Inception Report-Assessment and Strategic Framework for Judicial Reforms

2
CONTENTS
Abbreviations and acronyms
1. Introduction and background
1.1 Background and context
1.2 Objectives and scope of the project
1.3 Project deliverables
2. Approach and methodology
Phase One
Impact Assessment of the Reform Initiatives for Enhancing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the
Judiciary in Turkey
2.1. Research and review of international and EU guidelines, standards and best practices
2.2. Initial meetings and relationships building
2.3. Desk review of legal framework, strategies, action plan, reports and documents
2.4. Defining issues and factors for focused assessment
2.5. Identifying international and EU standards and practices and Turkey obligations
2.6. Identifying and accessing existing sources of data
2.7. Methods ofcollection of own data
2.8. Data entry, management and quality
2.9. Analysis, synthesis and confirmation of data
2.10. Assessing institutionaland legal reforms, trends and markers for the future
2.11. Developing and refining Common Strategic Framework for responsive, effective, efficient and
functioning judiciary.
2.12. Developing performance standards and indicators for judiciary, individual courts and individual
judges
2.13. Identifying areas for improvements, engagement, cooperation and programming for immediate
actions,short term, medium term and long term
Phase Two
From Vision to Action-designing a Common Strategic Framework for reform monitoring and
evaluation
3.1. Incorporating the Common Strategic Framework into Judicial Reform Strategy and Action Plan
3.2. Developing evaluation questions/indicators for performance and progress measurement of judiciary,
individual courts and individual judges
3.3. Designing inclusive, transparent and sustainable reform process monitoring and evaluation mechanism
3.4. Designing a transparent and accountable monitoring Plan
3.5. Developing realistic and sustainable mechanism and benchmarks to address the backlog of pending
cases using international and European models
4. Work Plan

3
5. Logistic and support
ANNEX 1
Compendium of Project Tools
ANNEX 2
Work Plan for impact assessment
ANNEX 3
Performance Monitoring Matrices
ANNEX 4
Model Regulatory Impact Analysis
ANNEX 5
SIGMA standards for Compliance and Draft Verification
ANNEX 6
Terms of Reference

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
MOJ Ministry of Justice
EU European Union
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
UNCAC United Nations Convention against Corruption
UNTOC United National convention against Organized crime
FATF Financial Action Task Force
HCoJP High Council of Judges and Prosecutor
CEPEJ European Commission for Efficiency and Effectiveness in judiciary
UN United Nations
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes
1. Introduction and background
1.1 Background and context
Turkey started judicial reform and transformation process in 2002. Since then many reforms initiative have
been taken, new laws enacted, the alignment of the institutions has been completed and a Judicial Reform
Strategy outlining goals, objectives and strategies to achieve those objectives and Judicial Reform Actions
Plan with specific activities completed in 2009. Many laws, practices and processes were reformed and
some implemented and some are in the process of implementation. However, there has been no formalized
and structured effort to assess the impact of these legal and institutional reforms on efficiency and
effectiveness of judiciary as whole. The overall objectives of the impact assessment are to assess the impact
of this ambitious judicial reforms journey on efficiency and effectiveness of judiciary in capacity for
delivering speedy, fair and access to justice and enhancing confidence of citizens and court users in
approaching judiciary for resolving their disputes and determine their obligations. The impact assessment
process will also determine best practices, challenges encountered, lessons learned in this reform process.
The findings of this assessment will also determine future directions of the reform process. Within this
context, the assessment is to analyze the current situation and relying on the results to develop a strategic
framework for monitoring and improving the reforms for effective and efficient functioning of the
judiciary. The impact assessment will also define possible areas of technical cooperation in line with the
priority areas determined and develop a framework of a long-term partnership and areas of programming in
the field of judicial reform in Turkey.
