Access to justice

Report on the UNDP access to justice survey in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Report UNDP’s survey On access to justice In Europe and CIS

Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Bratislava Regional Centre

March, 2009

Acknowledgements This report could not have been prepared without the contributions from the Regional Country Offices. The author and the Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC) Human Rights and Justice Team would like to thank the following: Alla Bakunts (Armenia), Uladzimir Shcherbau (Belarus), Mario Kresic (Croatia), Stella Isidorou and Nicolas Jarraud (Cyprus), Natia Cherkezishvili (Georgia), Ainur Baimyrza (Kazakhstan), Virgjina Dumnica (Kosovo), Maksat Usupbaeva (Kyrgyzstan), Lina Jankauskiene (Lithuania), Matilda Dimovska (Republic of Moldova), Jelena Djonovic (Montenegro), Olivera Puric (Serbia), Alisher Karimov and Rastislav Vrbensky (Tajikistan), Leyla Sen and Seher Alacaci (Turkey), and Evgeniy Abdullaev (Uzbekistan). Special thanks should also be given to Nina Berg (New York). In addition, contributions were received for the Legal Aid Annex (Annex 3) from Atanas Politov and Olga Shepeleva from the Public Interest Law Initiative and from Milica Popovic. Thanks also to Barbara Hall for language editing.

Author: Joanna Brooks Coordinators: Louise Nylin, Rustam Pulatov, Angela Dumitrasco Design and layout: Valuer, Slovakia

Copyright 2009 United Nations Development Programme, All rights reserved The views expressed in this study reflect the author’s opinion and do not necessarily reflect UNDP’s position.

2

Table of contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

..............................................................................................

5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1 Background and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3 Summary of Main Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 6 7 7

2. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1 Access to Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2 Structure of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9 9 9

3. OVERVIEW OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN EACH RESPONDENT COUNTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1 Overview of the Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. UNDP’s ACCESS TO JUSTICE PORTFOLIO IN THE REGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1 UNDP’s Comparative Advantages and Entry Points into Access to Justice Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2 Consultations with Rights-Holders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3 UNDP’s Future Access to Justice Programming in Europe and the CIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 20 20 21

5. UNDP’s SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6. AREAS FOR FURTHER INTERVENTION/SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.1 Identified Areas of Access to Justice of interest to Country Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.2 Areas for Future Support from the Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ANNEXES Annex I Annex II Annex III Annex IV Annex V Annex VI TABLES Table 1 Table 2

Baseline Study on Access to Justice Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Country Offices and Participants in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Database of Legal Aid Providers in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Database of Judicial Training Institutions in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Database of Access to Justice Projects in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

UNDP’s Partners and Donors in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 33 34 37 41 66

Overview of the Justice System in Respondent Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Breakdown of Marginalized/Vulnerable Groups per Country and Corresponding Protective Policies/Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3

FIGURES Figure I Overview of Legal System Reform and Inter-Linkages between the Reform Process and Capacity Building of Rights-Holders and Duty-Bearers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure II Legal Aid Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure III Breakdown of Marginalized/Vulnerable Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure IV UNDP’s Areas of Engagement in Access to Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure V Country Office Budgets for Access to Justice Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure VI Specific Thematic Studies and Knowledge Products of Interest to Country Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

10 17 18 20 21 23

Acronyms and Abbreviations ADR BRC CIS CoP CSO EU FSU HIV/AIDS JTC NGO UNDP

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Bratislava Regional Centre The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Community of Practice Civil Society Organization European Union Former Soviet Union Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Judicial Training Centre Non-Governmental Organization United Nations Development Programme

5

1. Executive summary 1.1 Background and Context

E X E C U T I V E

S U M M A R Y

While development challenges in Europe and the CIS vary widely, the region is united by three commonalities: (a) European cultural/historical heritages, which influence prospects for regional integration and cooperation (but which become weaker as one moves east and south); (b) relatively high human development levels (most countries in the region being middle-income countries); and (c) the post-Communist transition.1 The latter point refers both to the transition from authoritarian politics and planned economies to market-based democracies, and to the challenges of state- and nationbuilding in successor states created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

6

Despite the modernization of public institutions and the establishment of market economies, two formidable governance challenges remain across the region: weak political interest in further reform, which is a reflection of inadequate efforts to promote inclusive citizenship and empower the excluded; and inadequate state capacity to implement reforms, deliver public services and ensure that elites are accountable to taxpayers and constituencies. The ‘transition momentum’ that inspired an unprecedented wave of democratic reforms in the 1990s has largely stalled, which prompts the need for much closer attention to detailed tuning and sequencing of policy measures and to the choice of implementation modalities, and for nurturing the internal drivers of democracy, including justice and human rights.

Reform of the judiciary is a priority for many countries in the region. Specifically, reform to create independent justice sectors is underway in many countries, in both the criminal and civil justice systems. In many countries of the region, both courts and governments have been operating inefficiently and without effective systems of democratic accountability, and in some countries, public corruption has been fostered at every level. Access to

justice is a vital part of the UNDP mandate to reduce poverty and strengthen democratic governance. It is also important to note that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are criteria for European Union (EU) accession, which provides incentive for those countries in the region that are on the EU accession path.

Globally, UNDP supports national processes to accelerate the progress of human development with a view to eradicating poverty through development, equitable and sustained economic growth and capacity development.

Accordingly, all UNDP policy advice, technical support, advocacy and contributions to strengthening coherence in global development must be aimed at the same end result: real improvement in people’s lives and in the choices and opportunities open to them. A focus on enhancing accountability and responsive governing institutions constitutes one of UNDP’s development priorities of support for 2008–2011,2 since it is a critical element of democratic governance for human development. UNDP support to national governments focuses on three branches of government: (a) strengthening legislatures, regional elected bodies and local assemblies; (b) supporting public administration reforms, in national governments and local authorities; and (c) promoting access to justice and the rule of law. In these areas, programme priority is given to strengthening the responsiveness mechanisms and public accountability to the concerns and interests of poor people, women and other vulnerable or excluded groups. Also, UNDP supports effective national public policy processes where the public sector – at local, regional and national levels – develops the capacity and resources to manage policies and services.

In light of the region’s characteristics, UNDP's long-term mission of Europe and the CIS can be best described as helping Europe and CIS countries develop socio-economic structures and governance systems that ensure sustainable, inclusive, equitable (particularly in terms of access to services), high and growing human development. Following

1 While exceptions can be found, all member Europe and CIS countries share at least one of these commonalities; many share all three.

2 More details can be found in the UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, www.undp.org/execbrd/word/dp07-43Rev1.doc

to a Human Rights-Based Approach to Access to Justice4.

To respond to a growing demand for support in the area of access to justice expressed by UNDP Country Offices in Europe and the CIS, during 2009 BRC will consolidate its regional framework of support and is forming an Access to Justice Community of Practice for work in the sector. The first concrete step was organizing a two-day working meeting with Justice Focal Points from five Country Offices in the region,5 with programming experience from the justice sector. The focal points were invited to provide advice and guidance on how to set up

At the meeting, it was agreed that a baseline study on access to justice would be developed. It was also agreed that the information gathered should contain some key details on the access to justice situation in each country of the region as well as UNDP initiatives. In this context, the BRC Justice and Human Rights sub-practice was commissioned to undertake the initial stock-taking of UNDP’s regional assets in the access to justice area under the overall justice and human rights umbrella. The information was collected through an on-line Questionnaire in cooperation with UNDP Country Office Focal Points and further processed into a report. This report provides an overall picture of access to justice in the region based on the information contributed by the participating Country Offices. The report also includes recommendations to help shape UNDP’s future access to justice programming in the region and BRC’s support to Country Offices in this respect.

1.2 Objective The main objective of the report is to take stock of UNDP’s assets on access to justice in the region, which can be used to strengthen and shape its future access to justice programming in order to ensure UNDP’s recognition as a credible actor in support of justice reform and access to justice in Europe and the CIS.

1.3 Summary of main conclusions and recommendations a. Conclusions Some general conclusions that can be drawn from the responses to the Questionnaire are as follows: (I)

UNDP is working in broad and diverse areas of access to justice in the region;

3 http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/Justice_PN_En.pd 4 http://regionalcentrebangkok.undp.or.th/practices/governance/a2j/docs/ProgrammingForJustice-AccessForAll.pdf 5 The Justice Focal Points from UNDP Country Offices in Serbia, Moldova, Turkey, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the UNDP BDP Justice Adviser and the Specialist on Legal Empowerment of the Poor based in New York, United States of America, participated in the meeting. The meeting and related follow-up activities were made possible by resources allocated from the Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund (DGTTF) for regional activities.

S U M M A R Y

The focus of UNDP’s Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC) in this field is on providing support to Country Offices in order to share and strengthen their knowledge on access to justice and on building the capacities of national justice institutions to better protect and promote human rights at the national level. The work undertaken by BRC aims to complement the projects implemented by Country Offices at the national level through the provision of methodologies, tools, training and face-to-face meetings, drawing on regional and international best practices. Some regional strategic guidance material has often been requested by the UNDP Country Offices to complement the available materials, such as the UNDP Access to Justice Practice Note3 and A Practitioner’s Guide

a regional access to justice CoP and related building blocks. The meeting was designed as an initial step in developing the regional framework, which will provide support mechanisms for the whole region.

E X E C U T I V E

this affirmation that access to justice is a basic human right and a vital part of the UNDP mandate to reduce poverty and strengthen democratic governance, the following main sub-areas of support were defined: legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counselling, adjudication, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms and law enforcement grounded in the human rights framework. In these areas UNDP has supported a number of projects in various countries in the region; in addition, a strong interest and an increase in projects in the justice sector have been observed in recent years. Since a predominant reason for the weakness of the justice system in the region is the lack of people’s trust in the judiciary, a number of projects have addressed this challenge by supporting reform processes and finding ways in which the judiciary would be more effective and transparent in delivering services to people with a special focus on vulnerable groups.

7

(II)

(III)

(IV)

E X E C U T I V E

S U M M A R Y

(V)

8

UNDP has utilized many different entry points into access to justice programming in the region; Most countries, 85.7 percent, have a planned or ongoing judicial reform process; Separation of powers exists formally in all of the respondent countries; however, de facto judicial independence is still questioned in some countries; There is an active Bar Association in all of the respondent countries, but there are issues affecting its independence in 71.4 percent of them;

(VI)

There are judicial training institutions in all of the respondent countries;

(VII)

Support to judicial training institutions is a useful intervention for UNDP;

(VIII)

All countries have vulnerable/marginalized groups, the most frequent being women and children and youth, 64.3 percent respectively;

(II)

To place capacity development and accountable governance at the forefront of UNDP’s programming in the region;

(III)

To hold consultations with rights-holders when developing projects and programmes;

(IV)

To develop specific thematic areas and knowledge products as requested by the Country Offices;

(V)

To continue to provide support for judicial training institutions;

(VI)

To facilitate increased knowledge and experience sharing in the region in order to enhance the effectiveness of UNDP programming;

(VII)

To facilitate enhancement of peer-to-peer interaction and encourage the use of the Access to Justice CoP workspace;

(VIII)

To develop more regional programmes within the subregions;

(IX)

To provide training to UNDP staff in the region on topics such as ombudsmen institutions, free legal aid, legal empowerment and ADR;

(IX)

Most countries, 78.6 percent, have a provision for alternative dispute resolution (ADR);

(X)

All countries have either a formal or informal system of legal aid provision;

(X)

To provide Country Offices with information on fundraising opportunities within UNDP;

(XI)

UNDP has created strong partnerships in the region;

(XI)

To provide support in facilitating dialogue between Country Offices and donors;

(XII)

All Country Offices that responded expressed a need for assistance, expertise and/or support from BRC.

(XII)

To increase UNDP resource allocation for access to justice programming in the region.

b. Recommendations The following general recommendations for further UNDP programming and support at the regional level can be drawn from the responses to the Questionnaire: (I)

To continue to support access to justice programming in the region;

2. Introduction For the United Nations, ‘justice’ is an ideal of accountability and fairness in the protection and vindication of rights and the prevention and punishment of wrongs.

Justice is closely related to UNDP’s mandate – poverty eradication and human development. There are strong links between establishing democratic governance, reducing poverty and securing access to justice. Democratic governance is undermined where access to justice for all citizens, irrespective of gender, race, religion, age, class or creed, is absent.

UNDP upholds that access to justice is a basic human right, as well as an indispensable means of combating poverty and preventing and resolving conflict. Access to justice is a vital part of the UNDP mandate to reduce poverty and strengthen democratic governance. Within the broad context of justice reform, UNDP’s specific niche lies in supporting justice and related systems so that they work for those who are poor and disadvantaged. Moreover, this is consistent with UNDP’s strong commitment to the Millennium Declaration and the fulfillment of the Millennium Development Goals. Empowering the poor and disadvantaged to seek remedies for injustice, strengthening linkages between formal and informal structures and countering biases inherent in both systems can provide access to justice for those who would otherwise be excluded.

UNDP is committed to using a human rights mainstreaming/integration approach in its programming, guided by international human rights standards and principles. Access to justice means much more than improving an individual’s access to courts or guaranteeing legal representation. It consists in ensuring that legal and judicial outcomes are just and equitable, and that systems work in practice for the poor and the disadvantaged.

In Europe and the CIS, reform to create independent justice sectors is underway in many countries, in both the criminal and civil justice systems. In many countries of the region, both courts and governments have been oper-

ated inefficiently and without effective systems of democratic accountability, while in some countries, public corruption has been fostered at every level. As a result, the poor and other vulnerable groups have in many cases been marginalized, without having recourse to justice.

There are six main support areas that focus UNDP’s work on access to justice: legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counselling, adjudication, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms and law enforcement.

Figure I provides an overview of legal system reform and shows the inter-linkages between the reform process and capacity building of rights-holders and duty-bearers. See page 10.

2.2 Structure The report is structured around the broad areas contained in the Questionnaire. The report gathers information on the justice systems in the region through specific country analysis and looks at the UNDP Access to Justice portfolio in the region. It presents donors and partners, and provides conclusions and recommendations for further intervention and support. It also includes a number of useful annexes, including a database of all UNDP access to justice projects in the region, a database of all judicial training institutions in the region and a compendium of legal aid information in the region.

2.3 Methodology The study was conducted from 20 November to 5 December 2008, with an extension until 16 January 2009.

The data-collecting instrument was an on-line Questionnaire designed to gather information on UNDP’s assets in terms of access to justice programming in the region.

The Questionnaire consisted of separate sections, which were developed in order to gather the most relevant information. The sections were divided as follows:

I N T R O D U C T I O N

2.1 Access to Justice

9

Figure I Legal System Reform

Right and Duties

Legally Empowered People

Institutions Delivering Services Paralegals

Capacity development

Capacity development

Lawyers People Claiming Rights

Capable Judicial Institutions

Trust and Confidence in the Legal System

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Figure I Overview of Legal System Reform and Inter-Linkages between the Reform Process and Capacity Building of Rights-Holders and Duty-Bearers

10

(I)

Introduction – to gather general information on the respondent and his/her Country Office.

(II)

Access to Justice Situation in the Country – to ascertain details pertaining to the overall access to justice and judicial reform situation in the respondent’s country.

(III)

UNDP Access to Justice Portfolio – to obtain information on the areas of access to justice on which each Country Office is working and to gather information to complete a mapping of all access to justice projects undertaken to date in the region.

(IV)

Donors and Partners – to obtain information on each Country Office’s multilateral, bilateral and United Nations System donors and partners, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other organizations.

(V)

Access to Justice Areas for Further Information – to identify areas that respondents would be interested in learning more about, including specific thematic studies and knowledge products. The information would then be used to help shape UNDPs’ future access to justice programming in the region and BRC’s future support.

Once the Questionnaire had been developed and finalized in consultation with UNDP BRC, it was placed online and an introductory email sent to all Human Rights and Justice Focal Points in the region.

Responses to the Questionnaire were received from the following Country Offices: Armenia, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo,6 Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan.7 It is important to point out that each of the subregions were represented in the responses, namely, Central Asia -Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan

6 The United Nations Administered Territory of Kosovo, as per United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244.

7 See Annex II for a list of Country Offices and Participants in the Study.

and Uzbekistan; the South Caucasus – Armenia and Georgia; Russia and Western CIS – Moldova; and South Eastern Europe – Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia. In terms of EU integration, responses were received from: member states – Cyprus and Lithuania; candidate countries – Croatia and Turkey; and potential candidate countries – Montenegro and Serbia, including Kosovo.

Nota Bene Best efforts were made to ensure that this report is as comprehensive as possible. It should be pointed out, however, that the Questionnaire identified specific areas of access to justice and is not fully exhaustive.

In this context, this report does not provide the reader with a fully comprehensive picture/situational analysis of access to justice in the region. Moreover, it presents the responses of those Country Offices that completed the Questionnaire and draws some broad findings and conclusions by analysing the responses.

It provides some general information on the access to justice system in the respondent countries and makes conclusions and recommendations on UNDP’s access to justice programming in the region. Additionally, it should be noted that the interpretation of access to justice is inevitably subjective, which leads to some discrepancies in the comprehensiveness of the data received and therefore impacts on the conclusions and recommendations. This report will be placed on the Access to Justice Community of Practice (CoP) Workspace, where Country Offices will be invited to contribute further to this report in order to make it more comprehensive and systematic, and to provide greater opportunity for analysis.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Once the completed questionnaires were received, the responses were analysed and compared in order to identify any regional trends and/or differences, draw certain conclusions and make recommendations on future UNDP access to justice programming and BRC’s support to Country Offices. Conclusions provided in this report are based on the data obtained through the Questionnaire.

11

O V E R V I E W

O F

T H E

J U S T I C E

S Y S T E M

I N

E A C H

R E S P O N D E N T

C O U N T R Y

Three-tiered continental legal system

Three-tiered continental legal system

Croatia

Type of judicial system

Armenia

Country

Legislation, appointment of Presidents of the courts, notaries and judicial advisers, judicial education, prison system, cooperation with international courts, administrative supervision of judicial institutions

Legislation and penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice Mandate

Yes

Yes

Separation of Powers

Judicial Reform Process

Ongoing

Ongoing

Table 1 Overview of the Justice System in Respondent Countries

Yes

Yes, not fully independent

Bar Association

Yes, provided by the Bar Association, NGOs and university legal clinics in criminal, civil and administrative cases

Yes, provided by the Bar Association and legal clinics in Criminal, civil, labour, commercial, administrative constitutional, family and social cases

Legal Aid Provision

Yes

Yes

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

3. Overview of the justice system in each respondent country

12 Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors, conducting of qualiďŹ cation test for compiling the list of judicial candidates

JTC and its mandate

Three-tiered continental legal system

Three-tiered continental legal system

Georgia

Kazakhstan

O V E R V I E W

Three-tiered continental legal system

Type of judicial system

Cyprus

Country

13

O F

T H E

Yes

Yes

Yes

I N

Ongoing

Ongoing

Completed

Judicial Reform Process

S Y S T E M

Separation of Powers

J U S T I C E

Legislation, harmonization with international rules and regulations, law enforcement

Legislation, the Police Force,

Ministry of Justice Mandate

E A C H

Yes, provided by universities, the Bar Association and the Ministry of Justice in criminal cases

Yes, provided by the Ministry of Justice – Legal Aid Service and Legal Aid Bureau, the Bar Association, legal clinics in criminal, civil and administrative cases

Yes, provided by the Ministry of Justice and the Bar Association in criminal, human rights violations, family and crossborder cases

Legal Aid Provision

R E S P O N D E N T

Yes, not fully independent

Yes

Yes

Bar Association

C O U N T R Y

No

No

Yes

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

No, training is provided through the European Judicial Training Network

JTC and its mandate

Three-tiered continental legal system

Three-tiered continental legal system

Three-tiered continental legal system

Kosovo

Kyrgyzstan

Lithuania

Type of judicial system

O V E R V I E W

Country

14

O F

Legislation, justice policy, the prison system, provision of legal assistance to victims of crime, missing persons, forensic medicine, international assistance and cooperation

Yes

Yes

Yes

I N

Completed

Ongoing

Ongoing

Judicial Reform Process

S Y S T E M

Separation of Powers

J U S T I C E

Ministry of Justice Mandate

T H E

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, provided by universities, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ),legal clinics, Local Government Executive Institutions and the Council of Lawyers in civil, criminal and administrative cases

Yes, provided by Legal clinics in human rights violations, gender discrimination and criminal cases

Yes, provided by the Legal Aid Commission in Civil and Criminal Cases

Legal Aid Provision

R E S P O N D E N T

Bar Association

E A C H

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

C O U N T R Y

The JTC is now incorporated into the MoJ and provides initial and continuous training for judges and prosecutors

Yes, training for judges

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

JTC and its mandate

Moldova

Three-tiered continental legal system

Type of judicial system

O V E R V I E W

Country

15

O F

T H E

Yes

I N

Ongoing

Judicial Reform Process

S Y S T E M

Separation of Powers

J U S T I C E

Policy and legislation, represents the Moldovan Government in the Constitutional Court and before the international courts; registers political parties and other social, political and public organizations; provides logistical support for the courts; performs oversight through an internal audit system; hears petitions and complaints directed against courts and judges; oversees and licenses notaries and attorneys, and since 2002, recruits, employs and supervises bailiffs; and provides general oversight of the penitentiary system; certifies mediators

Ministry of Justice Mandate

E A C H

Yes

Yes, provided by the Ministry of Justice, The Bar Association, National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Aid and its territorial offices in civil, criminal and administrative cases

Legal Aid Provision

R E S P O N D E N T

Bar Association

C O U N T R Y

Yes, mediation, arbitrage

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Yes – initial and continuous training for judges and prosecutors is provided; training is provided to mediators and court clerks.

JTC and its mandate

Three-tiered continental legal system

Three-tiered continental legal system

Three-tiered continental legal system and military courts

Three-tiered continental legal system

Three-tiered continental legal system and military courts

Montenegro

Serbia

Tajikistan

Turkey

Uzbekistan

O F

Type of judicial system

O V E R V I E W

Country

16

Legislation, registering of NGOs, civil society and religious organization, legal education

Legislation, personnel, strategy development, judicial reform and restructuring, selection of judicial candidates

Legislation, juvenile justice, organize work of court oďŹƒcers

Legislation, the judiciary, the ďŹ ght against corruption, training, co-ordinating international activities and projects

Legislation, donor coordination and project implementation, judicial strategy

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

I N

Ongoing

Planned

Planned

Ongoing

Ongoing

Judicial Reform Process

S Y S T E M

Separation of Powers

J U S T I C E

Ministry of Justice Mandate

T H E

Yes, not fully independent

Yes

Yes, not fully independent

Yes

Yes

Yes, provided by the Bar Association, legal clinics and NGOs

Yes, provided by the Bar Association in civil, commercial and administrative cases

Yes, provided by the Bar Association in civil, criminal and administrative cases

Yes, provided by the Bar Association, legal clinics and various organizations and NGOs in criminal and human rights violations cases

Yes, provided by the Municipal Legal Aid OďŹƒces and NGOs in civil, criminal and human rights violations cases

Legal Aid Provision

R E S P O N D E N T

Bar Association

E A C H

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

C O U N T R Y

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

Yes, initial and continuous training is provided for judges and prosecutors

JTC and its mandate

In all countries, there is an active Bar Association; however, in 28.6 percent of them, respondents commented that there are issues affecting their full independence. In countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU), it has been suggested that the main reasons have been attributed to their Soviet legacy, with its strong domination of the Prosecution, as well as low professional capacities and

C O U N T R Y R E S P O N D E N T E A C H

Bar Associations 50%

I N

University 14.3%

Other 28.6% Legal Clinics 42.9%

In 78.6 percent of the respondent countries, there is provision for alternative dispute resolution (ADR); out of those countries with provision for ADR, the mechanisms are active in 81.8 percent of them.

In all respondent countries, there is provision for judicial training, with 92.9 percent of the countries having a formal judicial training centre or institution.9 In the remaining 7.1 percent, the judicial training is provided by the European Judicial Training Network.

In terms of marginalized/vulnerable groups identified in the region, according to Figure III, women and children and youth constitute the two most marginalized/vulnerable groups, each at 64.3 percent of respondent countries, closely followed by the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and others, all four

8 Please see Annex III for a breakdown of Legal Aid Frameworks in the region, together with some further resources relating to the provision of Legal Aid. 9 For a database of all judicial training institutions in the region, see Annex IV.

S Y S T E M

Ministry of Justice 21.4%

J U S T I C E

According to the survey data, the mandates of the Ministry of Justice are diverse, although in all countries the Ministry of Justice is responsible for legislative drafting. In Croatia, Serbia and Turkey, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for judicial appointments, and in Croatia, Serbia and Uzbekistan, it is responsible for judicial training.

In the Western Balkan countries that responded, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for international assistance and cooperation in the field, while in Armenia, Croatia, Kosovo and Kyrgyzstan, it is also responsible for the prison system. In Moldova, the Ministry of Justice also has a role in coordinating international assistance, and the Penitentiary System Department is subordinated to it. In Moldova and Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for registering NGOs, civil societies and religious organizations, and in Kosovo, its mandate extends to responsibility for missing persons and forensic medicine. In Cyprus, the Ministry of Justice is also responsible for the police force.

Figure II Legal Aid Providers

T H E

In all countries, there is a clearly defined separation of powers in either the constitution and/or legislation.

However, the judiciary was viewed as independent and impartial in its work in only 35.7 percent of the countries.

The main factors cited as affecting judicial independence and impartiality were corruption and politicization and/or abuse of power.

In all countries that responded, there is a system of legal aid in place, which is provided predominantly in both criminal and civil matters; others areas, for example, are administrative, family, human rights and commercial matters.8 As shown in Figure II, the legal providers constitute mostly representatives of Bar Associations (50 percent) and legal clinics (42.9 percent).

O F

As shown in Table 1, most countries that responded, 85.7 percent, have an on-going judicial reform process. In 14.3 percent of the countries, the reform process is planned or completed. The structure of the court system in most of the countries is a three-tiered continental legal system. In two of the Central Asian Country Offices that responded, military courts are still operational.

lack of knowledge of defence attorneys. This, in turn, leads to widespread lack of trust and perceptions of corruption of the Prosecution and the Defence. Further, lawyers have very limited powers to collect evidence, which hampers their capacity to counterbalance the powers of the Prosecution and impact on the judicial process.

O V E R V I E W

3.1 Overview of the Justice System

17

C O U N T R Y R E S P O N D E N T E A C H I N S Y S T E M J U S T I C E T H E O F O V E R V I E W

18

groups at 57.1 percent. Other marginalized/vulnerable groups include refugees, the poor, drug addicts, asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and migrant workers. In 62.9 percent of respondent countries, there are special policies or laws on vulnerable/marginalized groups; mechanisms for enforcement are in place in 88.9 percent of these countries.

Figure III Breakdown of Marginalized/Vulnerable Groups Women

64.3 %

Children and Youth

64.3 %

Elderly

57.1 %

Persons with Disabilities

57.1 %

Persons with HIV

57.1 %

Other

57.1 %

Ethnic Minorities Persons with non-heterosexual orientation

50.0 % 35.7 %

Table 2 provides a breakdown of marginalized/vulnerable groups per Country OďŹƒce, according to the Questionnaire, and corresponding protective policies or laws enforced.

x

x

x

x

Moldova

Montenegro

Serbia

Tajikistan

O V E R V I E W

Uzbekistan

Turkey

x

Lithuania

Kyrgyzstan

O F

x

x

x

x

x

x

T H E

I N

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Persons with Disabilities

S Y S T E M

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

The Elderly

J U S T I C E

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Kosovo

x

x

x

x

x

Children and Youth

Kazakhstan

Georgia

Cyprus

x

x

Croatia

Women

x

Ethnic Minorities

Armenia

Country

E A C H

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Non-Hetero sexual

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Policies Laws Protecting Vulnerable/Mar ginalized Groups

C O U N T R Y

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Other

R E S P O N D E N T

Persons with HIV/AIDS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Policies and Laws Enforced?

TABLE 2 BREAKDOWN OF MARGINALIZED/VULNERABLE GROUPS PER COUNTRY AND CORRESPONDING PROTECTIVE POLICIES/LAWS

19

4. UNDP’s access to justice portfolio 4.1 UNDP’s Comparative Advantages and Entry Points into Access to Justice Programming The respondents to the Questionnaire consider that UNDP’s comparative advantages in terms of Access to Justice Programming in the Region are found in the following areas:

systems in 50 percent of cases. Other entry points have been broader in providing support to the Ministries of Justice and the judicial reform process as a whole.

Figure IV UNDP’s Areas of Engagement in Access to Justice Ombudsmen Systems

64.3 % 57.1 %

Judicial Education

(II)

A C C E S S U N D P ’ S

20

Ability to provide an enabling environment and capacity building (organizational and individual) Use of project implementation units based in ministries

(III)

Experience in the field globally

(IV)

Impartiality, neutrality and flexibility

(V)

Credibility to facilitate policy dialogue

(VI)

Credibility to facilitate partnerships with and among different actors

(VII)

Resource mobilization potential

(VIII)

Commitment to long-term programming

(IX)

Access to non-financial resources within UNDP and the United Nations System (knowledge and experience)

T O

J U S T I C E

P O R T F O L I O

(I)

(X)

Reputation as a mentor not a director

(XI)

Reputation as a trusted partner

(XII)

Ability to identify gaps and create appropriate projects to fill the gaps.

According to Figure IV, UNDP’s entry points into and engagements in access to justice programming varied from providing support predominantly to Ombudsman institutions/Human Rights Defenders in 64.3 percent of cases, and judicial training institutions in 57.1 percent of cases, to developing anti-discrimination legislation and

Anti -Discrimination

50.0 %

Legal Empowerment

42.9 % 35.7 %

Public Legal Aid Judicial Independence

28.6 %

Transitional Justice

21.4 %

Other

21.4 %

Alternative Dispute Resolution

14.3 %

Mutual Legal Assistance

14.3 %

4.2 Consultations with rights-holders Most of the Country Office representatives in nine of the respondent Country Offices, or 64.3 percent, responded that consultations with rights-holders had taken place.

When asked to provide more details on which rightsholders were consulted, it was mentioned that consultations were undertaken with the Ministries of Justice, courts, prosecutors, judges, defence attorneys, judicial training centres, international organizations, NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs), ombudsmen offices and other relevant stakeholders, such as professional or-

What is your Country Office's budget forecast in terms of access to justice programming?

23 %

31 %

15 % 23 %

8%

<$100,000 (Cyprus, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkey) <$250,000 (Uzbekistan) <$500,000 (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Montenegro) <$750,000 (Croatia, Georgia)

U N D P â&#x20AC;&#x2122; S

In ten out of 14 respondent countries, 75.4 percent, UNDP has plans for future programming in the access to justice field. This encompasses all countries except Cyprus and Lithuania, where the reform process has been completed, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where the reform process is in its very early stages of development. In terms of development areas in access to justice, the respondents named support to ombudsmen institutions, ADR, transitional justice, anti-discrimination, free legal aid, legal empowerment, access to justice for victims of torture and persons with disabilities, legal system reform and support to the Human Rights Defenderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office. Response to the question on the potential funding allocations forecast for access to justice programming varied from less than US$100,000 to more than US$1,000,000.

J U S T I C E

4.3 UNDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future access to justice programming in Europe and the CIS

P O R T F O L I O

>$1,000,000 (Kosovo, Moldova, Serbia)

T O

In 75.4 percent of respondent countries, special tools were used based on the human rights-based approach or similar methodologies that involved rights-holders in their current access to justice projects: research and surveys, interviews, needs assessment and other relevant methodologies.

Figure V Country Office Budgets for Access to Justice Programming11

A C C E S S

ganizations. In this context, it seems that the definition of a rights-holder varies from one respondent to another.

This may indicate a lack of common understanding of the concept of duty-bearers and rights-holders among the respondents.10 The methodology used in consulting rights-holders varied: informal and formal interviews, focus group meetings, brainstorming sessions, statistics and reports, bilateral meetings, lessons learned and the development of problem and task trees. In 35.7 percent of the countries, no consultations with rights-holders were reported as being undertaken.

10 In some cases, rights-holders are understood as individuals in society and in some cases, individuals working in public institutions.

11 Kyrgyzstan did not respond to this question.

21

5. UNDP’s successful partnerships In 50 percent of the countries that responded, UNDP had created successful partnerships with the Ministry of Justice. In 35.7 percent of respondent countries, UNDP created successful partnerships with local NGOs.

It was noted that the success of partnerships depends on the interest of participants, and if so, then much can be achieved even with low political will.12

U N D P ’ S

S U C C E S S F U L

P A R T N E R S H I P S

Other successful partnerships have been created with Supreme Courts, ombudsmen offices, National Institutes for Justice, judicial training centres, Legal Aid Commissions and other professional bodies. In relation to donors, successful partnerships are recorded with the EU, USAID, ABA/CEELI (now ABA/ROLI), OSCE, OSI etc. There are also examples of cooperation with other UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNHCR, UNODC, OHCHR, UNIFEM. 5 country offices have also benefitted from funding from the UNDP Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund.

22 12 For a full breakdown of UNDP’s partners and donors in the region, see Annex VII.

6. Areas for further intervention/support

(II)

Access to Justice for Vulnerable Groups (women and juveniles, persons with disabilities and ethnic minorities)

(III)

Enhanced United Nations Agency Co-ordination

(IV)

UNDP Gender Mainstreaming Programme

(V)

Judicial Reform

(VI)

Alternative Dispute procedures

(VII)

Legal Empowerment

(VIII)

Legal Framework

(IX)

Justice in Prisons

(X)

Human Rights Monitoring

(XI)

Development of a Legal Aid System

(XII)

Human Rights-Based Approach

(XIII)

Evaluation

(XIV)

Public Access to Judicial Information

(XV)

Ombudsmen Institutions

According to Figure VI, the respondents also showed particular interest in the development of thematic studies and knowledge products in public legal aid, at 64.3 percent, and in comparative analysis on JTCs, ADR, legal empowerment and legal framework/policy, each at 57.1 percent.

Comparative Analysis JTCs

57.1 %

Alternative Dispute Resolution

57.1 %

Legal Empowerment

57.1 %

Legal Framework/Policy

57.1 %

Judicial Independence Institutional Restructuring Judicial Council inc. functional review

50.0 %

35.7 %

28.6 %

6.2 Areas for Future Support from the Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC) All Country Offices expressed their need for assistance, expertise or support from BRC in their future access to justice programming.13 The type of support requested varied from human resources, provision of technical advice, expertise in implementation, expertise in drafting project proposals, enhanced knowledge exchange, information on potential sources of funding, information on experts, best practices and lessons learned exchanges and support in undertaking in-country needs assessment.

I N T E R V E N T I O N / S U P P O R T

Link between Mediation and Legal Aid

64.3 %

F U R T H E R

(I)

Public Legal Aid

F O R

The following areas were identified as areas of interest to certain Country Offices:

Figure VI Specific Thematic Studies and Knowledge Products of Interest to Country Offices

A R E A S

6.1 Identified Areas of Access to Justice of Interest to Country Offices

23 13 Cyprus and Tajikistan did not respond to this question.

7. Conclusions and recommendations 7.1 Conclusions From analysing the responses to the Questionnaire, the following conclusions can be drawn: (I)

C O N C L U S I O N S

A N D

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

(II)

UNDP is working in broad and diverse areas of access to justice in the region, namely, judicial independence, judicial education, transitional justice, ADR, public legal aid, mutual legal assistance, ombudsmen systems, anti-discrimination, legal empowerment, witness and victim support, public access to judicial information, and human rights.

UNDP has used many different entry points into access to justice programming in the region. One of UNDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most visible strengths is identifying gaps/niches in development programming and designing suitable projects to fill them.

(III) Most of the countries, 85.7 percent, have a planned or ongoing judicial reform process. In Cyprus and Lithuania, it is accepted that the reform process was completed upon entry into the EU. (IV) There is a formal separation of powers in all of the respondent countries since it is included in the Constitution and/or legislative framework. However, in 64.3 percent of the countries, there are still issues affecting the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

(VII) Support to Judicial Training Institutions is a useful intervention for UNDP. This is because the projects are easy to set up, have measurable results, are flexible in size and resource requirements, and are highly visible. Having the potential to reach a large number of beneficiaries, donor collaboration is usually easily established in this field.

(VIII) All countries have vulnerable/marginalized groups, the highest percentage being that of women and children, both groups at 64.3 percent. Others include the elderly, persons with disabilities and persons with HIV/AIDS, all at 57.1 percent, ethnic minorities at 50 percent and persons of a non-heterosexual orientation at 35.7 percent. Others include refugees, largely in the countries of the Western Balkans, the poor, migrant workers and asylum seekers.

(IX) Most countries, 78.6 percent, have provision for ADR, which is actively used in most of them, 81.8 percent.

(X) All respondent countries have either a formal or informal system of legal aid provision, with Bar Associations providing legal aid in 50 percent of them.

This is followed by legal clinics, at 42.9 percent, Ministries of Justice, at 21.4 percent, and universities, at 14.3 percent.14

(V) There is an active Bar Association in all of the respondent countries, but in 71.4 percent of them, there are issues affecting its independence.

(XI) Just over half of the respondent countries, 64.3 percent, use special tools based on the human rightsbased approach to programming, namely though research, interviews, needs assessments, focus groups, surveys and other methodologies.

(VI) Judicial Training Institutions exist in all of the respondent countries; UNDP has supported judicial training initiatives in 57.1 percent of them.

(XII) UNDP has created strong partnerships in the region, largely with Ministries of Justice, courts and judicial personnel, ombudsman institutes and judi-

24 14 The Questionnaire did not include an option of selecting NGOs as providers of legal aid.

(I)

(II)

UNDP should continue to support access to justice programming in the region and should develop its programmes in particular in Central Asia where its programming in the Access to Justice Sector is not as developed. UNDP is recognized among stakeholders, governments and the donor community as a trusted partner with a high level of knowledge and expertise. Its access to justice programming in the region is having measurable results and farreaching effects, which should be capitalized on.

Capacity development and accountable governance should be at the forefront of UNDP’s access to justice programming in the region. Through increasing capacities, establishing or strengthening institutions, and developing accountability mechanisms, the accountability of governments and public institutions (duty bearers) towards the beneficiaries (rights holders) is also strengthened".

(III) Consultations with rights-holders should always be undertaken in developing its projects and programmes. Consultation ensures that local knowledge is resourced and harnessed. The use of local stakeholders is absolutely essential in carrying out a thorough needs assessment, and local knowledge can prove invaluable in gaining on-theground information as well as creating networks and partnerships within the target country. Partici-

(V) UNDP should continue to provide support for judicial training institutions since such interventions have high success rates and high visibility, are easy to set up and yield measurable results.15 (VI) An increase of knowledge and experience sharing in the region should be facilitated in order to enhance the effectiveness of UNDP’s programming.

All Country Offices expressed a need for further support from BRC; an effective approach to facilitate this is through enhanced knowledge exchange and experience sharing.

(VII) Enhanced peer-to-peer interaction should be facilitated and the use of the Access to Justice Community of Practice Workspace should be encouraged. This will facilitate enhanced knowledge and experience sharing as identified above and will further strengthen UNDP’s access to justice programming in the region.

(VIII) More regional programmes within the regional sub-clusters should be developed in order to build on potential synergies between Country Offices.

(IX) Training should be provided to UNDP staff in the region on topics such as ombudsman institutions, free legal aid, legal empowerment and ADR. This training could be undertaken exclusively among UNDP staff sharing their knowledge and experiences on certain topics to others, or opened to a wider audience.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

7.2 Recommendations

(IV) Specific thematic areas and knowledge products as requested by the Country Offices should be developed in the following areas: legal aid, comparative analysis of judicial training centres, legal framework/policy, legal empowerment of the poor, ADR and ombudsman institutions.

A N D

(XIII) All Country Offices that responded to the Questionnaire expressed a need for assistance, expertise and/or support from BRC. The type of support included more human resources, technical support and advice, drafting of project proposals, enhanced knowledge exchange, information on potential sources of funding, comparative experiences from different countries, best practices and lessons learned.

pation of local actors is key to capacity development and to ensuring country ownership and thus sustainability. Furthermore, participation of key stakeholders creates an environment in which the reform initiative is shaped by those whom it serves to assist.

C O N C L U S I O N S

cial training institutes, the donor community and the government at large, Human Rights Defender’s Offices, professional associations and NGOs.

25 15 This is also reflected in the forthcoming Rule of Law Global Programme to be published in 2009.

(X) Country Offices should be provided with information regarding fundraising opportunities within UNDP and external fundraising opportunities in relation to access to justice projects.

(XI) Support should be provided in facilitating dialogue between Country Offices and donors, notably European Commission delegations.

C O N C L U S I O N S

A N D

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

(XII) UNDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resource allocation for access to justice programming in the region should be increased. As suggested by the Questionnaire data, there is greater access to justice and a more developed judicial reform process in countries where UNDP has higher programming resources.

26

Estimated time for completion: 1 hour Thank you in advance for your kind contributions and participation in this study!

A. INTRODUCTION 1. What is your name and title?

2. In which UNDP Country Office are you based?

1. Is there a judicial reform process in your country? a. Planned b. Ongoing c. Completed If so, please describe briefly.

2. What is the structure of the court system in your country? Please provide brief details.

T O A C C E S S O N A N N E X

I

B. ACCESS TO JUSTICE SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY

S T U D Y

Instructions: In order to gather information on UNDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assets in terms of access to justice programming in the region and to prepare a baseline for the strengthening of the Access to Justice CoP, please complete the Questionnaire online and include as many details as possible. In addition, if you have any supporting documents, for example, laws, studies, and assessments, please also email them to Joanna Books at Joanna.brooks@undp.org.

B A S E L I N E

Background and Purpose of the Study: To respond to a growing demand for support in the areas of access to justice, legal empowerment and justice reform expressed by UNDP Country Offices in Europe and the CIS, the Bratislava Regional Center (BRC) is in the process of formulating a regional framework of support and forming an access to justice community of practice (CoP) for work in the sector. As part of this process, it has been agreed to undertake a baseline study on access to justice in the region, the results of which will be used to form a comparative study on access to justice programming in the region. In this context, we would greatly appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experience on access to justice programming in your country and Country Office. For the purposes of this study, access to justice encompasses all six main pillars of support: legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counselling, adjudication, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms and law enforcement. Related counterparts in this work could include: the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the High Judiciary, the court system, legal aid providers, Bar Associations, national human rights institutions, the Prosecution Offices, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and/or the media.

J U S T I C E

Annex I Baseline Study on Access to Justice

27

3. Is there a separation of powers stated in the constitution or legislation in your country? a. Yes b. No 4. In your opinion, is the judiciary in your country independent and impartial in its work? a. Yes b. No If so, please describe briefly.

A N N E X

I

B A S E L I N E

S T U D Y

O N

A C C E S S

T O

J U S T I C E

5. What is the task and mandate of the Ministry of Justice in your country? Please describe briefly.

28

6. Is there a Bar Association in your country? a. Yes b. No Are there any issues/problems preventing the Bar Association from being fully independent? a. Yes b. No If so, please describe briefly.

7. Has there been a recent study on access to justice in your country? a. Yes b. No If so, prepared it? Please email it or provide a hyperlink to it, if possible.

8. Which are the key vulnerable/marginalized groups with respect to access to justice in your country? Please tick all those that apply. a. Ethnic minorities (please state which ones) b. Women c. Children and youth d. The elderly e. Persons with disabilities f. Persons with HIV/AIDS g. Persons with non-heterosexual orientation h. Other (Please state) 9. Are there any special policies or laws regarding vulnerable/marginalized groups and access to justice in your country? a. Yes b. No If so, are they enforced? a. Yes b. No Please provide further details as appropriate.

8. Is there provision for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in your country? a. Yes b. No If so, is it active?

a. Yes b. No Please provide further details as appropriate.

10. Is there a system of legal aid in your country? a. Yes b. No If so, who provides it? Please tick all those that apply. a. University b. Ministry of Justice c. Bar Association d. Legal clinics e. Other In which types of cases is it available? Please list.

11. Is there a judicial training institution in existence and if so, what is its mandate?

T O

C. UNDP ACCESS TO JUSTICE PORTFOLIO

2. What is the title and objective of your access to justice programme(s)?

3. How many access to justice projects have been/are being implemented in your Country Office?

Planned

Ongoing

Completed

B A S E L I N E

S T U D Y

O N

A C C E S S

1. In which areas of access to justice is your Country Office working? a. Judicial Independence b. Judicial Education c. Transitional Justice d. Alternative Dispute Resolution e. Public Legal Aid f. Mutual Legal Assistance g. Ombudsman Systems h. Anti-discrimination i. Legal Empowerment j. Other (Please state).

Type of project

J U S T I C E

9. Please list any (not limited to UNDP) failed or successful access to justice projects and initiatives implemented in your country and, if possible, provide brief details on the reasons for this success/failure.

Projects with access to justice components

4. Have you consulted right-holders when developing access to justice projects? a. Yes b. No If so, how it was done?

A N N E X

I

Concrete access to justice project

29

5. Do you use special tools based on the human rights-based approach or similar methodologies (focus groups, interviews, survey, needs assessments, etc.) to involve and include right-holders in your current access to justice project? a. Yes b. No If so, what are they?

6. What is the most successful partnership (NGOs, government institutions, municipalities etc.) you have established within your access to justice projects and why?

7. How many staff in your Country Office are working on access to justice projects

Type of contract

No. of staff

National staff

8. In order to verify and complement information obtained through Atlas, please identify all access to justice projects in your country by completing the table below.

Title of Project

ATLAS Project I.D No.

Year(s) of implementation

Budget

Donors

Partners

B A S E L I N E

S T U D Y

O N

A C C E S S

T O

J U S T I C E

International staff

9. What was UNDP’s entry point into access to justice programming in your country?

10. In your opinion, what is UNDP’s niche and comparative advantage in access to justice programming in your country?

11. Does UNDP in your Country Office have future plans in the area of access to justice programming? a. Yes b. No

A N N E X

I

If so, please describe briefly.

30

12. Would you need any assistance/expertise/support to implement these projects? a. Yes b. No If so, what kind?

13. What is your Country Office’s budget forecast in terms of access to justice programming? a. < $100,000

b. <$250,000 c. <$500,000 d. <$750,000 e. >$1,000,000

E. DONORS AND PARTNERS 1. Who are UNDP’s main donors and/or partners in access to justice programming in your county? Please tick on all those that apply:

Type

Name

Multilateral

European Union

Donor

Partner

Other (please specify) Bilateral

Canada (CIDA) Denmark

J U S T I C E

World Bank

Great Britain (DfID) Greece The Netherlands

A C C E S S

Germany

T O

France

Switzerland (SDC) United States of America (USAID) Other (please specify) Global Environment Fund (GEF) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Thematic Trust Fund (TTF)

I

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) UN Women’s Fund (UNIFEM) United Nations Hgh Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

A N N E X

United Nations System

S T U D Y

Sweden (SIDA)

B A S E L I N E

Romania

O N

Norway

United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Other (Please specify)

31

Type

Name

Donor

NGOs and Others

American Bar Association Central Europe and Eurasia Law Initiative (ABA CEELI)

Partner

Council of Europe Open Society Institute/Soros Foundation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Other (Please specify)

J U S T I C E

F. RESOURCE PERSONS 1. In order to assist in the compilation of a pool of experts, please provide information on consultants, both local and international, that have participated in your access to justice programming whom you would recommend.

Status (International/Local)

Area/s of Expertise

Contact Details

A N N E X

I

B A S E L I N E

S T U D Y

O N

A C C E S S

T O

Name

32

G. ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE 1. Which areas of access to justice would you be interested in learning more about?

2. Which specific thematic studies and knowledge products would you be interested in? Please tick all those that apply: (I)

Institutional restructuring

(II)

Judicial independence

(III)

Legal framework, policy

(IV)

Judicial council including functional review

(V)

Legal empowerment

(VI)

Alternative Dispute Resolution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; criminal and civil justice + contact with the justice system

(VII)

Comparative analysis on Judicial Training Centres

(VIII)

Legal aid

(IX)

Other

Thank you very much for participating!

Democratic Governance Portfolio Analyst

Alla.bakunts@undp.org

Croatia

Mario Kresic

Project Manager

Mario.kresic@undp.org

Cyprus

Stella Isidorou

Junior Legal Specialist

stella.isidorou@undp-pff.org

Georgia

Natia Cherkezishvili

Kazakhstan

Ainur Baimyrza

Kosovo

Virgjina Dumnica

Kyrgyzstan

Maksat Usupbaeva,

Democractic Governance Programme Assistant

usm@dgov.undp.kg

Lithuania

Lina Jankauskiene

Programme Officer

Lina.jankauskiene@undp.org

Moldova

Matilda Dimovska

Deputy Resident Representative

Matilda.dimovska@undp.org

Montenegro

Jelena Djonovic

Project Manager

Jelena.djonovic@undp.org

Serbia

Olivera Puric

Team Leader, Capacity Development and Accountable Governance Cluster

Olivera.puric@undp.org

Tajikistan

Alisher Karimov

Project Manager

Alisher.karimov@undp.org

Turkey

Leyla Sen Seher Alacaci

Programme Manager Project Associate

Leyla.sen@undp.org Seher.alacaci@undp.org

Uzbekistan

Evgeniy Abdullaev

Programme Legal Specialist

Evgeniy.abdullaev@undp.org

Natia.cherkezishvili@undp.org

Programme Analyst

Ainur.baimyrza@undp.org

S T U D Y T H E I N A N N E X

I I

Virgjina.dumnica@undp.org

P A R T I C I P A T I N G

Alla Bakunts

R E S P O N D E N T S

Armenia

A N D

E-mail

O F F I C E S

Position

C O U N T R Y

Name

O F

Country Office

L I S T

Annex II List of Country Offices and Respondents Participating in the Study

33

R E S O U R C E S A N D F R A M E W O R K S A I D L E G A L R E G I O N A L I I I A N N E X

34

Annex III Regional Legal Aid Frameworks and Resources Regional Legal Aid frameworks Country

Legal Aid Providers

Types of eligible cases

Albania

Legal clinics, Bar Association

Criminal, Civil, Administrative

Armenia

Bar Association, Legal clinics

Criminal, Civil, Labour, Commercial, Administrative, Constitutional, Family and Social

Azerbaijan

Bar Association

Criminal, Civil, Administrative

Belarus

Bar Association Specialized Legal Aid Agency (Bar members provide legal aid)

Civil, Business, Administrative

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ministry of Justice, NGOs

Civil, Criminal

Bulgaria

National Legal Aid Bureau, Bar Councils

Criminal, Civil, Administrative

Croatia

Bar Association, NGOs, University Legal clinics

Criminal, Civil, Administrative

Cyprus

Ministry of Justice, Bar Association

Criminal, human resources violations, Family, Cross-border

Czech Republic

Bar Association

Civil, Labour, Family, Business Law, Administrative

Georgia

Ministry of Justice â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Legal Aid Service and Legal Aid Bureau, Bar Association, Legal clinics

Criminal, Civil, Administrative

Hungary

Bar Association, Notaries, NGOs, University legal clinics

Civil, Criminal

Kazakhstan

Universities, Bar Association, Ministry of Justice

Criminal

Kosovo

Legal Aid Commission

Criminal and Civil

Kyrgyzstan

Legal clinics

Human rights violations, Gender discrimination, Criminal

Latvia

Legal Aid Administration

Civil, Administrative, Criminal

Lithuania

Universities, Ministry of Justice, Legal clinics, Local Government Executive Institutions, Council of Lawyers

Civil, Administrative, Criminal

Criminal, Civil, Administrative

Montenegro

Municipal Legal Aid Offices, NGOs

Human rights violations, criminal, civil

Poland

Bar Association

Civil

Romania

Bar Association

Criminal, Civil

Russian Federation

State Legal Aid Bureaus, Regional Divisions of Social Services, Bar Association, Legal clinics, NGOs

State social assistance scheme, Criminal, some Civil and Administrative

Serbia

Bar Association, Legal clinics Various organizations

Human rights violations, Criminal

Slovenia

Legal Aid Professional Service, Bar Association, NGOs (with approval of the Ministry of Justice)

Civil, Commercial, Criminal (except for criminal acts of defamation)

Tajikistan

Bar Association

Civil, Criminal, Administrative

FYROM

Bar Association

Civil, Criminal, Administrative

Turkey

Bar Association

Civil, Commercial, Administrative

Turkmenistan

Bar Association, Legal Aid Organizations

Ukraine

Bar Association

Uzbekistan

Bar Association, Legal clinics, NGOs

Criminal

Legal Aid Resources Open Society Justice Initiative, Legal Aid Reform The website provides numerous documents on the reform of the legal aid frameworks within several countries in Europe and CIS region, with a comprehensive legal aid database providing: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

International Standards on the Right to Legal Aid Legal Aid Laws & Regulations, and Related Legal Instruments Organization and Management of a Legal Aid System Models and Schemes for Legal Aid Delivery Legal Aid Quality Standards and Quality Assurance Mechanisms Legal Aid Research and Studies Training Materials on Criminal Legal Aid Issues Selected Sources Organizations Working on Legal Aid

Council of Europe, Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Operation of Justice, http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_ Affairs/Legal_co-operation/Operation_of_justice/Access_to_justice_and_legal_aid/ The website provides further information on the CoE framework for the provision of legal aid, from the conference “Towards the better access to justice for individuals”, held in Brussels, Belgium in 2004, including infomration from

R E S O U R C E S

Ministry of Justice, Bar Association, National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Aid and its territorial offices, NGOs, Academia

A N D

Moldova

F R A M E W O R K S

Civil, Criminal

A I D

Advocate for Legal Aid

L E G A L

Malta

R E G I O N A L

Types of eligible cases

I I I

Legal Aid Providers

A N N E X

Country

35

the European Commission’s European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters which provides comprehensive overview of legal aid systems in EU member countries and brief information sheets on the provision of legal aid in countries members of the Council of Europe.

A N N E X

I I I

R E G I O N A L

L E G A L

A I D

F R A M E W O R K S

A N D

R E S O U R C E S

Recently, the CoE website published results of the research initiative ‘Access to Justice in Europe’. Results includes overview of judicial systems including legal aid scheme in CoE member states. Materials are available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/cepej/series/Etudes9Acces_en.pdf

36

The European Commission, Justice and Home Affairs, Civil matters – Judicial Cooperation The website is presenting the EU framework in cross-border legal aid and minimum standards, providing links to the directive adopted by the European Council in 2003, minimum standards agreed in Tampere, Finland in 1999, which were followed by a Green Paper “Legal Aid in civil matters: the problems confronting the cross-border litigant” and two standard forms established by the Commission to simplify the transmission of legal aid applications.

European Roma Rights Centre, Legal Aid for 800 million Europeans: the Council of Europe efforts by Gianluca Esposito This brief and concise paper provides an overview of the theoretical and legal framework of legal aid, set up and initiated by CoE, including the recent developments in the field.

USAID, success stories and articles in Europe and CIS The articles describe success stories of USAID-funded and -supported legal aid projects.

Ukraine: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/press/success/legal_aid_center.html Ukraine: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/press/success/2006-03-12.html Moldova: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/press/success/moldova_law_clinics.html The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Results from an International Conference on Legal Aid This report summarizes the results of the Conference that took place in 2007 in Kiev, Ukraine, providing the link to a more comprehensive report including the conclusions, programme and participants of the Conference, together with a link to the adopted the Kyiv Declaration on the Right to Legal Aid. Public Interest Law Institute http://www.pili.org/en/content/view/51/53/ A collection of reports describing the situation of legal aid in a number of Central and East European countries.

Sovetskaya 14 Minsk 220030 Belarus

Hamdije Kresevljakovica 98/a, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Belarus Institute for Re-training and Upgrading Qualifications of Judges, Prosecutors and Legal Professionals at the Belarusian State University

Bosnia and Herzegovina Public Institution Centre for Judicial and Prosecutorial Training of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

J U D I C I A L

1, av. Inshaatchilar 370 073 BAKU

Azerbaijan Ministry of Justice,

O F

Tigran Mets 50.

YEREVAN 375008

Armenia Republic of Armenia Prosесutors' Training School

D A T A B A S E

40 Nazrbekyan district YEREVAN

Armenia Judicial School of the Republic of Armenia

I V

Address: Rr.”Elbasanit, (Prane) Fakulteti i Gjeologji Minierave Tirane, Albania

Albania The School of Magistrates, Albania

A N N E X

Address

Institution/organization

T R A I N I N G

Tel: +387 33 562 550 Fax: +387 33 445 475

Tel: +8 017 227 4745 Fax: +8 017 227 4056

Tel: + 374 10 57 36 96

Tel:+ 374 10 31 91 59 Fax:+ 374 10 31 91 62

Tel: + 355 42 363 914

Tel/fax

I N S T I T U T I O N S

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

Sanela PARIPOVIC, Director Sanela.paripovic@fbih.cest.gov.ba

ippl@bsu.by

Mr Toghrul MUSAYEV, Deputy Minister of Justice

E Director: Мr Grigor SARGSYAN mail: school@genproc.am

Director: Mr Arman VARDANYAN vardanyan@hotmail.com

Arben RISTANI, Director ArbenRISTANI@magjistratura.edu.al Direct Tel: + 355 42 2364943, 2363914 /210 info@magjistratura.edu.al

Contact name and/or e-mail

Annex IV Database of Judicial Training Institutions in the Region

37

14, Ekzarh Yossif, 1301, Sofia, Bulgaria

Dondukov av. 2A, Fl 8 cab. 826, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

Heinzelova 4a 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Char. Mouscou str.

CY-1102 NICOSIA

Justiční akademie CR, Masarykovo nám. 183 767 01 KROMERIZ Tel: +420 573 505 111

Lossi 19 TARTU 51003

7A Bulachauri Street 380067 TBILISI

24 Gorgesali str.

Tbilisi 0133

Szalay u. 16 H-1055 BUDAPEST

Bulgaria Magistrates Training Centre, Bulgaria

Croatia Judicial Academy, Croatia

Cyprus Supreme Court, Cyprus

Czech Republic Academy of Justice

Estonia Estonian Law Centre Foundation

Georgia Training institution for judges , The High School of Justice, Georgia

Georgia Training institution for prosecutors Office of the Prosecutor General

Hungary Office of National Council of Justice,

J U D I C I A L

Bulgaria National Institute of Justice, Bulgaria

O F

Bulevar Stepe Stepanovica 60 Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina

D A T A B A S E

Bosnia and Herzegovina Public Institution Centre for Judicial and Prosecutorial Training of the Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina

I V

Address

A N N E X

Institution/organization

38 Tel: +995 32 40 50 96 Fax: +995 32 93 26 71

Tel: +995 32 38 11 61 Fax: +995 32 37 00 63

Tel: +372 7 309 075 Fax: +372 7 309 029

Fax: +420 573 501 101

+ 385 1 4600 831 + 385 1 4600 850

Tel: +359 2 933 2276 Fax: +359 2 988 5530

Tel: +359 2 935 9100 Fax: +359 2 935 9101

Tel: +387 (51) 430 420 Fax: +387 (51) 434 040

Tel/fax

T R A I N I N G

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

Director: Mr George JOKHADZE gjokhadze@pog.gov.ge Contact person: Mr Rusydan MIKHELIDZE – Tel: +995 32 40 50 96

Director: Mr David SAAKASHVILI hsoj@hsoj.ge Contact person: Mr Shota RUKHADZE – Tel: +995 32 37 17 93

tanel@lc.ee Director: Mr Tanel KASK

Director: Ms Daniela KOVAROVA kromeriz@akademie.justice.cz Contact person: Mr Jaroslav OPRAVIL – Tel: +420 737 244 317

Mr Justice Myron NICOLATOS, Judge

Ivana GORENIC, Director, Tel: +385 1 4600 831 Email: igoranic@pravosudje.hr

mtc@dir.bg

nij@nij.bg

infors@rs.cest.gov.ba

Contact name and/or e-mail

I N S T I T U T I O N S

Wybrzeie Kosciuszkonskie str. 47 PL-00-347 WARSAW

Poland National training centre for the staff of common courts and public prosecutors office,

J U D I C I A L

Jovana Tomasevica 2 81000 PODGORICA

Montenegro Judicial Training Centre of the Republic of Montenegro

O F

1 Lazo Street MD - 2009 Chisinau

Moldova National Institute of Justice

D A T A B A S E

Chief Justice’s Chambers Courts of Justice, Republic Street VALLETTA CMR 02, Malta

Malta Judicial Studies Committee

I V

Blvd. Jane Sadanski 12, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia

Macedonia Academy for Training Judges and Prosecutors of the Republic of Macedonia

A N N E X

Sanklodiškių vil.

LT-33333 MOLETAI REGION, Lithuania

Lithuania Ministry of Justice of Lithuania Training Centre

T R A I N I N G

Tel: +48 22 55 27 269 Fax: +48 22 55 27 268

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

Director: Mr Andrzej LECIAK Contact person: Mr Wojciech POSTULSKI – Tel: +48 22 55 27 269 w.postulski@kcskspip.gov.pl

coscg@cg.yu Director: Mme Ana GRGUREVIĆ Contact person: Ms Maja MILOSEVIC – Tel: +382 81 201 890 / 891 / 893

Director: Eugenia FISTICAN

Dr. Vincent A. De GAETANO, Chief Justice

Director, Tanja TEMELKOSKA-MILENKOVIC Tanja.temelkoskamilenkovic@jpacademy.gov.mk info@jpacademy.gov.mk

Deputy Director: Ms Inga KONDELEVSKYTĖ Contact person: Mr Raimundas RAKAUSKAS – Fax: +370 700 29503

Director : Mme Solvita KALNINA centrs@ltmc.lv Contact person: M. Indulis BALMAKS

Ms. Aida Jogoshtieva.

Tel: +996 555750771 E-mail: jaidat@mail.ru.

Lavdim Krasniqi, Director Lavdim.krasniqi@kjijudicial.org

Contact name and/or e-mail

I N S T I T U T I O N S

Tel: +382 81 201 890 / 891 / 893 Fax: +382 81 201 892

Tel: +373 22 228 185 / 186 Fax: +373 22 228 187

Tel: + 389 2 2401 560 Fax: + 389 2 2401 570

Tel:+370 700 29506

Tel: +371 70 39 304 / +371 70 39 301 Fax: +371 70 39 302

Alberta iela 13 LV-1010 RIGA

Latvia Latvian Judicial Training Centre

Tel: + 381 38 248 688

Tel/fax

Tel: +996 312456605

Agim Ramadani, 38000 Pristina, Kosovo, (United Nations Administered Territory)

Address

Kyrgyzstan Judicial Training Centre of the Kyrgyz Republic (website under construction)

Kosovo Kosovo Judicial Institute

Kazakhstan Judicial Training Centre

Institution/organization

39

Karadjordjeva 48, Belgrade 11000, Serbia

Suvorovova 5/C 902 01 PEZINOK

Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Slovenia, Zupanciceva 3, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

20 Karamov Street Dushanbe 73400, Tajikistan

Ahlatlıbel, Çankaya ANKARA 06095

Serbia Judicial Training Centre of the Republic of Serbia

Slovakia Judicial Academy,

Slovenia Judicial Training Centre of Slovenia

Tajikistan Judicial Training Centre

Turkey Turkish Justice Academy

Uzbekistan

Ukraine Academy of Judges of Ukraine

Lipska str. 16-g 01021 KIEV

117 638, Azovskaya str.

Bld.2, block1 MOSCOW

Russian Federation Federal Establishment of Higher Professional Education Academy of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation

Turkmenistan

69, Novocheremushkinskaya MOSCOW 117418

J U D I C I A L

Russian Federation Russian Academy of Justice

O F

Blvd. Regina Elisabeta, nr 53, sector 5, Buccuresti, Romania

D A T A B A S E

Romania National Institute of Magistrates of the Republic of Romania

I V

Address

A N N E X

Institution/organization

40 Tel: +38 044 230 31 46

Tel: +90 312 490 10 54 Fax: +90 312 490 08 57

Tel: +2 372242074

Tel: +386 1 369 5394

Tel: +421 33 641 33 95 Fax: +421 33 641 33 98

Tel: +381 11 184 030 Fax: +381 11 183 276

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

President: Ms Iryna VOYTYUK irynavot@lviv.gu.net Contact person: Ms Tetyana PUSTOVOYTOVA Tel: +38 067 233 55 12

Director: Dr. Birsen KARAKAŞ taa@adalet.gov.tr Tel: +90 312 490 10 54

Ms. Kanoat KHAMIDOVA

Biserka JAVORSEK, Department for International Co-operation Biserka.javorsek@gov.si

Director: Ms Zuzana DURISOVA Contact person: Ms Soňa SMOLOVÁ – Tel: +421 33 641 32 32 sona.smolova@justice.sk

centar@pcsrbija.org.yu Nenad Vujic, Director + 381 11 183 250 Nenad.vujic@pcsrbija.org.yu

niigp@msk.rsnet.ru Director: Mr Igor ZVECHAROVSKIY Contact person: Mr Feodor FILIPPOV – Tel: +7 495 259 1441

Rector: Mr Valentin YERSHOV Email: inter_raj@ru.ru

Mihai SELEGEAN, Director

Contact name and/or e-mail

I N S T I T U T I O N S

Tel: +7 495 256 0085 Tel: +7 495 256 5463; +7 499 613 6772

Tel: +40 21 310 2110 Fax: +40 21 311 0234

Tel/fax

T R A I N I N G

Armenia

A N N E X

V

Promoting Human Rights and Facilitating Public Awareness of the Public Defender’s Office in Armenia

Armenia

D A T A B A S E

O F

South Caucasus Anti-drug Project (SCAD) Atlas Project ID No.: 00057941

Service Line: Justice and human rights

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

Implementing Partner: UNDP Other Partners: Ministry of Health, Police of the Republic of Armenia, National Security Services, Customs Committee, Prosecutor General’s Office, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Education & Science, National Institute of Health

Implementing Partner: Ministry of Territorial Administration Other Partners: National Assembly, Women’s Council at the Prime Minster’s Office, Ministry of Labour and Social Issues, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Culture and Youth Affairs, Public Defender’s Office, Police, Department of Migration and Refugees, local authorities, mass media, local NGOs and community-based organizations

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

Amendments to relevant drug laws and their implementation.

To facilitate the consolidation of democracy and promote human rights by building public awareness and encouraging broad debate.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

European Commission, UNDP

The main donors in Armenia in the field of democratic governance are: Department for International Development (DfID) in the UK, European Union, Governments of Armenia, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the Universal Postal Union (UPU)

Donor Institutions

Annex V Database of UNDP’s Access to Justice Projects in the Region

41

Armenia

Atlas Project ID No: 00011267

Victim’s Assistance: Phase II

Capacity Building: Phase II

Anti-Trafficking Project

Atlas Project ID No: 00051726

e-Judiciary Component of the Strengthening Awareness and Response in Exposure of Corruption in Armenia

D A T A B A S E

Armenia

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

42 O F

A C C E S S

Implementing Partner: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Other Partners: Inter-Agency Commission on Anti-Trafficking, Ministry of Territorial Administration, Prosecutor General’s Office, National Security Service, Police of the Republic of Armenia, Judiciary, Ministry of Labour & Social Issues, Ministry of Education & Science, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Culture & Youth Affairs, National Assembly, Customs Service, Mass Media Network, Local NGOs Network, UMCOR, IOM, United Nations Agencies, Council of Europe, US Embassy (INL), European Commission, OSCE, ILO, ICMPD, Migration Agency

Implementing Partner: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Other Partners: Office of the President, Office of the Prime Minister, Anti-Corruption Council, Anti-Corruption Monitoring Commission, Ministry of Territorial Administration, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education & Science, National Assembly, Council of Europe, OSCE, The British Council, Global Opportunities Fund, Regional Admins, Local Authorities, Local NGOs/Community Based Organizations

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

Government of Norway, Government of Belgium

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

Proposing amendments and recommendations to relevant laws.

Establishment of different components of the web portal for the Court of Cassation, which enabled public access to justice information, judicial acts and court verdicts.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP TRAC 1, Government of Norway, Swiss Development Cooperation

Donor Institutions

T O

O F

Promoting the Administrative Procedures Reform (APR) in Belarus Atlas project ID no: 00051710

Belarus

D A T A B A S E

Protecting Human Rights and Promoting Human Rights and Human Rights Education Atlas Project ID No: 00044361

Armenia

V

Strengthening the Human Rights Capacity of the Human Rights Defender’s Office in Armenia Atlas Project ID No: 00055581

Armenia

A N N E X

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

43

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

National Center of Legislation and Legal Research of the Republic of Belarus

Human Rights Defender’s Office, Court of Cassation, Judicial School

Human Rights Defender’s Office in Armenia Raul Wallenberg Insititute, Swden, SIDA, TRAC

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

UNDP

SIDA

Donor Institutions

P R O J E C T S

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The ultimate objective of the project is to promote coherent and efficient administrative procedures reform (APR) fully in line with the constitutional rights of Belarusian citizens and in order to promote the principles of transparency and accountability in the government structures. The project will be implemented using the best international practices in development the draft law for APR based on the relevant human rights principles, capacity building of public institutions to enable them to carry out an APR, and awareness-raising among the public on their legal rights.

Level of application of selected Ratified human rights treaties in Armenian courts analysed and promoted

Project Development Objective

O F

Program for the Prevention of Drug Abuse and the Fight against Drug Trafficking in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, 3rd phase (BUMAD-3) Atlas project ID no: 00052629

D A T A B A S E

Belarus

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

44 A C C E S S

NEX-Ministry of Interior

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The main goal of the project is to strengthen the capacitoes of the national agencies and NGOs to fight against drug trafficking. The project applies a complex approach and is implemented through 6 components: (1) Legal assistance, aimed at the improvement of Belarusian drug legislation; (2) Land border control; (3) Drug intelligence; (4) Drug prevention among school children and youth on the basis of the intersectoral approach; (5) Drug and drug abuse monitoring system; and (6) Support of NGOs, working in the field of drug abuse, harm reduction and rehabilitation of drug users.

BUMAD-3 is the successor of BUMAD-1 and BUMAD-2 implemented in Belarus in 20032006.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP, European Commission

Donor Institutions

T O

V

D A T A B A S E

O F

Promotion of a wider application of international human rights standards in the administration of justice in Belarus Atlas project ID no: 00051784

Belarus

A N N E X

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

45

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

UNDP, UNICEF, European Commission

Donor Institutions

P R O J E C T S

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The Project will contribute to a better understanding and application of international human rights standards, especially those related to legal protection, by justice sector professionals, students and professors of University law faculties and representatives of the other interested organizations (governmental and academic) and NGOs.

• increased public awareness of the role of the judiciary in a democratic law-abiding state.

• development of recommendations to further improve the national legislation and law enforcement in the area of administration of justice;

• better access for judges and court staff, prosecutors and the staff from the Prosecutor’s Office, and lawyers to information about international human rights standards and relevant case-law, and familiarization with best international practices;

The Project aims at improving the administration of justice in Belarus through:

Project Development Objective

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Supporting National Capacities in Transitional Justice

ATLAS project ID no: 00034210

Improvements of the Legislative Process in Belarus through Impact Assessment

Belarus

O F

Dissemination of the legal clinical education concept

D A T A B A S E

Belarus

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

46 A C C E S S

Implementing Partner: National Centre of Legislative Activities under the Auspices of the President of the Republic of Belarus Other Partners: the Parliament, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Economy, Administration of the President

Implementing Partner: Belarusian State University

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The issues of Transitional Justice which deal with injustices and human rights violations during conflict fuel profound grievances in the population and therefore need to be addressed if sustainable development is to be ensured. As global experience has demonstrated, dealing with the past in post-conflict countries is an essential prerequisite for building a stable and sustainable future, free from the threat of retribution

The Project aims to increase the quality of policy-making in Belarus. In order to help key law drafting institutions in Belarus to carry out impact assessment of policies and legislation that are being developed, the working group will focus on ex-post impact assessment practices and developing of impact assessment skills of the officials, involved into the legislative process.

Objectives: Increasing capacity for feasibility study and impact analysis of future laws and policies; Modification of the current drafting process and development of proposals for amendment of the legislative and institutional basis for enabling impact assessment; Public participation in the law drafting process and public access to the information enabled.

The project developed legal clinical education at the Belarus State University to improve training of law students through free provision of legal consultations for the poor.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP - United Nations Development Programme, Government of Spain, Government of Sweden, Government of Switzerland

UNDP

UNDP, UNHCR

Donor Institutions

T O

D A T A B A S E

O F

Legislation Database Project

Bosnia-Herzegovina

V

Judicial Training Project – Minor Offence Courts

Bosnia-Herzegovina

A N N E X

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

47

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

Office of the High Representative, OSCE, Open Society Fund (Soros)

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The project is developing a comprehensive database for BiH legislation, which will be fully accessible through an integrated Web portal. A basic version of the legislation database will provide public access, free of charge, to the official version of all laws on BiH, FbiH, RS and Brcko district. An extended version will provide specialists with more sophisticated search options and access to relevant commentaries and annotations.

The overall objective of this project is to strengthen the court structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina, implying that the judiciary becomes independent, efficient and effective part of the national institutional structure. Moreover, project aims at increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Minor Offence Court system by providing trainings to professionals: judges and interested lawyers. Another segment of the access to justice brief is ensuring full access to information for the public.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP, Open Society Fund (Soros)

Donor Institutions

Improved Juvenile Justice

Establishment of a New System of Administrative Justice in Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

O F

Support to the Establishment of the War Crimes Chamber in BiH – Training of Legal professionals Atlas project ID no: 00041482

D A T A B A S E

Bosnia-Herzegovina

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

48 A C C E S S

The Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice, Blagoevgrad Municipality, Burgas Municipality, Open Society Foundation (Soros)

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

UNDP Bulgarian Government British Embassy CIDA Others

UNDP Government of Norway

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

To support the implementation of the institutional and structural changes required for the establishment of a new administrative justice system.

The project aims to assist relevant institutions in juvenile justice reform.

UNDP is supporting strengthening of the court structure in BiH, implying that the judiciary becomes an independent, efficient and effective part of the national institutional structure. The judiciary should consequently be able to undertake its significant role in conflict prevention, improving ethnic representation, addressing gender imbalances and promoting equitable and sustainable human development for all.

The most significant aspect of the legal reform is enhancing of competencies of the national legal professionals and other staff involved in processing of war crimes. Hence, law enforcement as well as capacity building through training and exchange of experiences among legal professionals is required to ensure full functioning of judiciary at all levels.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

Govenrment of Japan, UNDP

Donor Institutions

T O

D A T A B A S E

O F

Support to Justice System

Georgia

V

Assistance in the development of a Witness and Victim Support System in Croatia ATLAS Project ID no: 58475

Croatia

A N N E X

Comprehensive Review of the Administrative and Commercial Justice Systems in Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Atlas project ID No: 00052418

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

49

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

The Supreme Court, High School of Justice of Georgia and Supreme Court of Georgia

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Justice

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

More specifically, the project implements the following: Training of judges with a particular focus on human rights, interpretation of laws, and access to justice by marginalized groups; Training for magistrate and speaker judges and media representatives in fundamental human rights documents and effective communications; and Public outreach activities to increase awareness on judiciary system in Georgia.

The project aims to support reforms in the court system of Georgia and increase access to justice throughout society, including the vulnerable and marginalized groups. The project also promotes a newly established institute of the Magistrate and Speaker Judge and provides training for judges and journalists to increase transparency of the court system.

To develop a witness and victims support system in courts, strategic management of the Ministry of Justice and public awareness.

The main objectives of the project have been to: produce recommendations to modernize the administrative justice system and to improve the commercial justice system in view of enhancing its efficiency and effectiveness; and to produce a Strategy and an Action Plan to implement Review recommendations.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

Government of Georgia, UNDP

United Nations Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) Government of the Netherlands, USAID

UNDP, British Embassy

Donor Institutions

O F

Georgia

Enhancement of Constitutional Justice

Atlas project ID no: 00012692

Assistance to the Public Defender's Office (PDO)

D A T A B A S E

Georgia

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

50 A C C E S S

Constitutional Court

Governments of Georgia, and Norway, UNDP

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

This project aims to support the development of Constitutional justice in Georgia.

The overall objective of the project is to further increase capacities within the PDO to provide professional support in the various fields of human rights and to extend its activities throughout the regions. In order for PDO to be able to respond to various needs, it would be essential to establish specialized centres within the office. Based on experience collected by the office over its years of operation, these centres would focus on: Research and protection of religious rights, Protection of women’s rights, Rights of military personnel, and Legislative matters, as well as developing four regional offices.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

The main donors are: the Government of Georgia, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK, the European Commission, Governments of the Netherlands, Greece, Denmark, Norway and Germany, the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), USAID, KfW (Germany) and World Bank.

Donor Institutions

T O

Kosovo

A N N E X

Kazakhstan

V

Development of National Capacities for Effective Protection of Human Rights

Kazakhstan

D A T A B A S E

O F

Kosovo Judicial/Bar Examination

Atlas project ID no: 00013232

Development of operational capacities of the National Ombudsman Institution

Atlas project ID no: 00013221

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

51

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

Ministry of Justice, Kosovo Judicial Council and Kosovo Judicial Institute

Implementing Partner: Office of the National Ombudsman (Human Rights Commissioner) Other Partners: Europe and the CIS /Bratislava, Human Rights Strengthening (HURIST) Programme, OSCE/ODIHR, European Commission, Spanish Ombudsman and Greek Ombudsman

Human Rights Commission (HRC) under the President of Kazakhstan

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The Judicial/Bar Examination is the main precondition for Kosovo lawyers to be included in the justice system. This exam enables them to be qualified for posts as judges, prosecutors or private attorneys. The purpose of undertaking the Judicial/Bar examination is to verify and evaluate the theoretical and practical skills of lawyers, allowing them to independently perform the tasks, implement the laws and become familiarize with professional ethics, human rights and basic freedoms recognized in domestic and international law.

Objectives were: to develop and strengthen the capacity of the Ombudsman Institution for effective protection of human rights against infringements and violations; awareness raising of civil society and promotion of human rights in the wider society; to enhance the offices capacity to fulfil ombudsman’s mandate and further consolidate its status vis-à-vis national legislation and the institutional system.

The project aims to raise awareness of law enforcement officials and institutions on international obligations under ratified human rights treaties and obligations; to train mass media and NGOs on international obligations.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

Government of Japan, Ministry of Justice

UNDP

UNDP, Government of Norway

Donor Institutions

Latvia

Action II Piloting

Kyrgyzstan

Support to the Judiciary

Atlas project ID no: 00056219

Women’s Safety and Security Initiative 2007-2008 Atlas Project ID No: 00053737

Kosovo

O F

UNDP BCPR Global Programme on Justice and Security Sector Reform programme

D A T A B A S E

Kosovo

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

52 A C C E S S

Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Judicial Training Centre, Latvian Judges Association, Soros Foundation, Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies, Legal Aid Clinic of the Latvia University, Riga Graduate School of Law

UNDP, UNHCR, UNISEF, UNFPA, UNESCO, WHO, UNOHCHR, UNRC, UNIFEM

Office for Public Safety, Office for Good Governance, Agency for Gender Equality, Trafficking in Human Beings Sector of the Kosovo Police Service, civil society representatives

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

Governments of Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom

Action II, UNDP, UNHCR, UNISEF, UNFPA, UNESCO, WHO, UNOHCHR, UNRC, UNIFEM

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The project aims to promote independence and effectiveness and accessibility of judiciary in Latvia.

The Joint Project aims at supporting the United Nations Country Team in its contribution to efforts of the Kyrgyz Republic in strengthening national human rights promotion and protection systems.

The project aims to strengthen capacities of civil society to monitor and advocate for the accountability of public institutions in combating and increased capacity of public institutions to combat Violence Against Women.

Improved access to justice through the provision of legal aid and information and awareness-raising, especially for vulnerable groups.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

DFiD, Government of Finland, BCPR

Donor Institutions

T O

D A T A B A S E

O F

Capacity Development of the Latvian Judiciary and Courts

Latvia

V

Strengthening Communications Capacity of the Judiciary

Latvia

A N N E X

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

53

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

Ministry of Justice Constitutional Court Supreme Court Judicial Training Centre Latvian Judges Association Soros Foundation Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies Legal Aid Clinic of the Latvia University Riga Graduate School of Law

Ministry of Justice Constitutional Court Supreme Court Latvian Judges Association

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The project aims to promote independence and effectiveness and accessibility of the judiciary in Latvia.

The institutional capacity of the Latvian judiciary system can be greatly enhanced by creating and adopting an effective communication policy for the sector.

Systematic and highly professional communications can mobilize support to the reforms undertaken as well as motivate civil society to demand policy makers to address the challenges of the judiciary with appropriate resources and commitment.

The project development objective is to create institutional frameworks and strengthen the capacity of human resources in the judiciary to enable transparent and professional communications between the judiciary and civil society, thus decreasing the gap between judiciary and the way it is perceived by civil society. It is expected that strengthened capacity of the judiciary in communications would promote trust in judiciary and improve the environment to advance reforms undertaken in the judiciary.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

Governments of Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom

Government of Norway

Donor Institutions

Strengthening Human Rights Through Legal Education of the Public, Phase II

Juvenile Justice Programme

Strengthening Human Rights through Legal Education of the Public

Support to the Legislative Reform

Lithuania

Lithuania

Lithuania

Lithuania

O F

Implementation of Alternative Measures for Juvenile Offenders in Municipalities

D A T A B A S E

Latvia

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

54 A C C E S S

The Ministry of Justice The Law Institute

The Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice, Centre for the Prevention of Crime, Law Institute, Prosecutor’s Office, Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights

The Ministry of Justice

The Institute of Philosophy and Sociology

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

UNDP, The Ministry of Justice, Open Society Fund –Lithuania

UNDP, The Ministry of Justice

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

This project aims to provide technical assistance to the Commission which is undertaking a comprehensive study of law-making and in preparing a model on law-making and its implementation.

This project aims to increase the accessibility of legal information to the public and establishing a long-term basis for legal awareness-raising through legal education of the youth.

The programme aims to assist relevant institutions in juvenile justice reform.

This project aims to increase the accessibility of legal information to the public and establishing a long-term basis for legal awareness-raising through legal education of the youth. The project aims at increasing the accessibility of legal information to the public and establishing a long-term basis for legal awareness-raising through legal education of youth.

It builds on the results of the project “Strengthening human rights through legal education of the public”, implemented from April 2002 to December 2003.

The project aims to assist relevant institutions in juvenile justice reform.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP, Centre for Prevention of Crime, UNICEF, The Ministry of Justice

UNDP The Ministry of Justice

UNDP

Donor Institutions

T O

Strengthening the Institutional Capacity of the National Institute of Justice Atlas ID No: 00058757

Moldova

O F

Support in Strengthening the National Preventive Mechanism as per OPCAT provisions Atlas ID No: 00069194

Moldova

D A T A B A S E

Support to Implementation of the National Human Rights Action Plan

Lithuania

V

Establishment of a judicial training centre

Lithuania

A N N E X

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

55

U N D P â&#x20AC;&#x2122; S

A C C E S S

High Council of Magistracy, Ministry of Justice, Parliament, Courts, United Nation Agencies, EC Delegation to Moldova, Council of Europe, OSCE, civil society organizations

Parliamentary Advocates, Centre for Human Rights

Government of Lithuania, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Social Security and Labour, Ministry of Interior, Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights

The Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Association of Lithuanian Judges

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

UNDP

EC UNDP

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

This project aims at supporting the National Institute of Justice in strengthening its institutional capacity to perform its legal functions in a more transparent and eďŹ&#x192;cient manner, thereby increasing the education, training and competency of judges, prosecutors and other justice representatives. This would result in their enhanced capacities to make fair, just and equitable decisions and ensure access to justice.

The project aims at preventing the prevalence/incidence of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or Punishment By Strengthening The National Preventive Mechanism in compliance with the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT)/ Optional Protocol to the CAT (OPCAT). requirements and under overall national human rights protection and promotion system.

The project aims at supporting the Lithuanian authorities in implementing the National Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. It will contribute to further progress in respecting, protecting and exercising human rights in Lithuania.

The project aims to strengthen the judiciary through training and education for judges and other court personnel.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP, Government of Lithuania

UNDP, Open Society Fund, ABA CEELI, The Ministry of Justice, The Supreme Court, The Association of Lithuanian Judges

Donor Institutions

O F

Moldova

Atlas ID No: 00039548

Efficient justice administration in the Republic of Moldova

Atlas ID No: 00035347

Support to the Implementation of the National Human Rights Action Plan 2004-2008

D A T A B A S E

Moldova

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

56 A C C E S S

Ministry of Justice, High Council of Magistracy, NGOs

Parliament, National Human Rights Action Plan, NGOs, the private sector and the mass media

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

UNDP Soros Foundation

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The project will contribute to strengthening national capacities to secure transparency of justice administration and by identifying mechanisms to reduce judicial costs by rational management of resources and alternatives to dispute settlement. These efforts should determine the consolidation of a more functional and accessible judiciary/justice service for its beneficiaries.

It will also contribute to the establishment of a system capable of properly carrying out its duties to safeguard and protect human rights and to remedy the violations of these rights.

This project aims to support the Government of Moldova in consolidating the mechanism for the efficient functioning of the judiciary by: enhancing national capacity for an efficient management of cases; supporting the government to identify dispute settlement alternatives to simplify court proceedings; and efficiently managing the resources available to courts.

This project will implement the National Human Rights Action Plan under the global HURIST programme to introduce a consistent and transparent system of monitoring human rights. It will also build capacities for improving the professional development of representatives of justice and will raise awareness on human rights and mechanisms for their protection.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP Global HURIST Programme

Donor Institutions

T O

V

D A T A B A S E

O F

Strengthening Capacities of Judiciary to Fight Corruption and Organized Crime

Montenegro

A N N E X

Reform of the Legal Aid System in Montenegro: Creating and Effective and Sustainable System of Legal Aid Atlas ID No: 00063398

Atlas ID Number: 00013637

Centre for Legal Studies and Policies

Montenegro

Moldova

Strengthening Moldova’s Government and civil society capacity to fight corruption and to improve governance

Moldova

Atlas ID No: 00013631

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

57

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court, Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office, Special Prosecutor for Organized Crime and Corruption, the Judicial Training Centre

Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court, Council of Europe, OSCE, FoS, UNHCR, Bar Association

The Ministry of Justice, the High Council of Magistracy, JTC, Institute for Criminal Reforms, Lawyers for Human Rights, Law Centre, TACIS Program, ABA CEELI

The Government, the Presidency, civil society, the private sector and the mass media

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

Government of Norway

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

In January 2008, UNDP launched the project Strengthening Capacities of Judiciary to Fight Corruption and Organized Crime, consisting of three components: (i) Support to the Ministry of Justice in its legislative efforts; (ii) Developing training programmes for the Judicial Training Center (JTC); (iii) Developing of IT capacities for the judiciary.

In October 2008, UNDP launched the project “Creating an effective and sustainable system of providing Legal Aid”, consisting of two components: (i) Drafting of the Law on Legal Aid; (ii) Implementation of the Law on Legal Aid.

The project aims to develop fair and efficient administration of justice by promoting international standards for national higher legal education and modernizing the criminal justice system.

The project aims to support government structures in fighting corruption and strengthening the capacity of independent NGOs to carry out anti-corruption activities.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

Government of the Netherlands, Government of Norway, UNDP TRAC

UNDP, Soros Foundation

UNDP Moldova, UNDP Thematic Trust Fund

Donor Institutions

Law Enforcement Best Practice Manual

Support to the implementation of the Law Access to Public Information in Romania

Establishment of the Judicial Training Center for Professional Advancement of Judges and Prosecutors Atlas Project ID No: 15654/15655

Romania

Romania

Serbia

O F

Strengthening Capacities of the Ministry of Justice of Montenegro

D A T A B A S E

Montenegro

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

58 A C C E S S

The Ministry of Justice, The Judges Association of Serbia, The Supreme Court of Serbia

The Ministry of Public Information

Ministry of the Interior UNDP/Europe and the CIS, United Nations/CICP, SECI

Ministry of Justice

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

RNE/SIDA

UNDP UNDP Thematic Trust Fund

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The project aims at: the establishment of the Judicial Training Centre as an institution; the creation of research capacity, and the design of curricula for all beneficiaries and of co-ordination mechanisms.

The project aims at building capacities of civil society organizations to effectively monitor and support implementation of and compliance with the Law on Access to Public Information.

The role of this project is to formulate a The Best Practice Manual was designed to enhance intercountry cooperation and the capacities of law enforcement and prosecutorial units within beneficiary countries to combat the trafficking of human beings.

In January 2009, UNDP launched the project Strengthening Capacities of the Ministry of Justice of Montenegro, consisting of five components: (i) Improvement of the organizational setup of the Ministry; (ii) Development of the management capacities of the Ministry; (iii) Strengthening of the capacities of the Ministry to plan, develop and implement European integration and international legal assistance/co-operation policies; (iv) Sustainable improvement in the information technology capacities of the Ministry; and (v) Promotion of the public relations aspect of the Ministry’s operations

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP USAID International Centre for Migration Policy Development

Government of Norway

Donor Institutions

T O

Transitional Justice Programme: Building up the Capacity for Ensuring Access to Justice in a Post-Conflict Society Atlas Project ID No: 43554, 54794

Serbia

O F

Strengthening the System of Misdemeanors and Magistrates' Courts Atlas Project ID No: 38144/54821

Serbia

D A T A B A S E

Strengthening Human Rights Protection Mechanisms Atlas Project ID No: 34422

Serbia

V

Strengthening the Judicial Resource and Support Functions in the Judicial Training Centre (JTC) Atlas Project ID No: 36743

Serbia

A N N E X

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

59

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

The Judicial Training Centre, national and regional judiciary, national and international NGOs, IGOs.

The Ministry of Justice, The Association of Magistrates, The Judicial Training Center

Ministry for Minority and Human Rights, Judicial Training Centre

The Ministry of Justice, The Judges Association of Serbia, The Supreme Court of Serbia

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

UNDP, BCPR, RNE

SIDA

UNDP - TTF

CIDA

Donor Institutions

P R O J E C T S

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The long-term goals of the Transitional Justice Programme are strengthening research, training and public information capacity of post-conflict social institutions to provide recourse to justice. The programme intends to gradually develop three mutually re-enforcing capacities in the domain of post-conflict reform: (i) Research; (ii) Training; and (ii) Public information.

The project will be carried out through legal regulation and developing professional standards and a code of ethics. The project activities will be undertaken by the Project Implementation Unit, in close cooperation with the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Serbia and the Association of Magistrates.

The project focused on exposing judges and prosecutors to new teaching techniques on human rights protection, and raising public awareness and educating the public on mechanisms for human rights protection.

Under the scope of expanding JTC functions, the proposed project activities consist of setting up a specialized thematic database, supporting judicial cooperation, assisting curricula advancement and encouraging research and training evaluation.

Project Development Objective

Serbia

Atlas Project ID No: 51365

Anti-Discrimination – First Phase

Atlas Project ID No: 51565/54946

Free Legal Aid

Serbia

O F

Judicial Education for Development – the Turn Guide Atlas Project ID No: 44821

D A T A B A S E

Serbia

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

60 A C C E S S

Ministry of Human and Minority Rights, NGOs, EAR, Council of Europe

Ministry of Justice, citizens, the judiciary

Judicial Training Centre, Ministry of Justice

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

UNDP/EAR

UNDP/SIDA

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

This project aims at the creation of a comprehensive legal framework for preventing and combating discrimination.

Its primary focus will be to use a participatory process of public consultation to produce a comprehensive Draft Law on Anti-Discrimination consistent with European and international norms. This will be achieved through its support to the adoption of such an anti-discrimination law in Serbia and Montenegro

The long-term goal of the First Phase of the Free Legal Aid project is to establish a roadmap for the creation of an effective and affordable state-funded and state-run legal aid system for those who cannot afford legal services. The short-term goals are to formulate a strategy for the reform of the legal aid system that will be accepted by the key stakeholders and to increase access to justice for the most vulnerable and marginalized groups.

The Turn Guide will have the potential to allow others to rapidly increase their judicial reform portfolio and contribute more effectively to the promotion of Democratic Governance.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP – Signatory Service Special Award

Donor Institutions

T O

V

D A T A B A S E

Anti-Discrimination – Second Phase Atlas Project ID No: 54759

Serbia

A N N E X

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

61

O F

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, ombudsmen, NGOs, Commission for Protection of Equality

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

European Agency for Reconstruction

Donor Institutions

P R O J E C T S

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

As part of the wide-ranging effort currently undertaken primarily by the government and civil society to fulfill the criteria for closer integration with the European Union, a key component has been devoted to the introduction of legislation seeking to more effectively prevent and combat discrimination of minorities and vulnerable groups in Serbia. UNDP has, in partnership with the Agency for Human and Minority Rights and the European Agency for Reconstruction, supported the preparation of a comprehensive Draft Antidiscrimination Act elaborated with governmental support and in cooperation with international agencies. In order to increase the impact of the legislative work undertaken until now and to guarantee the effectiveness of present and forthcoming provisions, it appears necessary to carry out a project composed of the following components: Institutional support to the agencies and bodies involved in the implementation of current and future antidiscrimination legislation; Enhancing and mainstreaming of further legislative developments in the field of antidiscrimination; Strengthening of the role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the overall implementation of antidiscrimination provisions; and Awareness-raising among key groups and society at large on the importance of equal treatment and the relevance of new anti.discrimination rules.

Project Development Objective

O F

Notions of Justice and War Crimes Atlas Project ID No: 60622

D A T A B A S E

Serbia

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

62 A C C E S S

War Crimes Chamber of the Belgrade District Court, Courts in Kosovo, Courts in Croatia, Courts in Montenegro, The International Court of Justice, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), The State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, The War Crimes Prosecutors’ Office of the Republic of Serbia, ICTJ, JTC

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

Government of Romania

Donor Institutions

T O

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

Domestic courts in the former Yugoslavia have benefited from the work of the ICTY on outreach and have all set up public relations offices to explain proceedings, indictments and judgments. However, the activities of these offices are mostly limited to press briefings, and potential substantive outreach efforts are hindered by budgetary constraints.

The project will help to develop a methodology to impart expertise in outreach from the international sector to local stakeholders who lack experience in international law and proceedings, with the idea of creating a flexible and exportable outcome, while providing the international experts with ideas for better mechanisms to incorporate a localized approach in their own outreach efforts. The project will develop lasting expertise at the local level in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, UNMIKKosovo, Montenegro and Serbia in explaining the nature of international legal proceedings.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

V

D A T A B A S E

O F

Support to Judicial Reform in the Perspective of Organizational Administration

Turkey

A N N E X

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

63

U N D P ’ S

Ministry of Justice

A C C E S S

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

Donor Institutions

P R O J E C T S

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The project at hand, entitled Support to Judicial Reform in the Perspective of Organizational Administration, aims to support the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, and the high courts such as Court of Cessation and Council of State in their efforts in building institutional capacity for better access to justice for all. In the scope of the Project, an evaluation of the organizational administration of the Turkish judicial system to develop a road map for the full-fledged implementation of judiciary reforms in the EU accession process will be conducted. This organizational administration review of the judicial system will provide an overall evaluation of the structures and interactions among the High Council of Prosecutors and Judges, the high courts such as Court of Cessation and Council of State. Output of this review will be a comprehensive situation analysis of the existing structures and processes.

Ultimately, the project shall provide an extensive framework, which will become a basis for defining a road map for further policy recommendations and capacitybuilding programmes in the ongoing judiciary reform process of Turkey.

Project Development Objective

Atlas project ID No: 00044497

Development of the Capacities National Human Rights Institutions

Uzbekistan

O F

Preparatory Assistance Project for the Development of Practice of Mediation in Criminal Justice System

D A T A B A S E

Turkey

V

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

A N N E X

Country of Implementation

64 A C C E S S

National Human Rights Centre, Ombudsmen, lawyers, legal clinics, youth organizations

Ministry of Justice

Partner Institutions

U N D P ’ S

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

The main objective of the project is to strengthen capacities of the national human rights institutions and relevant bodies to effectively fulfill their mandates for promoting and protecting human rights in Uzbekistan. The project focuses primarily on activities relating to human rights matters that form part of the mandate and day-to-day work of operational national human rights institutions, which would consequently improve the promotion and protection of human rights.

UNDP’s special niche in the studies of the justice sector in Turkey will provide technical know-how towards achieving institutional capacity building based on its global experience and capacity. It will accordingly provide multi-country structures and lessons learned as well as expertise in the area of its corporate mandate and the embodiment of human rights-based approaches to all fields of service delivery and acts of duty-bearers.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP, Government of Netherlands, Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund

Donor Institutions

T O

A N N E X

V

D A T A B A S E

O F

Support to the development of arbitration courts and other alternative methods of dispute settlement

Uzbekistan

Atlas project ID no: 00059715

Project title and ATLAS ID no.

Country of Implementation

65

U N D P ’ S

A C C E S S

Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Partner Institutions

T O

J U S T I C E

I N

T H E

R E G I O N

To achieve this objective, the project will facilitate the delivery of following main inputs: 1. Establishing and development of institutional capacities of the Arbitration Development Center under the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Uzbekistan; 2. Research on the current situation of arbitration process and mediation in Uzbekistan; 3. Implementation of international standards of disputes resolution through training and certification of arbitration judges; encouragement of women arbiters and breaking the gender barrier; 4. Preparation of draft amendments to the legislation in the field of arbitration courts and trials.

The main objective of the project is the development of the arbitration courts and other alternative ways of dispute resolution through creation of the Arbitration Development Center under the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Project Development Objective

P R O J E C T S

UNDP, Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Donor Institutions

C I S T H E A N D E U R O P E

Organization

Donor

Partner

European Union

Croatia, Moldova, Serbia

Croatia, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro

I N

Annex VI UNDP’s Main Donors and Partners in Europe and the CIS

World Bank

A N N E X

V I

U N D P ’ S

M A I N

D O N O R S

A N D

P A R T N E R S

Armenia

66

Canada (CIDA)

Serbia

France

Uzbekistan

Germany

Uzbekistan

The Netherlands

Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia

Croatia

Norway

Armenia, Kosovo, Montenegro

Georgia

Romania

Serbia

Sweden (SIDA)

Armenia, Serbia, Tajikistan

Switzerland (SDC)

Armenia

United Kingdom (FCO/DFiD)

Kazakhstan

Croatia

United States of America (USAID)

Croatia, Kyrgyzstan

Armenia, Croatia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan

OHCHR

Moldova

Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan

TTF

Georgia, Lithuania, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Turkey

Georgia

UNICEF

Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan

UNIFEM

Kazakhstan

UNHCR

Armenia, Kazakhstan, Montenegro

Council of Europe

Armenia, Moldova, Montenegro

Open Society Institute/Soros Foundation

Armenia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Montenegro

OSCE

Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Uzbekistan

Other

Local NGOs and HRDs

C I S T H E

Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Serbia

A N D

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (Central and Eastern Europe Law Initiative (ABA/ROLI)

E U R O P E

Montenegro – UNDPNY Headquarters

I N

Kosovo – Europe and the CIS

P A R T N E R S

OTHER

A N D

Armenia, Serbia

D O N O R S

Lithuania

M A I N

UNODC

U N D P ’ S

Partner

V I

Donor

A N N E X

Organization

67

UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre Grรถsslingova 35 81109 Bratislava Slovak Republic Tel: (421-2) 59337-111 Fax: (421-2) 59337-450 http://europeandcis.undp.org/