In open systems such as the above, monitors are usually aided in providing legal analysis by a master list or checklist of issues to be monitored for reference and guidance. Such checklists usually take the form of questions regarding the application of specific laws or fair-trial standards organized by stage of criminal proceeding for ease of reference. These questions are not to be answered directly as such, but serve as a point of reference to help alert the monitor to issues or problems that might arise during the observation of hearings or review of files. In the above example, the monitor’s legal analysis would be provided in the relevant part of Section II or III. 6.3.2 Closed (or questionnaire-type) reporting systems A closed or questionnaire type of reporting system requires monitors to answer a set of specific standardized questions in relation to the case being monitored. The system is closed in the sense that the reporting form is highly structured and provides little discretion for the monitor on the types of issues reported in each case. When compiled, these questionnaires allow for findings to be more easily compiled and quantified in specific types of cases or proceedings. As an example, a questionnaire employed by the ODIHR trial-monitoring programme in Kazakhstan provides the following questions related to the presumption of innocence and the right not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt: 24. Was the defendant handcuffed during the hearing? 25. Was the defendant held behind bars (a cage in the courtroom where the defendant is often held during the trial)? 26. Where was the bailiff during the hearing? 27. Was the defendant’s right not to testify against himself explained? Did the defendant exercise this right? 28. Was it explained to the defendant that he is not bound by a confession made during the pre-trial stages? 29. Did the prosecutor or other party put pressure on the defendant during the examination? 30. Did the judge pressure the defendant to confess guilt? If yes, how? As the above questionnaire illustrates, in closed reporting systems, questions may range greatly in complexity and function. Some questions, like Nos. 24-28, serve as direct observations of specific conditions or practices. Compiled later, such information can provide both a statistical overview of specific practices in relation to local procedural codes, as well as serve as an objective indicator of broader standards being monitored. In this way, practices may be documented in a systematic fashion because they are significant in themselves, or provide support for system-wide conclusions regarding application of broader standards generally (also see Chapter 6.4.3, “Hearingbased monitoring”). Questionnaires therefore may be useful where certain practices or conditions are important to document systematically and quantification is desired. It should also be noted that some questionnaires do not ask the monitor to draw an overall legal conclusion. For instance, in the above example, “was the presumption of innocence violated?”. Instead, questionnaires often rely on specific objective indicators to raise questions or 72 Trial-Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners