STRATEGY FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM 2011- · PDF fileMINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ... FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM 2011-2015 ... according to which the small values stand

Draft for public consultations

1

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

STRATEGY FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM

2011-2015

Chisinau 2011

English translation of this document was provided in the framework of the Joint Programme between the Council of Europe

and European Union “Democracy Support Programme in Moldova”


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Summary List of abbreviations

o Part 1. The reform context and the determining factors

o Part 2. The strategy development process

o Part 3. Goal and objectives of the strategy

o Part 4. Pillars of the justice sector reform and the strategic directions

o Part 5. Specific intervention areas

o Part 6. Financial implications

o Part 7. Strategy implementation, monitoring and evaluation

o Part 8. Analysis of strategy implementation risks


3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SJSR Strategy for justice sector reform

MJ Ministry of Justice

SCM Superior Council of Magistrates

CCECC Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption

MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs

GP General Prosecutor’s Office

NCSGLA National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Assistance

NIJ National Institute of Justice

EU European Union


4

Part 1. THE REFORM CONTEXT AND THE DETERMINING FACTORS

The reform of the justice sector has permanently been an issue in the attention of the authorities of the Republic of Moldova. A large set of strategic documents referring to this area has been adopted during last years, among them being: Strategy for the Judiciary Consolidation1, Strategy for the Development of the Law Enforcement System2, Concept of the Penitentiary System3, Concept of the Judiciary Budgeting4 etc. In parallel, a number of laws have been adopted that have conceptually reformed certain key institutions of the justice system: the Judiciary, the Prosecution offices, the Bar, the Notary, the Penitentiary system, the Ombudsman office, the Enforcement system, etc. The adoption of the Law on Guaranteed State Legal Assistance, the Law on Probation and the Law on Mediation etc. has resulted in the introduction of new mechanisms and institutions into the Justice system. In spite of substantial institutional changes and in spite of amendments to the legal framework, no integrity of the justice system has been achieved yet, for the reason that these changes haven’t ensured a qualitatively new level of activity of this sector stakeholders. No new mechanisms have been implemented ensuring promotion, incentives and accountability of judges and prosecutors. Self administration of the justice sector institutions hasn’t achieved an efficient operation and the justice system hasn’t become more transparent. The new professional, moral and ethical standards haven’t become a sine qua non must for professionals displaying activity in this area, thing that has led to a decrease of public confidence in justice making. It is dangerous to have the society’s low level of confidence in the efficiency of the justice system, because it can give rise to a general lack of confidence in the efficiency and integrity of public authorities and of the state in general. In conditions of this kind the reform of the justice sector could not be approached in a fragmentary way, for the reason that an efficient and effective realisation of justice presupposes an efficient and consistent activity of a number of institutions, namely the justice system, the Constitutional Court, the Prosecutors office, the criminal investigation bodies, the Bar, the notary, the system of enforcement of court decisions, the penitentiary system, etc. At the beginning of the strategy development process it was important to ensure that the agreed reform initiatives included into this strategy are consistent with the general reform efforts launched in the Republic of Moldova as illustrated in Figure No 2.

1 Parliament Decree No. 174-XVI dated 19 July, 2007 2 Government Decree No. 1393 dated 12 December 2007 3 Government Decree No. 1624 dated 31 December 2003 4 Parliament Decree No. 39 dated 18 March 2010


5

Figure 2: Strategic documents relevant for the justice system of Moldova

The analysis of previously adopted strategic documents and of the situation of the justice sector along with the consultations held with justice sector stakeholders made possible to identify a number of determining factors of the reform. These factors were of help in establishing the general objective and the strategic objectives of the Strategy, the key pillars of the reforms and of the specific intervention areas, as included in the Strategy for the Justice System Reform (SJSR). See the detailed description in Part 4. Figure 3 shows a graphical presentation of determining factors. See below a detailed description of these factors: Figure 3: Determining Factors of the justice sector reforms

Concept of reform of the Ministry of Internal

Affairs

National Strategy for prevention and

combating corruption

National Development Strategy for 2008-2011

Strategy for the development of the law enforcement system

Concept of budgeting of the judicial system

Strategy for the justice sector reform

Plan of Actions EU-Moldova within the European Neighbourhood Policy

framework

Strategy for the consolidation of the judicial system

Concept of the penitentiary system

reform

National Plan of Actions in the human

rights area

The Government Plan of Actions for 2011-2014

Evaluation of the rule of law and justice governance for an extended sector programming,

June 2011

Plan of Actions for the liberalization of the visa regime

with EU

Strategy for the reform of the central public administration


6

Nivelul scazut al increderii in justitie din partea societatii

Aspiratiile Republicii Moldova de integrare in Uniunea Europeana

Factorii determinanti ai reformelor in sectorul justitiei

`Perceperea quasi generala a gradului inalt de raspindire a coruptiei in sectorul justitiei

Crearea unui mediu favorabil pentru cresterea economica si a investitiilor

Low level of public confidence in the justice system

Aspirations of the Republic of Moldova regarding its integration in the EU

The reform determining factors of the justice sector

The quasi-general perception of the high degree of corruption of the justice sector

Creation of a favourable environment for economic growth and attraction of investments

• Low level of public confidence in the justice system

The level of confidence of citizens in justice is similar to a litmus paper that reflects the moods of the society and the latter’s attitude towards justice. It is evident that the analysis of the society’s perception of justice should include both the point of view of citizens as beneficiaries of justice and the point of view of representatives of the judiciary system. In 1998 the Institute of Public Policies started to carry out biannual surveys, disseminating questionnaires, which contained a permanent question regarding the confidence of citizens in the state agencies, including the justice bodies. Procession of answers to the question “How much do you trust justice?” collected during 2005-2011, saying “very much” and “no trust at all”, shows that citizens of the Republic of Moldova have a “fluctuant” degree of confidence in justice. However, starting with March 2009, one may notice an alarming trend of growth of lack of confidence of citizens in justice with a maximum achieved in May 2011, when it turned out that only 1% of interviewed persons said that they have a total confidence in justice, while 42% of respondents said they had no confidence at all in justice”. One may find a similar conclusion in the Report “Evaluation of the rule of law and justice governance for extended sector programming (June 2011) developed by a group of experts of the European Union. It is said there that “lack of accountability of the justice bodies in front of society along with lack of transparency” constitute the reason of lack of efficiency of the justice system of the Republic of Moldova. Accountability of courts in front of society is a precondition of a state with the rule of law, while transparency of the courts represents the guaranteed trust of the society.

• The quasi-general perception of the high degree of corruption of the justice sector

The Corruption Perception Indicator (CPI) as estimated on annual basis by the Transparency International (TI) indicates the fact that the population of the country and the international community perceive the Republic of Moldova as country with a very spread corruption. During the last 12 years the


7

value of this indicator for the Republic of Moldova indicated levels between 2.1 and 3.3, on a scale from 0 to 10, according to which the small values stand for a higher degree of corruption. The 2010 Global Corruption Barometer (GCB), also produced annually by TI, indicates that 37% of the respondents of the Republic of Moldova mentioned that during the last 12 months they had offered bribes (the average for the CIS countries being 32% and 5% for the EU states). In conformity to the same survey the most corrupted areas as assessed on a scale from 1 to 5 are considered the following: bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs – 4.1, justice – 3.9, political parties and civil servants – 3.8, the Parliament, the education system and the private sector – 3.7.

Corruption affects the justice making in a severe way. A recent survey indicates that about half of the number of people dealing with justice give bribes. In conformity to this survey a judge requests or accepts a bribe 4 times a month5. In spite of this statistics, in the period following the year 2001 not a single judge has been convicted for corruption. This kind of survey results along with the statistical data referring to the corruption phenomenon in the Republic of Moldova generate a concern and indicate to the stringent need of undertaking effective measures for the eradication of this scourge.

• Creation of a favourable environment for economic growth and attraction of investments

The Republic of Moldova has set up the achievement of sustainable economic results as one of its general long term key objectives. The justice system has a significant role in fostering the economic growth and stability. In view of this, the justice system is expected to demonstrate efficiency, effectiveness and transparency in its activity. These are the critical factors that will contribute to the attraction of considerable investments and to the development of commercial activities. Especially important are those mechanisms supported by the Justice sector, which ensure a rapid and efficient settlement of disputes between the commercial entities. The systems defining and protecting the property rights and providing the security of legal relations are equally important for the sustainable economic growth.

• Aspirations of the Republic of Moldova regarding its integration in the EU

It is now more than a decade that the European integration constitutes a strategic objective of the foreign and internal policy of the Republic of Moldova. This is expected to ensure the establishment within the country of a security, stability and prosperity system based on democratic values and observation of the fundamental human rights and liberties. Following this goal the Republic of Moldova has undertaken efforts to implement in a responsible way the commitments assumed in its relations with the EU6 and with other European and international organisations. At the domestic level measures have been implemented for the political, economic and social modernization of the country and for the consolidation of a political will necessary for the promotion of reforms and identification of intervention areas.7 5 Redpath Jean, Victimization and public confidence survey: Benchmarks for the development of criminal justice in Moldova, Soros Foundation Moldova, Chisinau ("Imprint Plus"), 2010, p.31, available at http://www.soros.md/files/publications/documents/Victimisation%20Survey.pdf 6 The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed by the European Community member states and the Republic of Moldova on 28 November 1994 (entered into force on 1 July, 1998); Plan of Actions Republic of Moldova – EU within the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) signed on 22 February, 2005, 7 Declaration of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova on the political partnership for the realisation of the European integration objectives, unanimously adopted by the Parliament on 24 March, 2005

http://www.soros.md/files/publications/documents/Victimisation%20Survey.pdf


8

Regretfully, the efforts undertaken by the authorities of the Republic have been repeatedly qualified by the civil society and EU as unsatisfactory and insufficient. The reforms undertaken by the Republic of Moldova in the justice sector have received the same negative appreciation, they being assessed as sporadic, with no final outcomes, for the reason that activities were carried out in the absence of a well defined concept or strategy. Subsequently, pursuing its aspirations of European integration the Government of the Republic of Moldova at present assumes to undertake consistent efforts for the implementation of reforms in the justice sector via the promotion of systemic, sustainable and coherent policies.

