Draft for public consultations
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”
1
Draft for public consultations
Annex
STRATEGY
FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM
2011-2015
Chisinau 2011
2
Draft for public consultations
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
3
Draft for public consultations
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
4
Draft for public consultations
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.
5
Draft for public consultations
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.
6
Draft for public consultations
Part 1. THE REFORM CONTEXT AND THE DETERMINING FACTORS
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 childfriendly 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
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
2
7
Draft for public consultations
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 Low level of public confidence in the justice
societatii
system
Aspiratiile Republicii Moldova de integrare in Aspirations of the Republic of Moldova regarding
Uniunea Europeana
its integration in the EU
Factorii determinanti ai reformelor in sectorul The reform determining factors of the justice
justitiei
sector
`Perceperea quasi generala a gradului inalt de The quasi-general perception of the high degree
raspindire a coruptiei in sectorul justitiei
of corruption of the justice sector
8
Draft for public consultations
Crearea unui mediu favorabil pentru cresterea Creation of a favourable environment for
economica si a investitiilor
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
9
Draft for public consultations
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
10
Draft for public consultations
Part 2. STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
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
Approve the working
group membership
designated to develop
the draft of the
Strategy
Phase 2
Discuss the draft
Strategy within the
sectorial working groups
created by the Ministry
of Justice.
Consult the draft
Strategy with key
Phase 3
Submit the revised draft
Strategy (revised version)
to the Government
CNROOND.
Debate the draft within
CNROOND.
Phase 4
Submit the draft Strategy
(version approved by the
Government) for review
and debates to the
Parliament.
Adopt the Strategy by the
Parliament.
11
Draft for public consultations
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).
institutions of the justice
sector and civil society.
Approve the draft
Strategy by the
Government.
Public debates in the
draft Strategy (second
round of debates).
Revise the draft based on
feedback and
recommendations
received.
Launch the first round
of debates on the draft
Strategy.
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.
12
Draft for public consultations
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.
13
Draft for public consultations
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 THE STRATEGIC
DIRECTIONS
The justice sector reform is supposed to rely on seven fundamental pillars: (Figure 4)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
the judicial system;
the criminal justice;
access to justice and execution of court decisions;
the integrity of actors operating in the justice sector;
The role of the justice system in economic development;
Respect for human rights in the justice sector;
Ensuring a good coordination and management of the justice sector and its accountability.
Figure 3. Pillars of the justice sector reform
14
Draft for public consultations
The justice sector reform
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 I
THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM
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
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
15
Draft for public consultations
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.
7.2.
7.3.
Coordination of activities undertaken by all actors in the justice system; strategic planning and development of policies
Harmonization of the institutional and legal frameworks of the justice system with the European standards
Coordination of external donor assistance
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.
16
Draft for public consultation
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 selfadministration 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;
17
Draft for public consultation
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
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.
1.1.2.Ensure access to a
judicial system that is
affordable
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Indicators of the implementation status
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.
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
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
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
The Courts
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.
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
The Courts
Ministry of Finance
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. 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
18
Draft for public consultation
with respect to court
administration, strategic
analysis of budgeting issues
National Institute of
Justice
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Justice
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
1.1.7. 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
Superior Council of
Magistrates
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. 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. 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.
19
Draft for public consultation
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
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Ministry of Justice
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.
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
Justice
1.1.10. Optimize and
strengthen the legal framework
of the judicial system (develop
a unified Law to regulate the
judiciary)
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
1.1.11 Enhance the security of
court premises
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
the Magistracy
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of
Constructions and
Regional
Development
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
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. 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. Study developed and recommendations
formulated;;
2. Unified legal framework;
3. Draft Law developed and adopted.
1. Draft amendments to the regulatory
framework prepared and adopted;
2. Security equipment installed
3. Enhanced security of court premises
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
20
Draft for public consultation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
21
Draft for public consultation
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.
Specific intervention areas
1.2.1. Increased transparency of the
judiciary self administration
mechanisms and of the institutions of
the judiciary self administration
Deadlines
12 24 36
48
mo m mon mo
nth on ths
nth
s
th
s
s
60
mo
nth
s
Responsible institution
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Indicators of the implementation status
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
22
Draft for public consultation
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.
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
National Institute of
Justice
The courts
General Prosecutors
Office
Center for Special
Telecommunications
Center for e-government
1.2.3. Revise procedural rules, as
necessary to streamline and enhance
transparency and efficiency of the
judicial process.
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
Justice
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. Study developed and recommendations
formulated;
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
23
Draft for public consultation
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
1.2.5. 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
Ministry of Justice
Supreme Court of
Justice
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.
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
The courts
National Institute of
Justice
Ministry of Justice
and rules governing delays in examination of
ongoing cases
6. Computer-based mechanism for verifying the
duration of case examination, developed and
implemented.
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. 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. 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.
24
Draft for public consultation
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.
25
Draft for public consultation
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.
26
Draft for public consultation
Specific intervention areas
Deadlines
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
1.3.1. Reforming the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) and
making its operations more
efficient.
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Unions of liberal
professions of the
justice sector
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
National Institute of
Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Ministry of Justice
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. 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
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
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
27
Draft for public consultation
1.3.4 Unifying the system of
accession into the profession
Superior Council of
the Magistracy
National Institute of
Justice
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
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
National Institute of
Justice
Unions of liberal
professions of the
justice sector
1.3.6. Establish mechanisms for
measuring performance of the
judicial system through
feedback from the litigants
Superior Council of
Magistrates
1.3.7. Strengthen the role of
judicial inspection and
clarification of its powers.
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
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.
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
1. Draft amendments to the regulatory
framework developed and adopted
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. 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. Methodology developed
2. Surveys on performance appraisals
3. Survey results analyzed and published
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. 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;
28
Draft for public consultation
1.3.9. Reform the system of
judge immunity, to ensure a
strictly functional immunity
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
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
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
Justice
4. The new mechanism referring to the
examination of disciplinary accountability has
been implemented.
1Study developed and recommendations
formulated;;
2. Draft amendments to the regulatory
framework developed and adopted;
3. Reformed system for granting Immunity to
judges .
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”.
29
Draft for public consultation
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
2.1.1.
Optimizing
the
institutional, organizational and
functional framework of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs
24
36
48
60
12
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Indicators of the implementation status
1. Implemented Concept of the reform of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs;
2. Draft amendments to the regulatory
framework developed and adopted.
30
Draft for public consultation
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
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
Ministry of Justice
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Customs Service
Center for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Intelligence Service
2.1.4. Streamlining the
operative investigation and
criminal investigation
procedures
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.
Ministry of Justice
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
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.
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.
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.
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
31
Draft for public consultation
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.
Specific intervention areas
Deadlines
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
32
Draft for public consultation
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
Ministry of Justice
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
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
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
2.2.3. Enhancing the capacities
and independence of the
Superior Council of Prosecutors
to ensure an efficient
administration of the
prosecutor’s service.
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
Justice
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.
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.
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.
Ministry of Justice
General Prosecutor’s
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
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
1. Study developed and recommendations
formulated;;
2. Draft amendments to the regulatory
framework developed and adopted;
3.Specialization system for prosecutors put in
place
33
Draft for public consultation
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.
2.2.7 Review the 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
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
2.2.10. Re-examination of
accountability rules for
prosecutors and exclusion of
general immunity of
prosecutors
Justice
4. Specialization trainings for prosecutors
5.Modified structure of the prosecutor’s
office bodies.
Superior Council of
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
1. Study developed and recommendations
formulated;;
2. Draft amendments to the regulatory
framework developed and adopted.
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Ministry of Justice
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
2. Draft amendments to the regulatory
framework developed and adopted
3. Revised funding mechanism for the
prosecutorial service
1. Study developed and
recommendations formulated;
2. Developed and adopted draft
amendments to the regulatory
framework;
3. Demilitarized prosecutorial service
1. Study developed and recommendations
formulated;;
2. Draft amendments to the regulatory
framework developed and adopted.
