Quarterly Monitoring Report No. 6 on the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy

“Monitoring the Justice Sector Reform for Increased Government Accountability”

Quarterly Monitoring RAPORT

Report No. 6 Rele tratamente on the Implementation of the pe motiv de Justice Sector Reform Strategy discriminare Monitoring period: 1 April – 30 June, 2014

în Moldova

Chisinau – 2014

1

Authors: Alexandru Postica, Promo-LEX Association Olesea Stamate, Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER) Pavel Postica, Promo-LEX Association Coordinator of the edition: Olga Manole, Promo-LEX Association Redaction of text in Romanian: Rodica Mahu Translation of text into English: Lucia Aprodu Computer processing: “Depol Promo” SRL

All rights protected. The content of the Report may be used and reproduced for non-profit purposes and without Promo-LEX’s prior agreement by indicating the source of information.

PROMO–LEX Association 11/41 Dumitru Riscanu St, Chisinau, Moldova Tel/fax: (+373 22) 45 00 24 E-mail: info@promolex.md www.promolex.md

Association for an Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER) 7/1 T. Balta St, MD-2012, Chisinau, Moldova Tel: (+373) 699 888 22 E-mail: olesea.stamate@ager.md www.ager.md Delegation of the European Union in the Republic of Moldova 12 Kogalniceanu St, MD-2001 Chisinau, Moldova Tel: (+373 22) 50 52 10 Fax: (+373 22) 27 26 22

East European Foundation 98, 31 August 1989 St, Chisinau, Moldova Tel: (+373 22) 23-53-43 Fax: (+373 22) 54-23-38 E-mail: info@eef.md www.eef.md

This Report was prepared as part of the project “Monitoring the Justice Sector Reform for Increased Government Accountability”, implemented by Promo-LEX Association and the Association for Efficient and Responsible Governance. The project is funded by the European Union. The project is co-funded by the East European Foundation from financial resources offered by the Swedish Government through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark/DANIDA. 2

The contents are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of European Union, East Europe Foundation, Swedish Government, Sida or Denmark MFA/DANIDA.

CONTENTS Abbreviations . ......................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction . .........................................................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................6 Chapter I. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar I ..............................................9

Chapter II. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar II . .........................................15

Chapter III. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar III .......................................23 Chapter IV. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar IV ........................................27 Chapter V. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar V . ..........................................30 Chapter VI. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar VI ........................................33 Chapter VII. Assessment of Implementation of Actions under Pillar VII ....................................38 Chapter VIII. Trial Monitoring and Assessment of User Satisfaction with the Act of Justice ..........................................................................................................................................39 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................63

3

ABBREVIATIONS CHRM CM of CoE CPC CPO CPP CS DPI ECtHR E-GOV GD GDL GPI ICMP JSRS LRCM MITC MLSPF MOE MOF MOH MOI MOJ MRDC NAC NBS NCJE NIC NIJ NLAC NSB NUCEO AP PGO ROLISP SCJ SCM SCP SIS WG 4

Center for Human Rights of Moldova Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Civil Procedure Code Central Probation Office Criminal Procedure Code Customs Service Department of Penitentiary Institutions European Court of Human Rights e-Government Center Government Decision General Directorate for Legislation General Police Inspectorate Integrated Case Management Program Justice Sector Reform Strategy Legal Resources Center of Moldova Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family Ministry of Economy Ministry of Finance Ministry of Healthcare Ministry of Internal Affairs Ministry of Justice Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions National Anticorruption Center National Bureau of Statistics National Center for Judicial Expert Examination National Integrity Council National Institute of Justice National Legal Aid Council National Statistics Bureau National Union of Court Enforcement Officers (Bailiffs) Action Plan Prosecutor General’s Office USAID Rule of Law Institutions Support Program Supreme Court of Justice Supreme Council of Magistrates Supreme Council of Prosecutors Information and Security Service Working Group

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION This Report was prepared within the project “Monitoring the Justice Sector Reform for Increased Government Accountability”, implemented by the Promo-LEX Association and the Association for an Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER), with the financial support of the European Union.

The monitoring focuses on the observation of two main components: assessing the implementation of activities contained in the Action Plan for Justice Sector Reform Strategy (JSRS) implementation, and trial monitoring.

The monitoring mission employs 36 national monitors, whose work is coordinated by a Network Coordinator, and three national experts that form the Analytical Team. The monitors within the network attend trial hearings in precinct and district courts, in the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court, and in specialized courts. Overall, 1872 trials will be monitored throughout the project. The monitors produce quarterly reports on the progress registered in implementing the activities listed in the Action Plan, verified in the field.

Methodology. The Methodological Guidebook for Monitoring the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy in Moldova provides a mechanism for monitoring the activities contained in the Action Plan, including interviewing relevant subjects/institutions to determine the outcome of these actions (conducted studies, developed bills, approved methodologies, etc.). The findings herein were formulated based on the responses to the questions in the Quarterly Report. In each district center, monitors interviewed lawyers, enforcement officers, notaries, mediators and representatives of regional offices of the National Legal Aid Council to determine whether these subjects were aware of particular actions, and in what capacity; whether or not they were involved in the implementation of these actions, and their opinion on the respective actions. At the same time, in order to effectively assess the implementation of each activity, interviews were conducted with representatives of all institutions responsible for their implementation, but also with beneficiary organizations.

Two categories of actions/activities were analyzed for the purpose of this report, as follows: • Actions due for completion in Quarter II of 2014.

• Overdue actions (which were to be completed by 31 March 2014).

Moreover, in order to be tracked more easily, actions were grouped into the following seven categories: Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform Group II. Development of methodological recommendations and training curricula Group III. Improving the legal framework and drafting bills and regulations Group IV. Professional training activities for various judicial actors Group V. Development and use of awareness and information tools Group VI. Procurement and installation of equipment; software upgrades Group VII. Creating and increasing the efficiency of judicial bodies (committees, colleges, etc.)

Promo-LEX and the Association for an Efficient and Responsible Governance (AGER) sincerely thank all those who devoted time and attention to the monitors and answered their questions thus contributing to the development of this Report.

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The results of the Quarterly Monitoring Report No.6 on the Implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy allow us to draw some significant conclusions.

Unfortunately, we found that progress in the implementation of the Action Plan is continuously slow. Thus, of the 288 actions due for implementation by 30 June 2014, 173 were implemented, and 115 remain overdue, which represents a ratio of 60% to 40%, respectively. Although in terms of percentage the report demonstrates a positive growth compared to the previous one, the dynamics of the implementation of due and overdue actions is worrying. Thus of the 23 actions that were planned for the reference period, only 7 have been implemented, leaving 16 uncompleted.

Several tenders for consultancy services for three other important projects of support for the implementation of the reform of the justice sector were announced recently. These refer to the judicial system, reforming the pre-trial stage, and probation. We hope that these will provide essential support to the responsible institutions, which will thus progress in the implementation of the actions planned within the JSRS.

In the same time, our most important recommendation, in addition to streamlining the process of implementation of the AP of the JSRS, is to focus on the actual implementation of the completed actions, especially with regard to the legal framework on anticorruption, where we haven’t seen any significant progress so far.

Institutional capacity

We find a continuously good activity of the secretariat of the working groups, which ensures a good conduct of the sittings, as well as availability of the files on the webpage dedicated to the reform. Small exceptions have been noticed with the WG for Pillar IV, where neither agendas nor minutes of the meetings for the last quarter have been published. We must mention that, in some cases, especially within the Pillar II, the WG has undertaken to change the status of the actions which were not de facto achieved but were deemed as completed into uncompleted, in the previous monitoring reports. But we did not find similar situations in the case of the other pillars, regardless of the number of actions deemed as completed, but de facto uncompleted (in some cases even not started).

On the implementation of actions under Pillar I

According to the AP of the JSRS for the years 2011-2016, until the end of Quarter 2 of 2014, 78 actions were to be completed. Of these, 54 were implemented and other 24 were not implemented. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), 2 of the 5 planned actions were completed. Additionally, two more actions of those overdue at the beginning of the reporting period were accomplished.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar II

According to the Action Plan for the Implementation of the JSRS for 2011-2016, 84 actions are set for implementation under Pillar II. 51 actions were scheduled for implementation by the end of Quarter 2 of 2014 (30 June 2014). Out of these, 29 were implemented, and other 22 were not completed. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), two of the seven due ac6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

tions were implemented. At the same time, three actions of those overdue at the beginning of the reporting period were also completed.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar III

According to the AP for the Implementation of the JSRS for 2011-2016, until the end of Quarter 2 of 2014, 37 actions were scheduled for implementation under Pillar III. Out of these, 11 were implemented, and other 26 were not completed. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), one of the four planned actions was implemented. We take note of the positive trend in the different approach of the WG for Pillar III in regard to the discussion of actions in course of implementation and those overdue. We mean here the analysis of the essence of the proposed action and the relevance of the products achieved within the action to the purposes of the strategic area. At the same time, we cannot leave unnoticed the fact that a full involvement of all the members of the WG is required, as we have seen that the last two sittings were deliberative only by a minimal quorum, whereas 6 of the 13 members were always absent from the WG sittings.

There is also to mention that the representative of the National Lawyers Union absented from several meetings although some due actions were supposed to be achieved with the direct support of this institution.

Another negative aspect that has been noticed during the second quarter of 2014 is that a common agreement point could not be reached on the actions that have impact on the profession of notaries, which was caused by the absence of branch representatives from the WG sittings.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar IV

According to the AP of the JSRS for 2011-2016, 29 actions were scheduled for implementation by the end of the second quarter of 2014 (30 June 2014). Out of these, 16 were implemented, and other 13 were not completed. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), one of the three planned actions was implemented. None of the overdue actions were completed.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar V

According to the AP of the JSRS for 2011-2016, a total of 28 actions were scheduled for implementation under Pillar V. Of those, 20 actions were to be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2014 (30 June 2014). Out of these 20, 13 were achieved, and other seven were not achieved. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), two due actions were implemented. During the reporting period there were no overdue actions by 30 June 2014.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar VI

According to the 2011-2016 JSRS Action Plan, within the Pillar VI, in total 100 actions are scheduled for implementation. 49 actions were to be completed by second quarter of 2014 (30 June 2014). Out of these, 33 were implemented, and 16 were not achieved. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), two due actions were implemented. Also, none of the four actions overdue by 30 June 2014 were implemented.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar VII

Although no actions were scheduled for the reporting period in the JSRS AP, the responsible institutions did not succeed in achieving any of the overdue actions. Thus, of the seven overdue actions, none was achieved, and more than half of these are overdue since 2012.

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Trial monitoring Thanks to the effort undertaken by the team of monitors in the second quarter of the 2014, 300 trials were monitored in all the courts across country. Of these, 153 were criminal/contravention cases, and were 147 civil cases. Additionally, 342 participants in the trials were given the possibility to fill in court satisfaction surveys.

With regard to monitoring of the court sittings, we noticed the positive dynamics of the number of recorded sittings, as well as the solemnity of the trials attended by monitors. Worth mentioning is that this indicator is not constant in all courts, and the most crowded was the activity of the Court of Appeal Chisinau, where most negative indicators were registered.

On the other hand, the weakest scores were reached on subjects related to court premises, facilities and websites. However the monitoring of trials did not aim at analyzing the corruptibility of the judges’ acts or the analysis of the quality of the justice act, as it was based on questionnaires filled in by the parties in the trial and monitors.

Note: The experts decided to avoid repeating the text for the uncompleted overdue actions in every report, thus these actions were presented in the form of a table for every Pillar. Thus the text of the Report is continuously structured by Pillars, and each of these on compartments on current (due) and overdue actions. Overdue actions that have been finalized during the reporting period are presented in the said compartments, while uncompleted overdue actions are mentioned in their respective table.

