(Three days of training for judicial monitors in Haiti with OCNH and UNODC)<\/i><\/p>
There is a fundamental difference between seeing justice at work and knowing how to observe it. Attending a hearing is not enough to understand how justice functions. Observing a trial requires a method, knowledge of the law, mastery of the principles of fair trial, understanding of judicial ethics, and above all, the ability to distinguish facts from impressions, irregularities from mere perceptions, and verifiable observations from personal judgments.<\/p>
This perspective is what underpins the Initial Training of Judicial Monitors, organized as part of the National Program for Trial Observation and Judicial Monitoring, initiated by the Organization of Citizens for a New Haiti (OCNH) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Three days of training may seem modest given the magnitude of the challenges facing the Haitian judicial system. They are not. Because behind the training of a judicial monitor lies a much broader question: How can a society strengthen the rule of law if it does not also develop the capacity to look objectively at how justice is rendered? <\/p>
A. OBSERVING A TRIAL: FROM SIMPLE PRESENCE TO SCIENTIFIC METHOD <\/p>
The judicial monitor is neither a judge, nor a prosecutor, nor a lawyer, nor a defender of one party. This distinction is fundamental. Their role is not to make a decision instead of the judge. They are also not tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of a prosecuted person. They observe. But to observe is not to look. Judicial observation requires intellectual discipline. The monitor must learn to identify what they see, to legally contextualize it, to document it, and to report it accurately. They must particularly be able to distinguish: a fact from an opinion; an observation from an interpretation; an irregularity from a mere impression; an alleged violation from an established violation; a procedural difficulty from a conclusion regarding the responsibility of an actor; a personal perception from an objectively verifiable element.<\/i><\/p>
This requirement aligns with the approaches of UNODC regarding the evaluation of judicial integrity and function. Its assessment tools identify, among other things, procedural rules, codes of ethics, judicial policies, field visits, and reports from trial monitoring organizations as relevant sources. Therefore, judicial monitoring is not an improvised activity. It is part of a logic of methodical information gathering on the concrete functioning of justice.<\/p>
B. THREE DAYS TO BUILD A PROFESSIONAL STANCE <\/p>
The first day focused on a fundamental question: understanding the legal framework in which the trial takes place. Before observing, one must know what they are observing. Thus, the monitor must know the fundamental principles of fair trial, the rights of prosecuted individuals, the role of various judicial actors, the main stages of the procedure, and the guarantees surrounding the judgment. This first step helps avoid a major risk: observing justice with intuitive criteria rather than with legally founded criteria. The second day shifted attention towards practice. How to observe? What stance to adopt in a courtroom? How to take notes? How to report behavior without distorting it? How to maintain neutrality? How to identify an ethical question? How to avoid the monitor becoming an actor in the procedure they observe? Exercises, simulations, and discussions helped transform the studied principles into professional reflexes. The third day was devoted to evaluation, deepening, consolidation, and commitment. The recap of the second day allowed participants to revisit what they had learned. The launch of the test then measured knowledge acquisition. Participants also delved deeper into international standards, typologies of offenses, and requirements related to judicial observation. Finally, signing the Code of Ethics and issuing certificates gave the training an institutional dimension. The Code is not just a simple administrative document. It transforms knowledge into commitment. Observe with neutrality. Report with honesty. Respect confidentiality. Avoid conflicts of interest. Do not instrumentalize observation. Do not confuse monitoring with activism. Do not turn observation into condemnation. In other words: The judicial monitor must be close enough to justice to understand it, but independent enough to observe it.<\/p>
C. THE JUDICIAL MONITOR AND THE CULTURE OF EVIDENCE <\/p>
One of the main difficulties of any institutional observation lies in distinguishing between what is asserted and what can be established. This question is particularly important in the judicial field. A society can be traversed by rumors, accusations, frustrations, and perceptions of injustice. The judicial monitor must resist the temptation to transform these perceptions into facts. They must learn to say: "I have observed" rather than: "I think that." They should be able to write: "The report indicates..." rather than: "It seems that..." This difference in vocabulary reveals a difference in method. And this method is essential for producing credible judicial information.<\/p>
D. WHY JUDICIAL OBSERVATION IS IMPORTANT FOR THE RULE OF LAW <\/p>
The rule of law cannot be reduced to the existence of constitutions, laws, and courts. It also depends on how these norms are applied. A constitution may proclaim the right to a fair trial. But one must be able to observe if, in practice, the corresponding guarantees are actually respected. A law may enshrine equality before the law. But one must be able to analyze its application. A code of ethics may impose obligations on judicial actors. But one must be able to build an institutional culture that recognizes its implementation. This is precisely why UNODC considers judicial integrity as an essential element of a fair and effective justice system, linked to the rule of law, the protection of human rights, and public trust. UNODC also has a Global Judicial Integrity Network, designed as a platform for exchanging experiences, peer learning, and developing practical tools aimed at strengthening judicial integrity. Thus, judicial observation is part of a broader logic: observe → document → analyze → understand → improve.<\/p>
E. OBSERVING IS NOT ACCUSING <\/p>
This distinction deserves to be reiterated. Judicial monitoring is not a parallel court. The monitor does not condemn. They do not exonerate. They do not sanction. They do not replace disciplinary or judicial mechanisms. They produce information. This information can then contribute to institutional dialogue, the identification of difficulties, training, improvement of practices, and formulation of recommendations. UNODC itself distinguishes integrity mechanisms, codes of ethics, disciplinary procedures, and tools for evaluating judicial functioning. Therefore, it is necessary to protect monitoring against a particularly dangerous drift: transforming the observer into a judge of the observed. When this happens, observation loses its credibility.<\/p>
