Summary of Analysis on Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy 2021-2025
Strategic documents are difficult to read, yet they are addressed to the general public, with the aim of conveying clear messages about how the state has decided to pursue a particular policy. Therefore, in addition to the informative value this approach brings, a continuous relationship, accountability and trust is formed between the individual and the state.
What we described with this first paragraph is what we think should constitute the approach of the Cross-cutting Justice Strategy to society. Due to the special role that issues of law have, issues related not only to the law, but to its spirit, its purpose and advancement in society, this study presents a special value as it aims to make the Justice Strategy a clear, tangible, measurable instrument, even to actors indirectly involved in its provisions.
This is the reason why the analysis makes a chronological and logical connection between the analysis of the state of the justice system, the first document that scans the situation in the country, the first Cross-cutting Justice Strategy and the current Strategy, which is the second phase of justice reform, according to those who developed it.
In this analytical document, the group of experts has started by first analyzing the political goals of CCJS II, which are grouped into four in total, in order to check whether, in the macro framework, they still apply and are current or not. One of the most contentious issues relates to the purpose of Policy 3, which provides that emphasis will now be placed on re-socialization, reintegration, rehabilitation and respect for human rights, within an integrated approach and with strong crime prevention practices.
Of course, it is commendable that the achievement of the goals set in this policy does not only affect the issues of criminality and criminal policies, but also marks a step towards the social emancipation of Albania and the acceptance of social differences and respect for human rights. However, by not providing for the need to consolidate institutions responsible for the investigation and trial of criminal offenses, especially corruption, this policy is not complete, because the need to consider this component again as a goal of the reform for the second four-year term is very important and current.
So, in order to have a logical and chronological continuity, referring also to the establishment of new bodies – links of the same mechanism (such as NBI) – which were not provided for in CCJS I, it would be necessary that Policy 3 explicitly stated the importance of efficient and effective functioning of investigative bodies. Given that one of the biggest “investments” in the prosecution sector was the establishment of SPAK and NBI, also due to the high public sensitivity for the cases investigated by these bodies, the good governance of the prosecution and investigation in Albania will also depend from the success of these bodies. It cannot be said that in the four years of the CCJS I it was managed to comprehensively develop the “punitive” criminal policy, given that the institutions were created late and started to yield the first results only in the last two years. The most appropriate approach requires a coexistence of both punitive and restorative methods.
Secondly, we analyzed the objectives and projected outcomes that will need to meet these strategic goals. According to the analysis, in many cases a natural flow of the transition from one stage to another has not been observed. Thus, it is believed that the revision of laws is not a strategic objective so dominant as to require the analysis and revision of all laws that were drafted in the framework of justice reform. This is because the strategic performance of the justice sector is based on an in-depth analysis of the previous system and the reform laws are the product of this analysis. This objective is debatable as regards whether it adds value to the functioning of the governing bodies of justice or does the contrary, producing institutional uncertainty and a failure to exercise their functions independently of the legislature and the executive.
Also, the functioning of the mechanism, in the context of the devised strategy of the justice system, has not been fully functional throughout CCJS I and still continues to be incomplete. The focus of the second phase of the reform is on the implementation of the reform, on strengthening the capacities of the institutions of the judiciary, and not on its redesign. Although the developers of the strategic document may have acted from a functional standpoint, aimed at improving the elements that are seen as problematic in the law (taking into consideration that a law or regulation, no matter how well they have provided for or how close they are to achieving their objectives, may contain elements which will need to be analyzed ex post and improved), the establishment of legal reviews as a separate objective, with concrete measures provided for government institutions is not deemed to be appropriate for this strategic document.
Thirdly, all measures that have been assessed as most relevant in fulfilling the set results have been analyzed and it is concluded that they are not numerous. Moreover, a large number of them are incomplete and unclear. The study shed light on them and has identified potential improvements or interpretations that could help clarify the measure.
The same assessment was made of the indicators, which are assessed by the analysis as insufficient to measure the progress of the strategy. Thus, there are almost no indicators to measure the performance of the new bodies, the way the system itself is functioning, whether it is serving the citizens and whether the issues of corruption and accountability are receiving the right assessment or not.
In conclusion, it can be stated that this analysis: has made it clear for the public how to understand the political goals, objectives, results and measures set out in CCJS II; has been critical of the substantive part and the real possibilities of fulfilling the set objectives/measures; has recommended changes and made concrete proposals on how the current provision should be changed in order to assist the Ministry of Justice and indirectly the civil society, providing an improved monitoring and analysis mechanism for the strategy over the next four years.