Once inside the courtroom, identification materials alert all actors and participants as to the existence and identity of the monitor. 5.3 Securing access to identify cases Identifying cases for monitoring may be difficult for a variety of reasons and is an issue programmes must always address even when there is no access barrier to monitoring hearings. For example, cases may not be centrally tracked once assigned to a judge, hearings may not be noticed, or case-tracking systems may be antiquated. Further, as in all court systems, custody hearings and other proceedings may be held on short notice or rescheduled without notice. It should also be expected that, within any host state’s legal system, individual courts may track cases differently, necessitating different arrangements for different courts. Establishing a system that permits the fullest identification of those cases and proceedings relevant to monitoring is essential to ensuring that a programme is able to systematically identify cases. This is especially critical for programmes that monitor specific types of criminal cases or special proceedings. Given the wide difference between how individual courts are managed, programmes will have to make individual arrangements to identify cases and to obtain hearing dates and times. In the past, these arrangements have been made at the central, regional, or local level and will ultimately be a function of the programme’s organization and individual responsiveness of local officials and actors. When possible, arrangements should be formalized by letter. Arrangements may also be informal, however, reflecting the fact that the existence of a good relationship between the monitor and court clerk is sometimes all that is needed to obtain regular information on the scheduling of cases in a particular court. Given the additional demands that may be placed upon court staff with respect to identifying cases, it is important to be flexible and meet court officials more than halfway. Although trials may be public, the manufacture of special lists regarding specific cases, faxing of schedules, or other special arrangements may entail work beyond what is required by law or the official’s professional responsibilities. In programmes where monitors are charged with the identification and selection of cases, supervisors also need to remain aware of their case identification methods with individual courts and the origin of cases monitored. There is a tendency for some courts to more regularly provide the case schedules of model or “A” judges. In addition, there is a natural tendency among monitors to seek out judges who more easily provide hearing schedules or are more sympathetic to monitoring. Regular oversight will best ensure representative case selection consistent with the case selection methodology of the programme and allow for the opportunity to address systemic practices limiting access. Administrative regulations may also support efforts to have court officials provide hearing information and such laws should be reviewed as part of a comprehensive approach to access. In many systems, administrative regulations or court rules exist that explicitly require the public posting of hearing schedules and other information by courts. However, it is often in the interest of individual judges to maintain control over their case schedules, and there will often be strong internal resistance against Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners 61