Each of the determining factors of the reform stated above generates a set of problems and challenges specific for the justice sector institutions that will have to be addressed in the nearest future. The next part of the strategy gives a description of the basic pillars of reforms of the justice sector that will facilitate the addressing of these important determining factors. It also specifies the specific problems that the Strategy will seek to settle in the next five years.


9

Part 2. THE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The methodology has been designed in a way to permit wide consultations and to ensure the consensus of the key institutions of the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova with respect to the future directions of the reform. The development process included four separate phases, illustrated in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Development phases of the Strategy for reform of the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Approval of the working group membership

designated to develop the draft of the

Strategy

Development of the methodology

Development of the Strategy framework

(goal, pillars, objectives) and of the specific intervention areas. Setting up the

terms of implementation, assigning the responsible

institutions and development of the

performance indicators

With the support of working groups the detailed identification

of the specific intervention areas of

the Strategy are finalised.

Implementation terms are set up, the

performance indicators are

developed and the responsible

institutions are assigned.

Consultation with the key institutions of the justice sector and the representatives of the

civil society.

The draft Strategy is debated within the

coordinating Council for the reform of the law enforcement

bodies

Finalising the Strategy and its

adoption


10

PART 3. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STRATEGY

The entire process of the SJSR development has been organised by the working group set up through Government Decree of the Minister of Justice no. 213, dated 3 June, 2011. Consultations referring to each identified reform pillar have been carried out with the main stakeholders of the justice sector and with the NGO representatives operating in the areas addressed by the Strategy pillars.

The identification of the reform determining factors made possible to specify the following five platforms of the justice sector in Moldova:

a. sector dialogue at the internal and external levels, interaction and coordination with the purpose of improving the institutional and legal frameworks;

b. efficiency of courts; c. efficiency and independence of the pre-judiciary phase; d. access to justice and execution of justice; e. observance of human rights in the justice sector; f. institutional and legal instruments and practices to combat corruption and impunity.

At present, the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova is facing a number of problems that need to be paid immediate attention during the next five years. These problems can be grouped in a several wide areas.

The goal of the SJSR is the establishment of an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent, professional and accountable judiciary system, in compliance with the European standards,

meant to ensure the rule of law and the observance of human rights. The other envisaged outcomes of the SJSR include the following:

o Creation of a framework for the identification of the donor assistance directions; o Streamlining communication, coordination and cooperation between different institutions and segments of the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova.

The justice sector of the Republic of Moldova should respond to the main determining factors of the reform and to solve problems it is facing at present, trying to ensure a number of long term requirements:

ü Accessibility ü Efficiency ü Transparency ü Independence ü Professionalism ü Accountability ü Coordination ü Secure the rule of law


11

ü Compliance with the EU standards All medium and long term reform efforts need to be oriented at ensuring the following vision of the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova.

The Strategy pursues the realization of the following objectives:

1. consolidation of the independence, responsibility, efficiency and transparency of the judiciary system;

2. improvement of the pre-judicial investigation process to ensure a guaranteed observance

of human rights, security for every person and decrease of the criminality level; 3. improvement of the institutional framework and of processes ensuring an effective access

to justice, these including: effective legal assistance, examination of files and enforcement of judgements in reasonable terms, modernization of the status of a number of judicial professions related to the justice system;

4. identification and implementation of measures via which the justice sector can contribute

to the creation of a climate favourable for the sustainable development of economy; 5. securing an effective observance of human rights during the application of legal practices

and policies; 6. promotion and implementation of the zero tolerance principle with respect to the

corrupted behaviour within the justice sector; 7. coordination, establishment and delineation of powers and responsibilities of the main

actors of the justice system; ensuring the inter-sector dialogue.


12

Part 4. PILLARS OF THE JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM AND THE STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

The justice sector reform is supposed to rely on seven fundamental pillars:

1. the judicial system; 2. the criminal justice; 3. access to justice and execution of justice; 4. strengthening the integrity of actors operating in the justice sector through the promotion of anti

corruption measures and the professional ethics standards; 5. contribution of justice to the economic growth; 6. observance of human rights in the justice sector; 7. ensuring a good coordination and management of the justice sector and its accountability.

The justice sector

Pursuing the realization of the general objective of the strategy and of the strategic directions as stipulated in Part 4, a number of specific intervention areas for the following five years have been identified. The Table below illustrates the strategic directions in a summarised way, they being grouped in conformity to the pillars they belong. Figure 5: The strategic directions

PILLAR I

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

GOAL: Creation of an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent and professional justice system accountable in front of society, consistent with the European standards and able to ensure the rule of law and the observance of human rights.

PILLAR II

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PILLAR III

ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND

EXECUTION OF JUSTICE

PILLAR IV STRENGTHENIN

G THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUSTICE

SECTOR ACTORS

THROUGH THE PROMOTION OF

ANTI CORRUPTION

MEASURES AND PROFESSIONAL

ETHICAL

PILLAR V

CONTRIBUTION OF JUSTICE TO THE ECONOMIC

GROWTH

PILLAR VI

OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN

RIGHTS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

PILLAR VII A RESPONSIBLE, WELL COORDINATED AND MANAGED SECTOR


13

The Figure 5 indicates the existence of an interconnection of the strategic programmes. Implementation of a set of programmes influences the implementation of other programmes falling in the next set of programmes. See Part 5 of the SJSR Strategy for the description of implementation of this Strategy.

Pillar I. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM Strategic directions: 1.1. Ensuring accessibility and independence 1.2. Higher transparency, efficiency and effectiveness 1.3. Higher professionalism of persons involved in the justice execution and their accountability

Pillar II . THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Strategic directions: 2.1. Revision of the concept and procedure of the pre-judicial phase 2.2. Strengthening the professionalism and independence of the prosecution office 2.3. Strengthening the professional capacities of individuals and of the crime investigation bodies 2.4 Modernization of the statistical data collection system and of the system evaluating the professional performances at individual and institutional levels. 2.5. Humanization of the criminal policy and streamlining the juvenile justice Pillar III . ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND EXECUTION OF JUSTICE

Strategic directions 3.1. Strengthening the system providing free of charge legal assistance guaranteed by the state 3.2. Strengthening the institutional capacities and the professional development of representatives of professions related to the justice system (lawyers, notaries mediators, executors of court judgements, judicial experts, administrators of the insolvency procedure, translators/interpreters) 3.3. Effective and adequate enforcement of the judgements.

Pillar IV. STRENGTHENING THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUSTICE SECTOR ACTORS THROUGH THE PROMOTION OF ANTI CORRUPTION

MEASURES AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICAL STANDARDS

Strategic directions: 4.1. Efficient and effective combating of corruption in the justice system 4.2. Strengthening the mechanisms facilitating the implementation of ethical standards and anti corruptive behaviour at the level of all institutions of the justice sector 4.3. Developing in different segments of justice of a culture of zero tolerance to corruption among the self administration bodies

Pillar V. CONTRIBUTION OF JUSTICE TO THE ECONOMIC GROWTH

Strategic directions: 5.1. Strengthening the system of alternative settlement of disputes.5.2. Improvement of insolvency proceedings 5.3. Modernising the system of accounting and access to information on registration of economic agents

Pillar VI OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Strategic directions: 6.1. Strengthening the role of the Constitutional Court 6.2. Optimization of the national mechanism for the protection of human rights 6.3. Observance of international standards of human rights protection with all imprisoned persons. Eradication of torture and ill treatment 6.4. Consolidation of the probation and penitentiary systems

GOAL: Creation of an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent and professional justice system accountable in front of society, consistent with the European standards and able to ensure the rule of law and the observance of human rights.

Pillar VII. A RESPONSIBLE, WELL COORDINATED AND WELL MANAGED SECTOR Strategic directions: 7.1. Coordination of activities undertaken by all actors in the justice system; strategic planning and development of policies 7.2. Harmonization of the institutional and legal frameworks of the justice system with the European standards 7.3. Coordination of external donor assistance

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

1

4

PART 5: S

PECIF

IC INTERVENTIO

N AREAS

PIL

LAR 1. T

he ju

dicial system

1.1.

Provision

of a

ccessibility an

d indepe

ndence

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

1.1.1. Optimization of the map of

the courts displacement with the

purpose

to strengthen the

institutional capacities of the courts

and the number of judges and to

ensure the most efficient use of

available resources.

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Externa

l don

ors, N

GOs

1. Developed survey with recommendations;

2. Developed draft amendments to the regulatory

framework;

3. Developed map with the illustration of

deployment of courts and the number of optimised

courts;

4. Number of reorganised courts.

1.1.2. Revision of the size and the

way of calculation of the court

expenditures pursuing the goal of

ensuring their real, necessary and

reasonable character.

(decreas

e of the

state

char

ge in ca

ses

whe

n a

person

ha

s pr

evious

ly us

ed the

services of a

med

iator).

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Finances

The Bar

Assoc

iatio

n

1. Finished analysis including recommendations;

2. Finalised draft amendments to the regulatory

framework.