1.2 Purposes and Scope of the Assessment
The Judicial Reform Strategy covering the period of 2008-2014 was developed to pursue the future reform
efforts contemplated in the field of judiciary within a specific plan. The Strategic Action Plan by the
Ministry of Justice covering the period 2010-2014 has, in parallel with the Judicial Reform Strategy,
formulated and deals with the issues in the field of justice in a holistic, participative and systematic manner
and lays down measurable objectives and goals for solution to the problems so identified.
The Government has implemented three Judicial Reform packages since 2009 in line with the objectives
laid in Judicial Reform Strategy. The fourth package is in the pipeline. The second Judicial Reform
Strategy covering the period of 2014-2018 has recently started by the Ministry of Justice. There has been
some other reforms like restructuring of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors based on wide

5
participation, and the principles of scrutiny and accountability; amendment of the Turkish Criminal Code,
the Criminal Procedures Code, the Turkish Commercial Code, the Turkish Code of Obligations, the Civil
Procedure Code; taking measures to reduce the case load of the judicial bodies, increasing the number of
judges and public prosecutors, amendments to carry out enforcement and bankruptcy procedures in a
simple, fast and reliable manner; establishment of Ombudsman and introduction of Probation services.
However, there has been no impact assessment of these reforms. The overall purpose of this effort is to
have a comprehensive and integrated impact assessment report resulting into findings and
recommendations leading to strategic framework for judicial reforms.
Turkey due to geographic position and historic background has ample potential to become leader, pioneer
and innovator in judicial excellence and model not only for Asian countries but for EU countries as well
because due to globalization of economy, goods, services, communication, the existing institutions need
reforms to caters needs for the new world and face new realities.
In the context of Turkey, the assessment project has global objectives, regional objectives and national
objectives.
Global objectives are to assist the government of Turkey in the formulation of ongoing, feasible,
sustainable reform process in line with the EU requirement and international standards that would enhance
fairness, transparency, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of judiciary. The regional objectives are
to make Turkish judiciary an innovator in problem solving and knowledge generation, excellence enhancer
of judicial processes, procedures and best practices and model for regional judiciaries to follow. On
national front, judiciary will ensure fair justice, rule of law, equality of arms, cohesion and harmony in the
society,prosperity, peace and security for the citizens.
Within this framework, the assessment will diagnose issues, challenges, gaps, and opportunities and assess
performance of individual judges, the courts and of the judicial systemand as a result set the benchmarks to
monitor and assess the duration of court proceedings and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
judicial system. The assessment would include institutional reforms, legal reforms, and procedural reforms
so far taken by the judiciary in line with the judicial reform strategy 2009 and activities in the Action Plan.
The assessment would be carried out against the standards and best practices set by United Nations Rule of
Law Indicators, UN Rule of Definition, the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission, the Consortium of
Excellence in Judiciary and CEPEJ evaluation standards, methods and checklists in accordance with
Turkish judicial and legal framework. The impact assessment findings would be included in the new
updated Judicial Reform Strategy and Action Plan.
1.3. The Deliverables
There are two main immediate outputs of this assessment. The assessment would result into other
significant findings and pointers for Turkish judiciary, and if acted upon would place judiciary on
progressive path and making Turkish judiciary as a shaper of justice values, enhancer of excellence and
efficiency, and a model for regional judiciaries:
Output I
The primary output is impact assessment of reform initiatives in Turkey for enhancing efficiency and
effectiveness of the judiciary. The impact assessment will address progress against the judicial reforms
since 2002 together with its current capacities. The process will also assess and highlight trends,
challenges, opportunities, lessons learned, and contentious issues and needs for further improvements. The

6
assessment will also help determine directions for judicial reforms and aligning judicial policies in the
national and regional interests.
Output II
Following the conduct of impact assessment study, a Common Strategic Framework for monitoring of the
reforms and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the judiciary in Turkey will emerge. The
resulting Framework would address the following:
1. Indicators of success of the reform initiatives for the efficient and effective functioning of the
judiciary
2. Monitoring and evaluation mechanism and plan including who monitors and evaluates, what is
monitored and evaluated and how it is to monitor and evaluate
3. Benchmark to monitor and time standards for court proceedings to address the backlog of pending
cases,in particular, the serious criminal cases
4. Mitigation plan against the risks identified for reducing the current backlog, in line with
international standards and best practices set by CEPEJ.
