Draft for public consultations - gov.md · them being: Strategy for the Judiciary Consolidation 1,...

Draft for public consultations

1

Draft

LAW TO APPROVE THE STRATEGY FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM

2011-2015 With a view to develop an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent and professional justice sector, with public accountability, consistent with European Standards and ensuring the rule of law and respect for human rights, the Parliament adopts this ordinary Law. Art. 1. – The Strategy for Justice Sector Reform 2011-2015 contained in the Annex and forming an integral part of this Law, is hereby approved. Art. 2. – The Government, within three months of the effectiveness of this Law, shall develop and submit to the Parliament for review the Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy for Justice Sector Reform for 2011-2015. SPEAKER OF THE PARLIAMENT

JOINGT PROGRAMME BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

DEMOCRACY SUPPORT IN MOLDOVA

English translation of this document was provided in the framework of the Joint Programme between the Council of Europe and European Union “Democracy Support Programme in Moldova”


2

Annex

STRATEGY FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM

2011-2015

Chisinau 2011


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Summary List of abbreviations

o Part 1. The reform context and the determining factors

o Part 2. Structure, development and implementation of the Strategy

o Part 3. Overall goal and specific objectives of the strategy

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

o Part 5. Specific areas of intervention

o Part 6. Financial implications

o Part 7. Analysis of strategy implementation risks


4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SJSR Strategy for justice sector reform

MJ Ministry of Justice

SCM Superior Council of Magistrates

CCECC Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption

MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs

GP General Prosecutor’s Office

NCSGLA National Council for Legal Aid

NIJ National Institute of Justice

EU European Union

CC The Constitutional Court

CEPEJ The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice

CNROOND National Council for Reforming the Law Enforcement Bodies

CSP Superior Council of Prosecutors

DIP Department for Penitentiary Institutions

PIGD Integrated Case Management Program

EVALUATION REPORT Report “Evaluation of the rule of law and administration of justice for extended sectorial programming, Government of Moldova”, Dovydas Vitkauskas, Stanislav Pavlovschi, Eric Svanidze, Chisinau, June 2011


5

Executive Summary

Why this Strategy is necessary:

The development of a comprehensive reform Strategy has become necessary in order to create a common framework covering all reform efforts in the justice sector of Moldova, as needed to secure sustainable development of the sector through concrete and feasible actions.

Currently, there are many reform concepts for institutions in the justice sector, each of which outlines different objectives and actions targeting narrow segments of the justice sector. This Strategy comes with an innovative approach in that it aims to integrate all reform efforts and initiatives in a unified framework, to ensure coherent, consistent and sustainable reforms to the justice sector as a whole.

At the same time, the Strategy creates the institutional frame, as necessary to coordinate reform actions with the assistance provided by the development partners to the justice sector. Practical implementation of the Strategy and application of its specific components, will help develop a justice sector which is fair, of high quality, with zero tolerance to corruption, contributing to sustainable development of the country and highly accountable to the litigants.

Strategy objectives

The overall objective of the Strategy is to build an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent, professional justice sector, with high public accountability and consistent with European standards, to ensure the rule of law and protection of human rights. Specific objectives of the Strategy shall include the following:

• Strengthen the independence, accountability, impartiality, efficiency and transparency of the judiciary;

• Streamline the process of pre-trial investigation and prosecution, as needed to safeguard human rights, ensure individual security and reduce the level of crime;

• Improve the institutional framework and processes that ensure effective access to justice: effective legal aid, examination of cases and enforcement of court decisions within a reasonable time, upgrading the status of some legal professions related to the justice system;

• Promote and implement the principle of zero-tolerance to corruption in the justice sector; • Implement measures that will allow the justice sector to contribute to the creation of a favorable

environment for sustainable economic development; • Ensure effective observance of human rights within judicial practices and policies; • Coordinate and define powers and responsibilities of key actors within the justice sector and

ensure cross-sectoral dialogue.


6

Main pillars of the Strategy

• Pillar I. The judicial system • Pillar II. Criminal justice • Pillar III. Access to justice and enforcement of court decisions • Pillar IV. The integrity of actors operating in the justice sector • Pillar V. The role of the justice system in economic development

• Pillar VI. Human rights in the justice sector

• Pillar VII. Well-coordinated, managed and accountable justice sector

Strategy’ development process

The Strategy was developed by the Ministry of Justice following extensive consultations with the public and key institutions from the justice sector. The starting point for preparing the Strategy was to identify a number of factors that determined the need for reform, and outstanding issues, as necessary to create an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent and professional justice sector with public accountability and consistent with European Standards, to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights. Current problems in the justice sector were identified by analyzing the findings of reports produced by the civil society and international organizations, in particular the Evaluation Report developed by EU experts and publicly presented in June 2011. This is the most recent and comprehensive assessment of the state of play of the justice sector of Moldova. The Ministry of Justice has also analyzed findings from monitoring the implementation of various laws. This has resulted in the development of a Strategy with 7 pillars, and for each pillar strategic directions were developed, areas of specific intervention, implementation deadlines, performance indicators, expected outputs and responsible institutions. Implementation of all specific interventions will lead to the attainment of the overall objective of the Strategy.

Strategy implementation

Responsibility for implementing the Strategy rests with all responsible institutions identified in the Strategy. Meanwhile, to ensure consistent implementation of the Strategy, a technical monitoring mechanism shall be put in place, which will consist of 7 working groups (a working group per pillar) and the Strategy Steering Group. These working groups will be coordinated by the Ministry of Justice, where a special sub-division will be designated for Strategy implementation. Also, CNROOND will carry out periodic evaluations of implementation of the Strategy and achievement of its objectives.

Connection with strategic and budgetary planning:

The Strategy is a preliminary step in the continuous process of strategic planning and implementation of interventions in the justice sector. All institutions covered by the reform will develop their strategic development and financial plans, in accordance with the strategic directions and areas of specific intervention outlined in the Strategy. To ensure internal consistency in the funding of the entire justice sector, costs related to the implementation of the Strategy will be linked with the Medium Term budgetary framework for 2012-2014 and subsequent budgetary frameworks. For the implementation of specific aspects of the Strategy, financial support will be requested from international organizations present in Moldova and working in the justice sector, particularly the EU.


7

Part 1. THE REFORM CONTEXT AND THE DETERMINING FACT ORS

The term “justice sector”, as defined in the Strategy refers to the institutions and structures that contribute directly or indirectly to the organization and the administration of justice in the Republic of Moldova. Thus, the “justice sector” shall include primarily the judiciary and the entire set of authorities and relations between such authorities that contribute to the execution of justice, and namely: criminal investigation bodies, legal professions related to the justice sector (lawyers, notaries, mediators, bailiffs, legal experts, administrators of insolvency proceedings, translators /interpreters), the probation system, system for enforcing court decisions, prison system, Ministry of Justice, ombudsman, Constitutional Court. The Strategy also covers other administrative authorities such as the Parliament, Government, Superior Council of the Magistracy to the extent to which their activity is linked to the adoption and implementation of justice sector relevant legislation. The reform of the justice sector has always been an issue in the attention of the Moldovan authorities. A large number of strategic documents referring to this area have been adopted in recent years, among them being: Strategy for the Judiciary Consolidation1, Strategy for the Development of the Law Enforcement System2, Concept of the Penitentiary System3, Concept of the Judiciary Budgeting4, Reform Concept for the Ministry of Interior5, etc. In parallel, a number of laws have been adopted that have conceptually reformed certain key institutions of the justice system: the Judiciary, the Prosecution offices, the Bar, the Notary, the Penitentiary system, the Ombudsman office, the Enforcement system, etc. The adoption of the Law on Legal Aid, the Law on Probation and the Law on Mediation, Law on Bailiffs, etc. has resulted in the introduction of new mechanisms and institutions into the Justice system. While there have been substantial institutional changes and amendments to the legal framework, those changes haven’t ensured a qualitatively new level of activity of this sector stakeholders and, have not led to the development of a justice system that is fair, equitable and focused on the needs of the litigants, providing high quality and accessible services to them. The analysis of relevant strategic documents implemented in this area has identified a number of fundamental problems facing the justice sector, and namely: courts are not managed efficiently, promotion of judges and prosecutors is not sufficiently transparent and merit-based, not all components of the Superior Council of the Magistracy work efficiently, the quality of services rendered by the professions related to the justice sector is inadequate, there are no effective accountability mechanisms for actors operating in the justice sector, the pre-judicial phase is unnecessarily complex, there are no effective mechanisms to ensure a child-friendly justice sector, the perception of corruption within the whole justice sector is alarmingly high. Thus, in the Declaration on the state of the justice sector in Moldova and actions necessary to improve the situation, approved by the Parliament resolution no. 53 of October 2009, the Parliament has noted "with concern that the justice sector in Moldova is seriously affected by corruption”. The Declaration also mentions that such “an involution of the Moldovan justice system was possible due to „neglect or selective application by the Superior Council of the Magistracy of legislation governing the liability of judges; the Superior Council, similar to the Prosecutorial Service, have been quite tolerant and failed to react to magistrates’ actions which at times were downright criminal. The judiciary on the other hand, have failed to react and resist any intimidation and political pressure exerted by the representatives of the Government; the work of the judiciary and activities of the Superior Council of the Magistracy lack transparency, particularly with regard to the selection, appointment, promotion

1 Parliament Decree No. 174-XVI dated 19 July, 2007 2 Government Decree No. 1393 dated 12 December 2007 3 Government Decree No. 1624 dated 31 December 2003 4 Parliament Decree No. 39 dated 18 March 2010 5 Parliament Decree No. 39 dated 18 March 2010


8

and sanctioning of judges; lack of sufficient initial and continuous training for judges; judges work in inadequate conditions and are not remunerated properly; judicial power has been „unionized”, etc.”. These findings by the highest legislative power in the country prove that professional, moral and ethical standards haven’t become an important part in the work of professionals acting in this sector, thus leading to a decrease of public confidence in justice. The low level of public trust in the justice system is quite dangerous as it can produce a general distrust in the efficiency and integrity of public authorities and even of the state in general. In these circumstances, the reform of the justice sector cannot be addressed in a fragmented manner, as the administration of justice requires concerted and efficient efforts of many institutions, including the criminal investigation authorities, prosecutor’s office, the Bar, the judiciary, the Constitutional Court, the notary, the system of enforcement of court decisions, the penitentiary system, etc. The analysis of previously adopted strategic documents and of the actual situation in the justice sector, coupled with consultations with key players of this sector, made it possible to identify a number of factors that determine the need for reform (determining factors). These factors helped to establish the general objective and specific objectives of the Strategy, and the pillars forming the basis for reforms, strategic directions and specific intervention areas, as described in Part 3, 4 and 5 of the Strategy. Figure 2 shows a graphical presentation of determining factors. See below a detailed description of these factors: Figure 1: Determining Factors of the justice sector reforms

Nivelul scazut al increderii in justitie din partea societatii

Aspiratiile Republicii Moldova de integrare in Uniunea Europeana

Factorii determinanti ai reformelor in sectorul justitiei

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

Low level of public confidence in the justice system

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

The reform determining factors of the justice sector

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


9

Crearea unui mediu favorabil pentru cresterea economica si a investitiilor

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

• Low level of public confidence in the justice system

The level of confidence of citizens in justice is similar to a litmus test that reflects the mood of society and its attitude towards justice. It is clear that public perception of justice should include both the point of view of citizens as beneficiaries of justice and, the views of representatives of the judiciary system. Some surveys show a low level of public trust in the justice system. For instance, the bi-annual surveys conducted by the Institute of Public Policies always contain the question about the degree of public trust in state institutions, including the justice sector. Surveys conducted during 2005-2011 show that citizens of Moldova have a “fluctuating” degree of confidence in justice. Starting with March 2009, one may notice an alarming trend of growing lack of public confidence in justice, and the lowest point was reached in May 2011 when only 1% of respondents said that they have complete confidence in justice, while 42% of respondents said they had no confidence at all in justice”.

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

The Corruption Perception Indicator (CPI) as estimated on annual basis by Transparency International (TI) indicates the fact that the population of the country and the international community perceive Moldova as a country with widespread corruption. In the past 12 years, the index for Moldova varied between 2.1 and 3.3, on a 0-10 scale, where lower values indicate a higher degree of corruption. The 2010 Global Corruption Barometer (GCB), also produced annually by TI, indicates that 37% of the respondents of the Republic of Moldova mentioned that during the past 12 months they had offered a bribe (the average for the CIS countries being 32% and 5% for the EU states). According to the same survey, the most corrupt areas, on a scale from 1 to 5, are considered the following: police – 4.1, justice – 3.9, political parties and civil servants – 3.8, the Parliament, the education system and the private sector – 3.7. According to a study on victimization, conducted by Soros Foundation Moldova in 2010, about 30% of Moldovan citizens in 2009 have either offered or were solicited to give bribes, or both.

• Creation of a favorable environment for economic growth and investments

Achieving sustainable economic growth is one of the key long term objectives of Moldova. The justice system can play a significant role in fostering economic growth and stability. To this end, the justice system should demonstrate quality, efficiency and transparency in its activity. These critical elements can help boost investments and develop business relationships and activities. Especially important are those mechanisms supported by the Justice sector, which ensure a rapid and efficient settlement of disputes between the commercial entities. The systems defining and protecting property rights and providing the security of legal relations are equally important for the sustainable economic growth.

• Moldova’s aspirations of joining the EU


10

European integration is a strategic objective of Moldova’s foreign and domestic policy, aimed at ensuring the creation of an internal system of security, stability and prosperity, governed by democratic values and respect for human rights and fundamental liberties. With this goal in mind, Moldova has undertaken efforts to implement responsibly commitments assumed in its relations with the EU6 and other European and international organizations. At the domestic level, measures have been implemented for the political, economic and social modernization of the country and, the consolidation of political will necessary for the promotion of reforms and identification of intervention areas.7 The EU and civil society often described the EU integration efforts undertaken by the Moldovan authorities as insufficient. Reforms undertaken by Moldova in the justice sector have received similar marks, as they were considered quite sporadic, lacking conclusion and carried out in the absence of a well defined concept or strategy. Thus, in pursuing its EU aspirations, Moldova intends to make consistent efforts to implement reforms in the justice sector, via the promotion of systemic, sustainable and coherent policies.

6 The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed by the European Community member states and the Republic of Moldova on 28 November 1994 (entered into force on 1 July, 1998); Plan of Actions Republic of Moldova – EU within the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) signed on 22 February, 2005, 7 Declaration of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova on the political partnership for the realisation of the European

integration objectives, unanimously adopted by the Parliament on 24 March, 2005


11

Part 2. STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PRO CESS Structure of the Strategy: This policy document focuses on major issues in the justice sector of Moldova, as highlighted in the various assessment reports regarding the state of the justice sector, in particular the Evaluation Report prepared by the EU experts and publicly presented in June 2011. These issues were classified into 7 major areas of reform, which were called ‘pillars’, by analogy with the pillars underlying the basement of a construction. Each pillar will be implemented individually, except for pillar 4 and 7 which include measures applicable to all institutions covered in the other pillars. This Strategy consists of the following key elements: overall goal, specific objectives, pillars, strategic directions, specific intervention areas, indicators regarding the level of implementation (performance indicators) and general outcomes. Implementation of specific intervention areas produces the expected outcomes, that are quantified in performance indicators, thereby contributing to the realization of strategic directions, that in turn determine progress in the attainment of specific objectives and the overall goal. Specific objectives, specific intervention areas, indicators of implementation and expected outcomes can be found in the pillars of the Strategy which, as mentioned above, were identified on the basis of problems existing in the justice sector. Similarly, the pillars contain the responsible institutions and deadlines for implementing specific intervention areas. The Strategy has a 5-year implementation period. This timeframe is based on the existing capacities to plan activities for the next five years, particularly those activities related to the legal and institutional changes. A 5-year timeframe is the most appropriate, as it allows for a realistic planning of activities. The same implementation period was suggested by the authors of the Evaluation Report. Strategy development and adoption

The entire process of the SJSR development has been organized by the working group set up through the Decree of the Minister of Justice no. 213, dated 3 June, 2011. The process was structured in such a manner as to allow for intense consultations and consensus-building among the key institutions of the Moldovan justice sector regarding the future directions of reform. The Strategy is to be adopted by the Parliament through a Law.

The development of the Strategy was split into four separate phases, which are shown in Figure 3 below: Figure 3. Development phases of the Strategy for Justice Sector Reform

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Approve the working group membership

designated to develop the draft of the

Strategy

Discuss the draft Strategy within the sectorial working groups created by the Ministry of Justice. Consult the draft Strategy with key

Submit the revised draft Strategy (revised version) to the Government CNROOND. Debate the draft within CNROOND.

Submit the draft Strategy (version approved by the Government) for review and debates to the Parliament. Adopt the Strategy by the Parliament.


12

Develop the strategic framework (general goal, specific objectives, pillars, strategic directions and specific intervention areas. Develop and present the draft Strategy to key institutions of the justice sector and civil society (preliminary version). Launch the first round of debates on the draft Strategy.

institutions of the justice sector and civil society. Public debates in the draft Strategy (second round of debates). Revise the draft based on feedback and recommendations received.

Approve the draft Strategy by the Government.

Strategy implementation, monitoring and evaluation Implementation: Following the adoption of the Strategy in the Parliament, actions will be initiated to draft an Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy. The Action Plan for Strategy implementation will include measures for each pillar. Measures to be included in the Action Plan will be specific and interconnected, and result from the specific intervention areas outlined in the Strategy. Those measures will mostly represent a breakdown of specific intervention areas within each strategic direction. The Action Plan will be revised annually based on evaluation reports for each pillar, prepared by the group responsible for monitoring the implementation of that pillar. The Strategy should be treated like a living document, where implementation is consistently monitored through the monitoring mechanism set out below. The Strategy may be amended as necessary, but the intention is to have a stable strategic document, the implementation of which can be adjusted as needed based on annual Action Plans. Therefore, the Strategy does not contain specific implementation measures, but only specific intervention areas which shall be detailed in the Action Plan for implementation of the Strategy. The resources necessary for implementing the Strategy will be stipulated in the Action Plan. Responsible institutions: All institutions identified in the Strategy shall have responsibility for Strategy implementation. At the same time, to ensure consistent implementation of the Strategy, a technical monitoring mechanism shall be put in place, comprising 7 working groups (a working group per pillar) and a Strategy Steering Group. These working groups will be coordinated by the Ministry of Justice, where a specialized subdivision will be designated to provide technical assistance to the working groups. Similarly, CNROOND will periodically evaluate the implementation of the Strategy and level of achievement of objectives, based on information collected and collated by the Ministry of Justice.


13

Technical mechanism for monitoring Strategy implementation Working group for Strategy implementation Permanent working groups will be created for each pillar of the Strategy. These groups shall be responsible for the development of common annual work plans and implementation of all activities identified under each pillar. The working groups will be created and will operate in the Ministry of Justice and will include representatives of key institutions of the justice sector targeted by the respective pillar, who will be designated by their institutions and, representatives of the civil society. The latter will be selected by the Ministry of Justice based on a public invitation and the experience, motivation and previous engagement of such representatives in the reform process of the justice sector. Also, the Ministry of Justice will invite international organizations operating in the justice sector and present in Moldova, to delegate experts to participate in the activities of the working groups. The Minister of Justice will appoint the chairperson of each group, upon the recommendation it its members. Strategy Steering Group (Implementation Coordination Group) The activities of the working groups will be coordinated by a Strategy Steering Group, established by the Order of the Minister of Justice. This group will include the Minister of Justice, a deputy minister, a specialist designated by the Ministry of Justice to be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the strategy and chairpersons of the working groups. The working groups created under each pillar will develop action plans, monitor progress in implementation of activities under that pillar and produce annual progress reports. The groups will meet in sessions, scheduled according to their own plans, but at least once per month. The Strategy Steering Group will develop the general implementation plan for the Strategy, monitor the process of implementation and produce an annual progress report, based on the progress reports produced by the working groups under each pillar. The Strategy Steering Group will also have responsibility for disseminating information among the working groups, by organizing joint meetings whenever necessary, but at least once every three months. Also, the Strategy Steering Group will be responsible for reporting on progress in implementation to the National Council for reform of the law enforcement agencies Transparency of the justice sector reform and public relations The Ministry of Justice will create a web page dedicated to the reform of the justice sector. This site will contain the most updated information on status and progress in implementing reforms in the justice sector. Civil society and key institutions of the justice sector will be able to make suggestions and comment on the progress of reform. Working groups established to ensure the implementation of the Strategy will be responsible for placing information on the web-site and collecting feedback and comments /suggestions. Finally, the Ministry of Justice will organize annual conferences with participation of civil society and key institutions of the justice sector, to present and discuss annual progress reports and other relevant information. All these measures will help ensure transparency of reforms and enable all persons to really participate and engage in the reform process.


14

Part 3. General and Specific Objectives of the Strategy The Strategy is designed to provide a common framework for all reform efforts in the justice sector of Moldova, as necessary to develop the whole sector through feasible and specific actions. The overall objective of the Strategy is to build an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent, professional justice sector, with high public accountability, consistent with European standards and ensuring the rule of law and protection of human rights. Specific objectives of the Strategy shall include the following:

• Strengthen the independence, accountability, impartiality, efficiency and transparency of the judiciary;

• Streamline the process of pre-trial investigation and prosecution, as needed to safeguard human rights, ensure individual security and reduce the level of crime;

• Improve the institutional framework and processes that ensure effective access to justice: effective legal aid, examination of cases and enforcement of court decisions within a reasonable time, upgrading the status of some legal professions related to the justice system;

• Promote and implement the principle of zero-tolerance to corruption in the justice sector; • Implement measures that will allow the justice sector to contribute to the creation of a favorable

environment for sustainable economic development; • Ensure effective observance of human rights within judicial practices and policies; • Coordinate and define powers and responsibilities of key actors within the justice sector and

ensure cross-sectoral dialogue. The Strategy is also designed to achieve the following general outcomes:

• Develop a justice sector which is fair, of high quality, accountable, with zero tolerance to corruption, contributing to sustainable development of the country and satisfying the needs of the litigants;

• Develop an institutional framework to coordinate reform actions with assistance provided by the development partners.

The expected outcomes under each strategic direction are described in Part 5 of the Strategy. Part 4. PILLARS OF THE JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM AND TH E STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

The justice sector reform is supposed to rely on seven fundamental pillars: (Figure 4)

1. the judicial system; 2. the criminal justice; 3. access to justice and execution of court decisions; 4. the integrity of actors operating in the justice sector; 5. The role of the justice system in economic development; 6. Respect for human rights in the justice sector; 7. Ensuring a good coordination and management of the justice sector and its accountability.

Figure 3. Pillars of the justice sector reform


15

The justice sector reform

To achieve the general objective of the strategy and of the strategic directions stipulated in Part 4, a number of strategic intervention directions for the following five years have been identified. Strategic directions are shown in the table below, grouped according to the reform pillars covering them. For each strategic direction, specific intervention areas were defined, as shown in Part 5 of the Strategy. Figure 4. Strategic directions

PILLAR I

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

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

PILLAR II

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PILLAR III

ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND

EXECUTION OF COURT

DECISIONS

PILLAR IV INTEGRITY OF THE JUSTICE

SECTOR ACTORS

STANDARDS

PILLAR V

ROLE OF THE JUSTICE

SYSTEM IN ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

PILLAR VI

RESPECT FOR OF HUMAN

RIGHTS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

PILLAR VII A RESPONSIBLE, WELL COORDINATED AND MANAGED SECTOR


16

As suggested by Figure 4, strategic directions are interconnected. The implementation of some directions will affect the implementation of each of the other directions. Strategic directions were divided into specific intervention areas which are described in Part 2 of this Strategy.

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

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

Draft for public consultation

17

PART 5: SPECIFIC INTERVENTION AREAS PILLAR 1. The judicial system

Specific objective: Strengthen the independence, accountability, efficiency, impartiality and transparency of the judiciary

The issues of the Moldovan judiciary are addressed in this Strategy with the aim to achieve three strategic directions: 1.1 Ensure accessibility and independence of the judiciary; 1.2 Enhance transparency and efficiency of the judiciary; 1.3 Improve the professionalism of persons involved in the administration of justice and raise their accountability. A series of specific intervention areas have been developed under each strategic direction, as described in the tables below. 1.1 Ensure accessibility and independence of the judiciary

Notwithstanding the efforts Moldova has made to enhance the independence and accessibility of the judiciary, certain problems still remain while other issues require a conceptually new approach. From the perspective of judicial accessibility, one can note deficiencies and limited capacities of courts in the area of public communication; the public is not involved in assessing the quality of work of the judiciary, both at the level of individual judges and courts; there is a shortage of judges in some district courts and the costs for running those courts are too high; court fees are uncorrelated and unreasonable, etc. The Evaluation Report also suggests that in terms of judicial independence, there are still significant deficiencies with funding and self-administration arrangements. Thus, even if the budget for the judiciary is growing each year, Moldova still spends 0.18% of its GDP on the judiciary, which is below the CEPEJ average of 0.24%. Also, the judiciary has limited capacities, both at the individual and institutional levels, to make a real planning and assessment of its budgetary needs. At the same time, the Evaluation Report has identified a series of deficiencies in the appointment, self-regulation and disciplinary accountability procedures within the judiciary. Inter alia, the report has noted the inefficient system of appointing, promoting and qualifying judges and the ‘closed club’ mentality of the judiciary, regarding access into the profession and promotion to higher positions, as well as absence of any regulatory control on the profession by the SCM. In order to ensure accessibility and independence of the judiciary, sustainable systemic interventions are required aimed at: strengthening the institutional framework of courts; creating the necessary conditions for ensuring a high degree of court openness to the litigants and the public; regulating strict and clear criteria for appointing judges and administrative positions in courts; strengthen the capacities of self-administration bodies of the judiciary; capacity building for strategic planning and realistic needs assessment; increase funding for the judiciary;


18

Deadlines

Specific intervention areas 12 months

24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months

Responsible institution

Indicators of the implementation status

1.1.1. Optimize the map of courts location, with the purpose to strengthen the institutional capacities of courts and correlate the number of judges, and ensure the most efficient use of available resources.

Ministry of Justice Superior Council of

Magistrates

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework prepared and adopted; 3. Map with the illustration of courts location and number of optimized courts; 4. Number of reorganized courts.

1.1.2.Ensure access to a judicial system that is affordable


Magistrates Ministry of Finance

1. Analysis with recommendations; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework prepared and adopted. 3. Revised amounts and procedures for calculating court fees

1.1.3. Reforming and strengthening structures and systems facilitating the interaction with the public


Magistrates The Courts

1. Web pages of courts are operating; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework prepared and adopted; 3. Awareness campaigns regarding the operation of the judicial system.

1.1.4. Introduce an adequate, consistent and sustainable funding mechanism for the judicial system, by increasing funding and unifying the budgeting process for the judiciary.


Magistrates The Courts

Ministry of Finance

1. Established percentage of funding for the judiciary; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework prepared and adopted; 3. Unified budgeting procedures for courts.

1.1.5. Increased efficiency in court management; improved practical and regulatory system

Superior Council of Magistrates The Courts

1. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework prepared and adopted;

2. Introduce the position of court


19

with respect to court administration, strategic analysis of budgeting issues

National Institute of Justice

Ministry of Finance Ministry of Justice

administrators 3. Functions of court presidents revised 4. Curricular for initial and continuous

training developed and applied 5. Initial and continuous training for

court administrators 6. Trainings for the court staff

responsible for budget development and execution;

1.1.6. Establish clear, objective, transparent and merit-based criteria for the selection, appointment and promotion of judges.

Superior Council of Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Amendment to the Constitution to exclude the provision on the appointment of judges into office for a 5 years period of time; 3. Amendment to the Constitution stipulating revised criteria of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Justice; 4. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework prepared and adopted; 5. New criteria regarding the selection, appointment and promotion of judges, developed and approved; 6. New institutions entrusted to carry out selection, appointment and promotion of judges created.

1.1.7. Unified and transparent procedure for the appointment of court chairpersons and deputy chairpersons and clear and transparent selection criteria for the candidates to these positions


Ministry of Justice

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;

2. Draft amendments to the Constitution and the regulatory framework;

3. New criteria regarding the selection and appointment of the court chairperson and deputy chairpersons;

4. Revised number of court deputy chairpersons.


20

1.1.8. Revision of institutions entrusted with the secondment, detachment and transfer of judges, as needed to ensure their independence and separation of powers


Ministry of Justice

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework prepared and adopted; 3. Institutions entrusted with the secondment, detachment and transfer of judges have been revised.

1.1.9. Strengthen the self administration capacities of the judiciary, by revising the role, membership and competencies of the Superior Council of Magistrates and its subordinated institutions.


Ministry of Justice National Institute of

Justice

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the Constitution and regulatory framework prepared and adopted; 3. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and approved; 4. Enhanced status and capacities of institutions.

1.1.10. Optimize and strengthen the legal framework of the judicial system (develop a unified Law to regulate the judiciary)


Magistrates

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Unified legal framework; 3. Draft Law developed and adopted.

1.1.11 Enhance the security of court premises


the Magistracy Ministry of Internal

Affairs

1. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework prepared and adopted;

2. Security equipment installed 3. Enhanced security of court premises

1.1.12 Institutional capacity building for courts, including by considering the possibility of placing all Chisinau courts into one premise, and building /renovating courts across the country

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Finance Ministry of Constructions and Regional Development

1. Feasibility Study developed and recommendations formulated;

2. Prepared budget 3. The design for the “Palace of Justice”

and for the construction / renovation of courts prepared

4. Court premises across the country built /renovated


21

Expected Outcomes:

• Optimized judicial system with an optimized number of judges; • A transparent, balanced and accessible system for calculating judicial expenditures supported by an enforcement mechanism • A coordinated and unified budgeting process in the judicial system, consistent with the real needs of the judiciary; • Implemented procedure for the selection, appointment and promotion of judges based on objective and transparent criteria, able to secure the

independence of the judicial system; • Consolidated management and strategic analysis of issues referring to budgeting of courts; • Enhanced security for court premises • Consolidated self administration capacity and independence of the judicial system.


22

1.2 Increased transparency and efficiency of the judiciary

The functioning and organization of the Moldovan judiciary has displayed essential deficiencies in terms of its efficiency and transparency. Procedural legislation does not contribute to the effective, speedy and clear examination of cases; information technologies are not common practice although the application of such technologies could help with the examination of cases and make the judicial process more transparent; the existing mechanism of unified judicial practices is dysfunctional; the appeals procedures are quite chaotic rather than be integrated into a unified system and, do not ensure the security of legal relations; specialization of judges at the level of individual courts is not ensured which, in turn affects the quality of court decisions and rulings; judicial processes and the activity of self-administration bodies are not sufficiently transparent which decreases public trust in the judiciary as a whole. The Evaluation Report has identified significant inefficiencies within the Moldovan judiciary, noting inter alia: the lack of transparency in the operation of courts; inefficient procedural regulations, including those concerning the vertical and horizontal sharing of competencies among courts; the appeals procedures are inadequate; limited use of e-justice tools; no random distribution of cases; no quality assurance policies for courts and lack of trainers and methodologies to develop and apply such policies, etc. In order to build a transparent and efficient judiciary, a number of specific interventions were envisaged, aimed at enhancing the transparency of institutions and mechanisms of judicial self-administration: optimizing judicial procedures and ensuring their transparency; more extensive and efficient use of information technologies within the judicial process and judicial administration; reviewing the appeals procedures and principles and creating mechanisms to ensure a unified judicial practice; promoting the specialization of judges; ensure clarity in the examination of court cases.

Deadlines


24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



1.2.1. Increased transparency of the judiciary self administration mechanisms and of the institutions of the judiciary self administration


Magistrates

1. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 2. Regulations of the Superior Council of Magistrates adopted; 3. Information regarding the activity of judicial


23

authorities published and updated.

1.2.2. Efficient and functional use of the IT system for the judiciary, as needed to exclude the human factor from the case management system; implementation of an e-justice system.


Magistrates National Institute of

Justice The courts

General Prosecutors Office

Center for Special Telecommunications

Center for e-government

1. Evaluate the operation of the Integrated IT case management program (PGID) and make recommendations; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. Improved IT system for the judiciary; 4. Improved and implemented system for random distribution of cases; 5. The system governing the creation of panel of judges and appointment of the chairpersons of the panel of judges has been created and implemented; 6. The system for the audio/video recording of court proceedings has been efficiently implemented; 7. Technical endowment necessary for the installment of the PGID has been supplied for all courts along with the equipment necessary for video recording of court hearings. 8. Developed curricular for the training of judges and staff 9. Judges and court staff trained; 10. Fully automated case management system 11. Efficient mechanism for checking the implementation of computer-based case management and sanctioning mechanism installed.

1.2.3. Revise procedural rules, as necessary to streamline and enhance transparency and efficiency of the judicial process.



Justice


2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted

3. Monitoring report on the efficiency and transparency of the judiciary, developed and published

4. Standards developed regarding the duration of case examination

5. Training courses for judges in case management


24

and rules governing delays in examination of ongoing cases

6. Computer-based mechanism for verifying the duration of case examination, developed and implemented.

1.2.4. Create a mechanism ensuring the implementation of a unified judicial practice, that will provide security for legal relations.

Ministry of Justice Supreme Court of

Justice The courts of appeal Superior Council of

Magistrates

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. Mechanism securing the uniformity of the judicial practice and ensuring the security of legal relations created and effectively implemented 4. Evaluation reports of international institutions

1.2.5. Increased efficiency of the Procedural Law, by revising the appeals system and the horizontal distribution of competences between courts, as well as the simplification and clarification of the appeals system


Justice

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. The appeal system and competences has been revised and implemented; 4. Unified appeals procedures 5. Unified time limits for appeals and improved process of communicating court rulings; Limited grounds for extraordinary appeals 6.Development of an analytical report regarding the implementation of the legal amendments referring to the application of appeal.

1.2.6. Revise the procedures regulating the work of instruction judges, as needed to include these judges into the common judicial body and make them specialized judges.


Magistrates The courts


Ministry of Justice

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2 Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. Courses of continuous education have been carried out; 4. The procedure of appointment of instruction judges has been established; 5. Analyze the implementation of amendments and procedures concerning the operation of instruction judges.


25

Expected Outcomes: • A judicial system able to examine cases in a transparent, prompt and qualitative way; • A clear, uniform and logical system of challenging the court rulings; • Establish a mechanism allowing for the creation of a unified judicial practice; • A revised and operational integrated file management program; • A revised and improved mechanism of appeals; • Status of the instruction judge modified.


26

1.3 Increased professionalism of persons involved in the administration of justice and their accountability

A judicial system that is not systemically focused on promoting professionalism of persons involved in the execution of justice, and fails to constantly strengthen the principle of judicial accountability to the public, is set to be seriously affected by subjectivity, operate in obscure conditions and promote the protection of corporate interests. The Evaluation Report highlights the absence of accountability and transparency of courts as being a major obstacle constraining the proper operation of the Moldovan judicial system. This situation is determined by the following factors: insufficient experience of the judiciary in perceiving itself as a truly independent branch of power; almost abusive inviolability of judges to any form of accountability; the ‘closed club’ mentality in terms of access to the profession and promotion to higher positions in the hierarchy, which prevents the influx of ‘fresh blood’ and limited possibilities of experienced professionals from other sectors of the justice system to access the judiciary profession; no clear definition of ethical or disciplinary infringements and implications thereof; procedures for the examination of alleged disciplinary violations are quite obscure and vague; no surveys conducted among the clients of the judicial system, that would make it possible to assess the performance of the judiciary; no random distribution of cases, not all hearings are recorded and there is no extensive use of e-justice tools in case management; no effective pressure on the judiciary from the legal community or the public; no obligation of judges to report any abusive influences and no accountability for failure to meet their reporting obligations; In order to strengthen the professionalism of the judiciary, as a fundamental value, and ensure the true independence of judges and the whole system, its efficiency and public accountability, a number of systemic and interconnected interventions are required at the level of the judicial system in general and each judge in particular. These interventions shall be aimed at unifying conditions for accession into the profession; improving the education and training system for judges; revising the system and methods of continuous training for judges and support staff; creating a mechanism for periodic performance assessments of judges, based on objective and clear criteria that would lead to the efficient ‘self-cleansing’ of the system; enhancing the role and functions of judicial inspectors, as needed to strengthen self-control procedures and efficiency of administrative supervision from within the judiciary; revising the system of disciplinary violations and examination procedures; reforming the system of immunity for judges and removing and privileges undue to the function and status of a judge; raising the professionalism of the whole system by introducing the position of judicial assistants and creating a permanent system for appraising the performance of the judiciary through a feedback system, based on collecting and analyzing comments from those participating in the judicial procedures.


27

Deadlines


24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



1.3.1. Reforming the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and making its operations more efficient.


Justice Superior Council of

Magistrates Superior Council of

Prosecutors Unions of liberal professions of the

justice sector

1. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 2. The system of initial and continuous training for judges and prosecutors changed and effectively applied; 3. Train the trainer programmes for the NIJ developed and implemented; 4. TOR for the trainers of the NIJ developed and implemented; 5. Monitoring report regarding the implementation of the NIJ reform. 6. Revising the NIJ budget consistent with its real needs

1.3.2. Revising the programmes of the National Institute of Justice to ensure their correspondence with the real training needs of judges, prosecutors and other actors of the judiciary sector and avoid overlapping with university curricular



Superior Council of Prosecutors

Ministry of Justice

1. Annual surveys dedicated to the training needs of actors of the justice sector carried out; 2. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 3. Training programmes developed and implemented; 4. Modern training methods have been developed.

1.3.3 Ensure the specialization of judges for specific cases and consider the possibility of creating administrative courts


the Magistracy National Institute of

Justice

1. Studies with recommendations 2. Criteria and system for judge

specialization developed and implemented

3. Training courses on judge specialization


28

1.3.4 Unifying the system of accession into the profession

Superior Council of the Magistracy



2. Regulation of the Superior Council of Magistracy developed and adopted

3. Unified Examination Committee for graduates of the NIJ and persons with work experience

1.3.5. Creation of a system of periodical evaluation of performances of actors in the justice sector based on clear, objective, transparent and merit-based criteria.

Superior Council of Magistrates The courts



Unions of liberal professions of the

justice sector

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Developed criteria for the periodical evaluation of performances; 3. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 4. Judges from all courts subjected to performance appraisal based on new criteria 5. Report analyzing the implementation of evaluation criteria

1.3.6. Establish mechanisms for measuring performance of the judicial system through feedback from the litigants


1. Methodology developed 2. Surveys on performance appraisals 3. Survey results analyzed and published

1.3.7. Strengthen the role of judicial inspection and clarification of its powers.


Magistrates

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. Modified Regulations of the Superior Council of Magistrates. 4. Revised powers of the judicial inspection

1.3.8. Revise the range of disciplinary deviations and of the disciplinary procedure in order to adjust them to the realities of the system and to the European standards.


Magistrates

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. The range of disciplinary deviations has been revised and adjusted;


29

4. The new mechanism referring to the examination of disciplinary accountability has been implemented.

1.3.9. Reform the system of judge immunity, to ensure a strictly functional immunity


Magistrates

1Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. Reformed system for granting Immunity to judges .

1.3.10. Strengthen the judicial system via the introduction of the judge assistant position and changing the registrar status and tasks

Superior Council of Magistrates The courts


Justice

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. The position of the judge assistant has been introduced in the court chart and actually implemented; 4. Revised tasks of the court registrar; 5. Developed Curriculum for the initial and continuous education; 6. Courses for the initial and continuous education of court assistants have been carried out.

Expected Outcomes: • Functional National Institute of Justice, able to provide the initial and continuous professional education of judges; • Effective specialization of judges • An effective system of admission to the judge position; • An efficient system for the disciplinary accountability of judges; • Strengthened role of the judiciary inspection; • A policy for the performance and quality evaluation of courts based on transparency and clear performance indicators that are measurable for

judges and courts; The policy includes a system for the performance evaluation of courts by “beneficiaries”.


30

PILLAR 2. Criminal justice Specific objective: Develop efficient pre-trial investigation procedures, as necessary to ensure respect for human rights, security of each

individual and reduced crime rates.

1.3. This Strategy addresses the problems of the Moldovan criminal justice with the aim to achieve five strategic directions: 2.1 Revising pre-trial concept and procedures; 2.2 Enhance the professionalism and independence of the prosecutorial service; 2.3 Professional capacity building at individual and institutional levels in issues dealing with crime investigations; 2.4 Modernizing the system for collection of statistical data and performance appraisal at the individual and institutional levels; 2.5 Humanizing criminal policy and strengthening the mechanism for the protection of human rights. A series of specific intervention areas were developed for each strategic direction, as shown in the tables below.

2.1 Revising the pre-trial concept and procedure An outstanding issue at the pre-trial phase is the absence of a clear concept and procedure, due to the obscure separation of powers among criminal

investigation bodies, while the criminal procedure laws are contradictory. There is no de facto distinction between hierarchical subordination of criminal investigation bodies to their administrative senior officers, in terms of professional development and disciplinary matters, on the one hand, and functional subordination of criminal investigation bodies to the same officers in the context of a specific criminal investigation on the other hand. Similarly, there are cases when several criminal investigation bodies share the same competencies, which in turn produces certain chaos in the system. Due to the above considerations, it is necessary to implement actions and interventions aimed at: improving the criminal procedure legislation as

needed to avoid overlapping of competencies; strengthening the status and competencies of criminal investigation bodies, in particular, enhancing the status of the Ministry of Interior and revising the status of the Center for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption.

2.1. Revision of the concept and procedure of the pre-judicial phase

Deadlines Specific intervention areas 12

months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



2.1.1. Optimizing the institutional, organizational and functional framework of the Ministry of Internal Affairs

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Internal

Affairs

1. Implemented Concept of the reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted.


31

2.1.2. Revising the status of the Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption

Ministry of Justice Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and

Corruption

1. Concept for revising the status of the Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption developed; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted.

2.1.3. Clarifying the role and competencies of the criminal investigation bodies authorized to carry out operative and investigative work

Ministry of Justice General Prosecutor’s

Office Ministry of Internal

Affairs Customs Service

Center for Combating Economic Crimes and

Corruption

1. Concept paper regarding the pre-judiciary phase developed; 2. Draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure and to other legal acts developed and adopted; 3. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework and implementation plan developed and adopted.

2.1.4. Streamlining the operative investigation and criminal investigation procedures



Affairs Customs Service

Center for Combating Economic Crimes and

Corruption Intelligence Service

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. Clarified sharing of activities between operative investigation bodies and those carrying out criminal investigation; 4. Trainings carried out for the personnel of relevant authorities.

2.1.5. Amending the Criminal Procedure Law to exclude the contradictions between the Law and standards for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.



Affairs Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and

1. A study evaluating the performance of the criminal justice system from the point of view of the ECHR jurisprudence has been carried out and recommendations have been formulated; 2. Proposals to amend the legal and institutional frameworks have been


32

Corruption Customs Service

developed.

Expected Outcomes: • An efficient and effective criminal investigation procedure complying with international standards; • Legislation on criminal procedure adjusted to European standards. 2.2. Strengthening professionalism and independence of the prosecutor’s office Currently, prosecutors are not functionally independent from their hierarchically superior officers, when examining or prosecuting a case. This situation is caused by the statutory principle of so-called ‘unconditional subordination’ and a vertical administration of the system. Subordinated prosecutors enjoy the illusory right to ask for written instructions which they can challenge. Meanwhile, a comparative analysis with other European countries shows that Moldova has a relatively large number of prosecutors per capita. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a study to clarify staffing needs of the prosecutorial service, as needed to optimize the number of prosecutors. Another identified deficiency is the limited capacity of prosecutors to exercise their official duties, due to the lack of independence, skills, competencies and appropriate training. The Superior Council of Prosecutors plays an important role within the prosecutorial system. The main function of this body is to ensure efficient institutional administration of the prosecutor’s office. Existing regulations are vague and deficient in terms of regulating the status of the Superior Council of Prosecutors. Considering the above, it becomes necessary to implement specific interventions aimed at: amending the legislation to provide internal and real independence to prosecutors, by excluding the possibility for hierarchically superior prosecutors to give illegal instructions, including verbal ones; revising the procedure for authorizing actions of junior prosecutors by the senior prosecutors; specialization of prosecutors for specific cases and considering the liquidation of specialized prosecutorial offices; establishing clear and transparent criteria and procedures for the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors; revising the procedure for the appointment of the General Prosecutor and his/her deputies; reviewing rules on prosecutorial accountability and removing their general immunity; enhancing the capacities of the Superior Council of Prosecutors and amending the relevant legislation.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months




33

2.2.1. Revise the procedure for the appointment of the General Prosecutor and his deputies and establish clear and transparent criteria for the selection of candidates to these functions


Office Superior Council of

Prosecutors

1. Draft amendments to the Constitution developed and adopted; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted, 3. Developed and adopted criteria for the selection of candidates to the position of General Prosecutor and deputies of the General Prosecutor.

2.2.2. Establish clear, transparent, objective and merit-based criteria and procedure for the selection appointment and promotion of prosecutors.

General Prosecutor’s Office


1. Study and recommendations; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. New criteria for the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors developed and adopted; 4. New institutions for the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors have been created.

2.2.3. Enhancing the capacities and independence of the Superior Council of Prosecutors to ensure an efficient administration of the prosecutor’s service.




Justice

1. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 2. Adequate budget, staffing and premises allocated to the Superior Council of Prosecutors. 3. Training courses for members and staff of the Superior Council of Prosecutors

2.2.4. Define clearly the competences of the prosecutor’s offices.


Office

1. Study and recommendations; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted.

2.2.5. Ensure the specialization of prosecutors and consider the possibility of liquidating specialized prosecutor’s offices




1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3.Specialization system for prosecutors put in place


34

Justice 4. Specialization trainings for prosecutors 5.Modified structure of the prosecutor’s office bodies.

2.2.6. Examination of staff requirements for the prosecutor’s office bodies and development of proposals for the optimization of the number of prosecutors and auxiliary staff.

Superior Council of General Prosecutor’s


Prosecutors

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted.

2.2.7 Review the funding mechanism for the prosecutorial service




3. Revised funding mechanism for the prosecutorial service

2.2.8. Demilitarization of the prosecutor’s office institution, and considering the possibility of granting magistrate’s status to prosecutors



Prosecutors


2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the regulatory framework;

3. Demilitarized prosecutorial service 2.2.9. Establish a mechanism that will exclude the possibility of hierarchically superior prosecutors to make certain illegal instructions, as necessary to ensuring the internal independence of all prosecutors


Prosecutors General Prosecutor’s

Office

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted.

2.2.10. Re-examination of accountability rules for prosecutors and exclusion of general immunity of prosecutors



Prosecutors

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the regulatory framework.


35

Expected Outcomes: • Strengthened role, status and capacities of the self administration bodies of the prosecutor’s office; • Optimized human resources of the prosecutor’s office; • A prosecutorial service that is independent in exercising its competencies; • Revised procedure for the appointment of the General Prosecutor and the deputies of the general prosecutor; • Revised funding mechanism for the prosecutorial service • Established criteria and procedure for the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors; • Functional system of prosecutors’ accountability. 2.3 Professional capacity building at individual and institutional levels in issues dealing with crime investigations Insufficient capacities of prosecution authorities, including the lack of appropriate skills and training, are among the reasons for inefficient investigation and prosecution. The evaluation report stated that law enforcement and prosecutorial service of the Republic of Moldova, and the criminal justice system in general, face difficulties in the application of special investigative techniques, that are used in combating organized, latent or sophisticated crimes, including crimes of corruption. This is mainly due to the outdated legal framework, in particular the Law on Operative Investigations of 1994 and opaque practices of implementation of this law. Consequently, special investigative activities in Moldova undermine the criminal justice system by reducing its efficiency and the inability to comply with relevant human rights standards, such as the requirement of clarity and predictability of the regulatory framework (Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, ECHR). In order to improve the situation in this area, a series of specific interventions are required aimed at: implementation of modern methods of investigation and prosecution, amending legislation and proper training of people involved in these processes, the specialization of stakeholders operating at the pre-judicial phase and, promotion of prosecution within interdepartmental groups, capacity building for centers of judicial expertise


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months

Responsible institutions


2.3.1. Implementation of modern methods of criminal investigation and prosecution (information technologies, modern expertise, etc.)

General Prosecutor’s Office Ministry of Internal

Affairs Centre for Combating

1. Implemented modern methods of criminal investigation and prosecution; 2. Trainings for the stakeholders’ staff organized and carried out.


36

Economic Crimes and Corruption

Customs Service Information and Security Service

2.3.2. Enhancing professional capacities of persons involved in criminal investigation and prosecution activities.


Ministry of Internal Affairs

Information and Security Service

Centre for Combating


Customs Service General

Prosecutor’s Office

1. Training curricula developed and implemented; 2. Trainings carried out for persons involved in criminal investigation and prosecution activities.

2.3.3. Capacity building for the centers of judicial expertise and judicial experts. Reconsider their role and status

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Internal

Affairs Ministry of Health Information and Security Service

Centre for Combating



2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted

3. Reformed centers for judicial expertise

2.3.4. Promoting the creation, in case of necessity, of interdepartmental teams for higher efficiency of criminal prosecution (“task-force” groups)


Affairs Centre for

1. Amendments carried out to the regulatory framework; 2. Interdepartmental norms developed and implemented.


37

Combating Economic Crimes

and Corruption Customs Service

2.3.5. Improving the professional skills of the pre-judicial phase actors through the latter’s specialization.


Affairs Centre for Combating


Customs Service

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Developed system for the specialization of the pre-judicial phase actors; 3. Courses for the specialization of the pre-judicial phase actors have been carried out.

Expected Outcomes:

• Strengthened professionalism of persons involved in criminal investigation and prosecution activities; • Strengthened capacities of centers for judicial expertise • Efficient and modern criminal prosecution procedure.


38

2.4. Modernizing the statistical data collection system and performance appraisal at the individual and institutional levels; The existing statistical data collection systems and performance appraisal are outdated and inefficient. Currently, each prosecutorial body keeps its own statistics and therefore, the statistical results presented by different prosecutorial bodies may not match. One of the main problems related to data collection is the lack of analysis. Another major problem of the criminal justice system is the lack of clear and effective performance indicators that would show the system requirements. The current performance indicators concerning prosecution and law enforcement are imperfect, giving greater importance to indicators regarding the number of crimes detected and investigated. The report produced by the Soros Foundation-Moldova on "Performance of criminal justice system from the perspective of human rights. Evaluation of the transformation of the criminal justice system in Moldova " notes that: "The overall impression from interviews is that criminal investigators still believe that the main indicator of their performance is the number of offenses discovered that they should report monthly to their superiors. This is an outdated term that refers to case-files submitted to the prosecutor, whatever the outcome of the prosecutor’s examination of this case-file may be. Almost all criminal investigators have said that this performance measurement is inefficient, some consider it even counterproductive." The same report states: "Prosecutorial service does not seem to have comparable performance indicators, but still, is subjected to high pressure to complete cases quickly in order to meet the speed requirement of prosecution. Therefore, at the end of each month they have to explain why certain cases require longer prosecution periods. "For this reason it is imperative to review the setting and evaluation of performance indicators for bodies involved in the execution of criminal justice. In the context of the problems mentioned, it is necessary to undertake specific actions aimed at: developing uniform methods for collecting and analyzing statistical data related to criminal justice; modernizing the statistical data collection system; implementation of a functional electronic system for registration and recording of offenses; staff trainings in the use of computer systems.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



2.4.1. Electronic recording and filing of offences. Consider the possibility of electronic data dissemination



Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and




3. Developed and implemented system for electronic filing and recording of offences.


39

2.4.2. Revised and uniform methods for collection and processing of statistical data related to criminal justice and ensure database inter-operability.

Centre for Special Telecommunications General Prosecutor’s



Corruption Customs Service Information and Security Service

National Bureau of Statistics


Justice

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;; 2. Modified and unified process for statistical data collection and processing in criminal justice.

2.4.3. Modification of performance indicators for bodies involved in criminal justice execution and their staff to ensure the observance of human rights.





1. New system of performance indicators developed and tested at the institutional and individual levels; 2.New unified and correlated system of performance indicators for all institutions of the justice sector. The system should be tested and applied at the individual and institutional levels.

Expected Outcomes: • An fair and objective system for collection and processing of statistical data referring to the criminal justice; • Performance indicators and an assessment system for the individual and institutional levels, stimulating an efficient activity of bodies / staff of

the criminal justice, ensuring respect for human rights.


40

2.5. Humanizing criminal policy and strengthening the mechanism for the protection of human rights. Humanization of criminal policy, strengthening the mechanism to ensure victims' rights and improving juvenile justice system are ongoing processes, which at this stage are not yet consolidated and completed. Humanization of criminal policy is a priority for the Government; steps in this direction have been undertaken by amending the Criminal Code in 2009, but this process should continue, because the criminal legislation of Moldova envisage criminal penalties that are too harsh compared to the criminal laws of other European countries, while prison overcrowding still remains and outstanding problem. For these reasons, it is necessary to undertake systemic and sustainable interventions that will be focused on liberalization of criminal policies, broad application of simplified procedures and improving the mechanism for protection of victims.

Deadlines Specific areas of intervention 12

months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



2.5.1. Liberalization of penal policies by using non-custodial sanctions and preventive measures for certain types of persons and offences


Office

1. Study regarding the application of criminal sanctions; 2. The Criminal Code, code of criminal procedure and other laws and regulations amended in conformity to recommendations.