1.1.3. Creation of structures and

systems facilitating the interaction

with the public (a service

or a

resp

onsible su

bdivision , a

web

site, informationa

l billbo

ards

, pr

omotiona

l materials)

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates

The Courts

Externa

l don

ors, N

GOs

1. Entities entrusted with public relations are created

and are functional;

2. Web pages of courts are operating;


framework;

4. Awareness campaigns regarding the operation of

the judicial system.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

1

5

1.1.4. Introduction of an adequate,

consequent and sustainable

budgeting mechanism for the

judicial system, able to increase the

financing of the system

(Inc

reas

ed bud

getin

g of th

e co

urts, a

lso

via establishing

a con

crete pe

rcen

tage

, co

rrelated

to th

e GDP, o

f the

judicial

system

fina

ncing; im

possibility of s

izing

down fin

ancing

for the judicial system in

the state bu

dget com

pared to th

e am

ount

allotte

d in th

e pr

evious yea

r) unification

of the budgeting process of the

judicial system.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

The Courts


Ministry of Justice

1. Established percentage of the judiciary financing;


framework;

3. Budgets of the courts have been unified.

1.1.5. Increased efficiency with

respect to management and

strategic analysis of budgeting

issues

Superior Council of

Magistrates

The Courts

National Institute of

Justice


Ministry of Justice

1. Trainings carried out for the court staff

responsible for budget development and execution;

2. Capacity building in courts in management and

strategic analysis issues.

1.1.6 Improved practical guidelines

and regulations on the

administration and management of

the courts (e

nsur

ing that ju

dges fo

cus

exclus

ively on

fulfilling

their judicial

func

tions

and

ens

uring that cou

rts

obtain and

ade

quately man

age their

increa

sed bu

dget; intro

duction of th

e judicial adm

inistrator

func

tion sh

ould

also

be en

visa

ged)

Ministry of Justice

The Courts

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Justice

1. Introduction of the judicial administrator

function;


framework;

3. Revision of the tasks of the court chairpersons

carried out;

4. Developed curriculum for the initial and

continuous education;

5. Courses of the initial and continuous education of

court managers have been carried out.

1.1.7. Establishment of clear and

transparent

criteria

for

the

recruitment,

appointment

and

promotion of judges.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


2. Amendment to the Constitution to exclude the

provision on the appointment of judges into office

for a 5 years period of time;

3. Amendment to the Constitution stipulating

revised criteria of appointment of judges to the

Supreme Court of Justice;


Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

1

6

framework;

5. New criteria regarding the selection, appointment

and promotion of judges developed and approved;

6. New institutions entrusted to carry out selection,

appointment and promotion of judges have been

created.

1.1.8. Unified and transparent

procedure of the appointment of

court chairpersons and deputy

chairpersons and clear and

transparent selection criteria for the

candidates to these positions (S

CM

– Preside

nt of M

oldo

va)

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

1. Draft of amendments to the Constitution and the

regulatory framework;

2. New criteria regarding the selection and

appointment of the court chairperson and deputy

chairpersons;

3. The number of the court deputy chairpersons has

been revised.

1.1.9. Revision of institutions

entrusted with the relief,

detachment and transfer of judges,

in view of ensuring their

independence and observance of

the principle of separation of

powers

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


2. Developed draft of amendments to the regulatory

framework;

3. Institutions entrusted with the relief, detachment

and transfer of judges have been revised.

1.1.10 Introduction of norms and

mechanisms excluding the

possibility of courts to go beyond

the limits of their judicial powers

and to make judgements via which

they assume the functions of the

legislative and executive powers.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


Justice

NGOs



framework;

3. Courses on continuous education carried out.

1.1.11. Strengthening the self

administration capacities of the

judiciary, through a revision of the

role and competencies of the

Superior Council of Magistrates

and its subordinated institutions.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


Justice


2. Draft of amendments to the Constitution and the



framework;

4. Strengthened status and capacities of institutions.

1.1.12. Ensuring that parties have

equality of arms within the criminal

procedure.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors



framework;

3. Courses on continuous education carried out.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

1

7

Ministry of Justice

The Bar Association


Justice

1.1.13. Optimization and

strengthening of the legal

framework of the judicial system

(development of a unified Law on

governance of the judiciary)

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates


2. Unified legal framework;

3. Draft Law developed.

Outcomes:

• Optimized judicial system and an optimised number of judges;

• A transparent, balanced and accessible system of judicial expenditures;

• A coordinated and unified budgeting process in the judicial system, consistent with the real needs of the judiciary;

• Procedure of the selection, appointment and promotion of judges based on objective and transparent criteria, able to secure the independence of the

judicial system;

• Consolidated management and strategic analysis of issues referring to budgeting of courts;

• Consolidated self administration capacity and independence of the judicial system.

1.2.

Increased tran

sparency, efficiency an

d effectiveness

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible in

stitution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mo

nth

s

24

m on th s

36

mon

ths

48

mo

nth

s

60

mo

nth

s

1.2.1. Increased transparency of the

judiciary self administration mechanisms

and of the institutions of the judiciary self

administration

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


framework;

2. Adopted regulations of the Superior Council of

Magistrates;

3. Updated information regarding the activity of the

authorities of the judiciary bodies has been published.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

1

8

1.2.2. Revision of the procedure rules

with the purpose to optimize and increase

transparency and efficiency of the justice

execution process.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

1. A survey with formulated recommendations has been

developed;


framework;

3. Monitoring report regarding the operation of the judicial

system drawn up from the point of view of transparency and

efficiency;

1.2.3. Efficient and functional use of the

judicial information system, including

management of electronic files, random

distribution of cases, recording of the

court proceedings; consolidation of the IT

support also by employment of qualified

experts to ensure an improvement of the

judicial information system.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

The courts

Externa

l don

ors

1. Evaluation of the operation of the computer program for

the management of files (PGID) and of made

recommendations;

2. Draft of amendments to the developed regulatory

framework;

3. Developed judiciary information system;

4. System of the random distribution of files has been

developed and implemented;

5. The system governing the creation of panel of judges and

appointment of the chairpersons of the panel of judges has

been created and implemented;

6. The system for the audio/video recording of court

proceedings has been efficiently implemented;

7. Technical endowment necessary for the instalment of the

PGID has been supplied for all courts along with the

equipment necessary for video recording of court hearings.

1.2.4. Real implementation of the

relevant equipment for audio recording of

court hearings and enabling parties to

audio record the court hearings.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

1. Harmonization of the regulatory framework;

2. Introduction of the compulsory audio recording of the court

hearings;

3. Conferring the right to carry out audio recording of the

court hearings also to the participants to the court

proceedings.

1.2.5. Creation of a mechanism ensuring

the uniformity of the judicial practice.

The courts

Superior Council of

Magistrates

1. Developed survey including the formulated

recommendations;

2. Developed draft amendments to the regulatory framework;

3. The mechanism securing the uniformity of the judicial

practice has been created.

1.2.6. Ensuring the observance of the

principle of security of legal relations.

Ministry of Justice

Supreme Court of Justice

1. The developed draft amendments to the regulatory

framework have been adopted;

2. Reduced number of dismissed irrevocable judgements.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

1

9

1.2.7. Increased efficiency of the

Procedural Law achieved through the

revision of the appeal system and

distribution of competences between

courts along the horizontal axis

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates

NGOs

1. Developed survey including the formulated

recommendations;


3. The appeal system and its competences has been revised

and implemented;

4. Development of an analytical report regarding the

implementation of the legal amendments referring to the

application of the appeal remedies.

1.2.8. Simplifying and clarifying the

appeal system (examination terms, court

decision making and grounds for appeals)

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates

1. Uniformity of the common appeal remedies;

2. Uniformity of the terms of appeal and improved

information techniques regarding the court judgments;

3. Limited grounds for extraordinary appeals.

1.2.9. Encouraging the specialisation of

judges on specified cases

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Justice

Externa

l don

ors

1. Developed survey with formulated recommendations;

2. Developed system of specialisation of judges;

3. Courses for the specialisation of judges have been carried

out.

1.2.10. Revision of the operation of the

instruction judge institution in view of its

inclusion into the common Law judicial

body as specialised judges in this

respective issue.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

The courts


Justice

Ministry of Justice

Externa

l don

ors

NGOs

1. Developed survey with formulated recommendations;


3. Courses of continuous education have been carried out;

4. The procedure of appointment of instruction judges has

been established;

5. Analysis of implementation of amendments and of the way

the function of instruction judge is being exercised.

1.2.11. Considering the opportunity of

creation of the administrative court

system.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

NGOs

Developed survey with formulated recommendations.

1.2.12. Streamlining the examination of

cases in courts (reasonable terms,

summons procedure, written procedure in

a civil case etc.)

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Justice

1. Optimization of the legal framework;

2. Development of standards regarding the duration of a case

examination;

3. Training of judges in issues dealing with file management

and rules to be observed in postponement of the case

examination;

4. Introduction of an electronic mechanism for the

verification of the duration of case examinations;

5. Detailed regulation referring the transmission of civil cases

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

0

to repeated hearings.

1.2.13. Introduction of consecutive court

hearings during case examinations in

view of ensuring the continuity principle

and the celerity of court proceedings.


Justice

Training of judges in issues dealing with consecutive hearing

of cases.

Outcomes:

• A judicial system able to examine cases in a transparent, prompt and qualitative way;

• A clear, uniform and logical system of challenging the court judgements;

• Establishment of a mechanism enabling the creation of the judicial practice;

• Specialization of judges;

• A revised and operational integrated file management program;

• A revised and improved mechanism of appeal remedies;

• Status of the instruction judge modified.

1.3.

Increased profession

alism of p

ersons in

volved in

justice execution an

d their respon

sibilities

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

1.3.1. Adequate training of judges,

prosecutors and other actors of the

judiciary sector, also through the

reform of the National Institute of

Justice (NIJ) and its efficient

operation.


Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors

Unions of liberal

professions of the

justice sector

Ministry of Justice

Externa

l don

ors


framework;

2. Modified system of the initial and continuous

education of actors of the justice sector;

3. Train the trainer programmes for the NIJ


4. TOR for the trainers of the NIJ developed and

implemented;

5. Monitoring report regarding the implementation

of the NIJ reform.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

1

1.3.2. Revision of the programmes

of the National Institute of Justice

to ensure their correspondence with

the real training needs of judges,

prosecutors and other actors of the

judiciary sector.


Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors

Ministry of Justice

Externa

l don

ors

1. Survey dedicated to the training needs of actors

of the justice sector carried out;

2. Developed survey with the formulated

recommendations;

3. Training programmes developed and

implemented;

4. Modern training methods have been developed.

1.3.3. Creation of a system of

periodical evaluation of

performances of actors in the

justice sector based on clear,

objective and transparent criteria.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

The courts

Superior Council of

Prosecutors

Unions of liberal

professions of the

justice sector


recommendations;

2. Developed criteria for the periodical evaluation

of performances;

3. Draft internal regulations of the actors of justice

sector have been developed and implemented;

4. Report analysing the implementation of the

evaluation criteria.

1.3.4. Unification of the system

facilitating the access to the judge

profession (graduates of the NIJ

and persons with 5 years experience

of work)

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Justice

Ministry of Justice


framework;

2. Developed and adopted Regulations of the

Superior Council of Magistrates;

3. The unique commission entrusted to examine the

graduates of the NIJ and persons with work

experience has been created.

1.3.5. Consolidation of the role of

judicial inspection and clarification

of its powers with the purpose to

exclude overlapping of

competencies.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


recommendations;


framework;

3. Modified Regulations of the Superior Council of

Magistrates.

1.3.6. Revision of the range of

disciplinary deviations and of the

disciplinary procedure pursuing

their adjustment to the realities of

the system and to the European

standards.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

NGOs


recommendations;


framework;

3. The range of disciplinary deviations has been

revised and adjusted;

4. The new mechanism referring to the examination

of disciplinary accountability has been

implemented.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

2

1.3.7. Reform of the judge

immunity institution (exclusion

of

immun

ity fo

r co

ntrave

ntions)

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


recommendations;

2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the


3. Immunity for contraventions has been excluded.

1.3.8. Strengthening

professionalism of the judicial

system via the introduction of the

judge assistant position and change

of the registrar status and tasks

Superior Council of

Magistrates

The courts

Ministry of Justice


Justice


recommendations;



3. The position of the judge assistant has been

introduced;

4. Revised tasks of the court registrar;

5. Developed Curriculum for the initial and

continuous education;

6. Courses for the initial and continuous education

of court assistants have been carried out.

1.3.9. Creation of mechanisms

aimed to measure the performances

of the judicial system based on the

degree of satisfaction of litigants.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

NGOs

1. Developed methodology;

2. Surveys on the performance evaluation have

been carried out;

3. The results of the surveys have been processed

and made public.

Outcomes:

• Functional National Institute of Justice, able to provide the initial and continuous professional education of judges;

• An effective system of admission to the judge position;

• An efficient system for the disciplinary accountability of judges;

• Strengthened role of the judiciary inspection;

• A policy for the performance and quality evaluation of courts based on transparency and clear performance indicators that are measurable for

judges and courts; The policy includes a system for the performance evaluation of courts carried out by “final users”.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

3

PIL

LAR 2. C

riminal ju

stice

2.1. Revision of th

e concep

t and

procedu

re of the pre-jud

icial p

hase

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

2.1.1. Institutional consolidation of

the Ministry of Internal Affairs

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Internal

Affairs

1. Implemented Concept of the reform of the

Ministry of Internal Affairs;


regulatory framework.

2.1.2. Revision of the statute of the

Centre for Combating Economic

Crimes and Corruption

Ministry of Justice

Centre for Combating

Economic Crimes and

Corruption

1. Developed and adopted Concept for revision of

the statute of the Centre for Combating Economic

Crimes and Corruption;



2.1.3. Clarification of the role and

competencies of the prosecutor’s

office and of the other criminal

investigation bodies, including the

role of defence (legal and

institutional framework)

Ministry of Justice

General Prosecutor’s

Office

Bar Association

1. Developed Concept for the pre-judiciary phase;

2. Developed draft amendments to the Code of

Criminal Procedure and to other legal acts;


institutional framework and a developed Plan of

implementation.

2.1.4. Streamlining the operative

investigation and criminal

investigation procedures (r

atio

betw

een ac

tivities to

be ca

rried ou

t by

ope

rativ

e investigation bo

dies

and the on

es carried

out by

crim

inal in

vestigation ne

ed to

be

clarified)

Ministry of Justice


Office

1. Developed Survey and formulated

recommendations;



3. Clarified ratio between activities to be carried out

by operative investigation bodies and the ones

carried out by criminal investigation;

4. Trainings carried out for the personnel of relevant

authorities.

2.1.5. Amendments to the Criminal

Procedure Law to exclude the

existent contradictions between the

Law and the standards for the

protection of human rights and

fundamental freedoms.

Ministry of Justice


Office


Affairs


1. A Survey evaluating the performance of the

criminal justice system from the point of view of the

ECHR jurisprudence has been carried out and

recommendations have been formulated;

2. Proposals of amendments to the legal and

institutional frameworks have been developed.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

4

Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service

NGOs

Externa

l don

ors

Outcomes:

• An efficient and effective criminal investigation procedure complying with international standards;

• Legislation on criminal procedure adjusted to European standards.

2.2. Stren

gthe

ning

professiona

lism and

inde

pend

ence of the prosecutor’s office

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

2.2.1. Revision of the procedure for

the appointment of the General

Prosecutor and his deputies and

establishment of clear and

transparent criteria for the selection

of candidates to these functions

(Sup

erior Cou

ncil of Pro

secu

tors –

Preside

nt of M

oldo

va);

App

ointmen

t of the

Gen

eral

Pro

secu

tor for a long

period of time

with

no po

ssibility to

be ap

pointed

for a ne

w m

anda

te.

Ministry of Justice


Office

1. Adopted draft amendment to the Constitution;

2. Adopted draft amendments to the regulatory

framework,

3. Developed and adopted criteria for the selection

of candidates to General Prosecutor’s position and

to deputies of the General Prosecutor.

2.2.2. Establishment of clear and

transparent criteria and procedure

for the selection appointment and

promotion of prosecutors.

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


recommendations;


framework;

3. Developed and approved new criteria for the

selection, appointment and promotion of

prosecutors;

4. New institutions for the selection, appointment

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

5

and promotion of prosecutors have been created.

2.2.3. Capacity building for the

Superior Council of Prosecutors in

view of ensuring an efficient

administration of the prosecutor’s

office bodies.

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


framework;

2. Adequate budget allocated to the Superior

Council of Prosecutors.

2.2.4. Establishment of clear

competences of the prosecutor’s

office bodies (excluding

pa

rticipation of th

e pros

ecutor

to a

civil p

rocedu

re and

exa

mination of

petitions

).

Ministry of Justice


Office


recommendations;


framework.

2.2.5. Examination of the

opportunity of liquidation of the

specialised prosecutor’s offices

(military, trans

portation, anti

corrup

tion pros

ecutor’s office

, as

well a

s the pros

ecutor’s office

un

der the co

urt o

f app

eal a

nd th

e Chisina

u mun

icipal pro

secu

tor’s

offic

e )


Office

NGOs


recommendations;


framework;

3. Modified structure of the prosecutor’s office

bodies.

2.2.6. Examination of staff

requirements of the prosecutor’s

office bodies and development of

proposals for the optimization of

the number of prosecutors.

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Office


recommendations;


framework.

2.2.7. Demilitarization of the

prosecutor’s office institution

(develop

men

t of the

design of th

e pr

osecutor’s rob

e)

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Office



2. Developed and adopted design of the

prosecutor’s robe.

2.2.8. Ensuring an internal

independence of prosecutors.

Excluding the possibility of

hierarchically superior prosecutors

to make certain illegal instructions.

Re-examination of the procedure

authorising the actions of

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Office


recommendations;



Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

6

hierarchically inferior prosecutors

by the hierarchically superior

prosecutors (reg

ulation on

ch

alleng

ing the illeg

al in

struction)

2.2.9. Re-examination of

accountability rules for prosecutors

and exclusion of general immunity

of prosecutors

Ministry of Justice


Office

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


recommendations;



Outcomes:

• Strengthened role, statute and capacities of the self administration bodies of the prosecutor’s office;

• Optimised human resources of the prosecutor’s office;

• The prosecutor’s office bodies benefit of an independent system in exercising their competencies;

• Revised procedure for the appointment of the General Prosecutor and the deputies of the general prosecutor;

• Established criteria and procedure for the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors;

• Operational system of prosecutors’ accountability.

2.3. Professiona

l cap

acity bu

ilding at in

dividu

al and

institutiona

l levels in issues dealin

g with crim

e investigations

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institutions

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

2.3.1. Implementation of modern

methods of criminal

investigation and prosecution

(information techniques, modern

expertise, etc.)


Office


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service

Information and

Security Service

1. Implemented modern methods of criminal

investigation and prosecution;

2. Trainings for the stakeholders’ staff organised

and carried out.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

7

2.3.2. Enhancing professional

capacities of persons involved in

criminal investigation and

prosecution activities.


Justice


Affairs

Information and

Security Service


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service

1. Training curricula developed and implemented;

2. Trainings carried out for persons involved in

criminal investigation and prosecution activities.

2.3.3. Promoting the creation, in case

of necessity, of interdepartmental

teams for higher efficiency of

criminal prosecution (“task-force”

groups)


Office


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service

1. Amendments carried out to the regulatory

framework;

2. Interdepartmental norms developed and

implemented.

2.3.4. Improving the professional

skills of the pre-judicial phase actors

through the latter’s specialization.


Office


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service


recommendations;

2. Developed system for the specialisation of the

pre-judicial phase actors;

3. Courses for the specialisation of the pre-judicial

phase actors have been carried out.