2. Approach and methodology
Approach
Working closely with relevant institutions and staff, engaging them in the process, mobilizing relevant
stakeholders, forging partnerships, building positive relationship and transferring skills and winning
commitment and ensuring sustainability, are the guiding principles of this approach. This approach is
expected to understand the stakeholders requirements, their perspectives and expectations, their concerns,
problem and challenges, the realistic and holistic approach and solutions, ways to achieve solutions and
what toolkits and methods are best suited to local conditions and national legal and institutional framework.
The success of this assessment depends on the extent to which the responsible officials trust our endeavour
and have confidence in the mechanism and process of implementing it. Confidence is developed through
relationships and engagement of all stakeholders,the supply side as well as the demand side.
The approach would also provide and enhance opportunities to share different experience and perspectives
by the consultant, ask questions, contribute ideas, facilitate access to information and become part of the
process. This participatory and constructive approach will also allow stakeholders to better understand the
benefits of the initiative for strengthening the rule of law, justice and efficiency of judiciary. Frequent
interactions with key stakeholders are important to maintain momentum and convey the seriousness of our
efforts.
Methodology
The methodology is divided in two phases. The phase one will focus on impact of legal and institutional
reforms since 2002 in delivering effective, efficient, fair and reliable justice up to the expectation of the
users. The process will in the development of a Common Strategic Framework, recommendations for future
direction for the reform process. Phase two will focus on developing roadmap and a framework for
judicial reforms, set goals and develop strategy for achieving those goals with the transparent, inclusive,
fair and sustainable monitoring and evaluation mechanism for judicial reform process.

7
Phase One
Impact Assessment of the Reform Initiatives for Enhancing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the
Judiciary in Turkey
This Phase One includes following main activities:
2.1. Research and review of international and EU standards and best practices
The international standards, European Union standards, USA and UK standards, Australian standards for
the case flow management are very crucial for globalized, well functioning and responsive national and
international judiciaries. Analysis of legal and institutional framework, judicial reform strategies, judicial
reform action plan against well established, widely recognized and practiced international standards and
best practices for rule of law and judiciary specially UN Rule of Law Indicators (project Tool 1), UN
principles of independence of judiciary, Bangalore principles (project tool 3), European commission for
efficient and effective judiciary under Venice commission (project tool 4), international framework for
courts excellence and global measures of courts performance (project tool 2), US best practices (project
tool 10), UK best practices, Australian best practices would serve guiding principles and standards in the
process of impact assessment and developing Common Strategic Framework.
2.2. Initial meetings and relationships building
The main objective of introductory meetings was to understand expectations of relevant stakeholders from
impact assessment initiative, engage them and also to establish relations with the main stakeholders. The
initial meetings were organized in Ankara from May 27-31, 2013 with Department of Strategy
Development, Prof. Mustafa, Faculty of Law, Cankaya University, Head of Justice Academy, the
Undersecretary and Deputy Undersecretary, Director Generals of Ministry of Justice and judges of Court of
Cassation. The meetings were very productive and beneficial in understanding the objectives of the
assessment process. The stakeholders expressed their enthusiasm, commitment and ownership of the
project. These meetings also helped identify relevant stakeholders, their roles and responsibilities in making
the project a successfuleffort.