2.5.2. Create conditions for broader application of simplified procedures, including alternative dispute settlement methods.


Office

1. Study regarding the application of simplified procedures; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework developed and adopted; 3. Implemented mechanisms ensuring the application of simplified procedures. 4.Alternative dispute settlement methods applied


41

2.5.3. Strengthen the human rights protection mechanism



Bar Association Ministry of Labour,

Social Protection and Family

Ministry of Finance Ministry of Justice

1.Study developed and recommendations formulated; 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted 3. Implemented mechanisms for human rights protection

Expected Outcomes:

• Revised penal policies • Application of simplified procedures and of non-custodial sanctions in all relevant cases; • Protection of victims’ rights


42

PILLAR 3. Access to justice and enforcement of judgments

3.1. Strengthening the Legal Aid System (AJGS)

Provision of legal aid (state-guaranteed legal assistance) to persons who lack the financial means to contract an attorney is one of the principal means of ensuring access to justice. To facilitate real access to justice for those who cannot hire a lawyer, state-guaranteed legal assistance (AJGS – legal aid) must be accessible and of high quality. Moldova does not yet provide litigants with such a system of legal aid, given that the spectrum of services is quite limited and the quality of services is, sometimes, below expectations. This problem will become even more acute in 2012, when only lawyers will be entitled to represent litigants in court and therefore, the fees for their services could grow significantly. Another problem facing the legal aid system are limited administrative capacities of the National Council for Legal Aid (CNAJGS). The Council does not have a permanent administrative staff, and the only person who runs the technical and operational activities of the Council is a specialist of the Ministry of Justice, which is also responsible for other functions within the Ministry. This support is insufficient to ensure normal and effective operation of the CNAJGS. In order to strengthen the legal aid system, the Strategy focuses on: proper implementation of existing legal provisions concerning AJGS and diversifying the range of legal aid services; allocation of appropriate financial resources to meet the real needs of the system; keeping public defenders and increasing their number; creation and implementation of various mechanisms to promote legal culture.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



3.1.1. Strengthening organizational and management capacities of the legal aid system

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Finance National Council for

Legal Aid Field offices of

1. Draft amendments to legal framework developed and adopted; 2. Administrative staff for the National Council of Legal Aid appointed; 3. Staffing of regional offices consistent with

Specific objective: Improve the institutional framework and processes to ensure effective access to justice: effective legal assistance, examination of cases and enforcement of judgments within a reasonable timeframe, upgrading the status of certain legal professions related to the justice sector.


43

CNAJGS system needs.

3.1.2. Improving the quality and accessibility of legal aid services (criminal and non-penal cases)

National Council for Legal Aid

Field offices of CNAJGS

1. Mechanism to ensure the quality of legal aid services, developed and implemented

2. Study to assess financial needs of the system and ways to provide legal aid services; recommendations made

3. Mixed system of legal aid implemented; public defenders shall provide services alongside private lawyers providing request-based legal aid.

4. Appropriate funding for legal aid services to meet the real needs of the system

5. Trainings for public defenders and private lawyers offering legal aid upon request.

3.1.3. Promoting legal culture and information and reducing legal nihilism

National Council for Legal Aid

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Labor,


1. Legal education campaigns, including through NGOs under public-private partnerships;

2. Primary legal aid system created and operational; the system should work through para-legal experts at the community level, including social workers.

3. Tested mechanisms for primary legal aid in urban areas for certain categories of vulnerable persons.

Expected Outcomes: • The work of the National Council for Legal Aid improved;


44

• accessible, diversified and qualitative legal aid services; • Higher level of legal culture. • Functional mechanisms for primary legal aid 3.2. Building institutional capacity and professional development of representatives of justice related professions (lawyers, notaries, mediators, bailiffs, legal experts, administrators of insolvency proceedings, translators/interpreters) The strategy builds on the premise that a justice sector cannot function effectively without a range of professionals that contribute to the execution of justice. The strategy includes the following categories of professionals into the category of justice related professions: lawyers, notaries, mediators, bailiffs, judicial experts, administrators of insolvency proceedings and translators / interpreters. The main problems related to the activity of all these professions in Moldova are: (1) the quality of services provided and (2) their organization as a profession or professionalgroup. Both issues are interrelated. Efficient organization of these professions is a prerequisite for high quality services, because only within a well-organized group it is possible to apply quality assurance mechanisms (stimulatory or disciplinary measures, organization of training, professional liability insurance and other relevant measures). On the other hand, quality services require an appropriate level of remuneration. In particular, where the Government pays, the cost of these services must be real and well grounded. Currently, not all professions listed in this chapter have organizational capacity, to ensure quality of services provided by representatives of the respective professions and to negotiate with the state fees for services provided on the basis of duly substantiated data. The Strategy provides for the enhancement of organizational capacities of professions related to the justice sector, so as to engage them proactively in the development of functional mechanisms to ensure quality of services provided.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



3.2.1. Encouraging capacity building for representatives of justice related professions, at the level of professional unions, with special focus on management capacities

Ministry of Justice Professional self-

administration bodies

1. Study on the functioning of each profession developed, recommendations formulated; 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and approved; 3. Engaging representatives of justice related professions in reform efforts for the justice sector.


45

3.2.2. Developing quality standards for services provided by representatives of justice related professions



1. Quality assurance standards developed and adopted; 2. Quality assurance mechanisms developed and implemented.

3.2.3. Initiation and development of integrated, clear and precise mechanisms for criteria and methods of calculation of payments for services

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Economy Professional self-


1. Study on the current mechanisms developed, recommendations formulated; 2. Recommendations and/or regulations for determining payments for services - developed and adopted.

3.2.4. Establishing clear, transparent and merit-based criteria for accession into the profession, with input also from civil society representatives



1. Study on access to each profession developed, recommendations formulated; 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and approved.

3.2.5. Providing initial and continuous training to representatives of justice related professions, including joint trainings and also, enhancing the role of the NIJ in this process


Justice Professional self-


1. Initial and continuous training programme developed and implemented (for each profession); 2. Initial and continuous trainings conducted.

3.2.6. Promotion and implementation of ethical standards for justice related professions



Standards/codes of ethics developed, adopted and implemented for each profession.

3.2.7. Strengthening the professional liability insurance system



1. Comparative study on liability insurance models – developed, recommendations formulated; 2. Professional liability insurance system implemented; 3. Monitoring mechanism for the professional liability insurance system established.

3.2.8. Strengthening the disciplinary mechanisms




46

administration bodies 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted; 3. Disciplinary mechanisms in place for each profession.

3.2.9 Establishing a unified tax, social security and medical insurance regime for justice sector related professions

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Finance Ministry of Labor,


Ministry of Health, Professional self-




3. Guidelines developed regarding the tax, social security and medical insurance regime for justice sector related professions.

Expected Outcomes:

• Justice related professions (lawyers, notaries, mediators, bailiffs, legal experts, administrators of insolvency proceedings, translators/interpreters) are independent, able to organize themselves and provide quality services;

• Professional liability insurance system and disciplinary mechanisms are improved.

3.3. Effective enforcement of court judgments. Failure to enforce court decisions is a systemic problem in Moldova, as noted in a series of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In 2010, the Enforcement Code was amended and the Law on bailiffs was adopted. As a result, the enforcement system has been reshaped and a system of private bailiffs was introduced. The main goal of these amendments is to ensure effective enforcement of judgments. It is difficult to assess the impact of these changes or identify the main obstacles given the short time since their implementation. The Strategy underlines the need for: institutional strengthening of the system of private bailiffs; establishing the necessary conditions for the functioning of bailiffs; assessing the impact of the current regulatory framework and implementation mechanism in the execution of court decisions, including decisions of the ECHR; developing legislative and policy proposals, supported by empirical data, to strengthen the newly created system.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months




47

3.3.1. Impact assessment of the current regulatory framework and the implementing mechanism for enforcement of judgments

Ministry of Justice National Union of

Bailiffs

1. Impact assessment carried out; 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted.

3.3.2. Strengthening the institutional and functional capacity of the newly created system of private bailiffs

Ministry of Justice Bailiffs’ Union

1. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted; 2. Bailiffs’ self-administration bodies created and strengthened.

3.3.3. Improving information management and communication system by providing access to databases


Database managing authorities

1. Creating and adopting the legal framework to ensure access to databases; 2. Access to databases will be provided.

3.3.4. Ensuring compliance with reasonable time limits in the enforcement of judgments


Bailiffs’ Union

The mechanism for ensuring compliance with reasonable time limits in the enforcement of judgments developed and adopted.

3.3.5. Improving the mechanism for recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments


1. Study developed and recommendations formulated; 2. Mechanism for recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments improved.

Expected Outcomes:

• The system of enforcement of judgments in civil cases operates effectively; • Enforcement of court decisions, including ECHR judgments is improved.


48

PILLAR 4. Integrity of justice sector stakeholders

Specific objective: Promotion and implementation of zero tolerance principle for manifestations of corruption in justice sector

Actions meant to strengthen the integrity of justice sector stakeholders by promoting anti-corruption measures and professional ethical standards focused on the following strategic directions: 4.1 Effective fight against corruption in the justice system; 4.2 Strengthening the mechanisms implementing the ethical and anti-corruption conduct standards in all institutions of the justice sector; 4.3. Developing a culture of intolerance towards corruption by self-administration bodies in various segments of justice.

4.1. Efficient fight against corruption in the justice system A justice system perceived as corrupt by population seriously affects the credibility of justice and fuels distrust in the integrity of people working in this field. The National Anticorruption Strategy for the years 2011-2015, approved by Law no. 154 of 22.07.2011, has invoked the data of Global Corruption Barometer from 2010, indicating that, in perception of population, on a scale from 1 to 5, the most corrupt are considered to be the bodies of internal affairs -4. 1, justice -3.9, political parties and civil servants -3.8, Parliament, education and private sector -3.7.

The evaluation report found possible causes of such state of affairs in the justice sector, such as: insufficient use of the systems for declaring income and property; failure to transpose non-criminal and criminal methods of combating corruption, economic methods to combat corruption; deficiencies of cooperation between agents and of "special investigation (operational)" techniques against alleged corrupt officials, especially representatives of the judiciary, the low pay of a broad category of civil servants, compared with the private sector, etc.

In order to ensure effective prevention and fight against corruption in the justice sector, specific and tough interventions are necessary to be oriented to: increase the salary of the relevant stakeholders in the justice sector, trigger real and effective implementation of mechanisms to verify the income and property statements and statements of personal interests of justice sector actors, checking compliance with the legal regime of incompatibilities and conflicts of interests; introduce new mechanisms and categories of liability for persons involved in corruption; provide some new measures to prevent


49

any spread of corruption in the justice sector; exclude as much as possible the human factor from management processes of administrating the justice sector and application of modern technologies; introduce clear rules regarding the obligation to declare illegal influences exerted on representatives of the justice; strengthen the institutions responsible for ensuring the integrity and internal security.

Deadlines


24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



4.1.1. Substantially increase the salaries of justice sector actors and simplification of criteria for calculating salaries

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Finance Ministry of Labour,


1. A draft amending the legal framework concerning the remuneration of justice sector actors – drafted and adopted; 2. Substantially increase of the salaries of justice sector actors.

4.1.2. Strengthening the mechanism of verifying the income and property statements, statements of personal interests, the control over the observance of legal provisions regarding the conflict of interest and legal regime of incompatibilities of persons who exercise of position of public dignity, judges, prosecutors and management officials

Ministry of Justice National Integrity

Commission Ministry of Finance


Corruption Superior Council of


Prosecutors

1. A draft amending the legal framework concerning the declaration of income and property, as well as the declaration of personal interests – drafted and adopted; 2. Increased capacities of authorities responsible for verifying the statements of income and property, statements of personal interests and the regime of incompatibilities; 3. Increased confidence in the authorities responsible for verifying the statements of income and property and statements of personal interests

4.1.3. Reviewing the legal framework to discourage corruption in the justice sector and punish more severely for offences related to corruption, in order to increase the effectiveness of judicial coercion


Corruption Prosecutor General’s

Office Supreme Court of

Justice Ministry of Internal

Affairs

1. A developed and adopted draft amending the legal framework for punishing more severely the acts of corruption and standardizing the legal practices; 2. A survey showing decreased willingness of the public to commit acts of corruption; 3. Number of people convicted for corruption.


50

4.1.4. Clear regulation of the behaviour of judges, prosecutors, criminal investigators, lawyers and bailiffs in relation to other people in order to fight corruption and create a mechanism for ensuring an integral behaviour


Prosecutor General’s Office


Corruption Ministry of Internal

Affairs National Institute of

Justice Police Academy Union of Lawyers Ministry of Justice

1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 2. Establish an operational mechanism to report on corruption within the unit; 3. Introducing and application of integrity test for judges, prosecutors, employees of MIA and CCECC

4.1.5. Including the possibility of tapping the work phones of judges, SCM and SCP members, prosecutors, criminal investigators and MIA employees (Customs Service, Border Guards Service, CCECC, DIP) and civil servants, by informing them beforehand


Information and Intelligence Service



Affairs

1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 2. An established effective mechanism for tapping conversations, by informing them beforehand; 3. Informing the society about establishing such a mechanism.

4.1.6. Implementation of the mechanism for verification of candidates to the position of judge, prosecutors and criminal investigators, using a polygraph





Affairs Ministry of Justice Customs Service

1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 2. Established mechanism for verification of candidates for judges, prosecutors and criminal investigators, using a polygraph.