Outcomes:

• Strengthened professionalism of persons involved in criminal investigation and prosecution activities;

• Efficient and modern criminal prosecution procedure.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

8

2.4. M

odernization

of the statistical d

ata colle

ction system

and

of the profession

al perform

ance eva

luation system

at individu

al and

professiona

l levels

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible in

stitution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

2.4.1. Electronic filling and

dissemination of complaints

charging crimes


Office


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service

Developed and implemented system for electronic

filling and recording of offences.

2.4.2. Revised and uniform

methods in criminal justice for the

statistical data collection and

procession.

Centre for Special

Telecommunications


Office


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service

Information and Security

Service

National Bureau of

Statistics


recommendations;

2. Modified process of statistical data collection

and procession in the criminal justice.

2.4.3. Modification of performance

indicators for bodies involved in

criminal justice execution and their

staff to ensure the observance of

human rights.


Office


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service

1. New system of performance indicators

developed and tested at the institutional and

individual levels;

2. Diversified system for performance assessment

developed and tested at the institutional and

individual levels, also envisaging assessment of the

public opinion on a permanent basis.

Outcomes:

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

2

9

• An equidistant and objective system for collection and procession of statistical data referring to the criminal justice;

• Performance indicators and an assessment system for the individual and institutional levels stimulating an efficient activity of bodies / staff of

the criminal justice, ensuring the latter’s observance of human rights.

2.5. H

uman

friend

ly penal policy an

d efficien

t juv

enile

justice

Specific areas of intervention

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

2.5.1. Continuous liberalization of

penal policies through use of

sanctions and prevention and non-

custodial measures

Ministry of Justice


Office

Externa

l don

ors

1. Developed survey regarding the applied criminal

sanctions;

2. The Criminal Code amended in conformity to

recommendations.

2.5.2. Decriminalisation of the

Penal Law

Ministry of Justice


Office

Externa

l don

ors

1. Developed survey regarding the applied criminal

sanctions;

2. The Criminal Code amended in conformity to

recommendations.

2.5.3. Creation of conditions for a

larger application of simplified

procedures

Ministry of Justice


Office

1. Survey regarding the application of simplified

procedures;

2. Modified regulatory framework;

3. Implemented mechanisms ensuring the

application of simplified procedures.

2.5.4. Strengthening the justice

system for minors, also through

specialisation of actors involved in

this system


Office


Justice

Bar Association

Ministry of Labour,

Social Protection and

Family

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Justice

1. Integrated courses for prosecutors and lawyers;

2. Multidisciplinary teams (lawyers, social workers,

teachers, prosecutors) created in pilot sectors /

districts;

3. Specialization of actors of the justice system for

minors has been organised.

Outcomes:

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

0

• Human-friendly penal policies

• Application of simplified procedures and of non-custodial sanctions in all relevant cases;

• Consolidation of an adequate justice system for minors.

PIL

LAR 3. A

ccess to ju

stice an

d en

forcem

ent o

f jud

gments

3.1. Stren

gthe

ning

the system

of S

tate G

uaranteed Legal Assistance (SGLA)

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

3.1.1. Strengthening the capacity

for organization and management

of the SGLA system

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance

National Council for

State Guaranteed Legal

Assistance

Field offices of

NCSGLA

1. Legal framework amended;

2. Administrative office of the National Council for

State Guaranteed Legal Assistance established;

3. Field offices proportional to system needs.

3.1.2. Diversifying SGLA types

and services to ensure the SGLA

quality and accessibility



Assistance

Field offices of

NCSGLA

1. Types of State Guaranteed Legal Assistance

services diversified and improved;

2. Public defenders providing services trained.

3.1.3. Improving the quality of

SGLA services



Assistance

Field offices of

NCSGLA

Bar Association

Mechanism for improving the quality of SGLA

services developed and implemented.

3.1.4. Creating appropriate

conditions for providing effective

SGLA services

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance



Assistance

Financial resources provided for SGLA services

meet the real needs of the system.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

1

3.1.5. Promoting legal culture and

information and reduce legal

nihilism



Assistance

Ministry of Justice

external donors

Various mechanisms for promoting legal culture

implemented.

Outcomes:

• The work of the National Council of State Guaranteed Legal Assistance improved;

• SGLA services accessible, diversified and qualitative;

• Higher level of legal culture.

3.2. B

uilding

institutiona

l capa

city a

nd p

rofessiona

l developm

ent of r

epresentatives o

f justice

related

profession

s (law

yers, no

taries,

med

iators, b

ailiffs, legal exp

erts, a

dministrators of in

solvency proceedings, translators/in

terp

reters)

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

3.2.1. Encouraging capacity

building of representatives of

justice related professions at the

level of professional unions, with

special emphasis on 'leadership'

Ministry of Justice

Professional self-

administration bodies

Externa

l don

ors

1. Study on the functioning of each profession

developed, recommendations formulated;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework

developed and approved;

3. Including representatives of justice related

professions in processes related to justice reform.

3.2.2. Developing quality standards

for services provided by

representatives of justice related

professions

Ministry of Justice

Professional self-


Externa

l don

ors

1. Quality standards developed;

2. Quality assurance mechanisms developed and

implemented.

3.2.3. Initiation and development of

integrated, clear and precise

mechanisms for criteria and

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance

Professional self-

1. Study on the current mechanisms developed,

recommendations formulated;

2. Recommendations and/or regulations for

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

2

methods of calculation of payments

for services

administration bodies determining payments for services - developed and

adopted.

3.2.4. Establishing clear and

transparent criteria for accession to

professional bodies, based on

merits, also by involving civil

society representatives

Ministry of Justice

Professional self-


Externa

l don

ors

1. Study on access to each profession developed,

recommendations formulated;


developed and approved.

3.2.5. Providing initial and

continuing training to

representatives of justice related

professions, also by extending the

role of the NIJ in this process

Ministry of Justice


Justice

Professional self-


Externa

l don

ors

1. Initial training programme developed and

implemented (for each profession);

2. Initial training conducted.

3.2.6. Promotion and

implementation of ethical standards

for justice related professions

Ministry of Justice

Professional self-


Externa

l don

ors

Standards/codes of ethics developed, adopted and

implemented for each profession.

3.2.7. Strengthening the

professional liability insurance

system

Ministry of Justice

Professional self-


(including procurement

of services)

1. Comparative study on liability insurance models

– developed, recommendations formulated;

2. Professional liability insurance system

implemented;

3. Monitoring mechanism for the professional

liability insurance system established.

3.2.8. Strengthening the

disciplinary mechanisms

Ministry of Justice

Professional self-


1. Study developed and recommendations

formulated;


developed;

3. Disciplinary mechanism – in place for each

profession.

Outcomes:

• Justice related professions (lawyers, notaries, mediators, bailiffs, legal experts, administrators of insolvency proceedings,

translators/interpreters) are independent, are able to organize themselves and provide quality services;

• Professional liability insurance system and disciplinary mechanisms are improved.

3.3. Effective and

timely en

forcem

ent o

f jud

gmen

ts, (other than those in criminal and administrative cases)

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

3

Sp

ecific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

3.3.1. Impact assessment of the

current regulatory framework and

the implementing mechanism for

enforcement of judgments

Ministry of Justice

1. Impact assessment carried out;


developed.

3.3.2. Strengthening the institutional

capacity of the new private system

for enforcement of judgments

Ministry of Justice

Bailiffs’ Union


developed;

2. Bailiffs’ self-administration bodies created and

strengthened.

3.3.3. Improving information

management and communication

system by providing access to

databases

Ministry of Justice

Bailiffs’ Union

Database managing

authorities

1. Creating the legal framework to ensure access to

databases;

2. Access to databases will be provided.

3.3.4. Ensuring compliance with

reasonable deadlines in the

enforcement of judgments

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance

Bailiffs’ Union

The mechanism for ensuring compliance with

reasonable deadlines in the enforcement of

judgments developed.

3.3.5. Improving the mechanism for

recognition and enforcement of

foreign court judgments

Ministry of Justice

Bailiffs’ Union


formulated;

2. Mechanism for recognition and enforcement of

foreign court judgments improved.

Outcomes:

• The system of enforcement of judgments in civil cases operates effectively;

• Enforcement of judgments is improved.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

4

PIL

LAR 4. S

tren

gthe

ning

the integrity of ju

stice sector actors by

promoting an

ti-corruption measures an

d stan

dard

s of professiona

l ethics

4.1. Efficient and

effective figh

t against corru

ption in th

e justice system

Sp

ecific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible in

stitution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

4.1.1.

Strengthening

the

mechanism of verification of

income statements and property

statements for justice sector actors

Ministry of Justice

Main Ethics Commission

Ministry of Finance


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors

1. Amending the legal framework relating to

declaration of income and property;

2. Building the capacity of authorities responsible

for verifying the statements of income and

property;

3. Building the confidence in the authorities

responsible for verifying the statements of income

and property.

4.1.2. Reviewing

the

legal

framework

to

discourage

corruption in the justice sector and

punish more severely offences

related to corruption, to increase

effectiveness of judicial coercion

(dep

riva

tion

of s

ocial safegu

ards,

limiting

ac

cess to pu

blic offic

e,

applying

on

ly

the

pena

lty

of

impr

ison

men

t, co

nfisca

tion

of

prop

erty of the

judg

e an

d the

family

, etc.)