2.3 Desk review of legal and institutional framework, strategies,action plan and documents
Extensive review of Strategic Plan of Ministry of Justice, Judicial Reform Strategy, Action Plan, Strategic
Plan of Court of Cassation and Strategic Plan of the Justice Academy against the UN Rule of Law
Indicators, UN principles of legal aid, UNDP Programming for Justice: Access for All-a human right based
approach to access to justice- standards, European union standards for functioning judiciary, USA proven
practices for timely disposal of cases and case management, UK efforts and lessons learned for expeditious
disposal of cases, Australian standards for case management, inter alia, is crucial for successful, reliable,
impartial and objective assessment. The UN Rue of Law Indicators are result of collective wisdom and
capture existing knowledge, experience and lessons learned in the areas of independence and impartiality,
efficiency and ability to manage resources by judiciary. UN also provides a uniform and standard
definition of Rule of Law. USA Centre for State Courts and Australian Federal courts have developed very
efficient and practical tools for enhancing courts efficiency and case management. These tools are endorsed
by CEPEJ as well. The UK faced similar problems of backlog and access to justice and introduced several
measures including small claim track, fast track and multi track mechanism to deal with this problem. We
would also examine evaluation findings and research papers completed by CEPEJ under the guidance of
Venice Commission, evaluation criteria for judiciary and checklist for assessing judiciary. The desk review

8
would also identify country’s legal and institutional framework, Turkey international and EU obligations
and prepare a list of what has been done and what is required to be done, enumerate challenges and
problems faced in implementation and preserve the lessons learned in the process ofimplementation.
2.4. Defining issues and factors for focused impact assessment
The process of review and analysis of Turkey’s Judicial Reform Strategy and Action Plan against the UN,
EU, USA best practices and standards will identify issues for focused study and wider discussion. The
Judicial Reform Strategy has already identified 10 objectives and multiple activities under each objective.
Those objectives are in line with CEPEJ evaluation checklists. Some of the areas and factors for
assessment are discussed below. However, new factors may be added during the process of assessment and
in the light of new lessons learned. The project would analyze current situation in each area, spotlight
and consolidate the impact of past reforms in that area, spotlight international and EU best practices
in that area and come up with solid and refined recommendations for future reform directions and
proposals. After wider stakeholder consensus, study and comparisons of international standards and best
practices, those focused issues will be available for incorporation into reform strategy and action plan.
Strengthening independence and accountability of judiciary
The international human rights tools, EU standards for independence of decision-making and accountability
practices, Budapest Guidelines, and Bangalore Principles (project tool 1,2,3,4,5) are proven tools for
understanding the meaning of independence and accountability of judiciary and judging judiciary. The
assessment of public perception of independence of judiciary, objective, transparent, fair and effective
recruitment of judges and prosecutors, fair and transparent disciplinary process, income and asset
disclosures, high standards of judicial conduct and rules of judicial ethics, conflict of interest rules,
limited judicial immunity from civil and criminal suits are some of the sub areas for assessment of
independence and accountability of judiciary. The code of conduct is fair and transparent enforcement
mechanism is crucial in accountability of a judiciary. The answers to questions like who may be
complained against, where to file a complaint, what to include in a complaint, what happens after a
complaint is considered and where and how to file review against decision need much consideration and
attention.
Promoting Impartiality and transparency in judiciary and judicial processes
Another important area for assessment is impartiality and transparency of judiciary and judicial processes.
Fairness, integrity, treatment of vulnerable groups, treatment of international users of judicial system are
very important for enhancing confidence and trust in judiciary. The national legal and institutional
framework and judicial processes and proceedings would be examined in the light of international best
practices, guidelines and the checklist developed and used by CEPEJ for valuation of judiciaries of 47
EU countries. The project tool 1-6 are establish standards and guidelines in this respect. Conflict of interest
principles and simplification of proceedings also help promote transparency.
