ANALYSIS OF CJS II ACTION PLAN INDICATORS
Importance of projected indicators for CJS II
For strategic processes, setting the right indicators is essential to measuring the progress that is projected to be made through the measures or goals set out in the Strategy. In particular, the Cross-cutting Justice Strategy, as an umbrella strategy, under which operate many higher bodies of the judicial system and bodies independent of it, has the difficult mission to show to the public, how much this undertaken reform is functioning and is affecting the improvement of justice in the country. Even more important are the benefits that should come from measuring indicators when we consider that the Justice Reform Strategy is not a short-term Strategy, but after CJS II, it is expected to continue with another four years of strategic goals and policies (CJS III). So, the development of appropriate indicators will serve to determine the main issues which will have to “concern” CJS III.
Almost every justice institution has its own institutional strategy, which analogously contains the plan of measures and indicators that show their effectiveness and accomplishment, and yet, the indicators set in this Strategy, never lose their value, as long as they aim to measure, as a whole, the functioning of certain aspects related to justice in the country, for which one or several institutions combined may be responsible.
For the purpose of this study, eighteen indicators will be analyzed out of the thirty two provided by CJS II. This selection was made based on the objectives, outcomes and measures that were analyzed in this study.
Analysis of Indicators
Indicator 1
“% of transitional re-evaluation subjects who believe that the governing institutions of the justice system are independent and impartial”
The indicator will measure the performance of the new governing institutions of the justice system, measuring through a survey, the perception of the subjects of re-evaluation in terms of independence and impartiality of these institutions.
This indicator is a direct way of understanding whether the new governing institutions are operating with impartiality and are implementing legal standards or not. The fact that the indicator measures the perception of the directly interested group, i.e., judges and prosecutors, makes this indicator more credible and closer to the truth. It is not understood why the indicator refers only to the subjects of the transitional re-evaluation and not to the whole body of judges and prosecutors. If this is done to measure the activity of these bodies after the end of the term in office of the vetting bodies, we suggest that the questionnaire for measuring the perception be comprehensive, for all the authorities of these bodies in relation to the judiciary. In this aspect, other measures and outcomes included in CJS II would be measured and monitored. In this regard, we suggest to review the list of subjects for the survey.
Referring to the Methodology, the indicator will be measured through an annual questionnaire developed by HJC/HPC and delivered to the subjects of the transitional re-evaluation (judges and prosecutors). In this regard we suggest that the questionnaire be processed by the MoJ and not by the HPC and HJC, given that the MoJ monitors and measures this indicator, as well as since the HPC and the HJC are monitored institutions. The indicator is created for the first time and the first values will be those of 2021. The frequency for measuring this perception – annually – is appropriate and offers a real opportunity for this indicator to be used in order to improve the work of these bodies.
Conclusion: This indicator should specify the subjects to whom the survey will be addressed, as well as the institution that develops and processes the questionnaires. We suggest that, in addition to judges and prosecutors, HIJ be part of this survey, as the institution that oversees judges/prosecutors and monitors from up close the problematic parts of the performance of the judiciary and the prosecution office.
Indicator 3
“% of the state budget dedicated to the governing bodies of the justice system”
This indicator calculates as a percentage the share of the budget dedicated to the governing bodies of the justice system in relation to the state budget. The larger the latter, the greater the opportunity for consolidating the system’s governing bodies, in terms of capacity building, human resources and infrastructure.
This indicator is related to Policy Goal 1 “Comprehensive and professional functioning of the governing institutions of the justice system in accordance with constitutional and legal requirements and European standards, guaranteeing independence, efficiency and accountability.” Meanwhile, the Passport of Indicators refers to it in the Specific Objective “Continuation of the implementation and finalization of the transitional re-evaluation process in an effective and efficient manner as provided by the Constitution and the law.” The framers of the Strategy seem to have linked this indicator to the continuation of the vetting process by HJC and HPC, after the end of the term of the transitional re-evaluation bodies, while it [the indicator] serves at the same time other objectives related to the consolidation of system governance, in terms of capacity building, human resources and infrastructure, provided in Specific Objective 1.3.
The methodology for measuring this indicator is clear and aims to calculate the percentage of the state budget that is dedicated each year to the bodies of the justice system, according to data obtained from the Ministry of Finance and Economy. The basic value for setting the future objectives is the percentage dedicated to HPC, HJC and HIJ for 2020. While aiming for an increasing trend, if we compare the values from year to year for each institution, we see that this is not always the case.
