1.2.2 Principle of objectivity The principle of objectivity requires that trial-monitoring programmes accurately report on legal proceedings using clearly defined and accepted standards without party or issue bias. The principle derives from the utility of trial-monitoring as a diagnostic tool and the need to produce accurate and reliable information regarding the functioning of the justice system. The principle also serves to encourage the acceptance of a programme’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations among the broadest group of stakeholders by minimizing the perception of bias. In practice, the principle of objectivity seeks to align the programme with the values of an independent judiciary and the standards and rules by which the criminal justice system should operate. To achieve this goal, when reporting, findings must be based upon clearly articulated domestic law and international standards so that the basis for conclusions is objectively enunciated. Objectivity also implies a balanced approach to the criminal justice process and recognition that the rule of law requires a system to be both effective and fair. To this end, trial-monitoring is neither a policing activity nor a defence-oriented activity, but an exercise that must show equal respect for all rules and values governing the criminal process. While monitoring may sometimes focus on specific rules or standards to the exclusion of others, it must not do so in a manner that appears to align itself with one side on the merits of a prosecution or defence of certain crimes or individual cases. The principle of objectivity therefore requires a balanced approach to a programme’s selection of trials, as well as to its formulations of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 1.2.3. Principle of agreement OSCE participating States have undertaken commitments to comply with a set of rules and principles in the administration of criminal justice. Foremost among these is the commitment to ensure the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial tribunal.2 In order to effectuate this commitment and others relating to fair trials, participating States have agreed to permit trialmonitoring.3 Such commitments reinforce international obligations of all states to a fair trial as set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international instruments such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Taken together, these international legal obligations and commitments serve as both legal and political support for the use of trial-monitoring as a tool to support the development of judicial systems consistent with international standards and principles of justice. 2  See, for instance, Concluding Document of the Vienna Meeting of the CSCE (1989), para. 13.9. 3  Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (Copenhagen 1990), para. 12: “The participating States, wishing to ensure greater transparency in the implementation of the commitments undertaken in the Vienna Concluding Document under the heading of the human dimension of the CSCE, decide to accept as a confidence-building measure the presence of observers sent by participating States and representatives of non-governmental organizations and other interested persons at proceedings before the courts as provided for in national legislation and international law … .” Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners 21