Ministry of Justice


Economic Crimes and

Corruption


Office,

Supreme Court of Justice


Affairs

1. Amending the legal framework and

standardizing legal practices in sanctioning acts of

corruption;

2. Survey showing decreased willingness of the

public to commit acts of corruption;

3. Number of people convicted of corruption.

4.1.3. Substantially increase the

salaries of justice sector actors and

simplification of criteria for

calculating salaries (work

experience, base salary,

administrative position and level of

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Labour,


Family

1. Drafting the new legal framework on

remuneration of justice sector actors;

2. Substantially increase in the salaries of justice

sector actors.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

5

court)

4.1.4. Clear regulation of the

behaviour of judges, prosecutors,

criminal investigators, lawyers and

bailiffs in relation to other people

in order to fight corruption and

provide them with continuing

training (d

enou

ncing co

rrup

tion

committed

by co

lleag

ues or peo

ple

who

pro

mise illeg

al rem

uneration)

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Office


Economic Crimes and

Corruption


Justice

Police Academy

Bar Association Ministry

of Justice

1. Drafting a unified legal framework;

2. Establish an operational mechanism to report on

corruption within the unit;

3. Training of judges, prosecutors, and employees

of MIA, CCECC, lawyers and bailiffs on

behaviour in relation to corruption.

4.1.5. Exclusion of the human

factor from the case management

process by applying modern

information technologies

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Office

Ministry of Justice

Centre for Special

Telecommunications

1. Amending the legal framework (inc

luding

the

oblig

ation of ju

dges to

use PGID);

2. Complete automation of the case management

process;

3. Establish an effective mechanism to verify the

compliance with the electronic case management

process and sanction non-compliance.

4.1.6. Including the option of

tapping of work phones of judges,

prosecutors, criminal investigators

and MIA employees (Customs

Service, Border Guards, CCECC

DIP) and civil servants

Ministry of Justice

Information and Security

Service


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

1. Amending the legal framework;

2. Establish an effective mechanism for tapping

conversations without authorization;

3. Informing the society about the establishment of

such mechanism.

4.1.7. Implementation of a

mechanism for verification of

candidates for judges, prosecutors

and criminal investigators, using a

polygraph

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Office


Economic Crimes and

Corruption


Affairs

Ministry of Justice

Customs Service

1. Drafting and adopting the legal framework;

2. Establishing an effective mechanism for

verification of candidates for judges, prosecutors

and criminal investigators, using a polygraph.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

6

4.1.8. Building the capacity of

units responsible for ensuring

internal security

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Office Centre for

Combating Economic

Crimes and Corruption


Affairs

Ministry of Justice

1. Amending the legal framework ;

2. Training the staff of the units responsible for

ensuring internal security;

3. Informing the society about the units

responsible for internal security.

Outcomes:

• A justice sector that is intolerant of and discourages corruption;

• An effective mechanism to prevent and combat corruption in the justice sector;

• Predisposition of the public to commit acts of corruption is lower.

4.2. Stren

gthe

ning

the

mecha

nism

s for im

plem

entation

of an

ticorrup

tion

stand

ards of ethics and

stand

ards of cond

uct in all institutions of the

justice sector

Sp

ecific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

4.2.1.

Standardization

and

refinement of ethical standards for

all actors of the justice sector

Ministry of Justice


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Office


Affairs

State Chancellery

Unions of professions

related to the justice

sector

NGOs

Externa

l don

ors

Improving and standardizing the provisions of

codes of ethics

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

7

4.2.2. Regular training of justice

sector actors in the field of

professional ethics


Justice

Police Academy

Externa

l don

ors

1. Training courses organized and conducted;

2. Justice sector actors trained in professional

ethics.

4.2.3. Improving mechanisms and

capacity building of bodies

responsible for observing

professional ethics

Ministry of Justice


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Affairs


developed and adopted;

2. Number and results of disciplinary proceedings.

4.2.4. Public awareness campaigns

on the professional ethics of justice

sector actors

Ministry of Justice


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Affairs

Pub

lic m

edia

institu

tions

NGOs

Number of public awareness campaigns conducted

4.2.5. Involving the society in

monitoring the compliance with the

professional ethics of justice sector

actors


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Office

Supreme Court of

Justice


Affairs

NGOs

1. Mechanisms of involving civil society members

society in monitoring the compliance with the

professional ethics of justice sector actors;


developed.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

8

Outcomes:

• A justice sector with clear and uniform regulations on ethical standards;

• Effective mechanisms for enforcing professional ethics;

• A well informed society about the professional ethics of justice sector actors;

• High professionalism of employees of the bodies responsible for compliance with professional ethics;

• Civil society involved in the process of monitoring compliance with professional ethics.

4.3. Develop

ing a cu

ltur

e of in

toleranc

e towards corruption by

self-ad

ministration institutions fr

om various segmen

ts of justice

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

4.3.1. Conduct periodic training for

justice sector actors on combating

corruption


Economic Crimes and

Corruption


Justice

Police Academy

1. Curriculum developed;

2. Trainings conducted and number of trained

actors.

4.3.2.

Encouraging

regular

voluntary testing at the polygraph

(especially by decision makers in

the justice system)

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

1. Measures to encourage regular voluntary testing

at the polygraph developed;

2. Number of voluntary tests conducted.

4.3.3. Granting additional scores to

judges and prosecutors upon career

promotion and regular evaluation in

the case of voluntary testing at the

polygraph

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors

The legal framework governing the promotion of

judges and prosecutors and their regular evaluation

amended.

4.3.4.

Strengthening

the

whistleblower regime (inside and

outside the system)

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Supreme Court of


formulated;

2. The mechanism of functioning of the

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

3

9

Justice

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Office


Economic Crimes and

Corruption


Affairs

NGOs

whistleblower regime created and implemented.

4.3.5.

Publication

and

dissemination of court decisions on

sentencing justice sector actors for

corruption (creating a separate site

to publish these judgments)

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

Externa

l don

ors

1. Legal framework developed and implemented;

2. Site created and operational;

3. Court decisions on sentencing justice sector

actors for corruption published and disseminated.

Outcomes:

• High level of intolerance towards corruption in the justice sector;

• Whistleblower regime established and functional;

• Public access to court decisions on sentencing justice sector actors for corruption is ensured.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

0

PIL

LAR 5. C

ontribution of ju

stice to econo

mic growth

5.1. Stren

gthe

ning

of a

lterna

tive dispu

te resolution

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

5.1.1. Reform of economic courts

and handing over of economic

cases to courts of common law

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Courts


Justice

External donors



2. The duties of economic courts will be taken over

by the courts of common law;

3. Curriculum for the training on review of

economic (commercial) cases developed;

4. Judges of courts of common law trained.

5.1.2. Develop guiding principles

for the use of alternative dispute

resolution mechanisms (criminal,

civil, commercial) and

development of arbitration and

mediation as alternative means of

dispute resolution

Ministry of Justice

Mediation Council

Chamber of Commerce

and Industry


Justice

1. Guiding principles for the use of alternative

dispute resolution mechanisms developed;


formulated on development of arbitration and

mediation;

3. Draft amendments to the legal framework on

arbitration and mediation developed and adopted;

4. Curriculum for the training of mediators and

arbitrators developed.

5.1.3. Promoting the benefits of

using alternative dispute resolution

mechanisms in society, business,

legal community, academia and the

judiciary and conducting

campaigns for information and

dissemination of information about

alternative mechanisms

Mediation Council

Chamber of Commerce

and Industry


Justice

Ministry of Justice

External donors

Bar Association

NGOs

Pub

lic m

edia

institu

tions

1. Public information campaigns to promote

benefits of using alternative dispute resolution

mechanisms conducted;

2. Information campaigns for justice sector actors

conducted;

3. Promotional materials on alternative dispute

resolution mechanisms developed and distributed;

4. Public media events conducted.

5.1.4. Improving the mechanism of

recognition and enforcement of

Chamber of Commerce

and Industry


formulated;

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

1

judgments of courts of arbitration

Ministry of Justice

Externa

l don

ors

2. Mechanism of recognition and enforcement of

judgments of courts of arbitration promoted and

improved.

Outcomes:

• Alternative dispute resolution system strengthened;

• The public and justice sector actors informed about the benefits of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms;

• The number of arbitration and mediation service users increased;

• Economic courts liquidated.

5.2. Impr

ovem

ent o

f insolvenc

y pr

oceeding

s

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

5.2.1. Creating the necessary

regulatory framework for the

organization and efficient

functioning of the insolvency

proceedings administrators

Ministry of Justice

Externa

l don

ors

Regulatory framework developed and adopted.

5.2.2. Enhancement of the status of

administrators of insolvency

proceedings to ensure the stability

of the profession, increase their

integrity and professionalism

Ministry of Justice


Justice

Externa

l don

ors

1. Regulatory framework developed and adopted;

2. Initial and continuous training of administrators

of insolvency procedure conducted.

Outcomes:

• Administration of insolvency proceedings is more efficient and more transparent;

• Status of administrators of insolvency proceedings is enhanced;

• The legal framework on the organization and functioning of insolvency proceedings administrators is improved.

5.3. M

odernising

the system

of a

ccou

nting an

d access to

inform

ation on

registration of econo

mic agents

Deadlines

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

2

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

5.3.1. Modernising the system of

electronic registration of economic

agents

Ministry of Economy

Ministry of Justice

E-Governance Centre

Externa

l don

ors

1. Study conducted and recommendations

formulated;

2. The system of electronic registration of economic

agents modernized.

5.3.2. Creating a unified electronic

registry for the registration of

economic agents and non-profit

organizations

Ministry of Economy

Ministry of Justice

E-Governance Centre

Externa

l don

ors


formulated;

2. Unified electronic registry created and

implemented.

5.3.3. Providing free access to

information in electronic registries

of economic agents

Ministry of Economy

Ministry of Justice

E-Governance Centre

Externa

l don

ors

The system of access to information in electronic

registries of economic agents changed.