Conclusion: This indicator should specify the Objectives it relates to and the outcomes it intends to measure.
Indicator 4
“Number of bylaws adopted regarding the authority, efficiency and coordination of the governing bodies of the justice system (separate values for HJC/HPC/HIJ)”
This indicator aims to measure the fulfillment of the tasks of the councils and the HIJ regarding the completion of the internal sub-legal framework with acts that regulate various issues of functioning and exercising of the duties and authorities of these bodies.
This indicator will provide quantitative data on the number of acts that each body has managed to develop and obtain approval of.
This indicator is set as a measure of Objective 1.2 “Update and improve justice reform legislation based on findings from analysis and monitoring of reform implementation, including, but not limited to, legislation on authority, transparency, efficiency, and coordination”.
First, we consider that this indicator does not fit with Objective 1.2, an objective which does not refer to the internal acts that each body must issue in order to exercise its functions, but an objective that refers to changes in the law for these bodies, if an analysis and experience so far suggest that there are problems in law enforcement that affect issues of normal functioning of these bodies.
Secondly, the outcome that will be obtained from this indicator is a numerical outcome that does not say anything about the efficiency, responsibility, quality of these bodies, but provides “cold” data on a functional task, for which it is not important to create an indicator.
Thirdly, regarding the expectations for the target values, which are related to the number of acts that each body will produce in a year, again the numbers are unclear, unrelated to concrete obligations for issuing acts and how the distribution over the years has been evaluated.
The law provides for concrete obligations for the bodies to complete their sub-legal framework and in compliance with Policy 1 “Full and professional functioning of the governing institutions of the justice system in accordance with constitutional and legal requirements and European standards, guaranteeing independence, efficiency and accountability”; therefore the indicator had to be qualitative, i.e., an indicator which is able to measure whether these bodies have fulfilled in time and with quality their obligations for issuing acts.
Conclusion: Based on the acts adopted so far by these bodies, as mentioned throughout the analysis, the time it took for the bodies to issue them is very long, which has negatively affected the quality of service provided to the judiciary and the prosecution office. It would be of interest to measure this aspect, and not simply how many acts has each body adopted.
Indicator 5
“Number of proposals for legal changes made by the governing bodies of the justice system”
This indicator is logically related to Objective 1.2 and aims to measure the commitment of the governing bodies of the justice system in self-analysis and production of legal solutions to issues that the current law needs to be improved, in order to enhance the functioning of these bodies and increase their efficiency.
However, again, only a numerical set of data is obtained, which fails to convey anything concrete about the quality of the proposals or their success. Putting a downward trend into the methodology – i.e., in the first years of the strategy it is expected to be many proposals and in subsequent years, fewer proposals – is not accompanied by the same idea when setting the target values from year to year for each body (they are the same from year to year). This is because the indicator seems to be unclear to its framers themselves. It is true that the proposal for changes in the law should come from these bodies, but these proposals are not a goal in themselves and cannot be treated as such. This means that measuring how many proposals a body has made does not indicate a higher quality, efficiency or responsibility of that body.
Conclusion: It would be of interest to obtain a set of comparative data on the success of these proposals; for example, how many of these initiatives for change have taken the form of draft laws or actually changed the law.
Indicator 6
“% of initiated disciplinary proceedings for complaints against judges or prosecutors”
It should be said in advance that this indicator is formulated differently from what it intends to measure, an element that is clear from the methodology it has envisaged. Thus, if we take into account the methodology and logical flow with which this indicator is explained, it is clear that it aims to measure the quality of work of HIJ to investigate cases of violations committed by entities that are part of the activity of this body, setting standards and the criteria used by this body in the “preliminary” phase, when it decides whether or not to start the disciplinary investigation, with a second, more consolidated phase of the investigation when, after a more detailed scrutiny, a decision is made to send the case to the HJC/HPC , or close the investigation.
The aim is for the HIJ to take ownership from the moment it launches the disciplinary investigation, in order to avoid situations where investigations begin, but they fail during the more in-depth investigation and fail to produce a serious, council-based proposal. This requires HIJ to apply unified and harmonized rules and criteria from the earliest stages of the investigation.
To accomplish this, the indicator envisages making a comparison (ratio) between the HIJ decisions to initiate a disciplinary investigation and the HIJ decisions to refer the matter to the council for consideration.
