizations sometimes engage in trial monitoring in order to observe directly and form an opinion about how particular high-profile cases are handled by the courts. In the OSCE experience, these projects have come under the heading “ad hoc” trial monitoring. OSCE ad hoc monitoring has been organized in response to specific events that gave rise to criminal proceedings, such as post-election violence or the prosecution of human rights defenders and journalists. The presence of observers at such trials can be especially important as a confidence building measure, in line with OSCE commitments on trial monitoring.221 ODIHR has carried out a number of such projects in recent years, sometimes jointly with OSCE field operations. Ad hoc monitoring is based on the same principles as other kinds of trial monitoring described in this manual: non-intervention in the judicial process, objectivity and agreement. Application of these principles in an ad hoc monitoring context should be guided by the specific aims of the activity. For example, non-intervention is based on respect for the independence of the judiciary and generally proscribes engagement with the court regarding the merits of individual cases. In ad hoc monitoring, however, this does not amount to a blanket prohibition of contacts with courts and does not preclude interviews with judges for information-gathering purposes or subsequent advocacy activities. Since ad hoc monitoring often centres on sensitive political cases, the principle of objectivity acquires additional importance, and care must be taken to ensure that it is not compromised – or perceived to have been compromised. The principle of agreement emphasizes the need for engagement with the authorities from the outset of the monitoring activity, including transparent communication of the planned methodology and envisaged outputs. Ultimately, this also facilitates greater acceptance by the authorities of the resulting findings and recommendations. Similarly, principles of conduct for trial-monitoring staff apply equally to ad hoc monitoring projects. This includes the duties of non-intervention, impartiality, professionalism and confidentiality.222 The sample code of conduct for monitors in Annex I. A. applies to ad hoc programmes, as well as to other types of trial monitoring. Monitors in ad hoc projects should be held to the highest standards of professional conduct, and this should be taken into consideration by managers when hiring and training decisions are made. The main difference between the aims of ad hoc monitoring and those of systemic monitoring is that ad hoc monitoring focuses on specific human rights concerns, rather than a broader justice-reform agenda. However, this does not preclude ad hoc monitoring projects from issuing conclusions and recommendations of a general nature and engaging in follow-up dialogue with the authorities. While the specific cases targeted by ad hoc monitoring are unlikely to be representative of the routine caseload handled by the courts, such high-profile cases can be seen as “stress-tests” exposing the key strengths and weaknesses of a criminal justice system. 221  See the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (1990), paragraph  12. 222  See Chapter 8.1, “Standard of conduct for trial-monitoring staff”.