Enhancing Efficiency and Effectiveness of civil, criminal and administrative Judiciary:
Cost effective resolution of disputes, minimizing undue delays, certainty and predictability of court
proceedings, access to courts, respecting the rights of the vulnerable groups, treatment of parties, fair trial
in civil, commercial, administrative and criminal matters, public perception of undue delays, pre-trial
detention, children in pre-trial detention, consistent and uniform sentencing guidelines, fair and prompt
disposal of forfeited and confiscated property, fair and transparent treasury lawyers system and

9
effectively dealing with corporate and serious crimes are important pillars of effective and efficient
judiciary. Using checklist for promoting quality of justice and courts, designed and developed by CEPEJ
would be used (project tool 4). The checklist is built around the five areas. These five areas are strategy
and policy, operation and processes, access to justice, human resources, and means of justice. For each
area, subtopics are identified and a list of questions given. Similarly, International Framework for
Excellence in Courts and Global Measures of Courts Performance would also be used in the process
(project tool 2). The latter, identifies seven areas of excellence and those are court management and
leadership, court policies, public trust and confidence, court proceedings, user satisfaction, court
resources and affordable and accessible court services (project tool 2). The other international standards
and best practices would also be used to assess the judiciary and charting framework for excellence. The
MOJ and judiciary may use Court Excellence Self-Assessment Questionnaire themselves (Project tool 2,
4).
Enhancing professionalism and competency in the judiciary
Professionalism and competency is another determining factor for responsive and delivering judiciary.
Judiciary must have adequate and competent human resources. An effective judiciary needs readily
available data and information for decision-making. Judiciary must keep informed of day-to-day
development in justice sector and in dealing with new matters coming before it. The social, economic,
political and environmental conditions are changing rapidly and expectation from judiciary to deal with
these changes are changing too. Professionalism and competency are as important as independence,
impartiality, and transparency of judiciary (project tool 1,2, 4).
Judicial decision-making and coordination
The judicial policy-making is important for collaboration, sharing experience and coordination of judicial
institutions and other actors of justice sector. It is important to find out how is the policy making carried out
and what are the roles of the key institutions: i) Do judges regularly confer on policy, sharing experiences
and best practices, uniformity of opinion, and administrative issues confronting the courts? ii) Is there an
annual judicial conference or periodical regional conferences of judicial officers and prosecutors to discuss
issues such as delay and access to the courts? iii) Do judges participate in the development of overall policy
for the judicial branch? This is important for improving management system of the judicial organization,
administrative and management capacity, gender and ethnic considerations, local legal needs and culture,
allocation of resources,judicial freedom of expression and association.
Enhancing public confidence and trust in the judiciary
Users’ satisfaction both domestic and international is another significant indicator for functioning and fair
and impartial judiciary. In the case of Turkey it becomes more relevant. Turkey is an important player in
international trade and development. The state institutions are in competition with the non-state actors.
Regional judiciaries are also competing with the each other. It is a competitive world. If international
community exhibits trust and confidence in judiciary, Turkish judiciary may become model and an example
to follow for resolving national and international disputes. The assessment process will determine and lead
to confidence and trust building measures. The current level of confidence and trust would be measured
using proven Users’ Satisfaction Survey form. International Consortium for Court Excellence uses this
Users’ Satisfaction Survey (Project tool 15, 16) and CEPEJ uses this survey as well (project tool 4).
International Consortium is a quality management system designed to help courts improve their
performance. It represents an all-encompassing approach to achieving court excellence and CEPEJ is

10
member of this Consortium. It consists of a Framework of universal core values, the Court Excellence Self-
Assessment Questionnaire and the Global Measures of Court Performance.
Consistent, simple, fair and predictable court proceedings and processes
Certainty of court proceedings, efficacy, consistency, predictability and sustainability of laws, effective and
transparent judicial processes are other dynamics for determining efficiency and excellence of judiciary.
The users expect certainty of court proceedings, consistency in decisions, predictability of court
proceedings and transparency of processes. International standards, best practices and the Venice
Commission checklist for evaluation of judiciary use this as vital criteria. The introductory meetings at
different levels highlighted that consistency, certainty and predictability of proceedings and processes is a
huge issue facing judiciary in Turkey. The assessment will diagnose causes, decision points, actors,
practices and processes contributing to and responsible for multiplying this problem. The assessment report
on the working and processes of the Court of Cassation and Courts of First Instance would help analyze
this problem. The meeting with National Judicial Network is also crucial for assessing and analyzing this
problem. The field visits and analysis of some typical closed case files will help explore reasons for
inconsistency lack of predictability and certainty and delays. The international best practices and guidelines
on consistency, time management, case flow management, interpretation of laws, application of laws,
guidelines on exercise of discretion and sentencing guidelines would be researched, examined in the light
of local conditions, and if viable, introduced into the system. Apart from substantive codes, the procedural
rules, instructions, interpretative guidelines, prescriptive rules, recommendations, practices rules and
informal guidelines also play important role in this area. Thorough and critical analysis of such material is
also essential to deal with this stubborn issues faced by world judiciaries. The simplification of rules and
regulations and possibility of elimination of unnecessary practices and steps will also be explored.