To be clear about the methodology and the problem in the wording of this indicator, we need to refer to how HIJ operates step by step. The description of the stages is as follows:
Complaint (1) examination of the complaint (2) initiation of disciplinary investigation/archiving (3) request is submitted to HJC or HPC / investigation is closed (4) HJC or HPC decides to accept/reject the request (5)
The interpretation of the indicator methodology connects phase 3, the beginning of the disciplinary investigation by HIJ, with phase 4, the cases when HIJ, after initiating the disciplinary investigation, decides to submit a request to the HJC/HPC or to close the investigation.
It must be acknowledged that the connection of these two phases makes the indicator be evaluated as an accurate indicator, as it provides data on the success of the investigation process within the HIJ itself and the full efficient use of the capacities of this body.
Meanwhile, when we see how the indicator is formulated, using the phrase “complaints against judges and prosecutors”, it is expected that it will provide data starting from phases 1 and 2, related to the complaint. Thus, the literal interpretation of the wording of the indicator requires measuring the relationship between complaints and HIJ decision-making to investigate them. If such an indicator were to be created, the only value it would have would be reaching a conclusion on the level of awareness of the entities that file complaints about behaviors or actions that constitute disciplinary violations.
Conclusion: Indicator 6 should be reworded in order to clearly express its purpose. An accurate wording could be: “% of investigated cases sent to the HJC and HPC”.
Indicator 7
“Indicator of resolved backlog cases related to the discipline of complaints filed with the HIJ.”
This indicator seeks to measure the effectiveness of HIJ in dealing with backlog complaints, which have caused a significant backlog over the years, taking also into account the delay in establishing HIJ and making it effective. We suggest a revision of the wording, clarifying the phrase “discipline of complaints“, which creates confusion as to what the indicator intends to measure. We also suggest that this indicator be expressed in percentage and not simply remain an evasive and indeterminate indicator.
Indicator 7 relates to Objective 1.3 of CJS II “Strengthening and consolidating the governing bodies of the justice system in accordance with European standards, through the creation and development of capacities, to carry out the activity with independence, efficiency and professional standards; delivery of service from governance institutions in the judiciary meets the relevant rules and standards” for the HIJ-related part.
This indicator will be measured by a simple methodology, juxtaposing the number of existing complaints carried over, with the number of complaints under this category which have been solved. This is an accurate indicator and is directly related to two of the measures envisaged for HIJ (Measure 1.2.12 and Measure 1.3.4). Also, since the frequency of its measurement is annual, this indicator can also serve as a guide for changes in the HIJ Strategy or of how HIJ has resolved these cases.
Regarding the target values for the years of CJS II duration, set in the Passport of Indicators, we suggest that they be expressed in percentage value for each year, based on the formula that the Passport calculates the values in percentage for 2021.
Conclusion: This indicator is needed to measure the clearing of the HIJ backlog, as a tool that will increase the efficiency of this institution. We suggest that this indicator measure the percentage of backlog clearance, based on the formula defined in the calculation made for 2021. The intended objectives on the values of this indicator during the years of implementation of CJS II should also be expressed in percentage values.
Indicator 8
“Indicator of resolved backlog cases for the High Court”
Indicator no. 8 refers to the indicator of resolving backlog cases in the High Court. This indicator did not exist in the CJS I indicator passport and was recently included in the CJS II indicator passport. The inclusion underlines the importance of addressing the backlog of cases for the progress of justice reform as a whole, but also for measuring the degree of achievement of the CJS II Objectives, where the functionality of the HJC is one of the objectives. The handling of the backlog is an indicator of the efficiency of the High Court and the judiciary itself that affects the delivery of justice without delay, goals that are set out in Specific Objective 2.4
It is noticed that as a base value, the Passport of Indicators gets the data of 2020, as the High Court was non-functional until March 2020 (when the first three judges who started examining cases were appointed). From 2018 until March 2020, the number of cases has only increased, as the court has not been functional (i.e. has not examined any cases).
The methodology set for this indicator is “No case in arrears/no case resolved during the year *12.” This methodology is unclear and it is not clear what it measures and how it will perform the measurement, so we suggest revising it.
Furthermore, it remains unclear why the goal has been expressed in duration in years for backlog clearance during the life of the Strategy. An efficient way could be to measure by percentage of backlog cases that have remained unresolved (or have been resolved). Meanwhile, annually, the target could be the percentage of the backlog left (or cleared) that HJC (High Court) as a responsible institution should aim to achieve in the context of clearing the stock from year to year. Target setting is essential to assess achievement/performance.