Outcomes:

• Free access to information in electronic registries of economic agents provided;

• The administration of insolvency proceedings is more efficient and transparent;

• The system of access to information on economic agents is modernized.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

3

PIL

LAR 6. R

espe

ct fo

r hu

man

rights in th

e justice sector

6.1. Stren

gthe

ning

the role of the

Con

stitutiona

l Cou

rt

Sp

ecific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

6.1.1. Reviewing the criteria for

selecting judges to the

Constitutional Court (changing the

age limit and seniority for

candidates for judge positions,

establishing an odd number of

judges)

Ministry of Justice

1. Criteria for selection of judges of the

Constitutional Court established;

2. Regulatory framework amended.

6.1.2. Reviewing the range of

entities entitled to notify the

Constitutional Court and the appeal

review procedure (provide the right

of all courts to notify CC)

Ministry of Justice


formulated;

2. Regulatory framework amended.

Outcomes:

• The role of the Constitutional Court strengthened;

• The number of notifications increased.

6.2. O

ptim

izing the na

tion

al hum

an rights pr

otection

mecha

nism

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

6.2.1. Institutional reform of the

Centre for Human Rights and the

ombudsperson institution, including

the method of his/her appointment

Ministry of Justice

Centre for Human

Rights

1. Regulatory framework amended;

2. Institutional framework of the Centre for Human

Rights amended.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

4

6.2.2. Assessment of real needs for

appropriate funding of the

ombudsperson institution

Centre for Human

Rights

Ministry of Finance

1. Analysis conducted and recommendations

formulated;

2. Appropriate funding mechanism for the

institution established.

6.2.3. Strengthening leadership

investigative, research and analysis

skills and competences of the staff

of the Centre for Human Rights and

of the ombudsperson institution

Centre for Human

Rights

1. Mechanism for communication with other

institutions established;

2. Personnel trained.

6.2.4. Strengthening the capacity of

the ombudsperson to protect and

promote children's rights

Centre for Human

Rights

Capacity of the ombudsperson is strengthened and

adjusted to child rights protection standards.

Outcomes:

• The role and capacity of the ombudsperson institution are strengthened;

• Mechanism for independent financing of the institution established and financial resources in line with the real needs of the institution are ensured.

6.3. Com

pliance with the internationa

l hum

an rights stan

dards with rega

rd to

all detainees. Eradicate to

rtur

e an

d ill-treatmen

t.

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

6.3.1. Increase the effectiveness in

the application of coercive

procedural measures and preventive

measures to ensure effective respect

for the right to liberty and physical

safety.

Ministry of Justice


Office


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Supreme Court of

Justice


developed;

2. An efficient mechanism to monitor the

institutions applying coercive procedural measures

and preventive measures created.

6.3.2. Develop technical and

material means, and infrastructure

in accordance with the European

standards in all places of

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance


Office

1. Financial resources’ volume increased;

2. New buildings built and the old ones renovated;

3. Modern technical means to ensure torture

prevention implemented.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

5

deprivation of liberty.


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Labour,


Family


6.3.3. Build the capacity of the

representatives of institutions

responsible for deprivation of

liberty (police, prison system,

CCECC, psychiatric institutions,

and psycho-neurological boarding

homes) to prevent and combat

torture and ill-treatment.

Centre for Human

Rights

National Mechanism

for the Prevention of

Torture

1. Continuous monitoring of places of detention

conducted;

2. Normative framework amended;

3. National torture prevention mechanism

strengthened;

4. The staff under the National torture prevention

mechanism trained.

6.3.4. Create a standardized and

protected

against manipulation

system of tracking and registration

of custody, arrest and detention.


Office


Affairs


Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Ministry of Justice

1. A new tracking and registration system


2. The staff responsible for tracking and registration

of custody, arrest and detention trained;

3. A control and monitoring system for tracking and

registration process developed and in place.

6.3.5. Effectively fight against acts

of torture and ill-treatment.

Ministry of Justice

1. The relevant legal framework evened;

2. Criminal penalties for acts of torture amended;

3. The mechanism of documentation on acts of

maltreatment improved;

4. Involvement of victims in the examination of

cases of maltreatment increased;

5. Training on the investigation of cases of ill-

treatment carried out.

6.3.6. Create effective mechanisms

to rehabilitate victims of torture and

ill-treatment.

Ministry of Finance

1. Victims’ Rehabilitation Fund created;

2. The number of persons who have received

rehabilitation services.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

6

Outcomes:

• Zero tolerance culture toward acts of maltreatment shared, recognized and promoted;

• A mechanism to implement coercive procedural measures and preventive measures improved;

• Places of pre-trial detention and other places of detention in line with the international standards.

6.4. Stren

gthe

ning

the pr

obation system

and

the penitentiary system

Sp

ecific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

6.4.1. Introducing a modern

probation concept to ensure a

balance between the community

safety and need for rehabilitation of

offenders in the society

Ministry of Justice

NGOs

Externa

l don

ors


formulated;


developed and approved.

6.4.2. Ensuring continuity of the

individual probation process starting

with the pre-sentence phase and

ending with post-assistance services

(inc

luding

early and

coh

eren

t intera

ction of th

e pr

obation pr

ocess

with

the pe

nitentiary com

pone

nt of

the offend

ers man

agem

ent a

nd

reha

bilitation system)

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Labour,


Family

Ministry of Economy

Courts

Local public authorities


Justice


developed and approved;

2. Individual mechanism for treatment of

beneficiaries of probation services developed and

implemented;

3. The training curricula developed;

4. Probation counsellors and judges trained.

6.4.3. Strengthening partnerships

between the probation service and

other public or private

organisations, members of civil

society, families and communities

to promote rehabilitation and social

inclusion (pro

viding

som

e ince

ntives fo

r mor

e ac

tive

invo

lvem

ent o

f non

govern

men

tal

orga

nisatio

ns in

the reha

bilitation

Ministry of Justice

NGOs

1. Active role of probation counsellors for use of

partnerships between the probation service with

other public or private organisations, members of

civil society, families and communities;

2. Active involvement of nongovernmental

organisations in the rehabilitation and reintegration

activity.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

7

and reintegr

ation ac

tivity)

6.4.4. Strengthening the system of

submission and review of

complaints regarding the activity of

probation services and la

penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice

NGOs

Externa

l don

ors


formulated;

2. Normative framework amended.

6.4.5. Revising the employment

policy and recruitment system for

penitentiary institutions

(enc

oura

ging

employ

men

t of

educ

ator

s, soc

ial w

orkers, d

octors

and ps

ycho

logists as

workers of the

pe

nitentiary in

stitu

tion; revising the

early retir

emen

t age

in order to

en

courag

e expe

rien

ced staff to

remain) and comprehensive

demilitarization of the penitentiary

system

Ministry of Justice


formulated;

2. Normative framework developed;

3. Demilitarization of the penitentiary system

achieved.

6.4.6. Promoting and implementing

ethical standards within the

probation services and the

penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice

Ethical standards / codes developed, adopted and

implemented.

6.4.7. Developing and

implementing rehabilitation and

social integration policies, including

individual planning of sentence

servicing and creating a progressive

advanced regime of detention,

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of

Education

Ministry of Labour,


Family


formulated;

2. Rehabilitation and social integration policies

revised and implemented;

3. Mechanism for individual planning of sentence

servicing developed.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

8

supporting cognitive (behavioural)

programs

6.4.8. Providing educational,

occupational and other social

activities for detainees

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Labour,


Family


NGOs

1. Educational, occupational and other social

activities for detainees developed;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework;

3. Mechanisms to stimulate the occupational

activity applied;

4. Monitoring mechanism on the implementation of

educational, occupational and other social activities

developed

Outcomes:

• Modernized, streamlined and strengthened probation system and penitentiary system;

• Increased capacity of the probation offices to manage and supervise performance of probation counsellors;

• Increased capacity of the National Institute of Justice in the field of continuous training for probation counsellors;

• Strengthened social inclusion capacity of ex-convicts and the number of repeated offences reduced;

• Conditions in the penitentiary institutions meet the international standards.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

4

9

PIL

LAR 7. A

well coo

rdinated

, well m

anag

ed, and

accou

ntab

le sector

7.1. Coo

rdination of th

e activity of the

actors of th

e justice sector; strategic plann

ing an

d po

licy de

velopm

ent

Sp

ecific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

7.1.1. Strengthen the capacity of the

Ministry of Justice to interact with

the actors in the justice sector while

drafting legislation and monitoring

its implementation

Ministry of Justice

1. Functions and structure analysis completed;

3. Draft regulations developed and adopted;

2. Relevant subdivisions reorganized and

strengthened;

4. Internal motivation systems applied;

5. Staff trained.

7.1.2. Establish and support

working groups under the Ministry

of Justice to coordinate and monitor

the implementation of each Pillar of

the Strategy

Ministry of Justice

and relevant actors of

the justice sector

1. Working groups established;

2. The monitoring mechanism set up and

implemented;

3. Working groups members trained.

7.1.3. Strengthen the role of the

Coordinating Council for the

Reform of the Law Enforcement

Bodies to ensure an efficient

dialogue between the actors of the

justice sector

Actors of the justice

sector

NGOs

Regular meetings of the Coordinating Council for

the Reform of Law Enforcement Bodies organized

and carried out.

7.1.4. Reorganize and strengthen

the capacity and powers of the unit

in charge of strategic planning and

monitoring within the Ministry of

Justice (P

olicy Ana

lysis an

d Mon

itoring

Sectio

n)

Ministry of Justice

State Chancellery


2. Operational regulations amended;

3. Staff trained.

7.1.5. Develop the capacity of each

institution involved in the reform of

the justice sector to take part in the

reform

Ministry of Justice

and actors of the justice

sector


2. Operational regulations amended;

3. Staff trained.

7.1.6. Create conditions for ongoing

collaboration between persons in

charge of strategic planning and

Ministry of Justice


sector

1. Persons in charge of strategic planning and

monitoring appointed and trained;

2. Regular joint meetings organized and carried out.

Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

5

0

monitoring at the institutions of the

justice sector

7.1.7. Establish and maintain a

system for collecting, analyzing,

and exchanging relevant

information between key

institutions in the justice sector

Ministry of Justice


sector

The system for collecting, analyzing, and

exchanging relevant information between key

institutions in the justice sector set up and

implemented.

