Outcome 2.4.5
“Established effective communication and external coordination: improved relations between the judiciary, its partners, independent institutions such as HIJ and the public by developing and implementing a clear communication strategy”.
This outcome means that in order to meet Specific Objective 2.4 we must have effective communication and coordination between the judiciary, its partners and independent institutions, such as HIJ. The premise for this outcome will be the development and implementation of a clear communication strategy.
From the way it is formulated, it seems that this outcome corresponds only partially to Objective 2.4, specifically the part of transparency in the services provided.
Communication with the public affects the transparency of the judiciary, citizens’ access to information, increases public confidence in justice and makes the system more accountable. Also, the existence of a communication strategy per se, constitutes a positive step for any institution or system. Such a strategy has been approved by the HJC[1] on behalf of the ‘judiciary’. This type of strategy is expected to bring effects to the public and users of courts of all levels. The communication strategy is comprehensive in nature and provides for forms of communication and interaction with the public and court beneficiaries. To make this outcome realistic, it would be of interest to include in SND II, in consultation with the HJC, measures which are still in the framework of the Strategic Communication Plan adopted for the judiciary. Thus, the progress of the transparency of the judiciary with the public and the degree of implementation of the Strategic Communication Plan itself would be monitored and measured. In this way, the indicator that measures this outcome “% of court cases for which basic information is available online and updated” would be more valuable. Another indicator in order to measure this outcome could be “% of court cases for which decisions are published on the website”, or “% of court performance outcomes published on the court and HJC website.”
The rest of the outcome is unclear and at least the way it is formulated does not meet Objective 2.4. It is not clear how communication with independent institutions (and it is not clear which are these institutions), its partners (unclear and non-legal term), or HIJ (whose function is related to accountability) will affect efficiency, effectiveness or transparency of the judiciary.
Also, the measures that are in implementation of Objective 2.4 and related to this Outcome seem to refer to the increase of institutional cooperation between the institutions of the judiciary, as well as their transparency with the public, focusing on HIJ. These measures further affect the consolidation and transparency of governance institutions, stipulated in Objective 1.3 of CJS II Policy 1.
Conclusion: Outcome 4.2.5 should be reviewed in its entirety. First, we suggest reformulating it in line with Objective 2.4, focusing on the judiciary’s communication with the public and avoiding parts that do not meet Objective 2.4. Secondly, in order to make this clarification and to make it as realistic as possible, the established measures that will enable its achievement should be reviewed.
[1]See HJC Decision no. 590, of November 26, 2020 “On the approval of the Strategic Communication Plan for the Judicial system”, http://klgj.al/ëp-content/uploads/2020/12/PLANI-STRATEGJIK-I-KOMUNIKIMIT-P%C3%8BR-SISTEMIN-GJYQ%C3%8BSOR.pdf