Expeditious and timely disposal of cases and case management
The sketching progression of a case file, identifying decision points and actors in criminal, civil and
commercial cases is very important to put preventive and monitoring measures. During field visits and
observations, the consultant will understand progression of some random closed case files, determine
various decision points and decision makers, identify risks area, analyze dynamics and reasons for delay
and identify contributors and beneficiaries. The consultant will also explore possibility of eliminating some
points or actors to expedite the flow. This would help in setting standard time for performing certain
actions on the file. A transparent and time bound case flow and time management system has been
successfully put into practice in United States of America. The US National Center for State Courts has
developed proven standards for dealing with the case backlog, case flow management and has successfully
reduced time for disposal of cases (project tool 16). These are ten CourTools for performance measures and
these tools have proven to be very realistic and practical. The United Kingdom faced similar problem and
have since developed a system of putting cases on different tracks such as small claim track, fast track and
multi track. This is also helping in minimizing the average time spend on cases. SATURN Guidelines for
Judicial Time management developed by CEPEJ has already been introduced in Turkey (project tool 4).
The consultant will discuss different standards with the stakeholders leading to selection of the best to the
local conditions. Apart from substantive codes, the procedural rules, instructions, interpretative guidelines,
prescriptive rules, recommendations, practices rules and informal guidelines also play substantial role in
delays. The importance of an effective and sustainable mechanism for knowledge generation through
experience documentation, experience capitalization, knowledge mapping, knowledge management,
dissemination and sharing cannot be over emphasized for expeditious and timely disposal of matters before
the judiciary.

11
Facilitating access to justice
Access to justice is another benchmark to determine excellence in the judiciary. The project will assess the
legal barriers, institutional barriers, social barriers, political barriers and other forms of barriers in
relation to claiming rights and current level of access to justice in Turkey against the United Nations
guiding principles on legal aid (project tool 11) and UNDP programming for justice: Access for All and
UNDP Access to Justice, practice note, 2004 (project tool 9). These tools are result of collective wisdom
and lessons learned. Accessibility of courts to the poor and other vulnerable groups including juvenile,
gender and minorities plays a vital role in enhancing confidence and trust in judiciary. Other sub factors are
affordable and accessible court services, availability of interpreters, access to redress the miscarriage of
justice, quality of legal representation, fees to obtain justice and being responsive to gender based violence.
The impact assessment process will explore the access to justice level in line with above international and
EU standards. Moreover, recently several courts of 1st Instance have been merged. The impact of merging
courts would be subject of assessment as well. The courthouse design is important to enhance physical
accessibility of courts. There are key elements and standards in modern courthouses design. The
assessment will also assess the role of courthouses design in enhancing accessibility. The analysis of
challenges and lessons learned by EU court management project and visit to pilot courts would also help
crystalize findings on access to justice.
Impact of new Legislative Framework on judicial functions
Since 2002, several new civil, criminal, commercial and administrative laws and regulations have been
enacted, amended or repealed to enhance independence, impartiality, fairness and functioning of judiciary.