51

4.1.7. Enhancing the capacities of units responsible for ensuring internal security





Affairs Ministry of Justice

1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted (including the obligation of judges to use PGID); 2. Complete automation of the case management process; 3. Establish an effective mechanism to verify the compliance with the electronic case management process and sanction non-compliance.

Expected outcomes:

• A justice sector that is intolerant of and discourages corruption; • An effective mechanism to prevent and combat corruption in the justice sector; • Discouraged and diminished predisposition of the public to commit acts of corruption.

4.2. Strengthening the mechanisms implementing the ethical and anti-corruption conduct standards in all institutions of the justice sector The existence of ethical and conduct standards represents a prerequisite for the process of preventing corruption. Most of the stakeholders in the justice sector have developed ethical standards for their professions. Although some of the sets of ethical standards are in force for many years, their acceptance and practical application seems to be not so widespread; moreover, even these are known and observed by those to whom they are addressed. Significant deficiencies are also noticed: in the filed of monitoring by self-administration bodies over the observance of the requirements regarding the anti-corruption ethics and conduct by the justice sector representatives; in accountability of the justice sector stakeholders for violation of standards; in insufficient involvement of civil society in the process of monitoring over the ethical behaviour of the justice sector actors, etc.

The Evaluation Report stated that lack of clarity and predictability of requirements under the codes of professional conduct and ethics within the justice sector and other public bodies is one of the reasons of spreading the corruption in this sector.

In order to strengthen and extend the application of ethical and anti-corruption conduct standards within the justice sector, a number of specific interventions are required to be focused on: promotion and awareness raising among the justice sector stakeholders about the rules of professional ethics; developing and uniformization of ethical standards for all justice sector stakeholders; capacity building within the bodies responsible for compliance with professional ethics and self-administration bodies of professions; wider involvement of society in the process of monitoring the compliance with ethical norms.


52


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



4.2.1. Standardization and refinement of ethical standards for all actors of the justice sector



Magistrates General Prosecutor’s


Affairs State Chancellery

Unions of professions related to the justice

sector

Improving and standardizing the provisions of codes of ethics

4.2.2. Regular training of justice sector actors in the field of professional ethics


Police Academy “Stefan Cel Mare”

1. Training courses – organized and conducted; 2. Justice sector actors – trained in professional ethics.

4.2.3. Improving the mechanisms and capacity building of bodies responsible for observing professional ethics




Prosecutors Ministry of Internal

Affairs Unions of professions related to the justice

sector

1. Draft amendments to the legal framework – developed and adopted; 2. Number and results of disciplinary proceedings.


53

4.2.4. Public awareness campaigns on the professional ethics of justice sector actors




Prosecutors Ministry of Internal


sector Public media outlets

Number of conducted public awareness campaigns

4.2.5. Involving the society in monitoring the compliance with the professional ethics of justice sector actors



Magistrates Prosecutor General’s

Office Supreme Court of

Justice Ministry of Internal


sector

1. Mechanisms of involving civil society members in monitoring the compliance with the professional ethics of justice sector actors – developed and implemented; 2. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted.

Expected outcomes:

• A justice sector with clear and uniform regulations on ethical standards; • Effective mechanisms for enforcing professional ethics; • A well informed society about the professional ethics of justice sector actors; • High professionalism of employees of the bodies responsible for compliance with professional ethics; • Civil society involved in the process of monitoring compliance with professional ethics.

4.3. Developing a culture of intolerance towards corruption by self-administration bodies in various segments of justice.


54

The spirit of intolerance towards any manifestations of corruption to be injected not only into the whole society, but especially inside of the justice sector. As long as manifestations of corruption seem to be accepted as an element of normality even by the justice sector stakeholders, the evolution of this phenomenon gets more alarming connotations and erodes the essence of the rule of law. The high degree of spread of this scourge within the justice sector is found in many evaluation reports made by national and international institutions. The fact that justice in Moldova is seriously affected by corruption was also recognized by the Declaration of Moldovan Parliament on the state of justice in the Republic of Moldova and the actions needed to improve the situation within the judiciary.8 The evaluation report has invoked among the main causes of spreading the corruption in the judiciary the following: insufficient and ineffective enforcement of the role of regulation and control by the SCM; total failure of investigation and judicial components of anti-corruption framework, resulting in insufficiently deterrent effects; lack of skills, competences, training, methodology and leadership capacities. In order to improve the alarming state of affairs in this area, specific interventions are necessary in: dissemination of good practices to strengthen the integrity of justice sector actors; development of training components to discourage justice sector actors to engage in corruption; introduction of non-traditional measures at the legislative and practical levels to promote intolerance towards corruption; ensuring a larger degree of openness of the justice sector towards society, including through dissemination of information regarding the cases and people punished for involvement in corruption.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



4.3.1. Conduct periodic training for justice sector actors on combating corruption


Corruption National Institute of

Justice Police Academy

“Stefan Cel Mare”

1. Curriculum developed; 2. Trainings conducted and number of trained actors.

4.3.2. Encouraging regular voluntary testing at the polygraph (especially by decision makers in the justice system)




1. Measures to encourage regular voluntary testing at the polygraph – developed and applied; 2. Number of voluntary tests conducted.

8 Parliamentary Decision no. 53 of 30 October 2009


55


Corruption 4.3.3. Granting additional scores to judges and prosecutors upon career promotion and regular evaluation in the case of voluntary testing at the polygraph



A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted.

4.3.4. Strengthening the whistleblower regime (inside and outside the system)


Supreme Court of Justice





Affairs NGOs

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated; 2. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 3. The mechanism of functioning of the whistleblower regime – created and implemented.

4.3.5. Publication and mediatisation of court decisions on sentencing justice sector actors for corruption


Ministry of Justice

1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 2. Site created and operational; 3. Court decisions on sentencing justice sector actors for corruption – published and disseminated.

Expected outcomes:

• High level of intolerance towards corruption in the justice sector; • Whistleblower regime established and functional; • Public access to court decisions on sentencing justice sector actors for corruption – ensured.


56


57

PILLAR 5. The role of justice in economic development

Specific objective: Identifying and implementing measures through which the justice sector will help creating a favourable environment for sustainable development of Moldovan economy.

Economic growth is conditioned by the existing potential resources and how they are used. In this respect it would not be appropriate to refer only to direct factors of economic growth, but also to indirect ones that influence as much the growth, including one of these factors that is the efficiency of the judiciary. In order to achieve this objective, some strategic directions have been determined by means of which the expected results can be achieved: 5.1. Strengthening the system of alternative dispute resolution; 5.2. Improving the insolvency procedure; 5.3. Modernizing the system for maintaining and providing access to information concerning the registration of economic companies.

5.1. Strengthening the system of alternative dispute resolution

Economic companies, in particular, as well as litigants, in general, have limited access to the means of alternative dispute resolution, so as to allow them avoid time and cost consuming trials. In the case of Moldova, all economic disputes were concentrated in two specialized courts (Economic Court and Court of Appeal), and civil ones between individuals, even if they are of commercial nature, are concentrated in the ordinary courts. This state of affairs significantly affect small business entrepreneurs, who can not allow incurring considerable costs for a trial, which may create a state of insolvency. The potential of alternative methods to produce economic benefits through lower costs for litigation settlement, compared with the costs of judicial processes, as well as many social benefits are invoked as advantages that should justify the adoption of policies favorable to alternative methods in general and mediation in particular. Mediation practice in Moldova is modest, and equally modest are the empirical studies on its economic efficiency for the justice and citizens. At present the only available is a study made by the Institute for Penal Reform (IPR), which deals with the aspect of costs and benefits of criminal mediation.9 On this basis it was found that, apart from saving financial resources, the use alternative means of dispute resolution involves by itself also a considerable reduction of time needed to resolve a dispute, which again reiterates the idea of saving some financial

9 IPR Report 2010 - Criminal Mediation in Moldova


58

resources. The average duration of solving the cases is 537 days, which is by 20% more than the use of mediation as an alternative method. Reduction of trial costs is not an advantage that can be attributed only to litigants but also entire judicial system.

Along with promoting the benefits of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms it will be possible to deconcentrate the litigation only in courts, streamlining the administrative costs (salaries, number of support staff, logistic materials, etc.). In this context, the Strategy proposes that mediation become an effective and attractive alternative for litigants, and to this end it should be additionally accompanied by a feasible mechanism for recognition and enforcement of decisions issued by foreign arbitration courts.

Deadlines


24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



5.1.1. Handing over of economic cases to courts of common law, including by providing that judges shall be specialized on these categories of cases


Magistrates Courts


1. The competences of economic courts are taken over by the courts of common law; 2. Curriculum for the training on examination of economic (commercial) cases – developed; 4. Judges of the courts of common law are trained.

5.1.2. Developing guiding principles for the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (criminal, civil, commercial) and development of arbitration and mediation institutions as alternative means of litigation settlement


Magistrates Mediation Council

Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Union of Lawyers National Institute of

Justice

1. Guiding principles for the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – developed; 2. A developed study and formulated recommendations on development of arbitration and mediation institutions; 3. A draft amending the legal framework on arbitration and mediation institutions – drafted and adopted; 4. Curriculum for the training of judges, lawyers, mediators and arbitrators – developed and implemented.

5.1.3. Promoting the benefits of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms within the society, business environment, legal

Mediation Council Chamber of Commerce

and Industry National Institute of

1. Public information campaigns to promote benefits of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – conducted; 2. Information campaigns for justice sector actors –


59

community, academia and the judiciary and conducting campaigns for information and dissemination of information about alternative mechanisms

Justice Ministry of Justice Union of Lawyers

conducted; 3. Promotional materials on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – developed and distributed; 4. Public mediatisation events conducted.

5.1.4. Establishing / improving the mechanisms of recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by foreign arbitration courts

Ministry of Justice Courts

1. A developed study and formulated recommendations formulated; 2. Mechanisms of recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by foreign arbitration courts –promoted and improved.

Expected outcomes:

• Alternative dispute resolution system – strengthened; • The public and justice sector actors – informed about the benefits of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms; • The number of arbitration and mediation service users – increased; • Economic courts – liquidated.

5.2. Improving the insolvency procedure Government of Moldova, according to additional Memorandum on economic and financial policies concluded with the International Monetary Fund, has committed to modernize the procedure of insolvency and dissolution of companies and organizations, and this requires organization and reform of administrators' activity. With the delivery of the decision to launch the insolvency process, the debtor loses the right to use, disposal and management of its own patrimony, these passing in the administration of the insolvency administrator under procedures regulated in this respect. In this context, it is necessary to mention the importance of this actor in conducting the insolvency procedure. Or, precisely the insolvency administrator should have good professional training, and in this sense to have a strict regulation on the organization of his work.

The current legal framework10 does not regulate in a comprehensive format how to practice the profession of insolvency administrator or exercise other fiduciary activities, outside of insolvency procedures, or regulations regarding the admission to the profession and their responsibility.

Therefore, it's necessary to adopt a legal framework that will govern the professional work of administrators in order to ensure speeding up the procedure and proper conduct of the administrative activity not only concerning the process of insolvency, but also the dissolution of companies and organizations. Addressing these issues in light of improving insolvency procedures directly contributes to creating a favourable environment for

10

Law on insolvency no.632-XV of 14 November 2001


60

sustainable development of Moldovan economy. The existence of a well regulated insolvency procedure and an efficient system for the management of the debtor's assets will be a factor that will increase the attractiveness from the perspective of foreign investments.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



5.2.1. Creating the necessary regulatory framework for the efficient organisation and functioning of the administrators of insolvency procedure

Ministry of Justice

A draft amending the regulatory framework – developed and adopted.

5.2.2. Strengthening the status of administrators of insolvency procedure in order to ensure the stability of the profession, growth of their integrity and professionalism


Justice

1. A draft amending the regulatory framework – developed and adopted;

2. Initial and ongoing training of administrators of insolvency procedure – conducted.

Expected outcomes:

• Administration of insolvency procedure – more efficient and transparent; • Status of administrators of insolvency procedure – strengthened; • The legal framework on the organization and functioning of the administrators of insolvency procedure – improved.

5.3. Modernizing the system for maintaining and providing access to information concerning the registration of economic companies With the development of informational society, the introduction of information and communication technologies raises new challenges for public administration, but also provides generous opportunities for a work that is more efficient and closer to the citizen. The emergence of new technologies favoured storing such information in various databases and providing citizens with free access to them, which inevitably leads to increased efficiency of state's activities, transparency of public institutions regarding their projects and activities, as well as facilitates the supply of public services in reduced terms. Authorities constantly undertake measures towards e-governance, and until now citizens have access to various databases or can request online some public services: the real estate registry, the registry of commercial organizations, the registry of non-commercial organizations, the state registry of population, etc. Or, it would be incorrect to state that this is not an important progress in the process of implementation of information technologies in the service of citizen.


61

What these strategic directions aim is to ensure proper functioning of these databases. Such functioning could be achieved by creating new mechanisms for systematization and interdependence of information, ultimately creating search engine with complete informational results accessible to citizens and institutions, including other relevant stakeholders in the justice sector. In this respect, it would be appropriate to create informational connections between these databases with databases of courts in order to ensure: rationalization of costs and time by participants in trial and the courts, including speeding up litigation settlement. Another problem, that can be avoided by upgrading these information systems, would be reducing the human factor in supplying public services by using technologies, which is sometimes seen as a cause of corruption in the public sector.

Deadlines


24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



5.3.1. Modernising the system of electronic registration of economic agents

Ministry of Economy Ministry of Justice

E-Governance Centre

1. Study conducted and recommendations formulated; 2. The system of electronic registration of economic agents – modernized.