8

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

Chapter I

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I Institutional capacity. During the second quarter of 2014, the WG for monitoring the implementation of actions under Pillar I of the Strategy met in three sessions, on 15 April, 21 May and 13 June. The meeting of 15 April was a common one for all working groups, together with the civil society and development partners. The minutes and agendas can be accessed on the JSRS web page.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER II, 2014 Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; suggesting recommendations for reforms Specific area of intervention: 1.2.4. Conduct a study on the implementation of a unified judicial practice to provide security to legal relations

Action 1.2.4. section 5. Monitoring compliance with the principle of security of legal relations

• Deadline: II Quarter 2014 • Responsible for implementation, MOJ, SCM, SCJ • Performance Indicator: 1. Monitoring performed; 2. Monitoring report compiled and disseminated • Assessment: Action not implemented

The study mentioned in the previous action (action 1.2.4. section 4) is relevant in the context of monitoring compliance with the principle of security of legal relations. According to the minutes of WG for Pillar I of 13 June 2014, the Monitoring Report that had to be performed to achieve this action has been merged by the General Unit for Governmental Agents with the upper-mentioned study (Study for the assessment of the compatibility of the national judicial practice with the jurisprudence of ECtHR) http://justice.gov.md/public/files/file/studii/studii_srsj/DGAG_SRJ_Study_verificat.pdf.

However no monitoring of compliance of the security of the legal relations has been performed, therefore the action is deemed as unaccomplished.

Group II. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs Specific area of intervention: 1.3.2. Revision of the programs of the National Institute of Justice in order to make them match the real training needs of the judges, prosecutors and other stakeholders of the justice sector, as well as to avoid the doubling of the curricula

Action 1.3.2. section 3. Create a common electronic database for the National Institute of Justice, Supreme Council of Magistrates, and General Prosecutor’s Office regarding the number of accu9

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

mulated common training hours for every judge, prosecutor or other representative of the justice sector, number of studied topics, as well as other data related to the training activity

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 2, 2014 Responsible institution: NIJ Performance indicator: Database created and functional Assessment: action not implemented

At the time of this report, this action was not completed.

Group III. Improving the legal framework; developing draft laws and bylaws Specific area of intervention 1.2.4: Create a mechanism to guarantee unified judicial practice and ensure the security of the legal relations

Action 1.2.4 section 2: Draft amendments to the Law on the Supreme Court of Justice no. 789XIII of 26 March 1996, of the Code of Criminal Procedure no. 122-XV of 14 March 2003, and of the Code of Civil Procedure no. 225-XV of 30 May 2003, in the chapter describing the competence of the Supreme Court of Justice.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 2, 2014 Responsible institution: MOJ, SCM, SCJ Performance indicator: Amendment drafted and sent to the Government for examination Assessment: action implemented

This action had been accomplished earlier than its scheduled deadline. Thus, Art 39 on the competences of the SCJ has been amended by Law no. 66 of 05.04.2012 on completion and amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Moldova of 14 March 2003.

The Code of Civil Procedure was modified in its part related to SCJ competencies through the Law no. 155 of 05.07.2012 on the amendment and completion of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, Law no. 153 of 2012 has completed and amended Law no. 789 of 26 March 1996 on the Supreme Court of Justice, in its chapter on the duties of the SCJ.

Group VII. Create and streamline the work of justice sector bodies (commissions, colleges, etc.)

Specific area of intervention 1.1.11: Strengthening the security system inside the courts

Action 1.1.11 section 1: Create the necessary conditions for the efficient functioning of the judicial police.

• Deadline: Quarter 2, 2014 • Responsible institution: MOI • Performance indicator: 1. Separate Unit within MOI created and functional. Necessary equipment acquired and installed.

• Assessment: action implemented 10

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

This action provides for the preparation and transfer of the judicial police from the responsibility of the MOI to the MOJ. With the approval of the new Law on Police and Government Decision no. 986 that establishes the bylaws, structure and personnel limit of the General Police Inspectorate, a distinct structure is created within the GPI, and namely the Service of Judicial Police.

Taking into account that the PA does not specify the equipment that is supposed to be acquired to reach the second performance indicator, we consider this action as accomplished.

Specific area of intervention 1.1.12: Strengthening institutional capacities of the courts, including considering the option of building a common premise for all courts of Chisinau, as well as building/renovating all courts premises across the entire country

Action 1.1.12 section 4: Organize tenders for the selection of planning/construction institutions in order to build/renovate court premises • Deadline: Quarter 2, 2014 • Responsible institution: MOJ, MRDC • Performance indicator: Number of tenders organized and planning/construction institutions selected.

• Assessment: action not implemented At the moment, this action remains not implemented. However, it must be noted that the implementation of this action would be more opportune after the decision is taken on the optimization of the map of courts’ locations.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS (due by 31 March 2014) Group II. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs Specific area of intervention 1.3.2: Revise the curricula of the National Institute of Justice to make them in line with the real training needs of the judges, prosecutors and other actors from the justice sector as well as to avoid overlaps with university curricula

Action 1.3.2 section 1: Create a system that will allow for the complete and timely determination of the training needs for the representatives of the justice sector (methodology of determination of the training needs developed and approved)

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 2, 2013 Responsible institution: NIJ Performance indicator: Methodology developed and approved Assessment: action implemented

The methodology for training prosecutors and judges was developed and published on the NIJ webpage.

11

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

Group III. Improving the legal framework; developing draft laws and bylaws Specific area of intervention 1.2.3: Revisit procedural rules in order to optimize, increase the transparency and the efficiency of the process of justice making

Action 1.2.3 section 2: Draft amendments to the Code of Contraventions no. 218-XVI of 24 October 2008 • Deadline: Quarter 3, 2012 • Responsible institution: MOJ • Performance indicator: 1. Working Group created. 2. Bill drafted and submitted to the Government for examination • Assessment: action implemented

On 19 February 2014, the draft of the amendment of the Code of Contraventions was submitted for examination to the Government. http://justice.gov.md/public/files/transparenta_in_procesul_decizional/Sinteza_obiectiilor_ si_propunerilor-01-10-2013.Pdf.

12

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

Uncompleted actions from the list of overdue actions (due by 31 March 2014) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Action 1.1.2 section 1: Conduct a study of the current legislation that regulates the amounts and procedures for calculating court fees as well as the practice of using these fees Action 1.1.6 section 5: Conduct a study on the duration of the initial appointment of judges and the criteria regarding the selection of judges to the Supreme Court of Justice based on international standards and best practices in the field Action 1.1.12 section 1: Conduct a feasibility study taking into account the previous studies conducted in this area Action 1.1.12 section 3: Establish criteria for allotting funds for the maintenance and renovation of court premises Action 1.2.4 section 1: Conduct a study on the implementation of a unified judicial practice to provide security to legal relations.

Action 1.2.4 section 3: Conduct a study on the opportunity of creating a single information portal of all courts in order to optimize their websites Action 1.3.2 section 2: Create an online communication program between the NIJ and trainees to identify training areas and organize training seminars

Quart. II, 2012

MOJ, SCM

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, SCM

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ

Quart. II, 2013

MOJ, MOF, MRDC

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, CSM, GEC

Quart. IV, 2013

SCM, SCJ

Quart. IV, 2013

NIJ

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, SCM

Group III. Improving the legal framework; developing draft laws and bylaws Action 1.1.1 section 2: Draft a bill to amend Law no. 514XIII of 6 July 1995 on the organization of the judiciary Action 1.1.2 section 2: Draft amendments to Law no. 1216XII of 3 December 1992 on the state fee, of the CPC no. 225-XV of 30 May 2003 and other normative acts Action 1.1.4 section 2: Draft amendments to Law no. 514XIII of 6 July 1995 on the organization of the judiciary as well as to other relevant bylaws Action 1.1.9 section 3: Draft an amendment to the Constitution to specify the role of the SCM in the self-administration of the judiciary, its composition and competencies Action 1.2.1 section 2: Revise SCM regulations on the transparency of activities of the Council and subordinated bodies Action 1.2.3 section 4: Develop standards on the duration of procedures during the examination of a case, and develop the methodology for using them Action 1.3.1 section 2: Draft amendments to certain laws, including Law no. 152-XVI of 8 June 2006 on the NIJ, Law no.

544-XIII of 20 July 1995 on the status of the judge, and Law no.

294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution

Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. II, 2013

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, SCM, MOF MOJ, SCM, SCJ, courts MOJ SCM

Quart. IV, 2012

SCM, SCJ

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, NIJ

13

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR I

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

14

Action 1.3.1 section 3: Draft amendments to the internal regulations of the National Institute of Justice in accordance with changes to the legislation Action 1.3.1 section 8: Establish objective criteria for determining the amount of funds needed for initial and continuous training (NIJ) Action 1.3.3 section 2: Develop and approve bylaws on the specialization of judges

Quart. II, 2013

NIJ

Quart. II, 2013

NIJ

Quart. II 2013

SCM

Quart. IV, 2013

SCM, courts

Group VI. Procurement and installation of equipment; software upgrades Action 1.1.11 section 4. Re-equip courtrooms by uninstalling the isolation cages for defendants in the trial in order to observe the presumption of innocence Action 1.2.2 section 4. Improving the Integrated Case Management Program.

Quart. I, 2013

MOJ, SCM, STC

Quart. IV, 2013

NIJ

Group VII. Create and streamline the work of justice sector bodies (commissions, colleges etc.)

Action 1.3.1 section 4. Create a legal information center to be accessible for judges, prosecutors and representatives of other legal professions.

Action 1.3.4 section 2. Create a single examination commission for NIJ graduates and persons with professional experience

Quart. II, 2012

NIJ, SCM, MOJ, PGO

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

Chapter II

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II Institutional capacity. In the second quarter of 2014, WG II met in two sessions, on 28 May and 10 June 2014. As of 30 June 2014, both agendas and minutes of the meetings of the second quarter were posted on the justice reform website. This excluded delays in publication of the information on the WG activities.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER II, 2014 Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform Specific area of intervention 2.1.1: Optimization of the institutional and functional framework of the Ministry of Interior

Action 2.1.1 section 3: Monitoring the implementation of amendments to the institutional, organizational and functional frameworks of the Ministry of the Interior and subordinated institutions

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institution: MOI ,MOJ, Performance indicator: 1. Monitoring conducted, 2. Report drafted and disseminated Assessment: action implemented

The implementation of this action was due by 30 June 2014. At the meeting of 10 June 2014, the representative of the MOI in the WG, Gheorghe Malic, mentioned that the monitoring was conducted. According to him, the results were circulated internally within the Ministry of Interior. He also mentioned having sent the monitoring report to the secretariat of the WG for distribution and for publication on the webpage. Unfortunately, at the time of this report, the MOI report was neither distributed to the members of the WG nor published on the webpage of the MOJ dedicated to reports and studies. However, taking into account that the monitoring was conducted, and the report was developed and distributed internally, and the performance indicators were formally reached, we can assess the action as completed.

Based on the facts mentioned above, and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the AP were reached at the time of this report, action 2.1.1 section 3 is deemed as implemented.

Specific area of intervention 2.4.1: Ensure electronic recording and examine the opportunity of electronic distribution of complaints on committed offences.

Action 2.4.1 section 3: Conduct a study regarding the opportunity of the electronic dissemination of complaints on committed offences taking into account the experience of other countries, and, f needed, draft recommendations for respective amendments of the legal framework 15

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

• Deadline: Quarter 2, 2014 • Responsible institution: PGO, MOI, NAC, CS • Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated; If needed, draft laws and bylaws developed and submitted for Government examination • Assessment: action not implemented

This action was due for implementation by 30 June 2014. The subject of the implementation of this action was debated at the WG sitting on 28 May 2014. Thus, the WG decided to request additional data on the implementation of the action, which was due to be presented. At the following meeting of the WG, the subject was not discussed. On the other hand, members of the WG were not presented proof of the implementation of the action. The study was not published on the JSRS webpage.

From these considerations and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the action plan for the reporting period have not been met, and the deadline for implementation of the action was deliberately extended for six months by the MOJ, action 2.4.1 section 3 is deemed as not implemented.

Group II. Improving the legal framework; developing draft laws and bylaws

Specific area of intervention 2.2.10: Re-examination of the rules of accountability of the prosecutors, including disciplinary responsibility, and withdraw their general immunity

Action 2.2.10 section 2: Draft amendments to the legal framework to change the rules of accountability of the prosecutors and lift their general immunity

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter 2, 2014 Responsible institution: MOJ, PGO Performance indicator: Amendments drafted and submitted for Government examination Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for implementation of the respective action has expired on 30 June 2014. During the second quarter of 2014, this subject was not debated in WG sittings. However, in previous WG sittings, it was mentioned that this action would be completed when a new draft Law on the Prosecution is developed. At the sitting, the representative of the GP Office mentioned that a bill was based on the concept of the Reform of the prosecution, which was developed by a group set by order from the Prosecutor General and Minister of Justice and chaired by Vladislav Gribincea. The later also confirmed that the draft law had been developed and sent for approval to the Prosecutor General and Minister of Justice. Further, both the concept and the draft of law were taken over by a WG within the Parliament, but the draft law has not been yet finalized.