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Ministry of Justice
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
1. Study developed and recommendations
formulated;;
2. Developed and adopted draft amendments
to the regulatory framework.
34
Draft for public consultation
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
Specific intervention areas
2.3.1. Implementation of modern
methods of criminal
investigation and prosecution
(information technologies,
modern expertise, etc.)
Deadlines
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institutions
Indicators of the implementation status
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.
35
Draft for public consultation
2.3.2. Enhancing professional
capacities of persons involved in
criminal investigation and
prosecution activities.
Economic Crimes
and Corruption
Customs Service
Information and
Security Service
National Institute
of Justice
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Information and
Security Service
Centre for
Combating
Economic Crimes
and Corruption
Customs Service
General
Prosecutor’s Office
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
Economic Crimes
and Corruption
2.3.4. Promoting the creation, in
case of necessity, of
interdepartmental teams for higher
efficiency of criminal prosecution
(“task-force” groups)
General
Prosecutor’s Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for
1. Training curricula developed and
implemented;
2. Trainings carried out for persons involved
in criminal investigation and prosecution
activities.
1. Study developed and
recommendations formulated;
2. Draft amendments to the legal
framework developed and adopted
3. Reformed centers for judicial
expertise
1. Amendments carried out to the regulatory
framework;
2. Interdepartmental norms developed and
implemented.
36
Draft for public consultation
2.3.5. Improving the professional
skills of the pre-judicial phase
actors through the latter’s
specialization.
•
•
•
Combating
Economic Crimes
and Corruption
Customs Service
General
Prosecutor’s Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for
Combating
Economic Crimes
and Corruption
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 prejudicial 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.
37
Draft for public consultation
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.
Specific intervention areas
2.4.1. Electronic recording and
filing of offences. Consider
the possibility of electronic
data dissemination
Deadlines
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Customs Service
Indicators of the implementation status
1. Study developed and
recommendations formulated;
2. Draft amendments to the legal
framework developed and adopted
3. Developed and implemented system
for electronic filing and recording of
offences.
38
Draft for public consultation
2.4.2. Revised and uniform
methods for collection and
processing of statistical data
related to criminal justice and
ensure database interoperability.
2.4.3. Modification of
performance indicators for
bodies involved in criminal
justice execution and their
staff to ensure the observance
of human rights.
Centre for Special
Telecommunications
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Customs Service
Information and
Security Service
National Bureau of
Statistics
Ministry of Justice
Supreme Court of
Justice
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Customs Service
1. Study developed and recommendations
formulated;;
2. Modified and unified process for
statistical data collection and processing in
criminal justice.
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.
39
Draft for public consultation
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.
Specific areas of intervention
Deadlines
24
36
48
60
12
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
2.5.1. Liberalization of penal
policies by using non-custodial
sanctions and preventive
measures for certain types of
persons and offences
Ministry of Justice
General Prosecutor’s
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.
Ministry of Justice
General Prosecutor’s
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
40
Draft for public consultation
2.5.3. Strengthen the human
rights protection mechanism
General Prosecutor’s
Office
National Institute of
Justice
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
41
Draft for public consultation
PILLAR 3. Access to justice and enforcement of judgments
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.
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.
Specific intervention areas
3.1.1. Strengthening
organizational and management
capacities of the legal aid
system
Deadlines
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
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
42
Draft for public consultation
CNAJGS
system needs.
3.1.2. Improving the quality
and accessibility of legal aid
services (criminal and nonpenal 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,
Social Protection and
Family
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;
43
• accessible, diversified and qualitative legal aid services;
• Higher level of legal culture.
• Functional mechanisms for primary legal aid
Draft for public consultation
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.
Specific intervention areas
3.2.1. Encouraging capacity
building for representatives of
justice related professions, at
the level of professional unions,
with special focus on
management capacities
Deadlines
24
36
48
60
12
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
Ministry of Justice
1. Study on the functioning of each
Professional selfprofession developed, recommendations
administration bodies 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.
44
Draft for public consultation
3.2.2. Developing quality
standards for services provided
by representatives of justice
related professions
3.2.3. Initiation and
development of integrated,
clear and precise mechanisms
for criteria and methods of
calculation of payments for
services
3.2.4. Establishing clear,
transparent and merit-based
criteria for accession into the
profession, with input also from
civil society representatives
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
3.2.6. Promotion and
implementation of ethical
standards for justice related
professions
3.2.7. Strengthening the
professional liability insurance
system
3.2.8. Strengthening the
disciplinary mechanisms
Ministry of Justice
1. Quality assurance standards developed and
Professional selfadopted;
administration bodies 2. Quality assurance mechanisms developed
and implemented.
Ministry of Justice
1. Study on the current mechanisms
Ministry of Finance developed, recommendations formulated;
Ministry of Economy 2. Recommendations and/or regulations for
Professional selfdetermining payments for services administration bodies developed and adopted.
Ministry of Justice
1. Study on access to each profession
Professional selfdeveloped, recommendations formulated;
administration bodies 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework
developed and approved.
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
Justice
Professional selfadministration bodies
1. Initial and continuous training programme
developed and implemented (for each
profession);
2. Initial and continuous trainings conducted.
Ministry of Justice
Standards/codes of ethics developed, adopted
Professional selfand implemented for each profession.
administration bodies
Ministry of Justice
1. Comparative study on liability insurance
Professional selfmodels – developed, recommendations
administration bodies formulated;
2. Professional liability insurance system
implemented;
3. Monitoring mechanism for the professional
liability insurance system established.
Ministry of Justice
1. Study developed and recommendations
Professional selfformulated;
45
Draft for public consultation
administration bodies 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework
developed and adopted;
3. Disciplinary mechanisms in place for each
profession.
Ministry of Justice
1. Study developed and
Ministry of Finance
recommendations formulated;
Ministry of Labor,
2. Draft amendments to the legal
Social Protection and
framework developed and adopted
Family
3. Guidelines developed regarding the
Ministry of Health,
tax, social security and medical
Professional selfinsurance regime for justice sector
administration bodies
related professions.
3.2.9 Establishing a unified tax,
social security and medical
insurance regime for justice
sector related professions
Expected Outcomes:
• Justice related professions (lawyers, notaries, mediators, bailiffs, legal experts, administrators
translators/interpreters) are independent, able to organize themselves and provide quality services;
• Professional liability insurance system and disciplinary mechanisms are improved.
of
insolvency
proceedings,
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.
Specific intervention areas
Deadlines
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
46
Draft for public consultation
3.3.1. Impact assessment of the
current regulatory framework
and
the
implementing
mechanism for enforcement of
judgments
3.3.2. Strengthening the
institutional and functional
capacity of the newly created
system of private bailiffs
3.3.3. Improving information
management and
communication system by
providing access to databases
3.3.4. Ensuring compliance
with reasonable time limits in
the enforcement of judgments
3.3.5.
Improving
the
mechanism for recognition and
enforcement of foreign court
judgments
Ministry of Justice
National Union of
Bailiffs
1. Impact assessment carried out;
2. Draft amendments to the legal framework
developed and adopted.
Ministry of Justice
Bailiffs’ Union
1. Draft amendments to the legal framework
developed and adopted;
2. Bailiffs’ self-administration bodies created
and strengthened.
1. Creating and adopting the legal framework
to ensure access to databases;
2. Access to databases will be provided.
Ministry of Justice
Bailiffs’ Union
Database managing
authorities
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Finance
Bailiffs’ Union
Ministry of Justice
Bailiffs’ Union
The mechanism for ensuring compliance with
reasonable time limits in the enforcement of
judgments developed and adopted.
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.
47
Draft for public consultation
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 selfadministration 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
48
Draft for public consultation
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
Specific intervention areas
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
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,
Social Protection and
Family
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
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Superior Council of
Magistrates
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
Ministry of Justice
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
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.
24
36
48
60
12
months months months months months
49
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
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
4.1.6. Implementation of the
mechanism for verification of
candidates to the position of judge,
prosecutors and criminal
investigators, using a polygraph
Draft for public consultation
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Prosecutor General’s
Office
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
National Institute of
Justice
Police Academy
Union of Lawyers
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Information and
Intelligence Service
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Prosecutor General’s
Office
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Ministry of Justice
Customs Service
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
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.
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.
50
4.1.7. Enhancing the capacities of
units responsible for ensuring
internal security
Draft for public consultation
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Prosecutor General’s
Office
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Ministry of Internal
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.
51
Draft for public consultation
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
Responsible
12
24
36
48
60
institution
months months months months months
4.2.1.
Standardization
and
Ministry of Justice
refinement of ethical standards for
Centre for Combating
all actors of the justice sector
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Superior Council of
Magistrates
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
State Chancellery
Unions of professions
related to the justice
sector
4.2.2. Regular training of justice
sector actors in the field of
professional ethics
4.2.3. Improving the mechanisms
and capacity building of bodies
responsible for observing
professional ethics
National Institute of
Justice
Police Academy
“Stefan Cel Mare”
Ministry of Justice
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Unions of professions
related to the justice
sector
Indicators of the implementation status
Improving and standardizing the provisions of
codes of ethics
1. Training courses – organized and conducted;
2. Justice sector actors – trained in professional
ethics.
1. Draft amendments to the legal framework –
developed and adopted;
2. Number and results of disciplinary proceedings.
52
4.2.4. Public awareness campaigns
on the professional ethics of justice
sector actors
4.2.5. Involving the society in
monitoring the compliance with the
professional ethics of justice sector
actors
Draft for public consultation
Ministry of Justice
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Unions of professions
related to the justice
sector
Public media outlets
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Prosecutor General’s
Office
Supreme Court of
Justice
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Unions of professions
related to the justice
sector
Number of conducted public awareness campaigns
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.
53
Draft for public consultation
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 nontraditional 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.
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
4.3.1. Conduct periodic training for
justice sector actors on combating
corruption
4.3.2.
Encouraging
regular
voluntary testing at the polygraph
(especially by decision makers in
the justice system)
8
Responsible
institution
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
National Institute of
Justice
Police Academy
“Stefan Cel Mare”
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Indicators of the implementation status
1. Curriculum developed;
2. Trainings conducted and number of trained
actors.
1. Measures to encourage regular voluntary testing
at the polygraph – developed and applied;
2. Number of voluntary tests conducted.
Parliamentary Decision no. 53 of 30 October 2009
54
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
4.3.4.
Strengthening
the
whistleblower regime (inside and
outside the system)
4.3.5. Publication and mediatisation
of court decisions on sentencing
justice sector actors for corruption
Draft for public consultation
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Supreme Court of
Justice
Superior Council of
Prosecutors
General Prosecutor’s
Office
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
NGOs
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Ministry of Justice
A draft amending the legal framework – drafted and
adopted.
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.
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.
55
Draft for public consultation
56
Draft for public consultation
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
57
Draft for public consultation
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
Specific intervention areas
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
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
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Courts
National Institute of
Justice
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
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Mediation Council
Chamber of Commerce
and Industry
Union of Lawyers
National Institute of
Justice
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
Indicators of the implementation status
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.
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.
1. Public information campaigns to promote
benefits of using alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms – conducted;
2. Information campaigns for justice sector actors –
58
Draft for public consultation
community, academia and the
judiciary and conducting
campaigns for information and
dissemination of information about
alternative mechanisms
5.1.4. Establishing / improving the
mechanisms of recognition and
enforcement of judgments issued
by foreign arbitration courts
Justice
Ministry of Justice
Union of Lawyers
conducted;
3. Promotional materials on alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms – developed and distributed;
4. Public mediatisation events conducted.
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
59
Draft for public consultation
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.
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
5.2.1. Creating the necessary
regulatory framework for the
efficient organisation and
functioning of the administrators of
insolvency procedure
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
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
Ministry of Justice
A draft amending the regulatory framework –
developed and adopted.
