42 Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners The following are good practices to consider when seeking access to documents: • Whenever possible, the right to access documents should be included in an MoU, as well as addressed with court presidents at the inception of monitoring. A methodology for obtaining documents, including who is responsible for their provision, should also be specified, as far as possible; • For the convenience of the court, documents should be obtained in a systemized manner. For instance, the monitors may be authorized to arrange an appointment with a judge’s legal officer or secretary to gain access or might request that such documents be sent by e-mail whenever requested or at regular intervals; • Where monitoring methodology includes the review of court documents, case files should ordinarily be examined in advance of the hearing, to enable the monitor to become familiar with the relevant aspects of the case. The case file may be accessed subsequently as well, but an effort should be made to avoid multiple requests; • If the photocopying of court documents is not permitted or possible, another option may be inspecting documents and taking notes at a convenient time in the courthouse; • When accessing case files, monitors should be careful not to misplace documents or change their order. It may be agreed that access to a file is only allowed with the assistance of a court officer, to ensure that the file remains intact; • Since case files may be kept by individual judges, monitors might first request these from the registry and/or other court staff, who will then locate the file; • Depending on the access agreement, it is generally preferable under the principle of impartiality for monitors to access the court’s case file rather than that of the prosecution; and • Monitors may also make arrangements to be able to access case files when they have been transferred to higher courts for adjudication. 4.5 Access to closed hearings The right to a public trial is one of the means to limiting judicial arbitrariness. Although it is mainly seen as a defendant’s right, it also benefits the public and the judiciary, since it strengthens confidence in the justice system. International standards, however, do provide for the exclusion of the public from hearings in specified circumstances.45 Attendance at closed hearings can be important to monitoring programmes that follow proceedings involving juveniles, vulnerable or protected witnesses, or that are characterized by some other special circumstances. Furthermore, monitors will be interested in reviewing whether closed hearings and the decision to close a hearing to the public comply with fair trial standards. In some instances, a programme’s mandate may provide authority for monitoring closed hearings.46 Most programmes, however, must negotiate this access with the court or make an application to judges on a case-by-case basis. As mentioned above, access could be negotiated based on domestic legal provisions granting expert personnel access to closed hearings.47 In any case, such access should be established through an MoU (see above). To gain access to closed hearings, monitors must be prepared to provide official documents, including a copy of the specific OSCE mandate, MoU and/or official letters providing authorization to monitor closed hearings. They must also be prepared to explain the confidentiality policy of the programme and that such information will be held in confidence. If, despite a contrary agreement, 45  Pursuant to Article 14 (1) of the ICCPR, the exclusion of the press and public may be appropriate for “reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary…in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.” 46  For example, the OSCE programmes set up by the Mission in Kosovo and by the Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina provide for “unhindered access”. In the case of Kosovo, this was true during the whole period of the UNMIK administration of the territory. 47  In the Croatia, for instance, the presence of monitors at closed hearings was granted on the basis of their qualifications as legal experts.