It is quite relevant to assess the impact of these new laws and amendment on functioning of judiciary. Some
laws have worked well, while others have not and there is a need to examine the impact of these new laws
and amendments scientifically. The project will evaluate laws, regulations and process of making fair laws
and rules in the light of international standard for impact evaluation of legislation and compliance
verification of a new legislation (Annex 4). These standards have been developed by SIGMA in
coordination with OECD and EU institutions (Annex 5). This evaluation process of legislation starts with
defining the problem to be addressed and objectives achieved by new legislation and amendment, explores
drivers, actors, losers and those who are benefiting from the situation. It discusses various alternative
options and finds out suitable, realistic, workable and sustainable solutions. The assessment findings will
help develop framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis, best standards for a draft evaluation and standard
compliance verifications for MOJ and line ministries. Effective dealing with growing corporate crimes,
financial crimes and other organized crimes is critical for success of a judiciary. The project will explore
laws and regulations addressing these crimes. Simplification of laws and regulations is another important
factor in efficiency of justice. In a fair and justice society, no individual or group of individuals should
benefit on the cost of other individual or group of individuals.
Measures for prevention of disputes and developing alternative dispute resolution
The international best practice is to divert cases to other means of resolution such as good office,
conciliation, mediations and arbitration. It applies to civil, commercial and criminal disputes. Judicial
action plan provides for ADR. However, how far it has been successful is yet to be determined. The
assessment would determine the current level of ADR and find out how far it complies with international
standards and identify deviations fromthese standards. The measures other than putting in prisons are more
important in dealing with corporate crimes, financial crimes and corruption. The measures like
confiscation, asset recovery, fines; suspension and cancellation of business licenses, plea-bargain and

12
deferred prosecution are some of the alternative being used. Many countries are seriously considering
choices and consequences.
State based non-judicial grievance mechanism
The state should provide effective and appropriate non-judicial grievances mechanism, alongside judicial
mechanisms, as a comprehensive state based system for the remedy of business related human rights abuses
and remedy against excesses and abuses of state institutions as well. The project will explore any such
mechanism in existence and assess its compliance with international standards and effective criteria for
non-judicial grievance mechanisms such as legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equitability,
transparency,rights compatibility and a source of continuous learning.
Fair and effective enforcement of court decisions and bankruptcy system
It is also important for efficiency of judiciary. If decisions are not enforced, or it takes a long time and a
huge effort on part of a winning party to enforce decisions of courts, judiciary system is not perceived
efficient and effective. The Judicial Reform Strategy envisages for reforms in enforcement of judgments.
However, the impact has not been assessed. Using the international best practices, the gaps and weaknesses
in the system would be highlighted and solutions discussed with the stakeholder. There is a problem in
enforcement of decisions in criminal cases contributing to overcrowding in prisons population. Efforts
would be made to study reasons for this acute overcrowding. The project will seek guidelines from
European standards and UNODC guidelines (project tool 8). Another area could be enforcement of foreign
arbitral awards. That is very crucial for foreign investment and trade and it is an obligation under UN
Convention.
Capacity of forensic medicine institution and expert witness, witness and victim protection
For success and well functioning of criminal justice system when organized crimes, corporate crimes
and financial crimes are on the rise, importance of forensic evidence, expert witness, protection of witness
and victim cannot be over emphasized. It is an international and EU obligation to protect the witness and
victim against possible retaliations. The forensic evidence is also vital for investigation of organized and
white-collar crimes reaching far beyond national boundaries. Turkey being signatory of UNCAC, 2003
and UNTOC, 2000, Narcotics Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 and several other international
treaties and conventions is mandated to have in place effective forensic evidence, expert witness, victim
and witness protection mechanism. The UN Handbook on Witness and Victim Protection, UNODC
Handbook are models for this particular area. The project will study and analyze current situation in the
light of EU and international best practices, Turkey international and regional obligations and make
recommendations for future reforms..
Working of penitentiary system
Another important area that heavily impacts on efficiency and effectiveness of judiciary is penitentiary
system. The judicial reform strategy reveals that groundbreaking efforts have been made for improvement
of prisons, promulgation of new laws, reducing number of prisoners and improving probation system.