Outcomes:

• The capacity of the Ministry of Justice for interacting, strategic planning, and monitoring strengthened;

• The capacity of the justice sector actors for strategic planning, monitoring, and active involvement in the reform strengthened,

• Efficiency of the information exchange between actors of the justice sector enhanced;

• Justice sector reform coordinated, and its implementation monitored.

7.2. Bring

the institutiona

l and

legal framew

ork of th

e justice sector in

line with Europ

ean stan

dard

s

Specific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

7.2.1. Assess and improve the

quality of higher law education in

Moldova through the lenses of

European good practice and

Bologna principles


Higher education

institutions

1. External assessments carried out and

recommendations developed;

2. Teaching staff trained;

3. Higher law education curricula amended and

implemented.

7.2.2. Improve legislative creation

to ensure stability, predictability,

and clarity of legislation

Ministry of Justice

State Chancellery


formulated;



3. Ex-ante analysis implemented effectively;

4. Staff involved in legislation development trained.

7.2.3. Increase public access to

legislation (database)

Ministry of Justice

E-Governance Centre


formulated;

2. Legislation database revised and accessible.

7.2.4. Improve the process of

bringing national legislation in line

with EU legislation

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and European


formulated;


Dra

ft for pu

blic con

sulta

tion

5

1

Integration

State Chancellery


3. Institutional capacity of the Legislative Creation

Centre strengthened;

4. The staff involved in the process of bringing

national legislation in line with EU legislation

trained.

Outcomes:

• Prerequisites for improving higher law education in Moldova created;

• Higher quality of draft regulations achieved;

• Public access to legislation databases increased;

• Relevant national legislation brought in line with EU legislation.

7.3. Coo

rdinate extern

al don

or assistance

Sp

ecific in

terven

tion

areas

Deadlines

Respo

nsible

institution

Indicators of the

implem

entation

status

12

mon

ths

24

mon

ths

36

mon

ths

48

mon

ths

60

mon

ths

7.3.1. Establish and maintain a

coordinated mechanism of

cooperation with external donors in

the justice sector with a view to

implement the Strategy

Ministry of Justice

1. Mechanism of cooperation with external donors

adopted;

2. Regular meetings with external donors organized

and carried out

7.3.2. Establish an information

exchange framework for the

representatives of the non-

governmental sector and the actors

of the justice sector in the context

of Strategy implementation

Ministry of Justice

Actors of the justice

sector

NGOs

1. The information exchange framework created

and implemented;

2. Regular meetings of the representatives of the

non-governmental sector and the actors of the

justice sector organized and carried out.

Outcomes:

• Donor assistance is better coordinated, focused and targeted towards priority directions in the justice sector;

• Efficient coordination between the actors of the justice sector and the non-governmental sector involved in the reform of the justice sector.

Draft for public consultation

52

PART 6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of the SJSR implies a range of costs and finance expenditures required for attaining the set objectives. The plan of actions to finance the sector shall be developed in relation to the implementation of the Strategy. Finance sources for the SJSR implementation will be as follows:

1) state budget, within the limits of the earmarked/approved expenditures of the institutions involved;

2) foreign donor technical and financial assistance projects and programmes; 3) sponsorships and other sources accepted within the limits of the law.

To assure internal coherence as regards the financing of the entire justice sector, the costs related to the implementation of the SJSR will be linked to the provisions of the MTEF for 2012-2014.


53

PART 7. STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The responsibility for the implementation of the objectives and specific intervention areas included in the SJSR shall be borne by the institutions identified in the strategy. Standing working group shall be established for each strategic pillar, they being responsible for the development of the yearly joint working plans and for the advancement of all activities identified within the framework of each strategic pillar. The working groups shall be established and will operate within the Ministry of Justice. Representatives of the actors in the justice sectors referred to in the strategic pillars, which will be appointed by the respective institutions, and representatives of the civil society shall be part thereof. The representatives of the civil society shall be selected by the Ministry of Justice based upon a public invitation and depending on their experience, motivation and previous involvement in the justice sector reform process. Also, the Ministry of Justice shall invite foreign and international institutions active in the field of justice and represented in the Republic of Moldova to delegate experts for participating to the works of the working groups. The activity among all working groups shall be coordinated by a responsible sub-division of the Ministry of Justice. The meetings of the working groups shall aim at assessing the Strategy implementation status and the related plans of actions, as well as at formulating suggestions and recommendations on the measures to update them. Technical assistance for the activity of the working groups shall be assured by the Ministry of Justice, making sure that the appropriate identified activities are carried out, monitored and reported within the established deadlines and that the expected outcomes are achieved. Therefore, taking into account the important role of the coordination for the successful implementation of the Strategy, it is necessary to create, within the framework of the Ministry of Justice, a specialised sub-division in charge with the coordination of the Strategy implementation. Within the same lines, besides the coordination of the Strategy implementation, the specialised sub-division of the Ministry of Justice shall provide technical assistance to the standing working groups. The Ministry of Justice shall request the assistance of the EU Delegation and other donors, present in the Republic of Moldova, to get their financial and intellectual support for establishing and maintaining the specialised sub-division within the Ministry of Justice, responsible for the coordination of the SJSR implementation. Besides creating efficient governance arrangements, successful implementation of the Strategy greatly depends on the capacities of the justice sector institutions to develop analyses and recommendations related to policies on key issues identified in the present strategy. Also, the Coordinating council for the reform of the law bodies shall perform a periodic assessment of the strategy implementation process and shall evaluate the status of the attainment of the strategy objectives. Gathering of information on progress in attaining the indicators defined in the Strategy and spreading of the said information shall represent a key component of the monitoring and evaluation of reform initiatives developed within the framework of the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova. An indicator shall be the way of measuring that will help determine the progress in attaining the objectives and the status of their realization.


54

In the light of the above arrangements for the implementation of the SJSR, the sub-division responsible within the Ministry of Justice shall establish and maintain a system for monitoring the basic progress of the SJSR. The information gathered and systematised by the Ministry of Justice on the progress achieved in the implementation of the Strategy shall be periodically submitted to the Coordinating council for the reform of the law bodies.


55

PART 8. ANALYSIS OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION RISKS Successful implementation of the Strategy for Justice Sector Reform depends on a number of factors, primarily on the full involvement and commitment of the representatives of justice sector institutions and on the strong will of the decision makers - the Parliament and the Government, especially to undertake adoption and implementation of legislative and policy amendments proposed within the SJSR. Based on the social, political and current legal context, as well as the experience in implementation of other strategic papers of the Republic of Moldova, the following major risks associated with implementation of the SJSR and proposed solutions to avoid or mitigate them, could be highlighted:

1) Political instability. Implementation of the Strategy involves the adoption of a number of laws, including amendments to the Constitution as well as coherent development and implementation of these papers and a number of policies. These require strong and consistent will from the behalf of Parliament and Government. The solution presented by SJSR on avoiding or at least mitigating this risk is the mechanism of adoption of the SJSR by the Parliament after public consultation and involvement of representatives of all the ruling parties. This mechanism should ensure adherence of the Members of the Government and Parliament to the commitments undertaken by these institutions, regardless of the political affiliation of their members.

2) Resistance to reform from the behalf of the representatives of justice sector institutions. In the Republic of Moldova there is already rooted the tradition of differences between the provisions of normative acts and the practice of their implementation, primarily because of resistance of the representatives of institutions and related professions to follow exactly the provisions of the law, as well as permanent amendment and weaknesses of the regulatory framework. The SJSR has envisaged to mitigate this risk through a number of measures, namely: development of a mechanism for monitoring implementation of the Strategy, including by involvement of representatives of responsible institutions; organization of a number of training activities to explain and implement coherently the approved amendments; promotion of zero-tolerance policies on corruption in the justice sector; strengthening the self-management capacity of the judiciary, prosecution and related legal professions of the judiciary system. The mechanism for coordination of the SJSR implementation will include activities for public education and involvement of civil society in monitoring and implementation of the SJSR.

3) Limited capacity to forecast and allocate the financial resources required for SJSR implementation, including reduced capacity to assimilate resources allocated for implementation of SJSR segments. Implementation of the SJSR involves both considerable financial resources and professional human resources to forecast the required expenditures, their coordination with the relevant institutions during the approval of the state budget, coordination in the view of achieving external technical assistance. The SJSR has envisaged the mechanism for coordinating the SJSR implementation, as well as creation or strengthening the strategic planning subdivisions in every institution of the justice sector


56

in order to co-ordinately plan the reform processes and their implementation. Also, the Ministry of Justice will create a specialized subdivision to implement the SJSR, which will be responsible for coordination of foreign technical assistance provided to the justice sector and collaboration with the State Chancellery for monitoring the allocation of national and foreign financial resources for SJSR implementation. In addition to these major risks, the Ministry of Justice is aware of the possibility that other problems could occur and which could undermine the consistent implementation of the SJSR. Thus, full implementation of the SJSR implies participation of all stakeholders – policy makers, the executive, the judiciary, the prosecution, judiciary related legal professions, national mechanisms for human rights’ protection, academicians, civil society, private sector, donors. The Ministry of Justice, as an institution responsible for policy development in the field of justice, will take all the necessary measures in order to avoid the emergence of predictable and unpredictable risks, and in case of their occurrence will make maximum efforts to mitigate their negative impact on the implementation of the SJSR. In this context, the Ministry of Justice will strengthen its capacity and the capacity of involved institutions to implement the measures set in the SJSR, as well as involvement of all the stakeholders.

Documents

STRATEGY FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM 2011- · PDF fileMINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ... FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM 2011-2015 ... according to which the small values stand