5.3.2. Creating a unified electronic registry for the registration of economic agents and non-profit organizations


E-Governance Centre

1. Study conducted and recommendations formulated;

2. Single electronic registry – created and implemented.

5.3.3. Providing free access to information from electronic registries of economic agents and e-services supply by registries’ holders


E-Governance Centre

The system of access to information from electronic registries of economic agents – changed.

Expected outcomes: • Free access to information from electronic registries of economic agents – provided; • The administration of insolvency procedure – more efficient and transparent; • The system of access to information concerning economic agents – modernized.


62

PILLAR 6. Respect for human rights in the justice sector

Specific objective ensuring effective observance of human rights in legal practices and policies.

Actions aimed at ensuring effective observance of human rights in legal practices and policies will focus on four strategic directions: 6.1. Strengthening the role of the Constitutional Court; 6.2. Strengthening the capacities of the Human Rights Centre and the ombudsman institution; 6.3.Strengthening the justice system for children 6.4. Compliance with international human rights standards in case of all detainees. Eradicate torture and ill-treatment; 6.5. Strengthening the probation system and penitentiary system.

6.1. Strengthening the role of the Constitutional Court

Fundamental rights and freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. The state is obliged not only to respect these rights and freedoms, and also to build a functional and efficient mechanism for their protection against any violations or interference, even if they could emanate from the state. The efficiency of the Constitutional Court's functioning depends not only on the powers conferred by the Constitution, but also by the process of appointing judges, organizational structure, procedure of reviewing complaints and taking decisions, the circle of legal entities entitled to notify the Constitutional Court, analytical resources, material and financial support of the Court.

The evaluation report pointed out a number of basic problems related to the efficiency of the Constitutional Court's functioning, namely: under the law, only 11 entities have the right to notify the Constitutional Court, and the task of this institution is only to rule on the constitutionality of legislation; citizen has no locus standi to notify the Constitutional Court, and the institution, therefore, does not participate in the administration of justice; CC is composed of six judges, and for declaring a law unconstitutional a majority of four votes to two is necessary; the relevance of CC is reduced, given the small number of cases examined by the court.

Specific interventions established to empower the Constitutional Court will concern reviewing the composition of the CC, the criteria and procedure for the selection of judges; optimizing the number of judges and their term of office, to ensure independence and high competence of judges; widening the circle of entities entitled to appeal to Constitutional Court, so as to ensure the accessibility to request verification of constitutionality of normative


63

acts by persons whose constitutional rights and freedoms have been violated, as well as optimizing internal organizational structure and strengthening human resources needed to ensure high quality of documents submitted for examination.

Deadlines


24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



6.1.1. Reviewing the composition and criteria for selecting judges to the Constitutional Court

Ministry of Justice Constitutional Court

1. Criteria for selection of judges to the Constitutional Court - established; 2. A draft amending the regulatory framework –drafted and adopted.

6.1.2. Reviewing the procedures for reviewing the notifications by the Constitutional Court


1. Accomplished study and formulated recommendations 2. A draft amending the regulatory framework –drafted and adopted.

6.1.3. Reviewing the range of entities entitled to appeal to the Constitutional Court and the appeal review procedure


1. Study conducted and recommendations formulated; 2. Regulatory framework amended.

6.1.4. Strengthening the professional competences of Constitutional Court’s employees necessary to ensure high quality of documents submitted for examination


Constitutional Court

1. Developed training curriculum; 2. Trained personnel.

Expected outcomes: • Strengthened role of the Constitutional Court; • Increased number of entities entitled to notify; • Enhanced capacities of Constitutional Court’s personnel. 6.2. Strengthening the capacities of the Human Rights Centre and the ombudsman institution


64

To establish a non-judicial mechanism for defending human rights in Moldova, in 1998 under the Law no. 13349 of 17 October 1997, according to the Principles on the Status of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (Paris Principles), an independent national institution was created for the promotion and protection of rights - Human Rights Centre.

By virtue of undertaking significant efforts by the institution to achieve legal competences, the evaluation report noted that currently the Human Rights Centre and the ombudsman institution suffer from a high degree of inefficiency. On the one hand this is due to insufficient funding that undermines the ability of Human Rights Centre to hire staff, to make use of equipped spaces and to carry out activities aimed at fulfilling its mandate, on the other hand, the low level of capacities on individual and institutional level.

To enhance capacity of the Human Rights Centre and ombudsman institution, it is necessary to focus efforts to: encourage appropriate funding for ombudsman institution, which would involve equipping the institution with adequate resources to ensure the gradual and progressive improvement of measures for improving the organization, institutional reform of the Centre, increasing the role of ombudsman as a mechanism for preventing violations and protection of human rights and supporting research and analysis function of the Human Rights Centre and ombudsman.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



6.2.1. Institutional reform of the Human Rights Centre and the ombudsperson institution, including the method of his/her appointment and evaluation of his/her performance

Ministry of Justice Human Rights Centre

1. A draft amending the regulatory framework – drafted and adopted; 2. Institutional framework of the Human Rights Centre - modified. 3. Criteria for assessing the performance – developed and implemented.

6.2.2. Assessment of real needs for appropriate funding of the ombudsperson institution

Human Rights Centre Ministry of Finance

1. Analysis conducted and recommendations formulated; 2. A draft amending the regulatory framework – drafted and adopted; 3. Appropriate funding mechanism for the institution - established.

6.2.3. Strengthening management, investigative, research and analysis skills and competences of Human Rights Centre’s personnel and of the ombudsman institution

Human Rights Centre

1. Mechanism for communication with other institutions - established; 2. Personnel trained.


65

6.2.4. Strengthening the capacity of the ombudsman to protect and promote children's rights

Human Rights Centre

Capacities of the ombudsman - strengthened and adjusted to standards in the field of child’ rights protection.

Expected outcomes: • The role and capacity of the ombudsman institution - strengthened; • Established mechanism for independent financing of the institution and ensured financial resources in line with the real needs of the institution. 6.3. Strengthening the justice system for children Justice for children remains a priority for Moldova, given that efforts undertaken so far for the purpose of strengthening the juvenile justice were insufficient, since till now Moldova lacks a children friendly system to meet the needs of children; rights of children victims and witnesses of crimes in criminal proceedings are not well protected, practices to enforce extra-judicial measures for resolving cases involving children are not developed, juvenile probation system does not provide effective services for children, conditions of children's detention are not adjusted to their needs, the system of collecting and analyzing data on children in contact with the justice system does not ensure monitoring and evaluation of the situation of children and their rights, the connection between justice and social services in the community for children is underdeveloped, and the assistance and rehabilitation of children in community who have broken the law or are victims of abuse is insufficient, as there are no specialized institutions: specialized panels of judges, prosecutors or lawyers who would be specialized in cases involving children .

Thus, we propose undertaking actions to: ensure specialization of the justice system for children; strengthen instruments to protect children victims or witnesses of crime in criminal proceedings; ensure the rights of children in detention.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months


Indicators of the implementation status and

impact

6.3.1. Ensuring specialization of the justice system for children


Ministry of Justice Prosecutor General’s


Affairs CNAJGS

1. Ensured specialization of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, probation counsellors, juvenile investigators, criminal investigation officers, personnel of children with juvenile detainees, mediators in cases involving children witness, victims and in conflict with law;

2. Developed training curriculum and conducted training courses;


66

Mediation Council National Institute of

Justice Ministry of Education Ministry of Finance National Council for

Protection of Children’s Rights

3. Allocated and equipped spaces designed for children’s hearing within courts, prosecution offices, police commissariats / sections and probation offices;

4. Drafted, adopted and implemented legal framework and procedures on children under the age of criminal liability.

6.3.2. Strengthening the instruments for protecting in criminal proceedings the children victims and witnesses of crimes


Magistrates CNAJGS

Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and

Family Ministry of Health

National Council for Protection of

Children’s Rights Ministry of Internal

Affairs

1. Developed and adopted draft amending the legal framework; 2. Methodology on reviewing the cases involving children victims and their support / assistance in criminal process; 3. State free legal assistance, assistance and conciliation services by psychologist and teacher during the criminal process – provided to children victims or witnesses; 4. Forensic analysis in cases with children – adjusted to the needs of children victims or witnesses.

6.3.3. Strengthening the juvenile probation system


Justice Ministry of Labour,


Ministry of Finance

1. Strengthened system of case management by probation counsellors; functional reference of beneficiaries to specialized services in community; 2. Developed and implemented psychological-social probation programmes for children; 3. Improving the system of recruiting, initial and ongoing training and of monitoring the performance of juvenile probation counsellors – developed and implemented; 4. Financial resources provided in line with real needs of the probation system.

6.3.4. Ensuring the observance of the rights of children in detention


1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 2. Revised and improved mechanism of complaining by children in detention in line with international standards in the filed of children’s rights; 3. Established and functional system of monitoring


67

the duration of pre-trial detention of children in conflict with law; 4. Developed programmes for rehabilitation of children in detention to diminish re-offence.

6.3.5. Strengthening the system of collecting and analyzing the data on children in contact with the justice system


Magistrates Prosecutor General’s


Affairs Ministry of Labour,


National Bureau of Statistics

1. Process of collecting and analyzing statistic data on children in conflict with law – modified in line with the System of international juvenile justice indicators; 2. Annually published data on juvenile justice.

Expected outcomes: • The justice system is children friendly and ensures efficient observance and implementation of the rights of children in contact with the justice

system; • Justice sector stakeholders who work with and for children are provided with interdisciplinary training concerning the rights and needs of children

from various age groups; • Legal, social, emotional, physical and cognitive situation of child in contact with the justice system is multidisciplinary approached; • Children victims and witnesses of crimes are provided with best conditions protecting their rights in criminal process.

6.4. Observe the human rights of detainees. Eradicate torture and ill-treatment.

The right to individual freedom and security is among the supreme values of a modern and democratic state that is governed by several international and national fundamental acts. Despite the safeguards included in national legislation and efforts to prevent violations of this right, the practice demonstrates that there are cases when this right is affected. Republic of Moldova continues to face inter-related negative social phenomena, such as torture, other punishment or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments, as demonstrated by the large number of applications filed by Moldovan citizens with the European Court of Human Rights and favourable decisions of the Court, especially with regard to the violation of the right to freedom and security.


68

This situation, according to the evaluation report, is due to the existence of contradictory and ineffective regulatory framework; the existence of outdated system of performance indicators applied by the prosecution bodies; limited capacities of authorities to examine complaints about torture or ill-treatment; lack of skills, competences and appropriate training on individual and institutional levels within the prosecution bodies.

Thus, taking into account that it is not enough to recognize the existence of violations of freedom and national security, it is considered necessary to undertake actions to: create a standardized system for maintaining records on cases of arrest and detention; increase efficiency of applying coercive procedural measures and deprivation of freedom; create adequate detention conditions and create a mechanism to rehabilitate victims of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



6.4.1. Streamline the application of coercive procedural measures and preventive measures in order to ensure effective observance of the right to freedom physical safety

Ministry of Justice Prosecutor General’s



Corruption Supreme Court of

Justice Human Rights Centre

1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 2. Established efficient mechanism for monitoring

the institutions that apply coercive procedural measure and preventive measures.

6.4.2. Develop the technical-material basis and infrastructure in accordance with European standards in all places of freedom deprivation

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Finance Prosecutor general’s



Corruption Ministry of Health Ministry of Social

Protection and Family Ministry of Education

1. Increased volume of financial resources; 2. New buildings erected and old ones renovated; 3. Implemented modern technical means ensuring torture prevention.


69

6.4.3. Strengthening capacities of institutions’ representatives responsible of deprivation of freedom (police, penitentiary system, CCECC, psychiatric institutions, psycho-neurological boarding homes and asylums) to prevent and combat torture and ill-treatment

Human Rights Centre National Mechanism

for Torture Prevention

1. Accomplished continuous monitoring of places of detention; 2. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 3. Established internal units monitoring the observance of human rights, directly subordinated to the institutions; 4. Accomplished announced inspections in places of detentions; 5. Strengthened national mechanism for torture prevention; 6. Trained personnel of the national mechanism for torture prevention.

6.4.4. Create a standardized system and protected against manipulation of records and registration concerning the apprehension, arrest and detention

Prosecutor General Office



Corruption Ministry of Justice

1. Developed and implemented new system of recording and registration; 2. Trained personnel responsible for recording and registration concerning apprehension, arrest and detention; 3. Control and monitoring system for recording and registration process - developed and applied

6.4.5. Fighting efficiently against acts of torture and ill-treatment

Prosecutor General Office



Corruption Human Rights Centre National Mechanism

for Torture Prevention Ministry of Justice

1. Relevant legal framework - standardized; 2. Amended criminal punishments for acts of torture; 3. Improved documentation mechanism concerning mistreatment; 4. Increased involvement of victims in the examination of mistreatment cases; 5. Conducted training on how to investigate cases of ill-treatment; 6. Accomplished awareness raising campaigns about absolute interdiction of torture.

6.4.6. Create effective mechanisms to rehabilitate victims of torture and ill-treatment

Ministry of Finance National Mechanism

for Torture Prevention Ministry of Health Ministry of Labour,


1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and adopted; 2. Created fund for rehabilitation of victims and allocated necessary resources; 3. The number of people who have benefitted of rehabilitation services.


70

Ministry of Justice

Expected outcomes: • Shared, recognized and promoted culture of zero tolerance for acts of maltreatment; • Improved mechanism for the application of coercive procedural measures and preventive measures; • Places of pre-trial detention and other places of detention – meet international standards.

