Measure 2.4.2
“Conduct consistent, independent and comprehensive evaluations of courts to measure performance versus set standards”
Measuring the performance of courts in the Republic of Albania, an enterprise never carried out before, is a necessity. This measure is related to both outcomes 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. In this regard, it is particularly important that the HJC first identifies the performance components of a quality judicial system operating according to field standards (i.e., components related to independence, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, access to justice, accountability, etc.), defining at the same time the manner and methodology of their evaluation/measurement.
A performance evaluation would help the HJC, but also the courts themselves, to internally evaluate, control, budget, motivate, promote, evaluate achievements, as well as improve the services that the court ‘provides’. Performance measurement is a tool of self-check and accountability. And for this assessment to yield realistic outcomes it must be consistent, independent, and include all measurable performance components. Also, in order to be comprehensive, the evaluation must include all actors in the system (including citizens, lawyers, etc.).
Based on the above, the inclusion of such a measure is essential for achieving the Strategic Objective. What is important about this measure is the accurate identification of the components that make up a quality judicial system, the evaluation methodology, as well as their measurement. The required outcome will be achieved only if the data of the assessments are analyzed and result in measures that will address the problems identified as an obstacle in achieving the required performance.
The measure does not create confusion with the outcome of achieving an efficient and effective judiciary operating according to standards. But, to be complete and in line with the outcome, it must be accompanied by all of the above (identifying components/performance indicators, methodology for measuring them, analyzing and identifying results/issues, and addressing them with appropriate measures). Only in this way the evaluation would be complete and the measure would be realistic and would bring about the required result in accordance with Objective 2.4. In other words, this measure alone would not give the required result. In addition to the above, this measure should be accompanied by another measure, which will focus on identifying and addressing issues identified by performance evaluations.
Conclusion: Measuring the performance of courts is essential. Something that is not subjected to evaluation cannot be evaluated and cannot be improved, since we do not know the shortcomings of the system and where to intervene. However, in order to be realistic and bring about the expected outcome, all the procedural steps that enable its application must be identified (identification of components/performance indicators, methodology of their measurement, analysis of data and identification of problems, addressing as well as the institution responsible for these processes). The latter can be listed as constituent elements within this measure as long as they serve a single process, regardless of its complexity.