Conclusion: The methodology of measuring the indicator is unclear. An effective way could be to measure the percentage of backlogs that have remained unresolved, or have been resolved, year after year.
Indicator 9
“% of laws and bylaws that have been subject to evaluation analysis by judicial bodies”
In the final analysis, this indicator can only provide a simple numerical value, i.e., not a percentage as in its wording, and as defined in the target values (100%) of the laws and bylaws that will be analyzed by MoJ and HJC, in order to improve the professional capacity, accessibility, transparency and efficiency of the judiciary.
As a matter of fact, the analysis of acts and the adoption of necessary legal changes is part of the measures set out in Policy 2, Specific Objective 2.1 “Review the legal framework regarding the judiciary in accordance with the need to further improve professional competence, accessibility, transparency and efficiency” and the development of an indicator to measure the partial fulfillment of the measure, without the possibility of creating a report or comparison with another data, seems insufficient. This is because no concrete target values have been set, as it is impossible to have a precise expectation of how many laws/bylaws would need to be analyzed to consider this measure fulfilled. Therefore what is left to do, logically, is to measure only a simple numerical value, i.e., the number of analyzed acts, which in itself is a data that does not point towards a concrete product with relevance to the outcome or target measures in Specific Objective 2.1.
Conclusion: It would be reasonable to develop an indicator which would measure how many of the analyzed acts managed to take the form of draft laws or laws (in numerical value), in order to obtain a concrete outcome regarding the commitment and seriousness of the bodies that will cooperate in this process, to give a result in terms of possible legal improvements. Such an indicator would make more sense to be placed after the end of the phase of legal analysis and changes and then pass to the phase of measuring the real impact which these changes have had on the goal for which they were developed.
Indicator 12
“Annual quota for candidates for positions of magistrate, counselor and assistant in the School of Magistrates”
This indicator refers to the quotas, or maximum number of vacancies, announced by the Councils, for magistrates, advisors and legal assistants.
In its description, this indicator is set as part of the implementation of Policy 2 “Strengthening transparency, efficiency of the judiciary and access to justice in accordance with constitutional, legal and European standards“, under Specific Objective 2.3 which provides for “Increasing efficiency and capacity training system, which ensures advancement towards European practices and quality in the field of justice, providing an adequate number of trained magistrates and legal advisors to the justice system in Albania”.
Also, this indicator is considered essential for the replacement of judges and prosecutors dismissed due to vetting.
In the description given to the indicator it is worth dwelling on two elements: first, the methodology, according to which this indicator refers to the number of magistrates admitted in a year, and second, the institutions responsible for and participating in the development of and reporting on the indicator, where it is noted that the School of Magistrates is not included.
Both of these predictions are problematic, as is the wording of the indicator when referring to admission quotas, while in fact it refers to the number of magistrates actually admitted by the School in a year.
First, for the indicator to give an accurate result it will have to be based not on quotas, but on the number of magistrates, advisors and legal assistants appointed by the HJC and HPC.
The quotas do not indicate how many magistrates/advisors/assistants will enter the system, but indicate how many vacancies have been opened by the Councils and on which the testing at the School of Magistrates is carried out. After the testing process, it is possible to produce a figure regarding how many candidates will be accepted by the School, i.e., the candidates who will be part of the 3-year Initial Training Program (this figure refers to the methodology of this indicator). Then, the established filters (specifically: how many candidates will graduate from the School; how many will be able to be evaluated at least “sufficient”; and, how many will be appointed by the Councils, after the process of assets and background verification) will produce the final number of new entries into the system.
So, both quotas and admissions do not give an accurate result of the number of new entries into the system. For this reason, both the wording and the methodology of measuring the indicator need to be changed.
Regarding the provision of the HJC and the HPC as the most responsible and participating institutions for the creation and reporting of the indicator, it is incomprehensible how the School of Magistrates is not included in the only indicator which is about entries into the justice system and when the Constitution says new incumbents can only enter through the School of Magistrates. As a result, the weight that this body has in creating the indicator and fulfilling the result as a whole, is high and should be reflected. The testing conducted by the SoM and the 3-year Compulsory Training Program at the School are the two main sources from which the number of magistrates that will be added to the system emerges. In this context, the number of quotas that the Councils will open is less important than the number that have successfully passed the entrance exam. The experience of these years has shown that the announced quotas could not be fully met.
Secondly, if we refer to the action plan measures related to the School of Magistrates, we find that they are all related to continued, on-the-job education, and to the development of studies and publications, especially in the field of EU law, international standards and protection of human rights.
In order for the indicator on the quality of the justice system to be complete, it should also provide for the collection of data related to the participation of magistrates in activities related to the formation and training with specialized knowledge during the career, both as experts and as participants. An indicator of this would be how many judges attend the School’s training courses during an academic year. The law stipulates that they must attend at least 5 trainings per year, but in the meantime, a very small part of them meet this legal requirement, which, in fact, more than a requirement, should be seen as an opportunity that they are given to deepen their knowledge and skills related to their profession.
This indicator would be used to measure other data that may be related to issues in which they are more interested, or are more active. It would become a leading indicator of the School’s training policies in terms of continued education. Moreover, this indicator will be useful even when the system is complete with judges and prosecutors.
Conclusion: The indicator should be changed: it should refer to the number of appointments made by the Councils, and should add the School of Magistrates to the responsible institutions. Also, a new indicator should be formulated as follows: “% of magistrates participating in the continued education organized by the School of Magistrates”.
Indicator 13
“% of reduction of the average duration of a criminal case (separate values for the first instance and the appellate court, general jurisdiction only)”
Indicator 13 refers to the % of reduction in the average duration of a criminal case. It will serve to measure the average duration of a separate criminal case for the first instance and the appellate court, not including the trial in the CCOC. Shortening the duration of cases is a key indicator of the efficiency of the judiciary, so measuring it is important to assess the performance of criminal courts of general jurisdiction.
The indicator is about the accomplishment of Objective 2.4 “Improving the judicial system in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of all levels of the judicial system, including the High Court, and ensuring the provision of transparent justice, without delays and accessible to citizens“, which comes under Policy Goal 2 “Enhancing transparency, efficiency of the judiciary and access to justice in accordance with constitutional, legal requirements and European standards”.
This indicator contains language which is similar to Indicator 2 of the CJS I Indicator Passport, with the difference that it specifies that the measurement relates only to general jurisdiction (i.e., it does not include the jurisdiction of special courts and SPAK).
The methodology set for its measurement refers to the Value in % that results from the formula: (1 – (Sum of days of duration of all relevant cases in year n / number of cases in year n) / (Sum of days of duration of all cases in year n-1 / number of all cases in year n-1)) * 100.
It is noticed that the baseline value is that of year 2020 where it is determined that the average duration in days of criminal cases in the first instance and appeal: ‘DT Criminal first instance 1 = 66 (days) and DT criminal appeal: = 246 (days), without specifying the court/s to which these values refer, which means a general average referring to all courts according to HJC (CJS I passport of indicators referred to the duration that included the courts of Tirana and Durrës). Taking the year 2020 as baseline is in our opinion closer to reality, as the process of transitional re-evaluation applied in recent years has significantly affected the average duration of cases. Consequently, progress is measured based on a realistic value.
Meanwhile, it is noticed that the objectives of the Passport Indicators during the CJS II years are not expressed in percentage, but in time. As long as the indicator measures the percentage, we suggest that the objective for the years of validity of the Strategy be expressed in percentage. Specifying the target is necessary to assess achievement/performance. Also, although the aim is to reduce the duration of cases, the objectives expressed in days, during the CJS II timeframe, in the Passport Indicators are higher than the baseline value, making the target appear more like a regress rather than progress. We think that such an objective does not correspond to the enhancement of the efficiency of the judiciary, the goals of Policy 2 and Objective 2.4. Although the expected situation in the coming years is not very optimistic due to the effects of the transitional re-evaluation of judges, still the increase cannot be the target, even if it is temporary. Furthermore, as long as an increase is projected, the indicator measuring the “percentage of reduction in duration” would be unachievable.
Conclusion: We suggest revising the target objectives set to be achieved during the timeframe of the Strategy, both in terms of their expression in percentage and not time duration (it is necessary to use percentages in the context of applying the proposed methodology ), as well as in terms of compliance of these values with the strategic objective (enhancing efficiency and shortening the duration of cases).
Indicator 14
“% of the reduction of the average duration of the civil case in the first instance and in the appeal (separate values for each level)”
Indicator 14 relates to the % of the reduction of the average duration of the civil case in the first instance and in the appeal court (separate values for each level). It will measure the average duration of a civil case separately for the first instance and the appellate court. Reducing the length of time required for a case is a key indicator of the efficiency of the judiciary, so measuring it is important to assess the performance of civil courts.
This indicator, like the one above, serves as an indicator for the accomplishment of Objective 2.4 “Improving the judicial system in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of all levels of the judicial system, including the High Court, and ensuring the provision of transparent justice, without delays and accessible to citizens“, which comes under Policy Goal 2 “Enhancing transparency, efficiency of the judiciary and access to justice in accordance with constitutional, legal requirements and European standards”
A language similar to this indicator can be found in Indicator 3 of the CJS I indicator passport.
It is noticed that the baseline limit is that of year 2020 determined as ‘192 days in the first instance / 1538 (days) on appeal’
Again, it is noticed that the objectives expressed in percentage for the years of validity of the strategy are missing. Clarification of the target is necessary to assess the achievement/performance. Taking 2020 as a baseline, as we noted above, is closer to reality and, consequently, progress is measured based on a realistic value.
Meanwhile, it is noticed that the target objectives are not expressed in percentage, but in time. As long as the indicator measures the percentage, we suggest that the target for the years of validity of the Strategy be also expressed in percentage and not in duration. Specifying the target is necessary to assess achievement/performance.
Also, although the aim is to shorten the duration of cases, the objectives expressed in days of duration, in the first two years of CJS II application, are higher than the baseline value, making the target unachievable and the objective unmeasurable (as long as it measures the percentage of the reduction in the duration of the case). We think that such a target does not correspond to the increase of the efficiency of the judiciary, the goals of Policy 2 and Objective 2.4. Although the expected situation in the coming years is not very optimistic, again the objectives of the Strategy are aimed at optimizing resources in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the judiciary.
Conclusion: We suggest revising the target objectives set to be achieved during the timeframe of the Strategy, both in terms of their expression in values calculated as a percentage, according to the proposed methodology, and in terms of compliance of these values with the strategic objective. (enhanced efficiency and reduction in case duration).
Indicator 15
“% of court cases for which basic information is available online and updated.”
Indicator 15 measures % of court cases for which basic information is available online and updated. This indicator is related to Objective 2.4 “Improving the judicial system in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of all levels of the judicial system, including the High Court and ensuring the provision of transparent justice, without delays and accessible to citizens“, part of Policy 2.
The inclusion of this indicator in the passport portfolio is related to the need to increase the transparency of judicial decision-making. Currently, the information found on court portals is not up to date and only litigants can find decisions, but not law scholars or the general public who can request data.
The measurement methodology is defined as “The HJC IT Center, based on data available on the court website, will be able to calculate the % of cases where basic information is available online.” Whereas the formula is defined as: Value = Total number of ongoing court cases with basic information publicly available / total number of ongoing court cases during the reporting period * 100 This methodology measures the percentage of cases for which there is information, but it does not refer to “basic information”, and does not provide data on the case when there is basic information, but it is not updated, to which the indicator refers in its content.
Following the clarification of the methodology, it is suggested that the term “basic information” should be specified/defined, to describe the content of this information (i.e., information on the names of the parties, date of registration, name of the judge or status of the proceedings or other data). Clarifying the content of the basic information is important, at least in the content of the methodology.
It is noticed that the basic calculation limit is 2020 with a value of 100%. We think that we are not currently in this percentage, because if something like this had been achieved, we would not have had to evaluate it as a strategic objective for the 5 years of CJS II.
A similar wording with this indicator can be found in Indicator 7 of the CJS I indicator passport.
Conclusion: We suggest revising the target objectives set to be achieved during the timeframe of the Strategy, in order to express them in values that reflect the reality and the current situation. We also suggest revising the methodology, in order to be able to adapt it to the target components expressed in the content of the indicator. A more appropriate methodology could be “Total number of ongoing court cases with basic and up-to-date information available online/total number of ongoing court cases during the reporting period * 100.
Indicator 16
“% of applications accepted for free primary legal aid”.
Indicator 16 relates to the % of applications accepted for free primary legal aid. The higher this figure, the more aware individuals are about receiving free primary aid and the criteria for receiving it, and as a result the greater the access to justice for the part of the population that cannot obtain legal aid on their own.
This indicator relates to Specific Objective 2.5 “Effective access to justice provided through legal aid, alternative dispute resolution and appropriate court fees”, part of Policy 2. It is newly included and was not part of the CJS I indicator passport.
For the measurement of this indicator, the methodology measures the number of those who apply for primary legal aid and are found eligible by the relevant authority to receive such assistance under the law (including as a result of each appeal). Meanwhile, the percentage of applications is calculated as follows: Value = Total number of beneficiaries of primary legal aid during the reporting period / Total number of requests to centers for primary legal aid during the reporting period * 100.
Based on FLA statistics, this methodology measures the % of applicants who meet the legal criteria to receive free primary legal aid. So, it measures the awareness of applicants about the legal eligibility criteria. In this regard, the indicator should be more clearly expressed in relation to the proposed methodology.
Referring to the basic limit, it is the year 2020 in which 4,200 persons received primary legal aid provided by the state. This is a clear language and that creates solid foundation for the future measurement. Meanwhile, the target values have been clearly defined, aiming for an annual increase of 5%.
Conclusion: This is a necessary indicator in the context of measuring access to justice for those who do not have economic opportunities and who benefit from free primary legal aid.
Indicator 17
“% of applications accepted for free secondary legal aid”.
Indicator 17 relates to the % of applications received for free secondary legal aid. The higher this figure, the more aware individuals are about free secondary assistance, and the greater the access to justice for the part of the population that cannot obtain legal aid on their own.
This indicator is related to Specific Objective 2.5 “Effective access to justice provided through legal aid, alternative dispute resolution and appropriate court fees”, part of Policy 2. This indicator contains a language similar to Indicator 8 of the CJS I passport indicators. The CJS I passport of indicators defined the % of applicants who meet the legal criteria to receive free secondary legal aid. Contrary to this language, the novelty in indicator 13 lies in the fact that the received applications are measured. This wording makes this indicator more measurable.
Even in this case, as for Indicator 16, the formula: “Value = Total number of beneficiaries of secondary legal aid during the reporting period / total number of requests to the Court for secondary legal aid during the reporting period * 100” measures the % of accepted applicants who meet the legal criteria to receive free secondary legal aid.
Referring to the basic limit, it is the year 2020 in which 157 persons received secondary legal aid. This is a clear language and that creates solid foundation for the future measurement
It is also noticed that the objectives are clearly defined, recording for each year an increase of 15% compared to the previous year.
Conclusion: This is a necessary indicator in the context of measuring access to justice for those who do not have economic opportunities and who benefit from free secondary legal aid.
Indicator 20
“% of cases gone to trial in which the defendant has been convicted”
Indicator 20 aims to measure the work of the prosecution body. It is part of Policy 3, which covers criminal justice, and refers to Objective 3.2 “An efficient and proactive prosecution system operating according to European standards and effective investigation and prosecution of corruption and organized crime“.
This indicator aims to measure how efficient the criminal prosecution and representation of the prosecution office in court has been. Thus, calculating the ratio between the defendants convicted by the court and the defendants who were sent for trial, it produces a percentage of the “success” of the investigative work conducted by the prosecutor, i.e., how organized and accurate the investigations were and how much the prosecutor has based on law and evidence the charges against the defendant.
Although this report includes two bodies, the prosecution and the court, due to the direct connection they have in this process and the “interdependence” they have on each other, it manages to produce a set of data close to the truth. The reservation that the court is not working with the same efficiency and objectivity remains part of the margin of error of this indicator.
Also, the methodology provided for this indicator, requires the ratio be calculated by separating the defendants who were found not guilty or whose cases were dismissed, from those who were tried, in the first instance courts.
First, the methodology should provide that the separation will be made on the cases of convicted defendants, to be more accurate vis-à-vis the wording of the indicator.
Second, we estimate that it would be worthwhile to create a new indicator to determine this ratio between district courts and appellate courts. This would allow us to assess the ratio between the decisions of these two levels of courts, given that the decision becomes final only after review in the court of appeal (in cases where the decision of the first instance is appealed).
Also, in addition to this measurement indicator for the prosecution system as a whole, it is suggested that the plan of measures should contain a separate indicator for the work of the SPAK. This is because the influence of SPAK in Albania during at least these 4 years, is expected to be high. A step-by-step measurement – annually – of SPAK work, would be a very good indicator of the fight against corruption, especially the one in power, which is one of the main reasons for the justice reform undertaken in Albania. The ratio between the cases that SPAK sends to court, versus those that are accepted by the CCOC and result in a sentence, is an important indicator of the efficiency of SPAK and avoids prejudices regarding this body, whether it is really investigating according to standards, or just sending “empty” files to court.
Conclusion: It is suggested that an indicator be added with the following content: “percentage of cases that go to the CCOC in which a sentencing decision has been rendered by the court”.