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
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.
60
Draft for public consultation
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
Specific intervention areas
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
5.3.1. Modernising the system of
electronic registration of economic
agents
Ministry of Economy
Ministry of Justice
E-Governance Centre
5.3.2. Creating a unified electronic
registry for the registration of
economic agents and non-profit
organizations
5.3.3. Providing free access to
information from electronic
registries of economic agents and eservices supply by registries’
holders
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.
1. Study conducted and recommendations
formulated;
2. Single electronic registry – created and
implemented.
The system of access to information from electronic
registries of economic agents – changed.
24
36
48
60
12
months months months months months
Ministry of Economy
Ministry of Justice
E-Governance Centre
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.
61
Draft for public consultation
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
62
Draft for public consultation
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
Specific intervention areas
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
6.1.1. Reviewing the composition
and criteria for selecting judges to
the Constitutional Court
Ministry of Justice
Constitutional Court
6.1.2. Reviewing the procedures for
reviewing the notifications by the
Constitutional Court
Ministry of Justice
Constitutional Court
6.1.3. Reviewing the range of
entities entitled to appeal to the
Constitutional Court and the appeal
review procedure
6.1.4. Strengthening the
professional competences of
Constitutional Court’s employees
necessary to ensure high quality of
documents submitted for
examination
Ministry of Justice
Constitutional Court
National Institute of
Justice
Constitutional Court
Indicators of the implementation status
1. Criteria for selection of judges to the
Constitutional Court - established;
2. A draft amending the regulatory framework –
drafted and adopted.
1. Accomplished study and formulated
recommendations
2. A draft amending the regulatory framework –
drafted and adopted.
1. Study conducted and recommendations
formulated;
2. Regulatory framework amended.
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
63
Draft for public consultation
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.
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
24
36
48
60
12
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
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
6.2.2. Assessment of real needs for
appropriate funding of the
ombudsperson institution
Ministry of Justice
Human Rights Centre
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
Human Rights Centre
Ministry of Finance
Indicators of the implementation status
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.
1. Analysis conducted and recommendations
formulated;
2. A draft amending the regulatory framework –
drafted and adopted;
3. Appropriate funding mechanism for the
institution - established.
1. Mechanism for communication with other
institutions - established;
2. Personnel trained.
64
Draft for public consultation
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.
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
6.3.1. Ensuring specialization of the
justice system for children
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status and
impact
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Ministry of Justice
Prosecutor General’s
Office
Ministry of Internal
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;
65
6.3.2. Strengthening the instruments
for protecting in criminal
proceedings the children victims
and witnesses of crimes
6.3.3. Strengthening the juvenile
probation system
6.3.4. Ensuring the observance of
the rights of children in detention
Draft for public consultation
Mediation Council
National Institute of
Justice
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Finance
National Council for
Protection of
Children’s Rights
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
CNAJGS
Ministry of Labour,
Social Protection and
Family
Ministry of Health
National Council for
Protection of
Children’s Rights
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Ministry of Justice
National Institute of
Justice
Ministry of Labour,
Social Protection and
Family
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Finance
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.
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.
1. Strengthened system of case management by
probation counsellors; functional reference of
beneficiaries to specialized services in community;
2. Developed and implemented psychologicalsocial 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.
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
66
Draft for public consultation
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
Ministry of Justice
Superior Council of
Magistrates
Prosecutor General’s
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Ministry of Labour,
Social Protection and
Family
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.
67
Draft for public consultation
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.
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
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
6.4.2. Develop the technicalmaterial basis and infrastructure in
accordance with European standards
in all places of freedom deprivation
24
36
48
60
12
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
Ministry of Justice
1. A draft amending the legal framework – drafted
Prosecutor General’s and adopted;
Office
2. Established efficient mechanism for monitoring
Ministry of Internal the institutions that apply coercive procedural
Affairs
measure and preventive measures.
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Supreme Court of
Justice
Human Rights Centre
Ministry of Justice
1. Increased volume of financial resources;
Ministry of Finance
2. New buildings erected and old ones renovated;
Prosecutor general’s
3. Implemented modern technical means ensuring
Office
torture prevention.
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Social
Protection and Family
Ministry of Education
68
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 illtreatment
6.4.4. Create a standardized system
and protected against manipulation
of
records
and
registration
concerning the apprehension, arrest
and detention
6.4.5. Fighting efficiently against
acts of torture and ill-treatment
6.4.6. Create effective mechanisms
to rehabilitate victims of torture and
ill-treatment
Draft for public consultation
Human Rights Centre
National Mechanism
for Torture Prevention
Prosecutor General
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Ministry of Justice
Prosecutor General
Office
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre for Combating
Economic Crimes and
Corruption
Human Rights Centre
National Mechanism
for Torture Prevention
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Finance
National Mechanism
for Torture Prevention
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Labour,
Social Protection and
Family
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.
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
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.
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.
69
Draft for public consultation
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
70
Specific intervention areas
Draft for public consultation
12
24
36
48
60
Responsible
months months months months months
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
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,
Social Protection and
Family
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
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Labour,
Social Protection and
Family
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
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Labour,
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.
71
6.5.6. Revising the employment
policy and recruitment system for
penitentiary institutions
comprehensive demilitarization of
the penitentiary system
6.5.7. Promoting and implementing
ethical standards within the
probation services and penitentiary
system
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
6.5.9. Providing educational,
occupational and other social
activities for detainees
Draft for public consultation
Ministry of Justice
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.
Ethical standards / codes - developed, adopted and
implemented.
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Labour,
Social Protection and
Family
1. Study conducted and recommendations
formulated;
2. Rehabilitation and social integration policies revised and implemented;
3. Established mechanism for individual planning of
sentence execution.
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Labour,
Social Protection and
Family
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.
72
Draft for public consultation
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
73
Draft for public consultation
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.
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
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
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
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
7.1.4. Develop the capacity of each
institution involved in the reform of
the justice sector to take part in the
reform
7.1.5. Create conditions for ongoing
collaboration between
representatives of the units in
charge of strategic planning and
Ministry of Justice
and relevant actors of
the justice sector
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.
1. Working groups - established;
2. The monitoring mechanism - set out and
implemented;
3. Working groups members - trained.
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
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.
Ministry of Justice
and actors of the justice
sector
1. Functions and structure analysis - completed;
2. Operational regulations - amended;
3. Staff - trained.
Ministry of Justice
and actors of the justice
sector
1. Persons in charge of strategic planning and
monitoring - appointed and trained;
2. Regular joint meetings - organized and
conducted.
74
Draft for public consultation
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
Ministry of Justice
and actors of the justice
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.
Deadlines
Specific intervention areas
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
24
36
48
60
12
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Security and
Intelligence Service
National Institute of
Indicators of the implementation status
1. External assessments performed and
recommendations developed;
2. Teaching staff trained;
3. Higher law education curriculum amended,
standardized and implemented.
75
Draft for public consultation
curriculum for law faculties
7.2.2. Improve legislative drafting
process in order to ensure stability,
predictability and clarity of
legislation
Justice
Higher education
institutions
Ministry of Justice
State Chancellery
7.2.3. Increase public access to
normative acts (database)
Ministry of Justice
E-Governance Centre
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. Draft amendments to the legal framework
developed and adopted;
3. Ex-ante analysis implemented effectively;
4. Staff involved in legislation development trained.
1. Study developed and recommendations
formulated;
2. Revised and accessible database of normative
acts.
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
76
Draft for public consultation
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
Specific intervention areas
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
7.3.2. Establish an information
exchange framework between nongovernmental sector and
stakeholders of the justice sector
with a view of implementing the
Strategy
12
24
36
48
60
months months months months months
Responsible
institution
Indicators of the implementation status
Ministry of Justice
1. The mechanism of cooperation with external
donors - adopted;
2. Regular meetings with external donors organized and held.
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.
77
Draft for public consultation
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.
78
Draft for public consultation
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
79
Draft for public consultation
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.
80