6.5. Strengthening the probation system and penitentiary system Probation system of the Republic of Moldova was created back in 2007 with the creation of the Central Probation Office, but even until today we don't have a strengthened and effective system. Lack of efficiency of probation system is determined by several factors, such as: lack of capacity of probation counsellors and Central Probation Office, including skills, competencies and training; inefficient mechanism for continuous training; society is not involved to the necessary extent in the probation activity; formal institutional autonomy; lack of cooperation between probation and penitentiary sub-sectors; incomplete regulations regarding post-care services; insufficient human resources and other factors. Due to this situation, there is need to introduce a modern concept of probation to ensure a balance between community safety and the need for offenders' rehabilitation in society, it is also necessary to amend legislation in this regard.

Penitentiary system remains a problem in Moldova, f being continuously under-funded for over 20 years. The evaluation report mentioned the following shortcomings of the penitentiary system: "overcrowded detention institutions; generally poor detention conditions (sanitation, hygiene, food); hardly accessible working, educational and social activities; medical and psychological assistance under required level; unsafe environment and poor discipline, persistent criminal sub-culture, facilitated by the high occupancy and accommodation of prisoners in the bedroom type of cells; inadequate scheme of detention facilities, escort and logistical arrangements. " Another problem is the recruitment form in penitentiary system, which is usually done unilaterally, as most of personnel come from police and preserving their military ranks.

Intervention measures proposed in this Strategy will be directed to: review employment and recruitment policy in penitentiary system and comprehensive demilitarization of penitentiary system; develop and implement policies of rehabilitation and social integration, including individual planning of executing the punishment and creating an advanced progressive system of detention; promotion and implementation of ethical standards within the penitentiary system and probation system.

Deadlines


71


24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



6.5.1. Introducing a modern probation concept to contribute to community safety through effective rehabilitation of offenders in the society

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Labour,


Ministry of Education

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated; 2. Draft amending the legal framework - developed and adopted. 3. System of performance indicators correlated with new system of performance indicators for the justice sector.

6.5.2. Ensuring institutional autonomy of the probation service



1. An developed and adopted draft amending the legal framework; 2. Revised personnel’ scheme; 3. Reorganized probation service.

6.5.3. Ensuring continuity of the individualized probation process starting with the pre-trial stage and ending with post-detention assistance services


Social Protection and Family Courts

Local public authorities National Institute of

Justice

1. Developed and adopted draft amending the legal framework; 2. Developed and implemented programs and mechanism of individualized treatment of probation beneficiaries; 3. Developed training curriculum; 4. Trained probation counsellors, prosecutors and judges.

6.5.4. Strengthening partnerships between the probation service and other public or private organisations, members of civil society, families and communities to promote rehabilitation and social inclusion

Ministry of Justice 1. Active role of probation counsellors for use of partnerships between the probation service with other public or private organisations, members of civil society, families and communities - promoted; 2. Active involvement of nongovernmental organisations in the rehabilitation and reintegration activity.

6.5.5. Strengthening the system of submission and review of complaints regarding the activity of probation services and penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice 1. Study conducted and recommendations formulated; 2. Developed and adopted draft amending the legal framework.


72

6.5.6. Revising the employment policy and recruitment system for penitentiary institutions comprehensive demilitarization of the penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice 1. Study conducted and recommendations formulated; 2. Developed and adopted draft amending the legal framework; 3. Accomplished demilitarization of the penitentiary system.

6.5.7. Promoting and implementing ethical standards within the probation services and penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice

Ethical standards / codes - developed, adopted and implemented.

6.5.8. Developing and implementing rehabilitation and social integration policies, including through individual planning of sentence execution, participation of detainees in cognitive-behavioural programmes and creation of a progressive advanced regime of detention

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Education Ministry of Labour,


1. Study conducted and recommendations formulated; 2. Rehabilitation and social integration policies - revised and implemented; 3. Established mechanism for individual planning of sentence execution.

6.5.9. Providing educational, occupational and other social activities for detainees



Ministry of Education

1. Educational, occupational and other social activities for detainees - developed; 2. Developed and adopted draft amending the legal framework; 3. Applied mechanisms to stimulate the occupational activities; 4. Established mechanism for monitoring the implementation of educational, occupational and other social activities.

Expected outcomes:

• Modernized, streamlined and strengthened probation system and penitentiary system; • Increased capacity of the probation offices to manage and supervise performance of probation counsellors; • Increased capacity of the National Institute of Justice in the field of initial and ongoing training for probation counsellors; • Strengthened social inclusion capacity of ex-convicts and the number of repeated offences reduced; • Conditions in the penitentiary institutions meet the international standards.


73

PILLAR 7. A well coordinated, well managed, and accountable justice sector

Specific objective: coordination, determination and delimitation of powers and responsibilities of key stakeholders in the justice sector, as well as ensuring inter-sectoral dialogue

Actions aimed at creating and building a well coordinated, managed and responsible justice sector will be focused on three strategic directions: 7.1. Coordination of justice sector stakeholders; strategic planning and policy development; 7.2. Harmonization of institutional and legal framework in justice sector with European standards; 7.3.Coordination of external donors' assistance.

7.1. Coordination of justice sector stakeholders; strategic planning and policy development

Specificity of the justice sector lies in the impossibility to implement coherent reform policies and strategies in the absence of a coordination. The evaluation report found significant deficiencies in national efforts to coordinate large-scale sector reform, which could be caused by the following factors: somehow precipitated style of policy development; short-term rather than the longer-term perspective of the initiatives of institutional regulation and review; lack of full awareness and provision of budgetary implications of planned reforms; lack of consultations with a wide group of partners in the implementation of reforms, including private sector and civil society; rather ambivalent attitude of the judiciary, community of lawyers or other sector associations towards possibly more active role and greater influence in policy-making; lack of capacity of partners within the sector to make contributions to the common strategy of reforming the sector by developing strategic chapters for each sub-sector.

Only a well coordinated reform can provide systemic and sustainable changes in the justice system, provided in specific intervention areas of the Strategy. To ensure viability of the reform it is necessary to maintain a constant dialogue and interaction between various justice sector actors and their capacity building and strategic planning skills necessary for plenary involvement in reform implementation process and react quickly to any possible impediments in this process. It is necessary to ensure that every institution of the sector will become a responsible participant of the reform, who will recognize the need of interventions from the Strategy and will provide all necessary support through consultation and expertise, possible thanks to the experience within distinct areas of the sector, in order to ensure the speed and efficiency within each pillar; will be responsible for achieving general and specific objectives of the reform not only before the professional or corporate institutions, but also before the entire society. To this end, it is necessary to create a mechanism for coordination and monitoring over reform; improving the coordination of development and public debates on the


74

draft regulatory acts, including by involving in this process various institutions and professions in the sector; strengthening skills and capacities for strategic planning not only of the Ministry of Justice' employees, but also of the representatives of the entire sector; ensuring the cooperation of these institutions in planning, development, implementation and monitoring of measures and decisions made in specific areas of interventions, by providing an efficient exchange of information among all sector institutions.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



7.1.1. Strengthening the role of the National Council for the reforming the bodies of law enforcement in order to ensure effective dialogue between justice sector stakeholders

Justice sector stakeholders

1. Number of meetings of the National Council for the reforming the bodies of law enforcement. 2. Number of documents debated within the Council’s meetings. 3. Number of reports issued by the sector groups for monitoring the relevant pillars of the Strategy 4. Number of the public reports of the National Council on carrying out the Strategy.

7.1.2. Establish and support working groups under the Ministry of Justice to coordinate and monitor the implementation of each Pillar of the Strategy

Ministry of Justice and relevant actors of

the justice sector

1. Working groups - established; 2. The monitoring mechanism - set out and implemented; 3. Working groups members - trained.

7.1.3. Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Justice to interact with justice sector stakeholders, including by reorganization of the unit responsible for strategic planning and monitoring within the Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Justice State Chancellery

1. Performed analysis of functions and structure; 3. Developed and adopted draft normative acts; 2. Reviewed regulation, organization and staff; 4. Internal incentive systems – applied; 5. Staff - trained.

7.1.4. Develop the capacity of each institution involved in the reform of the justice sector to take part in the reform

Ministry of Justice and actors of the justice

sector

1. Functions and structure analysis - completed; 2. Operational regulations - amended; 3. Staff - trained.

7.1.5. Create conditions for ongoing collaboration between representatives of the units in charge of strategic planning and


sector

1. Persons in charge of strategic planning and monitoring - appointed and trained; 2. Regular joint meetings - organized and conducted.


75

monitoring within the institutions of the justice sector 7.1.6. Establish and maintain a system for collecting, analyzing and exchanging relevant information among key institutions of the justice sector


sector

The system for collecting, analyzing and exchanging relevant information among key institutions of the justice sector - set up and implemented.

Expected outcomes:

• Strengthened capacity of the Ministry of Justice for interacting, strategic planning and monitoring; • Strengthened capacity of the justice sector stakeholders for strategic planning, monitoring and active involvement in the reform; • Enhanced efficiency of the mutual information exchange between stakeholders of the justice sector; • Coordinated justice sector reform and its implementation monitored.

7.2. Harmonization of institutional and legal framework in justice sector with European standards In order to establish a well coordinated, managed and accountable justice sector it is necessary to create legislative and institutional framework that contributes to its compatibility with European standards. This would contribute to solving problems of legal higher education, quality of the drafting regulation process, limited access of the society to legal information and contradictions of national legislation with Community law.

The main areas of intervention aimed at harmonization of the institutional and legal framework of the justice sector with European standards will focus on: improving training programs within the law faculties; improving the quality of drafting normative acts in order to ensure stability, predictability and clarity of legislation; enhancing public access to normative acts by ensuring better quality and accessibility of official legal data bases; improving the process of bringing the national legislation in line with EU legislation.


months 24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



7.2.1. Assess and improve the quality of higher law education in Moldova in light of compliance with European good practices and Bologna principles, including by ensuring a uniform law university

Ministry of Education Ministry of Internal

Affairs Security and

Intelligence Service National Institute of

1. External assessments performed and recommendations developed; 2. Teaching staff trained; 3. Higher law education curriculum amended, standardized and implemented.


76

curriculum for law faculties Justice Higher education

institutions 7.2.2. Improve legislative drafting process in order to ensure stability, predictability and clarity of legislation

Ministry of Justice State Chancellery

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated; 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted; 3. Ex-ante analysis implemented effectively; 4. Staff involved in legislation development trained.

7.2.3. Increase public access to normative acts (database)

Ministry of Justice E-Governance Centre

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated; 2. Revised and accessible database of normative acts.

7.2.4. Improve the process of bringing national legislation in line with EU legislation

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and European Integration

State Chancellery

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated; 2. Developed and adopted draft amending the legal framework; 3. Strengthened institutional capacity of the Legislative Approximation Centre; 4. Trained staff involved in the process of bringing national legislation in line with EU legislation.

Expected outcomes:

• Prerequisites for improving higher law education in Moldova - created; • Higher quality of draft normative acts; • Public access to normative databases - increased; • Relevant national legislation brought in line with EU legislation.

7.3. Coordination of external donors' assistance and exchange of information with nongovernmental sector Until recently, one of the major deficiencies related to the coordination of external donors’ assistance has been the absence of public consultations within the justice sector, that would ensure a permanent dialogue between donors and international institutions that develop projects in the justice sector and to contribute to systemic and coordinated targeting the donors’ assistance to areas most in need and prevent duplication of donors’ assistance. Although the Ministry of Justice has already established a permanent forum for coordination of donors’ assistance, it is further necessary to strengthen this institution and its adaptation for coordinating external donors’ assistance through its focused targeting in order to achieve the goals and implementation of intervention measures established by the Strategy. It is also necessary to create a network for exchange of information between representatives of the nongovernmental sector, operating in the justice sector, to harmonize and unify efforts and focus them on objectives, provided by


77

the Strategy. These two coordination mechanisms must have an integrated and interconnected nature to ensure a high level of synergy in the implementation of the Strategy, prevent duplication and fragmentation of donors’ assistance and in order to strengthen the efforts of non-governmental representatives in reforming the justice sector.

Deadlines


24 months

36 months

48 months

60 months



7.3.1. Establish and maintain a coordinated mechanism of cooperation with external donors in the justice sector with a view of implementing the Strategy

Ministry of Justice 1. The mechanism of cooperation with external donors - adopted; 2. Regular meetings with external donors - organized and held.

7.3.2. Establish an information exchange framework between non-governmental sector and stakeholders of the justice sector with a view of implementing the Strategy

Ministry of Justice Stakeholders of the

justice sector

1. The information exchange framework - created and implemented; 2. Regular meetings of the non-governmental sector’ representatives and stakeholders of the justice sector - organized and held.

Expected outcomes:

• Donors’ assistance is better coordinated, focused and targeted towards priority directions of the justice sector; • Efficient coordination between the stakeholders of the justice sector and the non-governmental sector involved in reforming the justice sector.


78

PART 6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of the SJSR implies a range of costs and financial expenditures required for attaining the set objectives. The Action Plan for Strategy implementation to be developed shall also include data on the required financial and human resources. Financial sources for the implementation of the Strategy will be as follows:

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

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

To assure internal consistency in the financing of the entire justice sector, the costs related to the implementation of the SJSR will be correlated with the provisions of the MTEF for 2012-2014.


79

PART 7. ANALYSIS OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION RISKS

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

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

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

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


80

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

Date post:	03-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Draft for public consultations - gov.md · them being: Strategy for the Judiciary Consolidation 1,...

Documents