Conclusions 147. Human rights audit 143. The results of the research conducted by Fair Trials and Freshfields reveal: (a) the notable growth worldwide in reliance on trial waivers in place of trials; (b) the wide variation between trial waiver systems in diverse jurisdictions comprising both good and problematic practices; and (c) the lack of existing international human rights standards governing these systems. States should be encouraged to reflect on the nature of the trial waiver system in operation, and new schemes under consideration, to identify whether they give rise to human rights or rule of law concerns. They might consider the following lines of enquiry: 144. No “one-size-fits-all” solution can meet the unique characteristics and challenges present in every jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it is clear that stakeholders in criminal justice and human rights must recognise trial waivers as a pressing issue for the rule of law and human rights, both in terms of the potential benefits and the potential violations that they can produce. Recommendations • Are defendants who waive their right to a trial provided with timely, comprehensive information about their rights and the specific consequences of waiving them? • Are defendants guaranteed access to a lawyer prior to waiving their right to a trial – and, in practice, are defendants (including those without the means to pay for a lawyer) able to exercise this right? • Do prosecutors or judicial authorities provide robust disclosure of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence prior to trial waivers? • Do judicial authorities provide meaningful review of procedure and evidence to verify the integrity of investigations and the effectiveness of defendants’ trial waivers, with the ability to reject or delay trial waivers or to require trial or other, further, proceedings where evidence relied on by prosecuting authorities is particularly unreliable or in need of further vetting (for example, in cases involving a single witness, or those requiring forensic testing)? • Is there rational regulation of the benefits granted in return for a trial waiver to protect against discriminatory and arbitrary outcomes resulting from such waivers? • Where relevant, are the terms on which a trial waiver is made systematically recorded in a transparent manner? • Are strong systems of oversight of police and prosecutorial conduct, and redress for victims of misconduct in place to ensure that rights violations occurring outside of the trial may be remedied even when the right to a trial is waived? 145. Cross-sector collaboration  Cross-sector collaboration, in the form of further jurisdiction-specific and comparative research and experimentation with different procedural safeguards, is needed to ensure that the full effect of trial waiver systems is understood by all who are potentially affected by their influence. The growth in use of trial waivers should be understood as a human rights and rule of law issue. Analyses of the impact of trial waiver systems must be applied not only through the framework of fair trials protections but in relation to equality and non-discrimination, protection from torture and ill-treatment, and anti-corruption efforts amongst others. 146. Development of a human rights-based legal framework  International and regional human rights mechanisms should develop a framework for human rights protection in criminal proceedings that recognises that the full safeguards of trials are frequently not engaged, and that human rights protections must also attach to out of court proceedings and those involving waivers of rights in general. Such a framework could: (a) draw on existing relevant standards relating not only to trial waivers per se, but also waivers of rights in criminal proceedings more generally; (b) draw on good practice from domestic procedures, procedures of international criminal tribunals and courts and jurisprudence of regional and international human rights mechanisms; and (c) encourage a review of any regional/international instrument which promotes the use of trial waivers without providing guidance on necessary safeguards. 72.