Second, whether monitoring is conducted by the OSCE or not, programmes may always look to the fundamental right to a public trial as provided in international law, as well as domestic legislation to ground trial-monitoring in the applicable legal framework and obligations of the host state. The fundamental right to a public trial is enshrined in Art. 14 (1) of the ICCPR, as well as in relevant regional treaties, such as Art. 6 (1) of the ECHR. Therefore, the vast majority of states will be subject to international legal obligations that allow access to public trials and thereby their monitoring. In addition, trial-monitoring programmes should also review all domestic legislation for provisions consistent with these protections, including any provisions that expand or limit the right to attend public criminal proceedings or that provide or restrict access to documents such as indictments, verdicts, or other court documents. Identifying the legal framework is only the first step in a comprehensive approach to ensuring the access needed to effectively monitor trials. Even if the legal framework supports monitoring, practical barriers often exist that make monitoring and information collection difficult. For instance, the existence of a mandate will not ensure access to information where such information is not systematically managed, disseminated, or when local authorities hinder such access. As a result, international law, domestic law, and the OSCE mandate are only a starting point for a comprehensive approach to access. Once the legal framework is identified, all programmes must take proactive steps to give expression to these rights and secure necessary access to monitor trials. 5.2 Three methods to increase overall programme access OSCE trial-monitoring operations have utilized three general methods in the past to increase overall programme access to criminal proceedings and case information. All three of these strategies aim to broaden access by increasing awareness and understanding of monitoring. In this way, the strategies function not only as a means to increase access, but do so in a manner that builds consensus regarding the purpose of monitoring and the underlying rule-of-law and human-rights values that are served by monitoring trials. When utilized together, these methods seek to involve and inform local actors at all levels of the criminal justice system from the institutional officials to those legal actors involved in the specific case under observation. 5.2.1 Memorandum of understanding An MoU is a formal agreement setting out rights and obligations between the monitoring organization and relevant local institutions such as the Ministry of Justice or Supreme Court. Overall, an MoU should not be viewed as a legal prerequisite to conduct trial-monitoring, but as a method to secure and maximize access, as well as an opportunity to build relationships with, and buy-in from, the local authorities. Meetings regarding the MoU provide an opportunity to build trust and understanding with local officials and explain the programme’s purpose and methods. Programmes should also respond to official concerns and identify criminal justice issues that may be significant to monitor from their perspective. This may include issues regarding resources, or other issues related to the functioning of the courts. In this way, the MoU process furthers the principle of agreement at the operational level. Thus, while an MoU is not 58 Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners