World Bank assists Armenia’s efforts in increasing transparancy and effectiveness of judicial system
13.02.2012,
15:58
Armenia has information technologies in place to introduce robust mechanisms for evaluation of judges and random case assignment.
Armenia has information technologies in place to introduce robust mechanisms for evaluation of judges and random case assignment
A high level workshop on judicial reforms in Armenia, with on-line participation of international experts and practitioners, was recently organized at the World Bank (WB) Yerevan office. Mr. Davit Melikyan, WB Public Sector Management Specialist and Team Leader of the WB-financed Second Judicial Reform Project, and Mr. Migara De Silva, WB Senior Economist present here the topics of the discussion and the situation in the sector.
ARKA: Mr. Melikyan, what were the objectives of the workshop, who participated in it, and what were the topics discussed?
D. Melikyan: The workshop was organized by the World Bank via videoconference, in which senior judges and judicial officials from Singapore, Macedonia, Portugal and the USA participated. The purpose of this conference was to support the Armenian peers in implementing the WB-financed Second Judicial Reform Project, and particularly, in finding the appropriate model for the evaluation of judges.
At the beginning of 2010, the “Ameria” consulting company, with financial assistance of the WB, within the framework of the above-mentioned project, provided comprehensive recommendations on issues concerning self-government and administration of the judicial system. Our partners from the Judicial Department and Council of Justice have already tried to partially apply some of the recommendations in different contexts. However, two issues, which are very important in our opinion, needed further support. These issues were the topics of discussion at the workshop.
The first is the random case assignment. This practice is already introduced in Yerevan to some extent, and we hope that we will succeed in effective implementation and expansion of this system. An equally important topic of the discussion was the introduction of a system for evaluation of judges. This system is important not only from the perspective of the Bank’s project, but also for Armenia’s political leadership, as this issue is one of the most important provisions of the five-year Judicial Reform Strategy, which is currently in the process of approval.
Since the recommendations provided by “Ameria” mainly contain analyses of the experiences of Bulgaria, Estonia and Spain, we decided to present models of evaluation of judges in other countries, including Singapore, Portugal and the USA. The Portuguese model was included on the agenda at the request of our colleagues, and the other two countries were selected by us based on the similarities of issues related to common law.
Since we are consistently introducing certain elements of judicial precedent, particularly, by making the decisions of the Cassation Court and the European Human Rights Court binding for the lower jurisdictions, reviewing the potential for capturing these aspects in the system of evaluation of judges was very useful.
ARKA: Why is it important to introduce the systems of evaluation of judges and random case assignment in Armenia’s judicial system, and what would be the impact, especially from the point of view of enhancing the system’s effectiveness?
Davit Melikyan: In the scope of the World Bank projects implemented in Armenia’s judicial system since 2000, various information management technologies have been introduced. Today the system has reached the level of technical sophistication that these systems can be easily automated and made transparent and predictable both for citizens and businesses. This may have a positive impact also on the effectiveness of the system and improve the quality of performance of judges.
It is also worth mentioning that the predictability of the judicial system, namely the implementation of laws, is very important for the business community, and this is why the constitutional amendments of 2005 defined the consistent interpretation of the law as the key mission of the Court of Cassation. The practice of applying the decisions of the Court of Cassation as a precedent is challenging the judges from the professional point of view.
The “Ameria” company proposed a specific system of indicators in the scope of its recommendations pertaining to evaluation of judges. The list of indicators is broad, and during the workshop I proposed in my presentation a set of other indicators, including those which can demonstrate the compliance and consistency of judges in using the information systems being introduced. For example, the timely input of information on judicial cases and decisions into the automated system of management may be one of the important indicators of judicial compliance.
Until recently the court chairmen were entitled to assign cases to certain judges; this carries certain risks of discretion. The proper application of the method of random case assignment will allow to equally distribute the workload among the judges and also to exclude any biased decision on the appointment of this or that judge.
Evaluation of judges, in essence, is the performance of the judicial system at the level of individual judges. The participants of the workshop discussed also issues related to performance of the system at the level of the courts. One of the presentations, for instance, was about the perspectives of introducing program budgeting in the judicial system, which will increase attention to different practical aspects of effectiveness and results of courts’ performance. The introduction of both systems has one common precondition, which, I believe, is the first thing to address – that is, introducing an effective system of judicial statistics. Naturally, some judicial statistics is being generated now, however many indicators can and need to be added to it, specifically, in the context of effectiveness of the judicial system. Many of these indicators are proposed in the report prepared in the framework of the above-mentioned WB project.
I should also note that a functional system of the evaluation of judges will allow defining the training needs of judges. Having the objective evaluations of their performance, judges will be maximally protected in the process of unbiased decision-making.
ARKA: Mr. De Silva, how can the international experience be used to benefit the judicial system of Armenia?
Migara De Silva: One of the key objectives of the workshop was to provide answers to that question. The main purpose was to introduce and follow the best international practices, thus we selected countries that were best fit for this purpose. In particular, the representative of Singapore presented the similarities between Singapore and Armenia. For example, the capacities of Singapore, when it started the reforms 40 years ago, were pretty much the same as the capacities of Armenia, which started the economic transition 20 years ago. However, this does not mean that there are no differences between the two countries. Macedonia, Portugal and USA, too have some similarities with Armenia. Singapore and USA were selected as countries with a common law system, which is of interest particularly in terms of the practice of the judicial precedent.
Some issues identified in the course of the discussion are quite relevant for Armenia, I think. First of all, it is the development of technologies. However, much more important is the human development aspect. We can set up technical systems to distribute cases randomly, we can create various measures and indexes to evaluate the judges - and all of these certainly contribute to the increase of transparency and accountability - however, the most important factor of success is the qualification of judges. It is particularly this issue that was emphasized in the presentations of the U.S Federal Judge and the District Judge from Singapore. In both cases the evaluation methodology of the judges may be statistically not very rigorous, but they have other institutional mechanisms to make sure that only the highly qualified judges will be recruited and promoted.
Half of the problems in the evaluation of judges will be solved when you focus on the intake of judges - when you have in place a very rigorous and transparent recruitment method, which is not subject to any political influence whatsoever. And I am not talking about Armenia; I am talking in general, conceptually.
What we learned from the experience of Singapore and USA is that when the quality of entry is at level, it raises the overall reputation of the judicial system. Despite the fact that judges may not be paid as high salaries as lawyers from the private sector, judges are proud of the services they deliver and the social importance of their work. This approach is anchored on such values as honesty, impartiality, and transparency – these are part of the moral values that create a certain culture among the judges and the civil servants, too.
The systems of the USA and Singapore have one more important similarity, namely the merit-based promotion of judges. While experience matters, there is no fixed rule related to seniority; promotion largely depends on the judges’ professional qualifications identified by meritocracy-based evaluation internally as well by external sources.
Both countries are similar also in their system of evaluation of judges by the bar associations. In this case the judges are evaluated not only on their knowledge of the laws, but also on their conduct at the court during judicial disputes on specific cases. Though these evaluations are not formal, they still have a big influence and are important in the context of evaluation of judges.
D. Melikyan: The systems for evaluation of judges in the represented countries do not rely much on quantitative information, particularly on statistical indicators; this is typical for developed countries. The systems being introduced with our assistance in developing countries and economies in transition are based, to a greater extent, on automation and statistical data; this is caused by the higher level of various potential risks.
For instance, In Portugal, the system of evaluation of judges that has a history of 40 years, is entirely based on the assessment by inspectors; this is not applicable in Armenia at least in that format. The system of evaluation of judges in Singapore is based on different sources of information, starting from statistical data and ending with the results of public surveys and court visitors’ feedback.
There is a practice of ranking the judges in Singapore. It is interesting to note that in the last two years the community of judges in Armenia has been conducting its own rankings by peers without reliance on factual information or statistical data. Some of the judges in Armenia do realize already the importance of having high rankings. This creates competition among judges; they strive to achieve higher positions in the ranking.
The most interesting fact in the US experience is the existence of individual statistics on each judge. Thus the society has access to statistical data on the activities of each individual judge. This is an interesting step towards more transparency and can be applied in Armenia, given that there is necessary technical preparedness, especially in information systems, which are universally accessible in the whole country.
ARKA: What are the objectives and results of the Armenia Second Judicial Reform Project supported by the World Bank? What do you think has been achieved so far and what are the challenges that the sector is still facing?
D. Melikyan: In our project we focus on helping to develop self-governance in the judicial system. In collaboration with the newly established Judicial Department, we have already made substantial progress in this issue. As I have already mentioned, a system of automated case management was introduced, which now operates in all the courts of Armenia. This made possible the introduction of the DataLex system, which provides citizens access to information about court cases and enables them to receive real-time information on-line and right in the buildings of courts. The range of available information is rather broad - from the schedule of court sessions and respective court decisions to the whole spectrum of the legal-regulatory framework.
Many court buildings have been rehabilitated under the project, and only a few court buildings in the regions of Armenia are not covered by the project. It was a significant achievement that the reconstruction and modernization of the buildings were performed in compliance with introduced special architectural standards important from the point of view of functionality and security.
Capacity building for training of judges is an important component under the project, where we expect to get some tangible results by the completion of the project. It is very important to have young judges with the required qualifications entering the judicial system. Building the capacity of the school of judges is vital both from the perspective of being able to recruit qualified human resources and broaden their knowledge base, and ensuring continuous education of practicing judges with many years of work experience.
The system of training and education is closely connected with the performance management function. In other words, services provided by judges and courts must be transparent and accountable in the context of evaluation by citizens. This in no way contradicts the principle of independence of the judicial system. The point is that the power, which according to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia belongs to the people, must be accountable to the citizens by specific indicators so that citizens are confident in that the services provided to them are in their interests.
There is still work to be done with respect to the system of evaluation of judges by the Council of Justice. The workshop held was an important step in this direction. We hope that this event will be a starting point for discussions, dialogue and specific actions, the implementation of which will result in the creation of a system that will lay the foundation for further improvement of the judicial system in terms of evaluation of judges and revealing their potential.
ARKA: Are there any plans for future financing of the judicial reforms in Armenia?
D. Melikyan – For now, there is no relevant agreement between the World Bank and Armenian authorities on a new project in this sector. We have discussed many times with various partners the future needs for the judicial reforms. The current project will be completed on December 31, 2012, but for a new project a decision will need to be taken by the Armenian authorities and the World Bank. On our part, we can demonstrate results in the course of a year that may or may not convince the authorities of Armenia in the reasonableness of investing additional resources in this sphere and be sure of their effective use. -0-
A high level workshop on judicial reforms in Armenia, with on-line participation of international experts and practitioners, was recently organized at the World Bank (WB) Yerevan office. Mr. Davit Melikyan, WB Public Sector Management Specialist and Team Leader of the WB-financed Second Judicial Reform Project, and Mr. Migara De Silva, WB Senior Economist present here the topics of the discussion and the situation in the sector.
ARKA: Mr. Melikyan, what were the objectives of the workshop, who participated in it, and what were the topics discussed?
D. Melikyan: The workshop was organized by the World Bank via videoconference, in which senior judges and judicial officials from Singapore, Macedonia, Portugal and the USA participated. The purpose of this conference was to support the Armenian peers in implementing the WB-financed Second Judicial Reform Project, and particularly, in finding the appropriate model for the evaluation of judges.
At the beginning of 2010, the “Ameria” consulting company, with financial assistance of the WB, within the framework of the above-mentioned project, provided comprehensive recommendations on issues concerning self-government and administration of the judicial system. Our partners from the Judicial Department and Council of Justice have already tried to partially apply some of the recommendations in different contexts. However, two issues, which are very important in our opinion, needed further support. These issues were the topics of discussion at the workshop.
The first is the random case assignment. This practice is already introduced in Yerevan to some extent, and we hope that we will succeed in effective implementation and expansion of this system. An equally important topic of the discussion was the introduction of a system for evaluation of judges. This system is important not only from the perspective of the Bank’s project, but also for Armenia’s political leadership, as this issue is one of the most important provisions of the five-year Judicial Reform Strategy, which is currently in the process of approval.
Since the recommendations provided by “Ameria” mainly contain analyses of the experiences of Bulgaria, Estonia and Spain, we decided to present models of evaluation of judges in other countries, including Singapore, Portugal and the USA. The Portuguese model was included on the agenda at the request of our colleagues, and the other two countries were selected by us based on the similarities of issues related to common law.
Since we are consistently introducing certain elements of judicial precedent, particularly, by making the decisions of the Cassation Court and the European Human Rights Court binding for the lower jurisdictions, reviewing the potential for capturing these aspects in the system of evaluation of judges was very useful.
ARKA: Why is it important to introduce the systems of evaluation of judges and random case assignment in Armenia’s judicial system, and what would be the impact, especially from the point of view of enhancing the system’s effectiveness?
Davit Melikyan: In the scope of the World Bank projects implemented in Armenia’s judicial system since 2000, various information management technologies have been introduced. Today the system has reached the level of technical sophistication that these systems can be easily automated and made transparent and predictable both for citizens and businesses. This may have a positive impact also on the effectiveness of the system and improve the quality of performance of judges.
It is also worth mentioning that the predictability of the judicial system, namely the implementation of laws, is very important for the business community, and this is why the constitutional amendments of 2005 defined the consistent interpretation of the law as the key mission of the Court of Cassation. The practice of applying the decisions of the Court of Cassation as a precedent is challenging the judges from the professional point of view.
The “Ameria” company proposed a specific system of indicators in the scope of its recommendations pertaining to evaluation of judges. The list of indicators is broad, and during the workshop I proposed in my presentation a set of other indicators, including those which can demonstrate the compliance and consistency of judges in using the information systems being introduced. For example, the timely input of information on judicial cases and decisions into the automated system of management may be one of the important indicators of judicial compliance.
Until recently the court chairmen were entitled to assign cases to certain judges; this carries certain risks of discretion. The proper application of the method of random case assignment will allow to equally distribute the workload among the judges and also to exclude any biased decision on the appointment of this or that judge.
Evaluation of judges, in essence, is the performance of the judicial system at the level of individual judges. The participants of the workshop discussed also issues related to performance of the system at the level of the courts. One of the presentations, for instance, was about the perspectives of introducing program budgeting in the judicial system, which will increase attention to different practical aspects of effectiveness and results of courts’ performance. The introduction of both systems has one common precondition, which, I believe, is the first thing to address – that is, introducing an effective system of judicial statistics. Naturally, some judicial statistics is being generated now, however many indicators can and need to be added to it, specifically, in the context of effectiveness of the judicial system. Many of these indicators are proposed in the report prepared in the framework of the above-mentioned WB project.
I should also note that a functional system of the evaluation of judges will allow defining the training needs of judges. Having the objective evaluations of their performance, judges will be maximally protected in the process of unbiased decision-making.
ARKA: Mr. De Silva, how can the international experience be used to benefit the judicial system of Armenia?
Migara De Silva: One of the key objectives of the workshop was to provide answers to that question. The main purpose was to introduce and follow the best international practices, thus we selected countries that were best fit for this purpose. In particular, the representative of Singapore presented the similarities between Singapore and Armenia. For example, the capacities of Singapore, when it started the reforms 40 years ago, were pretty much the same as the capacities of Armenia, which started the economic transition 20 years ago. However, this does not mean that there are no differences between the two countries. Macedonia, Portugal and USA, too have some similarities with Armenia. Singapore and USA were selected as countries with a common law system, which is of interest particularly in terms of the practice of the judicial precedent.
Some issues identified in the course of the discussion are quite relevant for Armenia, I think. First of all, it is the development of technologies. However, much more important is the human development aspect. We can set up technical systems to distribute cases randomly, we can create various measures and indexes to evaluate the judges - and all of these certainly contribute to the increase of transparency and accountability - however, the most important factor of success is the qualification of judges. It is particularly this issue that was emphasized in the presentations of the U.S Federal Judge and the District Judge from Singapore. In both cases the evaluation methodology of the judges may be statistically not very rigorous, but they have other institutional mechanisms to make sure that only the highly qualified judges will be recruited and promoted.
Half of the problems in the evaluation of judges will be solved when you focus on the intake of judges - when you have in place a very rigorous and transparent recruitment method, which is not subject to any political influence whatsoever. And I am not talking about Armenia; I am talking in general, conceptually.
What we learned from the experience of Singapore and USA is that when the quality of entry is at level, it raises the overall reputation of the judicial system. Despite the fact that judges may not be paid as high salaries as lawyers from the private sector, judges are proud of the services they deliver and the social importance of their work. This approach is anchored on such values as honesty, impartiality, and transparency – these are part of the moral values that create a certain culture among the judges and the civil servants, too.
The systems of the USA and Singapore have one more important similarity, namely the merit-based promotion of judges. While experience matters, there is no fixed rule related to seniority; promotion largely depends on the judges’ professional qualifications identified by meritocracy-based evaluation internally as well by external sources.
Both countries are similar also in their system of evaluation of judges by the bar associations. In this case the judges are evaluated not only on their knowledge of the laws, but also on their conduct at the court during judicial disputes on specific cases. Though these evaluations are not formal, they still have a big influence and are important in the context of evaluation of judges.
D. Melikyan: The systems for evaluation of judges in the represented countries do not rely much on quantitative information, particularly on statistical indicators; this is typical for developed countries. The systems being introduced with our assistance in developing countries and economies in transition are based, to a greater extent, on automation and statistical data; this is caused by the higher level of various potential risks.
For instance, In Portugal, the system of evaluation of judges that has a history of 40 years, is entirely based on the assessment by inspectors; this is not applicable in Armenia at least in that format. The system of evaluation of judges in Singapore is based on different sources of information, starting from statistical data and ending with the results of public surveys and court visitors’ feedback.
There is a practice of ranking the judges in Singapore. It is interesting to note that in the last two years the community of judges in Armenia has been conducting its own rankings by peers without reliance on factual information or statistical data. Some of the judges in Armenia do realize already the importance of having high rankings. This creates competition among judges; they strive to achieve higher positions in the ranking.
The most interesting fact in the US experience is the existence of individual statistics on each judge. Thus the society has access to statistical data on the activities of each individual judge. This is an interesting step towards more transparency and can be applied in Armenia, given that there is necessary technical preparedness, especially in information systems, which are universally accessible in the whole country.
ARKA: What are the objectives and results of the Armenia Second Judicial Reform Project supported by the World Bank? What do you think has been achieved so far and what are the challenges that the sector is still facing?
D. Melikyan: In our project we focus on helping to develop self-governance in the judicial system. In collaboration with the newly established Judicial Department, we have already made substantial progress in this issue. As I have already mentioned, a system of automated case management was introduced, which now operates in all the courts of Armenia. This made possible the introduction of the DataLex system, which provides citizens access to information about court cases and enables them to receive real-time information on-line and right in the buildings of courts. The range of available information is rather broad - from the schedule of court sessions and respective court decisions to the whole spectrum of the legal-regulatory framework.
Many court buildings have been rehabilitated under the project, and only a few court buildings in the regions of Armenia are not covered by the project. It was a significant achievement that the reconstruction and modernization of the buildings were performed in compliance with introduced special architectural standards important from the point of view of functionality and security.
Capacity building for training of judges is an important component under the project, where we expect to get some tangible results by the completion of the project. It is very important to have young judges with the required qualifications entering the judicial system. Building the capacity of the school of judges is vital both from the perspective of being able to recruit qualified human resources and broaden their knowledge base, and ensuring continuous education of practicing judges with many years of work experience.
The system of training and education is closely connected with the performance management function. In other words, services provided by judges and courts must be transparent and accountable in the context of evaluation by citizens. This in no way contradicts the principle of independence of the judicial system. The point is that the power, which according to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia belongs to the people, must be accountable to the citizens by specific indicators so that citizens are confident in that the services provided to them are in their interests.
There is still work to be done with respect to the system of evaluation of judges by the Council of Justice. The workshop held was an important step in this direction. We hope that this event will be a starting point for discussions, dialogue and specific actions, the implementation of which will result in the creation of a system that will lay the foundation for further improvement of the judicial system in terms of evaluation of judges and revealing their potential.
ARKA: Are there any plans for future financing of the judicial reforms in Armenia?
D. Melikyan – For now, there is no relevant agreement between the World Bank and Armenian authorities on a new project in this sector. We have discussed many times with various partners the future needs for the judicial reforms. The current project will be completed on December 31, 2012, but for a new project a decision will need to be taken by the Armenian authorities and the World Bank. On our part, we can demonstrate results in the course of a year that may or may not convince the authorities of Armenia in the reasonableness of investing additional resources in this sphere and be sure of their effective use. -0-