For these considerations and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the Action Plan for the reporting period have not been met, action 2.2.10. section 2 is deemed as not implemented.

Specific area of intervention: 2.5.2. Creating conditions for a wider application of the simplified procedures, including methods of alternative case solution

Action 2.5.2. section 2. Draft amendments to the criminal procedural legislation for the mandatory use of simplified procedures, including transfer of the cases from courts to mediators, for cases 16

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

where reconciliation results in ending criminal proceedings, and ensures that the victim’s rights are respected

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institution: MOJ, PGO Performance indicator: Bill drafted and submitted for Government approval Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for the implementation of this action expired on 30 June 2014. During the second quarter, the subject of the implementation of this action has not been discussed. On the other hand, according to MOJ AP for 2014, this action was scheduled for completion by 15 September 2014, thus beyond the timeline provided by the JSRS Action Plan. Moreover, the www.particip. gov.md webpage no announcement has been published on the public consultation on a draft law provide for mandatory simplified procedures. In this context, we believe that the amendment introduced to Article 344/1 of the CPP of RM in 2012 cannot be interpreted as mandatory since the court reacts and decides on the mediation procedure only based on the request of the parties. On the other hand, the new bill on mediation is based on maintaining the voluntary character of mediation in criminal cases, following recommendations from the CM of of the CoE. For these reasons and taking into account that the performance indicators established in the JSRS Action Plan for the reporting period have not been met, and the deadline for implementation of the action was deliberately extended by the MOJ, action 2.5.2. section 2 is deemed as not implemented.

Specific area of intervention 2.5.2: Creating conditions for a wider application of the simplified procedures, including alternative methods of resolving cases

Action 2.5.2 section 3: Amending the mechanism of state guaranteed mediation in order to increase its functionality

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institution: MOJ Performance indicator: Bill drafted and submitted for Government approval Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for implementation of this action expired on 30 June 2014. At the sitting of 28 May 2014, the attendees found that the respective action has not been completed yet, and additional information was requested from the responsible institution. On the other hand, the MOJ AP for 2014 provides for implementation of this action by 20 December 2014, exceeding the initially planned AP of JSRS deadline. In addition, the Government approved a new draft law on mediation1, which was initiated in 2012. Article 40 of the draft law specifies conditions under which mediation guaranteed by the state is provided. The mechanism of mediation guaranteed by the state is similar to the mechanism of state guaranteed legal aid, already used in Moldova.

Based on the facts mentioned above and taking into account that performance indicators provided in the AP were reached in the reporting period, we deem action 2.5.2 section 3 as completed.

Specific area of intervention: 2.5.3: Strengthening the mechanism of ensuring the rights of the victims of the offences

1 http://gov.md/public/files/ordinea_de_zi/16.07.2014/Intr03.pdf

17

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

Action 2.5.3 section 2: Draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure no. 122-XV of 14 March 2003, the Criminal Code no. 985-XV of 18 April 2002 and Law no. 105-XVI of 26 May 2008 regarding the protection of witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institution: MOJ, PGO Performance indicator: Amendments drafted and submitted for Government approval Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the respective action expired on 30 June 2014. On 12 June 2014, the Parliament voted in final reading Law no. 992 that amends Law no. 105 on the protection of witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings. However, the operated amendments do not provide additional protection for victims of offences. Moreover, the respective law did not amend in any way the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Code. On the other hand, according to the MOJ AP for 2014, the implementation of this action is scheduled for 20 December 2014.

Based on the facts mentioned above and taking into account that the indicators of performance established in the AP for the reporting period were not reached, and that the deadline for the implementation has been deliberately extended by the MOJ, we deem action 2.5.3 section 2 as not implemented.

Specific area of intervention: 2.5.3: Strengthening the mechanism of ensuring the rights of the victims of offences

Action 2.5.3 section 4: Revise the codes of conduct of the employees of the bodies involved in enforcing criminal justice in order to set the obligation of adopting a behavior adequate to the psychological and emotional state of the victim of the offence

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institution: PGO, MOI, CS, NAC Performance indicator: Codes of conduct revised and adopted Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the respective action expired on 30 June 2014. On 3 July 2014, outside the reporting period, the Supreme Council of Prosecutors accepted the request of first deputy Prosecutor General Andrei Pintea3 and approved several amendments to the prosecutors’ Ethics Code in order to behave adequately to the psycho-emotional state of the victim of the offence. Moreover, according to the decision of the SCP, the request came as a consequence of the activity of a working group tasked with amending he codes of conduct for other professions that come in contact with victims of offences. However, at the time of this report, no amendments were performed in the codes of conduct for the police officers, border police, customs officers and NAC officers.

Based on the above and taking into account the performance indicators established in the AP were not reached for all responsible institutions, action 2.5.3 section 4 is deemed as not implemented.

18

2 http://lex.justice.md/md/353622/ 3 http://procuratura.md/file/2014-07-03_129%20Cod%20etica.pdf

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

Group III. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs Specific area of intervention 2.3.1: Implementation of modern means of investigation and criminal prosecution (informational technologies, modern expertise, etc.)

Action 2.3.1 section 3: Setting up specific working procedures, developing methodology, and manuals of best practices for special investigation and criminal prosecution activities • Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 • Responsible institution: PGO , MOI, , NAC, CS, SIS • Performance indicator: 1. Working procedures established; 2. Methodology developed and approved; 3. Brochures edited and distributed to the beneficiaries.

• Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the action expired on 30 June 2014. At the WG sitting of 28 May 2014, the representative of the PGO could not provide any details on the development of the action, which lead to additional requests for information. At the same time, no brochures on the methodologies or best practices for special investigation and criminal prosecution were published on the PGO website. Similarly for the MOI, GPI, NAC, no brochures to confirm the implementation of the action were found published. Apparently, the implementation of the action does not provide the publication of such brochures but their distribution to beneficiaries.

However, WG members were not provided information on either publication or distribution of such brochures.

Given the above and taking into account that indicators of performance provided in the AP for the reporting period were not met in due time, action 2.3.1 section 3 is deemed as not implemented.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS completed during QUARTER II, 2014 Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform Specific area of intervention 2.1.5: Improving criminal procedure legislation to ensure its compliance with existing standards in the area of protection of human rights and liberties

Action 2.1.5 section 2: Conduct a study of the legislation, including criminal procedure law, to establish its compliance with standards in defending human rights and liberties

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter IV, 2012 Responsible institution: MOJ, PGO, MOI, NAC, CS, SIS Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated.

Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the action expired on 31 December 2012. On an unspecified date, on the MOJ webpage dedicated to the reform, a Study4 was published on the compliance of the CPP with the 4 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/studii/studii_srsj/Studiu_de_compatibilitate_cu_prevederile_art._5_din_CEDO-MJ-2014.pdf

19

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

provisions of Art.5 of the European Convention. According to its general introduction, the study has been developed in order to complete action 2.1.5 of the JSRS AP. Based on the above and taking into account that the performance indicators provided in the PA were reached, action 2.1.5 section 2 is deemed as implemented.

Specific area of intervention 2.2.6: Study the staffing needs of the prosecution bodies and the needs for optimization of prosecutors and auxiliary staff

Action 2.2.6 section 1: Conduct a study of staffing needs of the prosecution bodies and the needs for optimization of prosecutors and auxiliary staff

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter I, 2013 Responsible institution: PGO Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated.

Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the action expired on 31 March 2013. On an unspecified date, a study5 was published on the LRCM website on the optimization of the prosecution office structure and workload of Moldovan prosecutors. According to its general remarks, the study was developed to implement action 2.2.6 of the JSRS AP. Given the above and taking into account that the performance indicators provided in the PA were reached, action 2.2.6 section 1 is deemed as implemented.

Specific area of intervention 2.5.1:Liberalization of criminal policies by using preventive noncustodial measures for certain categories of persons and certain offences

Action 2.5.1. Section 2: Assess the effectiveness of use of custodial and non-custodial criminal sanctions

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2013 Responsible institution: MOJ Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated.

Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the implementation expired on 30 June 2013. On an unspecified date, a study6 was published on the website of the CPO regarding the efficiency of the application of custodial and non-custodial criminal sanctions. According to its general remarks, this study was developed in order to implement action 2.5.1 of the AP of the JSRS.

Based on the above-mentioned facts and taking into account that the performance indicators provided in the AP for the reporting period were met, action 2.5.1 section 2 is deemed as implemented.

20

5 http://crjm.org/app/webroot/uploaded/Studiu_procuratura_23_06_2014.pdf 6 www.probatiune.gov.md/tc_userfiles/file/Strategia/studiu%20eficienta%20pedepselor%20v20%20final.docx

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

Uncompleted actions from the list of overdue actions (due by 31 March 2014) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution WG Assessment

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices proposing recommendations for reform 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Action 2.5.2 Section 1: Conduct a study on the efficiency of simplified procedures.

Action 2.3.4 Section 1: Conduct a study on the conditions, rules and functioning of interdepartmental groups Action 2.3.5. Section 1: Conduct a study on the need for specialization of the pre-trial phase stakeholders Action 2.2.1 Section 2: Draft amendment to Constitution with regard to the procedure of appointing and dismissing the Prosecutor General and the duration of his mandate.

Action 2.2.2 Section 3: Draft regulations, bylaws and required amendments to Law no. 294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the Prosecution Action 2.2.2 Section 2: Draft amendments to Law 294-XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution

7.

8.

Action 2.2.8 Section 2: Draft amendments to Law no. 294XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution, to the CPP no.

122-XV of 14 March 2003, etc. to demilitarize the institution of prosecution

9.

Action 2.2.3 Section 1: Draft amendments to Law no. 294XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution, which would create a separate budget, the necessary personnel and assign a venue for the SCP

11.

12.

13.

14.

MOJ, PGO

Quart. I, 2014 Quart. I, 2014

PGO, MOI, NAC, CS

Group II. Improve legal framework, draft laws and bylaws

Action 2.1.1 Section 1: Improve the legal framework of the operation of the police and carabineers by drafting a bill on the status of the police and police officer; a bill on the carabineers service, and other relevant bills, and amend bylaws to bring them in line with these bills

10.

Quart. III, 2013

Action 2.2.5 Section 2: Draft amendments to Law No. 294XVI of 25 December 2008 on the prosecution, and other laws and bylaws Action 2.2.6 Section 2: Draft amendments to the legal framework with regard to prosecution personnel Action 2.4.2 Section 2: Draft a regulation on the unified analysis and processing of statistical data related to criminal justice Action 2.2.3. Section 2: Revise regulations and bylaws of the Supreme Council of Prosecutors and its bodies Action 2.3.3 Section 3: Draft new regulation of the National Center for Judicial Expertise

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2013

PGO, MOI, NAC, CS MOJ, PGO PGO, SCP

Quart. II, 2013

MOJ, SCP, PGO

Quart. IV, 2012

MOI

Quart. I, 2013

MOJ, PGO

Quart. III, 2013

MOJ, PGO

Quart. III, 2013

MOJ, PGO

Quart. III, 2013

PGO, MOF

Quart. III, 2013

MOI, PGO, NAC, CS, NBS, MOJ, SCJ

Quart I, 2014

MOJ

Quart. I, 2014

SCP

21

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR II

15.

Action 2.5.1 Section 3: Draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure no. 122-XV of 22.12.2004, the Enforcement Code no. 443-XV of 24.12.2004, Criminal Code no. 985-XV of 18.04.2002, and other legal acts.

Quart. I, 2014

MOJ

Group VII. Optimization of human resources 16.

22

Action 2.1.1 Section 2: Implement changes to the institutional, organizational and functional framework of the MOI and subordinated bodies

Quart. II, 2013

MOI

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III

Chapter III

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III Institutional Capacity: During the second quarter of 2014, there were three meetings of the WG III, which took place on 15 April, 21 May, and 18 June 2014. The meeting of 15 April was dedicated to the results of 2013, along with other groups. The 2013 Annual Report on the implementation of the 2011-2016 JSRS1 was presented. According to the Report, 32 actions were due for implementation by the end of 2013, of which 12 actions were completed, 17 actions were partially completed, and three actions remained uncompleted. This broadly echoes data previously reported by Promo-LEX.

The phenomenon observed in the second quarter of 2014 is WG III decision to revise the assessment of some actions previously deemed as completed, and assess as uncompleted some actions previously pronounced partially completed. For example, at the meeting of 21 May 2014, at the request of the representative of the NUCEO, the execution of the following actions was discussed: action 3.3.2 section 2: Drafting amendments to the regulatory framework to strengthen institutionally and functionally the Licensing Commission and the Disciplinary Board, and action 3.3.1 section 1: Drafting amendments to Law No. 113 of 17 June 2010 on court enforcement officers and Enforcement Code no. 443-XV of 24 December 2004.

We appreciate the WG III resolve to apply a unified approach on the requirements towards deeming actions as completed. Thus, the working group set out to discuss, in the third quarter of 2014, the implementation of actions that have been declared completed by WG III, to which responsible and co-responsible institutions objected. These include action 3.3.1 section 1: Monitoring the impact of current regulations in the execution of court decisions, including ECtHR decisions; action 3.3.3 section 1: Conducting a study to determine the weaknesses in the information and communication management system that impact the enforcement of the court decisions; and action 3.3.5 section 2: Drafting amendments to the legal framework regarding the mechanism of recognition and enforcement of decisions issued by foreign courts.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER II, 2014 Specific area of intervention 3.1.3: Promoting legal knowledge and access to legal information; reduction of legal nihilism

Action 3.1.3 section 3. Creating a mechanism of basic legal assistance by civic associations

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institutions: NLAC, MOJ Performance indicator: Amendments drafted and submitted for Government approval Assessment: action not implemented

1 http://justice.gov.md/public/files/file/reforma_sectorul_justitiei/rapoarte/2013/Raport_modificat_23_aprilie.pdf

23

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III

Recommendations contained in the Study on the mechanism of provision of primary legal aid

by NGOs2 on 14 May 2014 do not point to a stringent need to amend the legal framework so as to establish a separate mechanism of primary assistance by the NGOs. Consequently, no legislation has been developed in this regard.

Specific area of intervention 3.2.1: Encourage the strengthening of the capacities of the representatives of the professions connected to the justice system at the level of professional unions, with a special emphasis on management capacities

Action 3.2.1 section 3: Amend Law no. 264-XVI of 11.12.2008 on the authorization and payment of the translators hired by the Supreme Court of Magistrates, Ministry of Justice, Prosecution bodies, criminal investigation agencies, courts, attorneys, notaries and court enforcement officers

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institutions: MOJ Performance indicator: Amendment drafted and submitted for Government approval.

Assessment: action implemented

In order to complete the action, the MOJ drafted a bill and sent it for coordination to other authorities on 11 July 20133. On the same date, the bill and information note were published on the www.particip.gov.md website for public consultations4. According to the 2013 JSRS implementation report5, WG III considered the action completed.

The mentioned draft law and explanatory note, as well as the summary of objections were submitted to the Government for approval on 23 June 20146. Thus, although the matter was not discussed at the sittings of the WG III in the second quarter of 2014, we can find that it was completed, the bill was published, submitted to Government, and the performance indicators were reached.

Specific area of intervention 3.2.2: Developing quality standards for the services provided by representatives of justice-related professions

Action 3.2.2 section 2: Develop collections of samples of forms/documents issued by the court enforcement officer, lawyer, judicial expert, authorized insolvency administrator, notary, and mediator

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institutions: MOJ, self-administration bodies of justice-related professions.

Performance indicator: Collections of forms/documents developed and distributed Assessment: action not implemented

2 3 4 5 6

http://www.cnajgs.md/ro/publicatii-rapoarte-si-cercetari; http://justice.gov.md/pageview.php?l=ro&idc=192 http://particip.gov.md/proiectview.php?l=ro&idd=972 http://justice.gov.md/public/files/file/reforma_sectorul_justitiei/rapoarte/2014/RAPORT_2013.pdf http://justice.gov.md/pageview.php?l=ro&idc=230

The action was not discussed within WG III in the second quarter of 2014. In the context, we found that this action comes after the implementation of the action on development of quality standards for the documents/actions of every profession related to the justice sector (Action 3.2.2 section 1 of the JSRS AP), which was overdue at the time of this report. At the same time, self-administration bodies of justice-related professions are indicated as primary responsible

24

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III

institutions for this action. These bodies have not published on their websites any evidence of the implementation or attempts to implement the action in discussion.

Specific area of intervention 3.2.4: Establish clear and transparent merit-based criteria for accession into the profession

Action 3.2.4 section 1: Conducting a study on the criteria for accession to the profession

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institutions: MOJ, self-administration bodies of justice-related professions Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated Assessment: action not implemented

Uncompleted actions from the list of overdue actions (due by 31 March 2014) (2012 and first quarter of 2014) Action

Deadline

Responsible Institution

WG Assessment

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Action 3.1.2 section 8: Develop criteria (standards) to establish the complexity of contraventions, civil or administrative cases, from the angle of substantive or procedural law, for cases when qualified state-guaranteed legal aid is provided to whose who do not have the means to pay for legal aid.

Action 3.2.2 section 1: Developing quality standards for the acts/actions by representatives of justice related professions Action 3.2.6 section 1: Conduct a survey of the ethical standards provided in the Codes of conduct for the justice-related professions Action 3.2.7 section 1: Conduct a survey of the professional civil insurance system Action 3.2.8 section 1: Conduct a survey of the disciplinary responsibility mechanisms for every justice- related profession Action 3.2.9 section 1: Conduct a survey of the tax, social security and medical insurance regime for the justice-related professions.

Action 3.3.2 section 1: Conduct a survey of the operation of the Licensing Commission and the Disciplinary College to identify means to strengthening these entities institutionally and functionally Action 3.3.1 section 1: Monitor the impact of current regulations on the enforcement of judgments, including ECtHR judgments

No decision

by WG III

Quart. I. 2014

Union of Lawyers, NLAC

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, self-administration bodies

Uncompleted

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, self-administration bodies

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2013

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, self-administration bodies

Partially completed

MOJ, self-administration bodies

Partially completed

MOJ, MOF, MLSPF, selfadministration bodies

Quart. II, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO

Partially completed Partially completed Completed

25

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR III

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Action 3.3.3 section 1: Conduct a survey to detect the deficiencies of the information management and communication system that have negative implications on the enforcement of court judgments Action 3.3.5 section 1: Conduct a survey of the efficiency of the mechanism in place for recognition and enforcement of foreign courts’ judgments Action 3.1.1 section 2: Conduct a study on the staffing needs of the territorial offices of NLAC and adjust the organizational chart based on that analysis, given the Council’s expanded competencies Action 3.2.3 section 1: Conduct a survey of mechanisms to establish tariffs for services delivered by justice-related professions

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO

Completed

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, NUCEO, SCM

Partially completed

Quart. II, 2013

MOJ, MOF, NLAC

Partially completed

Quart. III, 2013

MOJ, self -administration bodies

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, MOF, MLSPF, MOH, self- administration bodies

Uncompleted

NLAC, Lawyers’ Union

Partially completed

Group III. Improve the legal framework; draft laws and bylaws Action 3.2.9 section 2: Draft amendments to the legislative framework to unify the fiscal, social security and medical insurance regime Action 3.1.1 section 4: Design a cost recovery mechanism for state-guaranteed legal aid Action 3.1.2 section 2: Design a quality monitoring mechanism for state-guaranteed legal aid Action 3.2.5 section 1: Develop a curriculum for the initial training and an education plan for the continuous training of representatives of justice-related professions Action 3.2.1 section 4: Draft a new bill on notaries Action 3.3.3 section 2: Draft amendments to the legal framework to address the deficiencies of the information management and communication system, including in terms of the access to databases Action 3.3.5 section 2: Draft amendments to the legal framework on the mechanism of recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by foreign courts Action 3.1.1 section 5: Design a mechanism to access databases to check the incomes of applicants for state-guaranteed legal aid Action 3.3.1 section 2: Draft amendments to the regulatory framework aiming to address the deficiencies in the enforcement of judgments Act. 3.3.1 section 3. Draft a Regulation on the enforcement of ECtHR judgments (Action assessed by the WG as obsolete, as per minutes of 29 January 2013 meeting. On 18 June 2014, the action was debated again, although no decision was taken)

Quart. IV, 2012

Partially completed

MOJ, NLAC

Partially completed

Quart. II, 2013

NIJ, Self administration bodies

Partially completed

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, NUCEP, bodies managing the database

Uncompleted

MOJ, NLAC, MITC and ARFC

Partially completed

MOJ, NUCEO

Partially completed

MOJ, SCM, eE-GOV

Uncompleted

Quart. II, 2013

Quart. IV, 2012

Quart. I, 2013

Quart. III, 2013 Quart. IV, 2012 Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ

MOJ, NUCEO, SCM

Partially completed

Completed

Group VI. Acquisition and installation of equipment, software updates 23.

26

Action 3.1.2 section 4. Create offices of public defenders in the resident cities of NLAC territorial offices

Quart. II, 2013

MOJ, NLAC, Lawyers’ Union

Partially completed

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR IV

Chapter IV

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR IV Institutional capacity. During the second quarter of 2014, the WG for monitoring the implementation of the actions under Pillar IV of the Strategy gathered for three sessions, on 15 April, 20 May and 13 June. We found that none of the agendas or minutes of the three sittings were published on the web page of the JSRS, and the last WG meeting agenda for WG-IV reflects the meeting of February 2014.

ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER II, 2014 Group II. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs Specific area of intervention 4.1.5: Develop and use effective tools to prevent any interference in doing justice and corruptive behavior of justice sector stakeholders

Action 4.1.5 section 8: Organize training courses for the personnel regarding the use of polygraph testing for detection of simulated behavior

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institutions: SCM, PGO, MOI, MOJ, CS, NIJ, Police Academy ”Stefan cel Mare” Performance indicator: 1. Number of classes conducted. 2. Number of personnel trained.

Assessment: action not implemented

The JSRS 2013 Report does not mention this action, and the annual work plan for 2014 of the WG for Pillar IV does not provide for any actions in this regard1.

Group III. Improve the legal framework; draft laws and bylaws Specific area of intervention 4.1.3: Revise the legal framework to discourage corruption, apply more severe sanctions for offences related to corruption in the justice sector; increase of the efficiency of the judicial constraint

Action 4.1.3 section 2: Strengthening on the institution of confiscation (criminal and civil) of acquired assets, including in the case of persons found guilty of committing corruption offences

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institutions: MOJ, NIC Performance indicator: Bill drafted sent to the Government for approval.

Assessment: action implemented

1 http://justice.gov.md/public/files/file/reforma_sectorul_justitiei/plan_de_activitate/Planul_de_activitate_a_grupului_de_lucru_2014_Pilon_IV_aprobat.pdf

27

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR IV

This action has been completed at the end of 2013, when a package of anticorruption laws was passed in Parliament; the package also provides for the introduction of extended confiscation: http://lex.justice.md/index.php?action=view&view=doc&lang=1&id=351753.

Group VI. Procurement and installation of equipment; software updates Specific area of intervention 4.1.5: Development and application of efficient tools to prevent any interference in doing justice and corruptive behavior of the justice sector stakeholders

Action 4.1.5 section 3: Acquisition of the necessary equipment to implement the tools to prevent any interference in doing justice and corruptive behavior of the justice sector stakeholders

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible institutions: SIS, NAC, MOI Performance indicator: Equipment procured and installed Assessment: action not implemented

Although the annual JSRS implementation report for 2013 refers to the acquisition of the polygraph machines, this action provides for a different thing. The acquisition of polygraph machines is provided by action 4.1.5 section 7. There were different opinions within the working groups on the tools to prevent interference in the act of justice, and some of the representatives of responsible institutions came out against the application of certain mechanisms.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS (due for completion by 31 March, 2014) Regrettably, none of the overdue actions was finalized during the reporting period. Uncompleted actions are covered in the table below.

28

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR IV

Uncompleted actions from the list of overdue actions (due by 31 March 2014) Action

Responsible Institution

Deadline

Group II. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs 1.

2.

Action 4.1.4 section 2: Build capacities to ensure an anticorruption behavior by formulating relevant methodological recommendations

Action 4.1.1 section 1: Amend the legal framework to simplify the method for calculating wages and re-assess the social guarantees of the justice sector players

3.

4.

Action 4.1.5 section 2: Draft amendments to the regulatory framework in order to regulate the procedure for application of tools to prevent any interference in doing justice and corruptive behavior

5.

Action 4.2.5 section 1: Draft a regulation on the involvement of the civil society representatives in the monitoring of the legislation on the professional ethics of the justice sector representatives

6.

Action 4.2.3 section 1: Amend or, if appropriate, develop the regulatory framework on the performance of the entities in charge of investigating noncompliance with the professional ethics

8.

MOI, NAC, SCM, SCP, self administration bodies of justice related professions

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, MOF, MLSPF

Group III. Improve the legal framework; draft laws and bylaws

Action 4.1.4 section 4: Revise the legislative framework in order to regulate the margin of discretion of the representatives of the justice sector and draft amendments to the relevant regulatory framework

7.

Quart. IV, 2013

Action 4.3.2 section 2: Develop the regulatory framework for the voluntary polygraph testing of representatives of the justice sector Action 4.3.4 section 1: Conduct a survey of the appropriateness to amend the legal framework regarding the publication and media coverage of court judgments convicting justice sector representatives for acts of corruption

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, SCJ, PGO, SCM, SCP, self-administration bodies of justice-related professions MOJ, NAC, SCM, SCP, PGO

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, SCM, SCP, MOI, NAC, NIC

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, NAC, SCM, PGO, MOI, unions of justice-related professions

Quart. II, 2013

NAC, PGO, SCM, MOI

Quart. IV, 2012

SCM, MOJ

Quart. II, 2013

SCM, SCP, PGO, NAC, MOI

Group V. Develop and use information and awareness raising mechanisms 9.

10 11.

Action 4.3.3 section 2: Create internal institutional mechanisms to allow whistle-blowers to signal irregularities (SCM, SCP, PGO, NAC, MOI) Action 4.3.3 section 4: Media coverage of the whistleblower institution

Quart. IV, 2013

SCM, PGO, MOI, NAC, CS

Group VI. Procurement and installation of equipment; software updates Action 4.1.5 section 7. Procure polygraphs to detect simulated behavior.

Quart. IV, 2013

SCM, courts

29

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR V

Chapter V

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR V Institutional Capacity. During the second quarter of 2014, WG V met in two sessions, on 15 May and 16 June 2014. The agenda and minutes of the session of 15 May were published on the Justice Reform web page. The meeting of 16 June was postponed due to the lack of quorum.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER II, 2014 During the second quarter of 2014, there are no due actions under Pillar V “Role of justice in economic development”.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS implemented during QUARTER II, 2014 Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform Specific area of intervention 5.3.1: Modernization of the electronic evidence system of economic agents

Action 5.3.1 section 1: Conducting a study on the methods of modernization of the system of evidence of the economic agents

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter IV, 2012 Responsible institutions: E-GOV, MOJ, MOE, MITC Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the action has expired on 31 December 2012. A study on the methods of modernizing the system of tracking economic agents has been published on the MOJ webpage1, without a specific date (and in absence of a Romanian translation). According to the general remarks, the study has been conducted in order to implement action 5.3.1 section 1 of the AP of the JSRS.

Based on these arguments and taking into account that the performance indicators set in the AP were met during the reporting period, we deem action 5.3.1 section 1 as completed.

Specific area of intervention 5.3.2: Creating a single register of businesses and non-profit organizations

Action 5.3.2 section 1: Conducting a study on the single register for businesses and non-profit organizations

30

1 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/reforma_sectorul_justitiei/pilon5/2014/_Moldova__1._Study_on_methods_of_modernizing_ and_sigle_register_-_revised_BP17052014.pdf

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR V

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter IV, 2012 Responsible institutions: MOJ, MOE, MITC Performance indicator: Study conducted, recommendations formulated.

Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the action has expired on 31.12.2012. A study on the methods of modernizing the system of tracking economic agents2 was published on the MOJ webpage, on an unspecified date (no Romanian translation). According to the general remarks, the study has been conducted in order to implement action 5.3.2 of the AP of the JSRS. Based on the arguments presented above and taking into account that during the reporting period, the performance indicators set in the AP were met, we deem action 5.3.2 section 1 as completed.

2 http://www.justice.gov.md/public/files/file/reforma_sectorul_justitiei/pilon5/2014/_Moldova__3._Study_for_implementing_a_single_ electronic_record_register__data_conversion_and_transition_principles_-_revised_BP17052014.pdf

31

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR V

Uncompleted actions from the group of overdue actions (with a deadline by 31 December 2013) Action

Responsible Institution

Deadline

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform

1.

2.

Action 5.1.1 section 1: Conduct a survey of statistical data on: a) Number of economic cases filed with courts located in the range of the parties’ office (residence) b) Number of businesses registered in territorial administrative units that could be involved in economic litigations Action 5.1.2 section 1: Conduct surveys on the performance of mediation in specific fields (family, civil, commercial or labor disputes, administrative, consumer protection litigations) and the opportunity of developing a community mediation system and the institution of arbitration

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, SCM, NBS

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, MLSPF, MOE, Mediation Council, SCM, Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Group II. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

32

Action 5.1.2 section 2: Draft amendments to the regulatory framework on mediation in specific sectors (family, civil and commercial, labor, administrative, consumer protection disputes) Action 5.1.4 section 2: Amend the legal framework to regulate the mechanisms of recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by foreign arbitration courts Action 5.2.1 section 2. Create the institutional framework for exercising the profession of authorized insolvency administrator

Quart. IV, 2013 Quart. II, 2013

Quart. III, 2012

MOJ, Mediation Council, Chamber of Commerce and Industry MOJ, courts, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, NUCEO MOJ, MOE

Group III. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs Action 5.2.2 section 3. Develop the manual of the authorized administrator

Quart. IV, 2013

NIJ, MOJ, MOE

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, MOE, E-GOV, MITC

Group V. Develop and use information and awareness raising mechanisms (for example, websites for the publication of court decisions) Action 5.3.3 section 2: Upgrade the electronic system of free of charge and paid delivery of information on businesses

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI

Chapter VI

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI Institutional Capacity. During the second quarter of 2014, WG VI met twice, on 13 May and 12 June 2014. Both agendas and minutes of the sessions carried out during the reporting period by the WG were published on the web page of the Justice Reform on 30 June 2014.

ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER II, 2014 Group II. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws Specific area of intervention 6.5.5: Strengthening the system of submission and examination of complaints on probation services and the penitentiary system

Action 6.5.5 section 2: Revise and improve the procedures of resolution of complaints related to the functioning of probation and penitentiary system • Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 • Responsible Institution: MOJ • Performance Indicator: 1. Bill drafted and sent for Government approval; 2. Number of solved complaints.

• Assessment: action not implemented The deadline for the implementation of the action expired on June 30, 2014. The WG members were not provided detailed data regarding the implementation of the action during the monitoring period. The matter was not put on the WG agenda during the reporting period. No drafts of legislative acts to regulate the procedure of solving complaints have been published on the CPO and MOJ websites. Moreover, in the CPO work plan for 2014, the deadline for the implementation of the action is set for December 2014.

For the mentioned reasons and taking into account the fact that the performance indicators presented in the Action Plan for the reporting period were not reached, action 6.5.5 section 2 is deemed not completed.

Specific area of intervention 6.5.9: Provision of educational, occupational and other social activities to the convicts

Action 6.5.9 section 1: Revision of the legal framework in order to optimize the system of educational, occupational and other social activities provided to the convicts • Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 • Responsible Institution: MOJ, MLSPF, MOE • Performance Indicator: Draft amendments developed and submitted for Government approval.

• Assessment: action not implemented 33

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI

The deadline for the implementation of the action expired on June 30, 2014. The WG members were not provided detailed data regarding the implementation of the action during the monitoring period. Additionally, during the reporting period, the matter was not put on the agenda in the WG. No drafts of legislative acts to establish a procedure for optimization of the system of educational, occupational or social activities offered to the convicts were published on the DPI and MOJ websites.

For the mentioned reasons and taking into account the fact that, for the reporting period, the performance indicators presented in the AP were not reached, action 6.5.9 section 1 is deemed to be not completed.

Group III. Improve the legal framework; draft laws and bylaws Specific area of intervention 6.3.3: Strengthening the system of juvenile parole

Action 6.3.3. Section 2. Developing probation programs for minors.

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible Institution: MOJ Performance Indicator: Program developed and approved.

Assessment: action not implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the action expired on June 30, 2014. The WG members were not provided detailed data regarding the implementation of the action during the monitoring period. The matter was not put on the agenda in the WG during the reporting period.

No probation programs for minors were published on the CPO and MOJ websites. Previously, outside of the reporting period, the CPO reported on the implementation of a single program, ”Prevention of violence among minors”, which, that according to the reporting person, has been approved. No other programs were developed and approved.

For the mentioned reasons and taking into account the fact that the performance indicators presented in the Action Plan for the reporting period were not reached, action 6.3.3 section 2 is deemed not completed.

Group VII. Optimize the personnel and/or services Specific area of intervention 6.5.7: Promote and implement ethical standards in the probation and penitentiary systems

Action 6.5.7 section 2: Create structures responsible for observing professional ethics and solving complaints on the behavior of the probation councilors and employees of the penitentiary system

34

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter II, 2014 Responsible Institution: MOJ Performance Indicator: Structures created Assessment: action not implemented

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI

The deadline for the implementation of the action expired on 30 June 2014. The WG members were not provided detailed data regarding the implementation of the action during the monitoring period. The matter was not put on the agenda in the WG during the reporting period. No drafts of legal acts to confirm the creation of structures responsible for solving complaints on the conduct of probation officers were published on the CPO and MOJ websites.

For these reasons and taking into account the fact that, in the reporting period, the performance indicators presented in the Action Plan were not reached, action 6.5.7 section 2 is deemed not implemented.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS implemented during QUARTER II, 2014 Group II. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws Specific area of intervention 6.3.4: Ensuring the protection of the rights of children in detention

Action 6.3.4. Section 5. Developing programs to prepare minors for release from detention

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter IV, 2013 Responsible Institution: MOJ Performance Indicator: Programs developed Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the action expired on 31 December 2013. The WG members were not provided additional data regarding the implementation of the action during the monitoring period. Nevertheless, according to the DPI, specific programs for preparation of minors for release from detention have been prepared and tested in accordance with Directive no.

38 “D” of 22 May 2013. Consequently, these programs were to be approved by the leadership of DPI by the end of June 2014.

For the mentioned reasons and taking into account the fact that the performance indicators presented in the Action Plan were reached during the reporting period, action 6.3.4 section 5 is deemed to be implemented.

Specific area of intervention 6.4.3: Strengthen the capacities of the institutions responsible of deprivation of liberty (police, penitentiary system, NAC, psychiatric institutions, psychoneurological closed wards and care homes) to prevent torture and ill treatments

Action 6.4.3 section 2: Develop internal independent disciplinary mechanisms to process complaints on acts of torture and other ill treatments

• • • •

Deadline: Quarter IV, 2014 Responsible Institution: MOJ, PGO, MOI, NAC Performance Indicator: 1. Regulations developed; 2. Number of complaints processed.

Assessment: action implemented

The deadline for the implementation of the action expired on 31 December 2012. During the monitoring period, on June 6, 2014, a joint order of approval of the Regulation on the procedure 35

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI

of identification, registration and reporting of the alleged cases of torture, inhumane or degrading treatment1 was published.

Given the mentioned reasons and taking into account the fact that the performance indicators presented in the AP for the reporting period were reached, action 6.4.3 section 2 is deemed completed.

Uncompleted actions from the list of overdue actions (due by 31 December 2013) Action

Responsible Institution

Deadline

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

36

Action 6.1.1 section 1: Conduct a study on the regulatory framework on the performance, membership of and criteria for selecting judges to the Constitutional Court Action 6.2.4 section 1: Conduct a study of the performance of the ombudsman for children’s rights protection, including the appropriateness of creating the institution of child’s advocate as a separate institution Action 6.3.3 section 6: Assess the necessary financial, material and human resources for the probation system Action 6.3.5 section 1: Review the regulatory framework on collection and processing of data on the children in contact with the justice system and, if appropriate, draft amendments to it Action 6.4.2 section 1: Detailed review of the financial needs of the penitentiary institutions in order to gradually increase the budgets allocated to these institutions Action 6.5.1 section 1: Develop a concept of the probation institution that will contribute to community safety through effective rehabilitation of offenders

Quart. IV, 2013

Constitutional Court, MOJ

Quart. IV, 2013

CHRM

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ

Quart. IV, 2013

CHRM, MOI, PGO, MOJ, SCM, MLSPF, NBS

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ, MOF

Quart. I, 2013

MOJ

Quart. IV, 2013

PGO, SCM, MOI, NLAC

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, PGO

Group II. Improve the legal framework; draft laws and bylaws Action 6.3.2 section 1: Formulate comments to the legislation on the review of cases with children victims or witnesses of crimes Action 6.3.4 section 3: Develop the methodology of individual planning of sentence execution by children in detention Action 6.5.1 section 4: Develop the probation officer’s occupational standard and link the probation performance indicators with the new system of performance indicators in the justice sector Action 6.4.3 section 4: Draft amendments to the regulatory framework to ensure a direct subordination of anti-torture prosecutors to the Prosecutor General’s Office

1 http://lex.justice.md/index.php?action=view&view=doc&lang=1&id=353245

Quart. IV, 2013

MOJ

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VI

11.

12.

13.

Action 6.4.4 section 1: Develop a concept of a system of registration and records of apprehension, detention and arrest cases; draft relevant amendments to the legal framework, if appropriate Action 6.4.5 section 1: Draft amendments to the legal framework to ensure the professional independence of medical workers in detention facilities by transferring them to the Ministry of Health in order to grant probative value to their independent examination in alleged cases of torture, to eliminate contradictions with regard to qualifying actions as acts of torture, and to introduce more serious sanctions for acts of torture depending on the severity of these acts Action 6.4.6 section 1: Develop the regulatory framework necessary for the rehabilitation of victims of torture and ill treatment

Quart. IV, 2012

MOI, PGO, NAC, CS, MOJ

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, CHRM, PGO, MOI, NAC, CS, MOH

Quart. IV, 2012

MOJ, MLSPF

37

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VII

Chapter VII

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS UNDER PILLAR VII Institutional Capacity. Throughout the second quarter of 2014, the WG for monitoring of the implementation of the actions for Pillar VII of the strategy met in one meeting, on 4 April 2014.

During the meeting, the members approved the 2013 JSRS Activity Report.

1. ACTIONS DUE BY: QUARTER II, 2014

No actions were scheduled for completion under this Pillar during the second quarter of 2014.

2. OVERDUE ACTIONS (due by 31 March 2014)

Unfortunately, not one action from the list of overdue actions was completed during the reporting period. Uncompleted actions are presented in the table below.

Uncompleted actions from the list of overdue actions (due by 31 March 2014)

Action

Responsible Institution

Deadline

Group I. Studies and needs assessments examining current practices; proposing recommendations for reform 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

38

Action 7.1.4 section 1: Review the functions and structure of each institution involved in the Justice Sector Reform process Action 7.2.3 section 1: Develop a study on the public access to regulations (database)

Quarter IV, 2012 Quarter II, 2012

Justice sector institutions MOJ, E-GOV

Group II. Develop methodological recommendations and professional training programs Action 7.2.2 section 4: Develop a handbook on drafting legislation

Quarter IV, 2012

MOJ

Quarter II, 2012

MOJ, State Chancellery

Quarter IV, 2013

MOJ

Group III. Improve the legal framework, draft laws and bylaws Action 7.2.2 section 3: Develop regulatory framework on exante methodology

Group VI. Acquisition and installation of equipment, software updates Action 7.1.6 section 1: Design the concept of and deploy the integrated informational system of collecting, analysis and exchange of information on reform implementation Action 7.2.3 section 2: Optimize the database of secondary legislation (bylaws)

Quarter II, 2013

MOJ, E-GOV

Quarter IV, 2013

Justice sector institutions

Group VII. Create and streamline the work of justice sector bodies (committees, colleges, etc.)

Action 7.1.4 section 2: Draft and implement structural and functional changes in the institutions involved in the justice sector reform to make them active players in the reform process

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

CHAPTER VIII

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE A. APPEARANCES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE – PERCEPTIONS OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE The survey is aimed at measuring the perception of the parties in the trial and their representatives (not the perception of the observer/monitor) regarding the act of justice based on the following indicators (parameters):

1. Availability of Information and Transparency; 2. Quality of Facilities and E-justice; 3. Access to justice; 4. Capacity, Independence and Impartiality of Judges; 5. Fairness of Proceedings; 6. Quality of the Outcome of the Proceedings (Judgments); 7. General State and Trends in the Quality of Administration of Justice.

Thus, the 22 questions of the survey were divided by the above categories. The respondents were asked to choose between three levels of satisfaction, totally dissatisfied, partially satisfied and totally satisfied. The option “undecided” was also included for the cases when the question was not applicable or the respondent chose not to answer it.

The parties to the trials observed by the monitors during Quarter II, 2014, (April, May and June 2014) were asked to fill in these questionnaires. A total of 342 questionnaires were completed.

Given the different level of training and understanding of judiciary proceedings of the participants in the survey, it was suggested to divide the respondents into three categories:

1. Lawyers, a total of 125 people; 2. Prosecutors, a total of 47 persons; and 3. Court users (which include plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, respondents and victims), totaling 170 persons.

In order to create a comparative image for every question diagrams were created indicating the choice per surveyed categories.

39

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

1. Access to legal information and available case law of the court (brochures, leaflets): 80% 67%

70% 58%

60% 50% 40%

Totally satisfied Undecided

15% 17%

13%

16% 7%

10%

1%

0%

Partially satisfied

34%

28%

30% 20%

Totally dissatisfied

43%

Lawyers

0% Prosecutors

Court users

Note: As we could find, most satisfied with the access to legal information were the prosecutors. The most dissatisfied were the court users: 16% said they were totally dissatisfied and only 43% were totally satisfied with the access to legal information and case law of the court, which represent the lowest rates among all categories.

2. Politeness and attitude of the registry staff: 90%

85%

80% 66%

70%

59%

60%

Totally dissatisfied

50%

Partially satisfied

40%

Totally satisfied

30% 20% 10% 0%

24% 13%

9% 1% Lawyers

Undecided

23%

2%

11% 0%

Prosecutors

6%

Court users

Note: Research data shows that a majority of the surveyed highly appreciates the politeness and attitude of the registry staff, thus totally satisfied are 85% prosecutors, 66% lawyers and 59% court users. The data is similar to the previous quarters’ reports.

40

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

3. Professionalism of the court clerks: 76%

80% 70%

67%

62%

60% Totally dissatisfied

50%

Partially satisfied

40%

33%

Totally satisfied

30% 20% 10%

Undecided

20% 3%

0%

2% Lawyers

19%

2%

2%

Prosecutors

8%

7%

Court users

Note: As in the previous diagram, the majority appreciates the professionalism of the court clerks, the numbers of the totally satisfied having similar rates. Thus totally satisfied are 76% of prosecutors and 67% court users and 62% lawyers.

4. Court premises (access for persons with disabilities, chairs on the hall, room for consultation of the case, room for lawyers, prosecutors, bathroom): 60%

57%

50%

45%

42% 40%

35%

Totally dissatisfied

28%

30%

Totally satisfied

22%

22% 20%

Undecided

15%

10% 0%

Partially satisfied

27%

6% 1% Lawyers

0% Prosecutors

Court users

Note: For this question, we can observe that the prosecutors are the most satisfied group: 57% of the prosecutors are totally satisfied with the court premises, compared to 35% of the lawyers and 45% of the court users. On the other hand, 22% of lawyers and court users said they were totally dissatisfied by the facilities provided by the court premises, along with 15% of prosecutors.

41

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

5. Signs to the court building and inside premises: 60%

54%

50%

50%

40%

40%

20%

Totally dissatisfied

31%

30%

30%

36%

Partially satisfied

20%

Totally satisfied

20%

Undecided

11%

10%

4%

0%

0%

Lawyers

Prosecutors

4% Court users

Note: The responses regarding the signs towards and inside the court building show that totally satisfied are 54% of the prosecutors vs. 30% and 36% of the lawyers and court users. The rate of those totally dissatisfied is 20% for the lawyers and court users, and 11% for prosecutors.

6. Furnishing and equipment of the courtroom: 80%

72%

70%

66%

61%

60%

Totally dissatisfied

50%

Partially satisfied

40%

Totally satisfied

30%

30%

22%

20% 10% 0%

8% 1% Lawyers

4%

Undecided

19% 9% 2%

Prosecutors

6%

Court users

Note: Based on the obtained data we note that the rates of the totally satisfied by the furnishing and equipment of the courtrooms are basically similar across all categories. Thus totally satisfied are round 72% of the prosecutors, 61% lawyers and 66% court users.

42

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

7. Quality of court webpage, including search engine: 70%

65%

60% 49%

50%

44%

40%

20%

Partially satisfied

30%

30%

Totally dissatisfied Totally satisfied

23% 25%

24%

Undecided

15%

10%

6%

0%

Lawyers

7%

4%

Prosecutors

8%

Court users

Note: The rate of those satisfied is bigger than those unsatisfied even if it does not represent the majority. However the responses in the 4th category (not applicable) allow us to conclude that 44% of court users, 7% of lawyers and 6% of the prosecutors did not browse the webpage of the court.

8. E-Management of the cases and judiciary process, including computerized management of the proceedings: 80% 67%

70% 60% 47%

50%

Totally dissatisfied

38%

40%

35%

30%

0%

9%

6% Lawyers

7%

Partially satisfied Totally satisfied Undecided

22%

20% 10%

39%

4%

Prosecutors

10%

16%

Court users

Note: Similar to the previous diagram, we can see that the electronic case management system is highly appreciated by 67% of the prosecutors, 47% of the lawyers and 35% of the court users. On the other hand, 39% of dissatisfied court users prove they do not understand how case distribution works.

43

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

9. Ease of the consultation of the case file: 100%

87%

90% 80% 65%

70%

Totally dissatisfied

57%

60%

Partially satisfied

50%

Totally satisfied

40%

30%

30% 20% 10%

13% 5%

0%

Undecided

27%

1% Lawyers

0%

0%

Prosecutors

10%

6%

Court users

Note: Research data show that the consultation of the case file is not an issue. This is proved by the data, as 87% of prosecutors declared they are totally satisfied with the way files are offered for consultation, and the same opinion is shared by 65% lawyers and 57% of court users.

10. Court fees and other costs of access to justice (excluding lawyers’ fees): 45%

41%

39% 40%

40%

41% 37%

35% 30% 25%

22% 18%

20%

Totally dissatisfied

24% 20% 15%

15%

Partially satisfied Totally satisfied Undecided

10% 5% 0%

2%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The court fees do not represent an issue for the court users. Thus only 15% of the court users, 2% of lawyers are totally dissatisfied by the court expenses and other costs related to case examination.

44

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

11. Punctuality of the court in conducting hearings on time: 80% 67%

70% 60%

54% 47%

50%

Totally dissatisfied

40%

40%

Partially satisfied

30% 20% 10%

24% 10% 2%

0%

Lawyers

Totally satisfied

27%

Undecided

12%

7%

6%

2%

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The majority of the respondents are totally satisfied with the punctuality in conducting hearings. Thus 67% of the prosecutors, 47% of the lawyers, and 54% of the court users have declared themselves totally satisfied with the timely conduct of the hearings. On the other hand, 12% of lawyers and court users and 7% of prosecutors said they were totally dissatisfied with the punctuality of the judges in conducting hearings.

12. Adequacy in time between the summons and hearing (to allow parties to prepare for the trial): 100%

87%

90% 80%

73%

72%

70%

Totally dissatisfied

60%

Partially satisfied

50%

Totally satisfied

40%

Undecided

25%

30% 20% 10% 0%

13% 2%

0% Lawyers

0%

8% 0%

Prosecutors

15% 5%

Court users

Note: We can estimate that the absolute majority of the prosecutors, namely 87%, are totally satisfied with the adequacy in time between summons and hearing, same as 73% lawyers and 72% of the court users who declared themselves totally satisfied with the adequacy in time between summons and hearing.

45

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

13. Politeness and attitude of the judge(s): 90%

80%

77%

80%

69%

70% 60%

Totally dissatisfied

50%

Partially satisfied

40%

Totally satisfied Undecided

27%

30%

17%

20% 10%

2%

0%

2% Lawyers

17%

3%

3%

Prosecutors

2%

0%

Court users

Note: We can consider that the absolute majority of those interviewed are completely satisfied by the politeness and attitude of the judges, thus 77% prosecutors, 69% lawyers, 80% court users agree to this. On the other hand, only the prosecutors and lawyers in insignificant ratios expressed total dissatisfaction with the politeness and attitude of the judge.

14. Professionalism and competence of judge(s), including clarity of language and expressions: 85%

90% 80% 70%

65%

61%

60%

Totally dissatisfied

50%

Partially satisfied

40%

Totally satisfied

34%

30% 20% 10% 0%

Undecided

24% 9%

3%

2% Lawyers

7%

0% Prosecutors

7%

4%

Court users

Note: Same as for the previous question, we found that the majority of those surveyed are totally satisfied by the professionalism and competence of the judges; thus, 85% of prosecutors, 61% of lawyers, 65% of court users agree to this. Across the aisle, none of the prosecutors, 3% of lawyers, and 7% of the court users were totally dissatisfied with the judges’ professionalism.

46

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

15. Impartiality of judge(s): 85%

90% 80% 70%

62%

62%

60%

Totally dissatisfied

50%

Partially satisfied

40%

Totally satisfied

29%

30%

Undecided

20% 10%

19%

13% 6%

3%

0%

Lawyers

2%

0%

Prosecutors

12%

7%

Court users

Note: 85% of the prosecutors, 62% of the lawyers and 62% of the court users are totally satisfied by the impartiality of the judges. As many as 3% of the lawyers and 7% of court users declared themselves totally dissatisfied.

16. Professionalism and competency of lawyer(s): 70%

63%

60%

54% 46%

50%

37%

40% 29%

30%

0%

Undecided

20% 12%

8%

10% 0%

0% Lawyers

Partially satisfied Totally satisfied

26%

20%

Totally dissatisfied

Prosecutors

4% Court users

Note: The professionalism of the lawyers was assessed by prosecutors as totally satisfactory at a rate of 54%, and by the court users at a rate of 46%. Totally dissatisfied were only 4% of court users. Surveyed lawyers assessed their colleagues by total satisfaction at a rate of 29%, while 63% refrained from an answer.

47

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

17. Professionalism and competency of prosecutor(s), by case: 70% 60%

60% 50%

48% 48%

44%

40%

Totally dissatisfied

35%

Partially satisfied

30% 17%

20% 10%

Totally satisfied

23% 13%

4%

0%

Undecided

0% Lawyers

4%

4%

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The professionalism of the prosecutors was assessed by lawyers as totally satisfactory at a rate of 44%, and by the court users at a rate of 23%. Totally dissatisfied were 4% of respondents. Surveyed prosecutors assessed their colleagues by total satisfaction at a rate of 48%, while 48% refrained from an answer.

18. Sufficient time and opportunity to present arguments and evidence and refute opposite evidence: 90%

80%

80% 70%

62%

60%

52%

Totally dissatisfied

50%

Partially satisfied

40%

Totally satisfied

28%

27%

30% 20% 10% 0%

15% 6%

4% Lawyers

4%

12%

Undecided

8%

0%

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The majority of those surveyed said they were totally satisfied with the time and possibilities to present their arguments and refute the evidence brought by the opposite side, thus 80% of the prosecutors, 62% of the lawyers and 52% of court users declared totally satisfied with that.

48

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

19. Reasonable time/duration of the proceedings: 70%

63%

60%

52%

50%

42% 42%

Totally dissatisfied

40%

Partially satisfied

33%

28%

30%

Undecided

20% 10%

Totally satisfied

12%

10%

6% 0%

0%

Lawyers

8%

4%

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: For about 63% of the prosecutors, 42% of the lawyers and 52% of the court users, the duration of the proceedings seems to take a reasonable amount of time, as they reported their total satisfaction with it, and only 10% lawyers and 12% of the court users were totally dissatisfied.

20. Publicity of proceedings for third parties and media: 90%

83%

80% 66%

70%

65%

60%

Totally dissatisfied

50%

Partially satisfied

40%

Totally satisfied Undecided

30% 16%

20% 10% 0%

3%

20%

14%

13% 0%

Lawyers

4%

Prosecutors

5%

10%

Court users

Note: The publicity of the proceedings and media access in the courtrooms was positively appreciated by those surveyed. Thus 83% of the prosecutors, 66% of the lawyers and 65% of court users are totally satisfied with the publicity of hearings. 5% of court users and 3% of lawyers showed total dissatisfaction with this aspect.

49

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

21. Clarity of the judgment: 60%

52%

50%

44%

46%

49%

46% 39%

40%

Totally dissatisfied Partially satisfied

30%

Totally satisfied Undecided

20% 10%

8% 2%

0%

0% Lawyers

5%

2%

Prosecutors

8%

Court users

Note: Most of the respondents could not share their opinion on the clarity of the adopted decisions because the situation was not applicable. Despite of this, 46% of the prosecutors, 39% of the court users and 44% of lawyers said they are totally satisfied with the clarity of the court decision.

22. Promptness or delay in the written judgment: 60% 50%

48%

46%

51% 46%

38%

40%

35%

Partially satisfied

30%

Totally satisfied Undecided

20% 10% 0%

Totally dissatisfied

11% 4%

7%

5%

8%

0% Lawyers

Prosecutors

Court users

Note: The same situation as in the previous diagram is reflected with regard to the question on how satisfied those surveyed were with the promptness of the written judgment. Thus, 48% of the prosecutors, 38% of the lawyers and 35% of court users said they are totally satisfied with the promptness of the written judgment.

50

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

B. CHARTS FOR MEASURING THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE VIA DIRECT OBSERVATION OF COURT HEARINGS To develop the diagrams, the authors analyzed 300 questionnaires completed by the field monitors in the period between 1 April and 30 June 2014. The methodology of developing the diagrams consisted of entering the direct numerical values corresponding to each questionnaire response options (yes, no, undecided, not applicable). The undecided value ​​was used in situations where an objective assessment of response was not possible; it was not entered in cases where the action to which it refers did not occur during the hearing.

The questionnaire was put together based on a methodology developed as part of this project, but also on other instruments, such as: the Model Methodology for Measuring User Satisfaction of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), OSCE Legal Bulletin on International Rights to a Fair Trial and Council of Europe Manual on Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The monitoring effort involved 36 observers who monitored meetings in all types of courts, including specialized courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice. Thus, according to analyzed data, hearings were monitored in courts of different levels, as follows: 252 trials were monitored in regular courts, 12 – in specialized courts, 30 – in courts of appeal, and six – in the Supreme Court. Of the total number of 300 trials, 147 were civil trials and 153 – criminal cases.

All observers had previously been involved in civic monitoring of democratic processes, benefited from in-depth training on the principles mentioned above, and were consulted during the monitoring effort.

The results below arise from personal evaluation of the monitor during the observation of the court proceedings. Particular attention was paid to:

1. Access to Justice and Equality; 2. Competent, Independent and Impartial Court; 3. Publicity of Hearings; 4. Specific Aspects of Fairness of Criminal Trials, including Presumption of Innocence; 5. Adversarial Principle, Equality of Arms and Defense Rights; 6. Public, Timely and Reasoned Judgment and Quality of Outcome of Proceedings.

Unlike the first part of the Monitoring Survey, this part involved a personal evaluation of the monitor of the procedural realities observed. Hearings were randomly selected: some lasted several minutes, while others went on for hours. In effect, the observers did not fill the parts in the questionnaires related to stages in the hearing they did not attend/observe. Half of the monitored hearings referred to civil and litigation cases; the other half related to criminal and administrative cases. Only criminal cases were monitored at the Supreme Court of Justice. So the numbers are: 147 trials on civil cases, and 153 trials on criminal/administrative cases.

51

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

1. ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND EQUALITY 1. Were there any restrictions imposed on the ability to summon to court, or to submit claims or complaints in court?

Note: Of the total 300 trials observes, in 292, the monitors believed that no restrictions were imposed on the ability to summon to court, or to submit claims or complaints in court.

350 292

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

0 Yes

No

2

6

Undecided

Not applicable

2. COMPETENT, INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL COURT 2. Were there any suspicions regarding the independence of the court, in particular the presence of any influence, pressure or threats?

Note: In most of the trials (295), the observers stated no reasonable suspicions that the judge(s) were under pressure, threat or were not independent;

350 295

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

2 Yes

No

3

0

Undecided

Not applicable

3. Were there reasons to believe that the court was partial? Were there grounds to disqualify the judge from the case (the judge showed bias, prejudice or a pre-determined attitude towards the examined case; the judge expressed his opinion on the guilt of a person during the trial, inside or outside the courtroom; the judge communicated with the prosecutor or the defense counsel before the hearing or between proceedings, was there a potential conflict of interests that raised reasonable fear that the judge could not act impartially)?

52

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

Note: In almost all trails monitored (295 trials), the observers found no grounds for disqualifying the judge.

Only in one case did the monitor consider that the judge had a biased opinion formed in advance.

350 295

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

1 Yes

No

4

0

Undecided

Not applicable

3. PUBLICITY OF HEARINGS 4. Did the court ask certain categories (media, public, observers, etc.) to leave the hearing?

Note: Observers noted throughout the quarter that the courts did not demand any groups to leave the courtroom. Only in five cases there was a request for leaving the room to witnesses that were invited to testify.

350 295

300 250 200 150 100 50 5 0

Yes

No

0

0

Undecided

Not applicable

5. Was the hearing held in a courtroom?

Note: Of the 300 trials monitored, 252 hearings were held in courtrooms, and 48 hearings – in judges’ offices. We note that, compared with Quarter I of 2014, the number of hearings held in courtrooms went up by 12, of or by 6%. Thus, we note a positive dynamic in that sense.

300 250

252

200 150 100 48

50 0

Yes

No

0

0

Undecided

Not applicable

53

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

6. Was the size of the courtroom adequate to accommodate all the participants in the case?

350 300

289

250 200 150 100 50 0

11 Yes

No

0

0

Undecided

Not applicable

Note: In 289 of 300 monitored trials, the rooms used to conducting the hearings were spacious enough to accommodate all the parties in the trial. In 16 11 cases, it was established that the venues did not ensure the necessary comfort and conditions for the conduct of the trial.

Similar data were observed during previous reporting periods.

7. Was the courtroom equipped with the necessary furniture?

300

Note: 284 of the 300 monitored court hearings were conducted in well-furnished rooms, and 16 hearings were held in facilities insufficiently furnished to allow the parties to take notes or hold their papers.

284

250 200 150 100 50 0

16 Yes

No

0

0

Undecided

Not applicable

8. Was the court hearing audio-recorded?

Note: In Quarter 2 of 2014, 261 of 300 trials were audio recorded and other 39 not. We note that similar data was registered in the previous Quarter.

300 261 250 200 150 100 39

50 0

54

Yes

No

0

0

Undecided

Not applicable

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

9. Was any person denied access to the courtroom?

Note: In the overwhelming majority of the monitored trials (299 cases), there were not cases of denying anyone the right to enter the courtroom.

Only one case was reported when a person was denied access into the courtroom.

350 299

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

1 Yes

No

0

0

Undecided

Not applicable

4. SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF FAIRNESS OF CRIMINAL TRIALS, INCLUDING PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE 10. Did the court pre-determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant (offender)?

160

147

143

140 120 100 80 60

Note: Of the 153 of criminal and administrative cases monitored, there were no cases of pre-determined guilt of the offender/defendant or a biased attitude of the judge towards the defendant.

40 20 0

10

0 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

11. Was the defendant (offender) treated in any way such as to indicate that he is guilty (i.e. was he kept in handcuffs during the hearing, was he kept in a cage, etc.)?

160

147

139

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

8

6 Yes

Note: Of the 153 hearings of criminal case trials monitored, in 6 hearings, it was found that the defendant/offender was treated in a way as to indicate that he was guilty; in the remaining 139 cases, this was not observed.

No

Undecided

Not applicable

55

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

12. Did the news coverage of the case undermine the presumption of innocence and encouraged bias of judges against the defendant (offender)?

160

147

140 120

100

100 80 53

60 40 20 0

Note: In 53 hearings, the monitors reported no circumstances when the media coverage of the trial did not undermine the presumption of innocence of the defendant or inflict the court’s biased attitude towards them; in the remaining 100 cases, they were undecided/not applicable.

0 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

13. Did any public authority make an unequivocal declaration on the defendant (offender)’s guilt before his conviction?

160

147

140 120 100

83

80

Note: Only in two out of 153 cases did the monitor believe that there were statements made regarding the defendant (offender)’s guilt.

68

60 40 20 0

2 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

14. Did the defendant (offender) enjoy the right against self-incrimination? Did the judge explain to the defendant his right not to testify against himself?

160

147

140 120

113

100 80 60

34

40 20 0

56

6 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

Note: The monitors found that there were six cases in which the defendant/offender did not seem to benefit from their right not to testify against themselves, as the observed stage of the hearing did not make clear whether that right was guaranteed.

In the rest of cases monitors considered whether this right was respected or it was unclear from the stage of the hearing.

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

15. Was the defendant compelled to give testimony in court?

160

147

140

124

120 100 80

Note: No cases were reported when the defendant/respondent was compelled to testify. In 124 cases, no such instance was established, while in 29 cases the monitors were undecided.

60 40 20 0

29 0 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

5. ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLE, EQUALITY OF ARMS AND DEFENSE RIGHTS A. Adequate Preparation for the Case 16. Did the parties have „adequate time� to prepare the case?

Note: Of the monitored trials, in 16 hearings it was reported that the parties had insufficient time to prepare for the trial, while in 262 hearings, such circumstances were not found.

300 262 250 200 150 100 50 0

16 Yes

2 No

Undecided

20 Not applicable

17. Were there any objections from the parties to the trial that they had not been communicated all the information relevant to the case or that they did not have time to familiarize themselves with documentary evidence held by the adverse party?

300

265

250 200 150 100 50 0

18 Yes

15 No

Undecided

2

Note: With regard to the objections from the parties to the trial that they had not been communicated all the information relevant to the case or that they did not have time to familiarize themselves with the documentary evidence held by the adverse party, 18 such cases were reported; at the same time, in 265 cases, such circumstances were not reported.

Not applicable

57

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

B. Timely Hearing 18. Were procedural delays or postponements of the hearing unreasonable, given the circumstances of the case?

Note: With regard to reasonable delays, in 12 trials the monitors assessed the delays as unreasonable, while in 216 cases the delays were deemed reasonable.

250 216 200

150

100 68 50 12 0

Yes

4 No

Undecided

Not applicable

19. Did the delays have any detrimental effect upon the individual’s legal practical position (for instance, where he has been detained in custody or during trial) or his legal position (questions related to statute of limitations, etc.)?

Note: With regard to hearing postponements that could have harmed the trial, monitors found that in 17 hearings such delays could have harmed the trial, while in 212 cases the delays did not affect the trial.

250 212 200

150

100 68 50 17 0

Yes

3 No

Undecided

Not applicable

C. Right to Presence at Hearing and Effective Participation 20. Was the respondent (defendant/offender) given the opportunity to participate in a hearing to present his case?

300

Note: In the absolute majority of cases (271), the respondent (defendant/offender) was given a real opportunity to participate at the trial to present their case. There were only seven cases when that right was restricted.

271

250 200 150 100 50 0

58

Yes

22

7

0

No

Undecided

Not applicable

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

D. Right to Legal Representation or Self-Representation 21. Did the parties to trial have representation?

200 180

Note: In the majority of court hearings, the parties were represented by lawyers or legal representatives (178 sittings); in 111 cases, the parties did not have legal counsel or representation.

178

160 140

111

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1 Yes

No

Undecided

10 Not applicable

22. Were the parties prohibited to represent themselves during the hearing?

300

Note: No cases of prohibition of selfrepresentation were reported.

266

250 200 150 100 50 0

3

0 Yes

No

Undecided

31 Not applicable

23. Did one or more parties seek representation by counsel?

180

Note: In 52 monitored trials, a lawyer’s assistance was requested; in other 168 hearings, such requests were not submitted.

168

160 140 120 100 77

80 60

52

40 20 0

3 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

59

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

24. If the party did not have sufficient means for legal assistance, did it request state-guaranteed legal aid?

180

160

160 140

Note: A lawyer from the NLAC was requested only in 20 hearings.

116

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

20 4 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

25. Did the counsel act in an independent, competent and efficient manner?

180

171

160 140

118

120 100 80

Note: In 171 hearings where lawyers were present, the monitors noted that the lawyers acted in an independent, competent and efficient manner; in other seven hearings, this was not the case.

60 40 20 0

Yes

7

4

No

Undecided

Not applicable

E. Examination of Witnesses 26. Were the parties provided with the same opportunities to examine witnesses and experts, which had been summoned to testify at trial?

160

144

146

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

60

Yes

5

5

No

Undecided

Not applicable

Note: In half of the hearings (146), monitors found that the sides had equal possibilities to interview witnesses and experts, and in five cases this possibility was not provided.

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

27. Were there all measures taken to ensure the participation of all witnesses and experts summoned by the court/parties?

160 140

145 129

120 100 80

Note: In 23 cases, the monitors established that the court could have taken additional measures to ensure the presence of witnesses and other sides at the trial.

60 40

23

20 0

3 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

F. Interpretation and Translation 28. Did the parties request the presence of a translator/interpreter?

200

Note: In 42 hearings, a translator’s assistance was requested.

186

180 160 140 120 100

71

80 60 40

42

20 0

1 Yes

No

Undecided

Not applicable

29. Was the appointed translator/interpreter an official court interpreter selected from the list of court interpreters?

300 258 250

Note: For all cases the interpreters were authorized.

200 150 100 50 0

42

Yes

0

0

No

Undecided

Not applicable

61

TRIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF USER SATISFACTION WITH THE ACT OF JUSTICE

30. Did the defendant/parties appear to fully understand the translated questions?

300 258 250 200

Note: In none of the cases with the participation of a translator/interpreter were there communication or understanding issues.

150 100 50 0

42

Yes

0

0

No

Undecided

Not applicable

G. Additional question regarding the equality of arms 31. Do you think there were any other aspects in the proceedings that led to inequality of the parties in the process of the incapacity of one of the parties to fully represent its case and object to the evidence considered fake?

300

Note: In 282 cases no such elements were reported. Only in seven cases, the parties in the trial invoked various aspects of inequality.

282

250 200 150 100 50 7 0

Yes

No

4

7

Undecided

Not applicable

6. THE PUBLICITY OF JUDGMENT AND QUALITY OF THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCESS A. General Requirements 32. Do you think the judgment is clear?

180 160

160 133

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

62

Yes

2

5

No

Undecided

Not applicable

Note: In 160 cases the judgments were clear, and in two cases, the pronounced judgment was not understood.

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS On the implementation of actions under Pillar I According to the AP of the JSRS for the years 2011-2016, until the end of Quarter 2 of 2014, 78 actions were to be completed. Of these, 54 were implemented and other 24 were not implemented. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), 2 of the 5 planned actions were completed. Additionally, two more actions of those overdue at the beginning of the reporting period were accomplished.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar II

According to the Action Plan for the Implementation of the JSRS for 2011-2016, 84 actions are set for implementation under Pillar II. 51 actions were scheduled for implementation by the end of Quarter 2 of 2014 (30 June 2014). Out of these, 29 were implemented, and other 22 were not completed. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), two of the seven due actions were implemented. At the same time, three actions of those overdue at the beginning of the reporting period were also completed.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar III

According to the Action Plan for the Implementation of the JSRS for 2011-2016, until the end of Quarter 2 of 2014, 37 actions were scheduled for implementation under Pillar III. Out of these, 11 were implemented, and other 26 were not completed. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), one of the four planned actions was implemented. We take note of the positive trend in the different approach of the WG for Pillar III in regard to the discussion of actions in course of implementation and those overdue. We mean here the analysis of the essence of the proposed action and the relevance of the products achieved within the action to the purposes of the strategic area. At the same time, we cannot leave unnoticed the fact that a full involvement of all the members of the WG is required, as we have seen that the last two sittings were deliberative only by a minimal quorum, whereas 6 of the 13 members were always absent from the WG sittings. There is also to mention that the representative of the National Lawyers Union absented from several meetings although some due actions were supposed to be achieved with the direct support of this institution.

Another negative aspect that has been noticed during the second quarter of 2014 is that a common agreement point could not be reached on the actions that have impact on the profession of notaries, which was caused by the absence of branch representatives from the WG sittings.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar IV

According to the AP of the JSRS for 2011-2016, 29 actions were scheduled for implementation by the end of the second quarter of 2014 (30 June 2014). Out of these, 16 were implemented, and other 13 were not completed. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), one of the three planned actions was implemented. None of the overdue actions were completed.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar V

According to the AP of the JSRS for 2011-2016, a total of 28 actions were scheduled for implementation under Pillar V. Of those, 20 actions were to be completed by the end of the second

63

CONCLUSIONS

quarter of 2014 (30 June 2014). Out of these 20, 13 were achieved, and other seven were not achieved. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), two due actions were implemented. During the reporting period there were no overdue actions by 30 June 2014.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar VI

According to the 2011-2016 JSRS Action Plan, within the Pillar VI, in total 100 actions are scheduled for implementation. 49 actions were to be completed by second quarter of 2014 (30 June 2014). Out of these, 33 were implemented, and 16 were not achieved. During the reporting period (1 April – 30 June 2014), two due actions were implemented. Also, none of the four actions overdue by 30 June 2014 were implemented.

On the implementation of actions under Pillar VII

Although no actions were scheduled for the reporting period in the JSRS AP, the responsible institutions did not succeed in achieving any of the overdue actions. Thus, of the seven overdue actions, none was achieved, and more than half of these are overdue since 2012.

Trial monitoring

Thanks to the effort undertaken by the team of monitors in the second quarter of the 2014, 300 trials were monitored in all the courts across country. Of these, 153 were criminal/contravention cases, and were 147 civil cases. Additionally, 342 participants in the trials were given the possibility to fill in court satisfaction surveys.

With regard to monitoring of the court sittings, we noticed the positive dynamics of the number of recorded sittings, as well as the solemnity of the trials attended by monitors. Worth mentioning is that this indicator is not constant in all courts, and the most crowded was the activity of the Court of Appeal Chisinau, where most negative indicators were registered.

On the other hand, the weakest scores were reached on subjects related to court premises, facilities and websites. However the monitoring of trials did not aim at analyzing the corruptibility of the judges’ acts or the analysis of the quality of the justice act, as it was based on questionnaires filled in by the parties in the trial and monitors.

Note: The experts decided to avoid repeating the text for the uncompleted overdue actions in every report, thus these actions were presented in the form of a table for every Pillar. Thus the text of the Report is continuously structured by Pillars, and each of these on compartments on current (due) and overdue actions. Overdue actions that have been finalized during the reporting period are presented in the said compartments, while uncompleted overdue actions are mentioned in their respective table.

64

Pillar 2

2

5

Total for Quarter II, 2014

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

78 54

0

3

24

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2

51 7

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0

22 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

37 11 26 4 1 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

0

3

1

0 1 16 13

1 29 2

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0

2 1 1

0

2 1 1

0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0

20 13 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0

0

Pillar 6

7 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0

0 0 0 0 0 0

2

1

0 0 0 0

1

49 32 17 24 17 4 0 4 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1

0

0

6

17

26%

60%

100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 7 288 172 116 0 0 0 0

23

100%

1

0 0

1

74%

40%

0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

0%

Actions implemented / not implemented / % N/I % I % N/I 109 71 61% 39% 14 10 58% 42% 17 9 65% 35% 5 2 71% 29% 5 3 63% 38% 0 1 0% 100% 3 4 43% 57% 9 9 50% 50% 4 2 67% 33% Total

N/I Total I 16 5 180 0 0 24 0 0 26 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 18 0 0 6

Pillar 7

N/I Total I N/I Total I 7 6 34 22 12 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 6 4 2 0

Pillar 5

N/I Total I 9 4 13 0 5 0 6 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pillar 4

N/I Total I 6 21 13 0 0 5 0 1 2 0 0 4 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pillar 3

N/I Total I N/I Total I 32 13 27 17 10 27 14 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 7 6 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 3 0 0 0 15 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 1 0 0

45 19 13

Total I

TOTAL

Ministry of Justice Supreme Council of Magistrates National Institute of Justice National Anticorruption Center National Legal Aid Council National Union of Judicial Officers Ministry of Internal Affairs Prosecutor General's Office Center for Human Rights of Moldova National Council for Reforming the Law Enforcemen Bodies National Integrity Commission Parliament Central Public Administration E-Governance Center Justice sector Institutions Constitutional Court Supreme Council of Prosecutors Information and Security Service

Responsible institution

Pillar 1

Table 1 - Implementation of actions per Pillar

CONCLUSIONS

65

CONCLUSIONS

Chart 1 – Total actions: implemented and not implemented

Total - Actions implemented / Actions not implemented

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 I N/I

66

172 116