F. ETHICS: THE CONDITION OF MONITOR CREDIBILITY <\/p>
Observation is only credible if the observer is also bound by rules. This is why signing a Code of Ethics for Judicial Monitors is a particularly important step. The code must remind that the monitor does not own the information they collect. They are its custodian. This concept imposes several obligations: neutrality; impartiality; confidentiality; accuracy; respect for individuals; independence; absence of conflict of interests; traceability of information; responsibility in report writing. The objective is not to produce silent observers. It is to train rigorous observers. The freedom to observe has value only if accompanied by responsibility in how to report.<\/p>
G. JUSTICE MUST ALSO BE ABLE TO LEARN FROM ITSELF <\/p>
An institution becomes stronger when it is able to learn from its own experience. This is where judicial monitoring acquires a strategic dimension. An observation report should not only answer the question: "What happened?" It should gradually allow other questions to be posed: "Why did this happen?" "Is it isolated or recurrent?" "Is there a normative difficulty?" "Is there an organizational difficulty?" "Is there a training difficulty?" "What reform could address this difficulty?" We then move from simple observation to institutional learning. And institutional learning constitutes one of the most important resources of a fragile state.<\/p>
H. HAITI: MOVING FROM OBSERVED JUSTICE TO LEARNING JUSTICE <\/p>
For Haiti, this approach holds particular significance. Our judicial system not only lacks material resources. It must also enhance its capacity for documentation, analysis, training, evaluation, and production of reliable information. UNODC has already supported several initiatives in Haiti related to judicial capacity strengthening, ethics, and integrity. In 2024, the Organization notably assisted the Superior Council of the Judiciary in developing a Guide on Judicial Ethics, followed by training sessions. Its work program on Haiti also highlights the importance of strengthening investigation, prosecution, and judgment capacities, as well as accountability mechanisms to contribute to a more resilient justice system. From this perspective, training judicial monitors is therefore not a peripheral activity. It is contributing to building an infrastructure for observing justice.<\/p>
I. FROM MONITOR TO PRODUCER OF JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE <\/p>
This dimension deserves particular attention. The judicial monitor should not be seen merely as someone filling out a form. They can become a producer of knowledge about the concrete functioning of justice. Provided that the information collected is: standardized; verifiable; contextualized; anonymized when necessary; analyzed according to a common methodology; stored in reliable databases; used to produce reports and recommendations. One moves from a logic of testimony to a logic of structured judicial data. This transformation can eventually allow identifying trends: delays; adjournments; detention conditions; respect for defense rights; access for victims and witnesses; jurisdictional functioning; ethical issues; procedural difficulties; types of offenses observed; recurrence of certain anomalies. Monitoring then becomes a form of institutional memory of justice.<\/p>
J. THREE DAYS, BUT A PROCESS THAT MUST CONTINUE <\/p>
However, it would be illusory to believe that three days are enough to definitively train a judicial monitor. Initial training is a beginning. It must be followed by: practice; supervision; mentoring; continuous training; periodic evaluation; updating of tools; collective analysis of difficulties encountered in the field. The competence of the monitor is built progressively. The training certificate should therefore not be seen as the culmination of a journey, but as the first step of continuous professionalization.<\/p>
K. A NEW CULTURE OF JUSTICE: KNOWING HOW TO LOOK TO KNOW HOW TO IMPROVE <\/p>
Sometimes a simple truth needs to be reminded: one cannot sustainably improve what one refuses to look at. But looking is not enough either. One must know how to look. One must know how to measure. One must know how to document. One must know how to compare. One must know how to analyze. And above all, one must know how to transform information into institutional learning. This is perhaps where one of the significant potential contributions of judicial monitoring to the rule of law in Haiti lies. The monitor does not just come to note the weaknesses of the system. They contribute to making these weaknesses visible, documentable, and discussable. However, an institution that can be methodically observed can also be evaluated. An evaluated institution can learn. And an institution capable of learning can strengthen itself.<\/p>
L. AN ETHIC OF OBSERVATION <\/p>
At the end of these three days, a formula could summarize the philosophy of the profession: Observe with neutrality. Document with rigor. Analyze methodically. Report honestly. Recommend responsibly. It is this chain that transforms monitoring into an instrument of the rule of law. The judicial monitor is thus not merely a witness to the functioning of justice. They can become a methodological guardian of judicial memory. And, in a fragile state, this role is far from secondary.<\/p>
Ultimately, the three days of training for Judicial Monitors organized as part of the National Program for Trial Observation and Judicial Monitoring, with OCNH and UNODC, must be understood as a step in a broader ambition: to contribute to making judicial observation a true professional competence and a resource for improving justice. The training allowed for a transition from legal framework to practice, from practice to methodology, from methodology to ethics, and then from knowledge to professional commitment. The signing of the Code of Ethics and the issuance of certificates symbolically marked this transition. But the true result of this initiative will not only be measured by the number of people trained. It will be measured by the quality of the observations produced. By the reliability of the reports. By the ability to detect difficulties without exaggeration. By the capacity to signal problems without prejudging responsibilities. And above all by the capacity to gradually transform observation into knowledge, knowledge into learning, and learning into reform. Because strengthening the rule of law is not just about building courts. It is also about building society's capacity to understand how its justice operates. And perhaps this is one of the first conditions for truly accountable justice: Knowing how to observe justice to better understand it; knowing how to understand it to better strengthen it.<\/p>
Me Jonel Dilhomme, Av.<\/strong><\/p> Researcher in international law and global governance <\/p> Analyst of applied foresight for fragile states and Haiti's future <\/p> Researcher on the General Theory of Cognitive Sovereignty as Applied to Fragile States <\/p> Former professor at the State University of Haiti <\/p>
