consolidation of scheduling information within the court. By raising such rules to the court president or registry official in connection with trial-monitoring, programmes may provide the court with external support for seeking better consolidation of ongoing case schedules from judges in furtherance of their obligations. This may have an impact not only on improving case identification methodology, but may also directly improve court practices in relation to expanding the right to a public trial. 5.3.1 Best practices for identifying new cases and obtaining schedules • When meeting with court presidents, suggest that a central official at the court be designated to provide registry and case hearing information to the monitor or other programme staff responsible for case identification. • Seek to establish a regular day and time for docket review with the prosecutor’s office and/or court registrar. • If distance is an issue, seek to make special arrangements with the court registrar, prosecutor’s office, or other officials to get notification of cases. In the OSCE, this has included co-operation with officials who agree to fax lists of new cases with hearing schedules. • Alternative means of identifying cases should be sought, including: regular review of newspapers and other media; information-sharing arrangements with other international organizations or NGOs; or if consistent with the programme’s focus, random selection of cases. • When monitors assume primary responsibility for case identification and case selection, programme guidelines or instructions should be provided on these responsibilities. 5.4 Securing access to proceedings and case information This section addresses specific access issues that may be confronted by a trial-monitoring programme and provides general principles and best practices that may be employed by programmes to secure improved access to case information. 5.4.1 Securing access to the courtroom and hearings in individual cases In seeking access to court hearings, monitors may be confronted with a range of obstacles from policing practices in courthouses to informal barriers such as lack of courtrooms necessitating that hearings take place in a judge’s private chamber. Consistent with international law, however, monitors are in fact effectuating the defendant’s fundamental right to a public trial, the rejection of which is a violation of a fair-trial standard. Accordingly, the process by which monitors seek access to hearings is not only a logistical issue to be overcome, but should be viewed as part of a wider strategy to exercise and expand the right to a public trial. For both of these reasons, it is important that programmes adhere to certain principles and best practices. 62 Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners