Outcome 1.3.3
“HIJ capacities (including processes, skills and management) and resources (financial, equipment and infrastructure) have been strengthened and consolidated and this institution exercises its functions independently, efficiently and professionally, developing the verification process, disciplinary investigation and inspection in accordance with the principles of disciplinary proceedings and international standards. These activities will be carried out as deemed necessary for the proper functioning of the judiciary and the prosecution office and in accordance with the legal requirements, the regulatory framework and the required standards.”
This result, like the other two above, is related to the presumption that with the fulfillment of Objective 1.3, the expected outcome for HIJ will be oriented in three directions. First, the capacities and resources of HIJ will be adequate to carry out the activity according to the constitutional and legal framework. Second, based on these premises, this institution will perform its functions independently, efficiently and professionally, developing the process of verification, disciplinary investigation and inspection in accordance with the principles of disciplinary proceedings and international standards. Third, (although it is not clear) the activity of this institution will affect the functioning of the judiciary and the prosecution, according to the relevant legislation and standards related to accountability.
Regarding the latter, we would suggest that the judiciary be included in the Objectives and Outcomes envisaged in function of Policy Goal 2, which is dedicated to the performance of the judicial system. Also, the last sentence contains generic and vague provisions. It seems that the “as deemed necessary” part leaves a margin of subjectivity for HIJ, although this may not be its goal. Due to this reason, the third sentence can be revised in function of its clarity, but also without exceeding Policy Goal 1 and Specific Objective 1.3
Regarding the wording of this outcome, the same suggestion applies as for the two previous outcomes. The elements defined as constituent components of the institution’s capacity need to be clarified.
HIJ was established and has been operating since February 2020. During this initial phase of its operation, the inspector positions have been partially filled and, in the meantime, the administrative staff is almost complete. HIJ has also largely completed the legal basis for its organization, functioning and exercise of powers conferred by law and the Constitution. A series of acts and measures have also been taken to address the backlog inherited from the HCJ[1]. At this moment it is important to further build the capacity of the institution and its performance in accordance with the principles of disciplinary proceedings and international standards. In this respect the projected Outcome seems coherent and necessary.
Despite the above-mentioned inaccuracies, Outcome 1.3.3 contains a provision that is in line with those of CJS I. It is a logical continuation of the achievement of the objectives set out in the “2020 – 2022 Strategic Plan and Action Plan of the Office of the High Inspector of Justice”, as well as of a series of measures provided in the latter, in order to achieve these objectives.
Regarding the measures of this outcome, CJS II has provided for a series of such measures that enable its realization. As will be analyzed below, the coherence of these measures in relation to the strategic provisions and the degree of their implementation in the HIJ Action Plan should be assessed, in order to have a greater coherence between these two strategic documents and to make the results as realistic as possible.
To achieve this Outcome, CJS II provides two indicators: First, “% of initiated disciplinary proceedings for complaints against judges or prosecutors” and, second, “The indicator for resolving backlog cases of discipline and appeals filed with the HIJ”. Both of these indicators measure the efficiency of this body, but do not provide complete data on the implementation of standards by it. As in the Outcome above, the polls conducted with the judges and prosecutors could serve as an indicator to calculate the percentage of those who think that HIJ has or has not met the standards in the process of verification, disciplinary investigation and inspection. Meanwhile, measures and indicators for the consolidation of capacities and resources can be found in the Action Plan of the HIJ Office.
Conclusion: The outcome is required and meets Specific Objective 1.3. It should clarify the elements that imply capacities, in order to have a clearer understanding of it, as well as to identify measures and indicators for their measurement. Also, in order to make this result as realistic as possible, a greater coherence is needed between the measures foreseen for its achievement and the deadlines foreseen in the HIJ Action Plan or the degree of their realization. While measures and indicators for the consolidation of capacities and resources can be found in the Action Plan of the HIJ Office, we suggest that, in the framework of monitoring the implementation of CJS II, the following indicator be included (based on surveys conducted with the panel of judges and prosecutors) “percentage of judges/prosecutors who think that HIJ has/has not respected the standards in the process of verification, disciplinary investigation and inspection”.
[1]For more information, read: https://ild.al/sq/legjislacion/akte/