Indicator 24
“Number of EU legal acts properly approximated with the Acquis (Chapter 23)”
Indicator 24 refers to the number of EU legal acts properly approximated with the Acquis (Chapter 23). This indicator is newly included and was not foreseen in the CJS I passport of indicators.
First, this indicator should be reformulated from a linguistic point of view by specifying the term ‘proper approximation’. Indicators should be formulated in clear and understandable language for the responsible institutions in order to be realistically measurable and leave no room for misinterpretation.
This indicator is believed to have been developed taking into account the obligations of the Republic of Albania in the framework of the membership process and the approach of the process of opening negotiations for Chapter 23. This chapter traditionally ‘is first to be opened and last to be closed’.
Sub-item ‘Institutions responsible for data collection’, and sub-division ‘participating institutions’ determines the MoJ as well as ‘some relevant’. The terminology ‘some relevant’ is very evasive and needs to be clarified so that the reporting process is as transparent as possible and is carried out responsibly.
Again, the baseline value remains an element that needs to be specified in clear value. Consequently, the level of approximation by 2020, defined as a percentage, should be clarified. This percentage will create a clear ‘baseline’ for the achievement of approximation during the timeframe of the Strategy. Meanwhile, the target is given in absolute figures – 2 acts for 2021 and 5 acts for the following years. We think that there is a need for a clarification in the methodology: which acts does the Passport refer to? Because we think that it is a very low number of acts in relation to the legal acts that are approximated every year by our country. If it is about legal acts in the field of justice, this should be clearly stated.
Conclusion: We suggest that this indicator be reformulated in the interest of clarity. The methodology should also be reviewed in relation to the objectives set to be achieved during the timeframe of CJS II and in order to specify the acts in question.
Indicator 25
“% of courts/prosecution offices in which the new case management system has been set up and operates at full capacity”
Indicator 25 calculates the percentage of courts/prosecution offices in which the new case management system has been set up and is operating at full capacity. The functionality of the Case Management System is a prerequisite for better coordination within the judicial/prosecution system, enhanced effectiveness and increased transparency.
It is related to Specific Objective 4.1, ”Full development of an integrated electronic justice system (e-justice) with unified identifiers, updated case management systems, internet-based electronic registration for all three areas (criminal, administrative, civil) and links to relevant national registries and databases”, part of Policy 4.
The indicator seeks to assess the full functioning of the new case management system in courts and prosecution offices. It will be measured by calculating the ratio between the number of courts and prosecution offices in which the new system is operational and the number of courts/ prosecution offices nationwide. The formula to calculate this indicator: number of courts/prosecution offices in which the new case management system is functional / total no. of courts / prosecution offices * 100. We think that the methodology and measurement formula are correct.
While the system is not yet operational, the baseline value for 2020 is zero. For the first two years – 2021 and 2022 – no results were foreseen for the system, neither in the prosecution offices nor in the courts. Meanwhile, the target objective is 5% in the third year, 33% in the fourth year and 100% in the fifth year. Therefore, 2025 will be the year when the new case management system will be operational.
Conclusion: This indicator is clearly expressed. For the first two years – 2021 and 2022 – no results are foreseen for the system, neither in the prosecution office, nor in the courts. Meanwhile, the target is 5% in the third year, 33% in the fourth year and 100% in the fifth year, i.e., 2025.
Indicator 26
“% of judges/prosecutors/inspectors and administrative staff trained on the use of the new case management system”.
Indicator 26 measures the percentage of judges/prosecutors/inspectors and administrative staff trained in the efficient use of the new case management system. The more trained the users of the system, the more effective is the work with the system, as well as the coordination between the justice institutions. Clearly, the staff training phase runs parallel to that of setting up the system.
It is related to Objective 4.1 “Full development of an integrated electronic justice system (e-justice) with unified identifiers, updated case management systems, internet-based electronic registration for all three areas (criminal, administrative, civil) and links to relevant national registries and databases”, part of Policy 4.
The indicator will be measured annually. While the system is not yet operational, the baseline value for 2020 is zero. The target in relation to this indicator depends on the targets set in the previous indicator. For this reason, also related to this indicator, in the first two years – 2021 and 2022 – no results are foreseen for the training of staff, as long as the system is not expected to be functional. Meanwhile, the target is 5% in the third year, 33% in the fourth year and 100% in the fifth year, when not only the new case management system will be functional, but also the judges/prosecutors/inspectors and administrative staff will be fully trained.