Outcome 4.1.2
“Judicial database set up, which can serve for statistics and real-time data based on the concept of using a unified classifier for chain cases of justice institutions”.
This outcome means the creation of a database for the judicial system. This enables, firstly, the possibility of having and accessing on a real-time basis statistics and other data, and secondly, the creation of a unique system for data involving several institutions. This outcome is in coherence with the Strategic Objective 4.1, which within the integrated electronic system requires the establishment of a database.
CEPEJ[1] data show that Albania together with other countries in the Western Balkans region has the lowest level of use of electronic communication systems between courts and prosecutors and lawyers. The generation of statistical performance data is in the process of being improved. HJC has currently approved the Decision “On maintaining and filling in tables with statistical data for the purpose of measuring and monitoring the productivity and efficiency of courts“[2] and it is important at this stage to have a database where these statistics can be found. In this respect, the measure is realistic and in coherence with the current situation. The outcome can be revised in the wording, as the sentence is long, and the language used does not make the meaning clear to the reader. It also does not specify exactly what information will be found in the database. Statistics are mentioned, but without specifying what these statistics will be, and it is unclear what “other data” means. Clarifying them would enable the measurement of this outcome. On the other hand, it would clarify what issues/data require or combine information from some justice institutions (which even in this case it is not clear who they are referring to). No indicators have been identified for measuring this outcome. An indicator that measures the full achievement of this outcome could be “% of statistics/information entered in the database continuously, vis-à-vis the totality of the data that the database should include” or “% of civil society organizations/law scholars who think that the database provides results on the performance of the justice system”.
Conclusion: This outcome is in line with Objective 4.1 and is considered realistic and necessary. We suggest reviewing the language used in order to clarify the data or information contained in the database. For the measurement of this outcome, we suggest this indicator “% of statistics/information entered in the database continuously, vis-à-vis the totality of the data that the database should include” or “% of civil society organizations/ law scholars who think that the database provides results on the performance of the justice system”.
[1]For more, see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/documentation/cepej-studies
[2]For more, see: http://klgj.al/njoftim-per-shtyp-date-11-shkurt-2021-2/