Labour centers are established. However, these issues have not been subject to thorough examination yet. It
is important to assess the impact of changes in criminal laws and other reforms introduced so far and to
chart course for future reforms. Using international human rights standards (project tool 5), United Nations
standards for pre-trial detainees, standards for administrative and preventive custody, UN Standards
Minimum Rules for Prisoners, the EU Prison Rules, and UNODC assessment of criminal justice system

13
including prisons would be used (project tool 8). The prison population is a persistent problem in many
jurisdictions and it is taken as an indication for functioning criminal justice system. Therefore, reform of
penitentiary systemis imperative.
Mechanism for Mutual Legal Assistance and Cooperation
Mutual legal assistance and cooperation is one of the international and EU obligations and a fundamental
pillar in functioning of justice and judicial system. The corporate crimes, organized crimes, financial
crimes, transfer of proceedings, transfer of convicted persons, even civil, commercial and family disputes
demand constant and real time coordination, cooperation and information sharing with justice actors of
other countries. The project will assess this issue as well as this plays vital role in determining efficiency
and effectiveness of a judiciary.
Crosscutting Themes: corruption, malpractices, gender,juveniles and the vulnerable groups
The assessment process will mainstream the problems and challenges faced by the disadvantaged and the
poorest groups, including migrants, small ethnic groups, children, youth and women in accessing the courts
and the share of these groups in human resources of the judiciary. The treatment of gender issues are
assessed in accordance with UN Women standard guidelines for treatment of gender in criminal justice.
The malpractices in the offices and judicial process would is another cross cutting issue. The consultant has
developed an institutional integrity model. The possibility of replicating that model into Turkish judiciary
will be explored.
Juvenile system needs assessment and there are international conventions on juvenile justice, treatment
and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. The current situation would be assessed in the light of UNODC
Juvenile Justice Assessment Tool (project tool 8), the impact of reforms since 2002 identified and
solidified and recommendations developed and refined for Strategic Framework.
2.5. Identify international and EU standards, best practices and Turkey obligations
The results and findings of focused areas would be compared with international best practices and
standards mentioned in project tools in ANNEX 1. Turkey being active member of UN and applicant for
European Accession is under obligations to comply with these standards. It is critical to conform judiciary
to international and EU standards to compete to regional judiciaries. Chapter 35 of EU Accession
Partnership spells out obligations of the judiciary. Similarly, UNCAC, 2003, UNTOC, 2000, FATF 40
Recommendations, three Narcotics Conventions, child conventions to name a few, are also very relevant.
2.6. Identifying and accessing existing sources of data
The identification and sifting of existing resources and data such as administrative reports, surveys,
analysis, or opinion of expert as well as international assessments such as EU Progress Reports on Turkey,
Reports of UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers are very important for
understanding the issues and defining the problems. It is also important to determine drivers of the
problems, actors, losers, and those benefiting at the cost of others. The stakeholders are expected to identify
the existing data. The analysis and assessment of existing data concerning judiciary is important for making
objective and balanced conclusions.
2.7. Methods of collection of own data

14
Another source of information gathering used would be face-to-face interviews with key staff of Ministry
of Justice and judicial departments as well as other national, local and international stakeholders and
experts identified by MOJ and UNDP. Case studies, observations and field visits of courts first instance
situated in different geographical areas would be organized.
Court users satisfaction survey (project tool 15) would be used to gauge the confidence and trust of users
of the courts. This survey is used by CEPEJ and recommended by international consortium for excellence
in judiciary.
Focus Group: In order to reach informed and consensus conclusions on the key issues identified through
desk reviews, interviews, review of documents and legislative framework, structured focus group
discussions could be very useful. The focus groups will help explore and identify causes of a problem or a
phenomenon, drivers, losers and those benefiting from the situation and find and refine possible options
solution. Focus groups will be planned, in consultation with MOJ, to achieve definite goals set beforehand.
Each focus group will consist of 10-15 participants. The composition of each focus group may vary
depending on the problem discussed, knowledge, experience and relevancy of a stakeholder. If the goal is
to find out solution for inconsistency in the judgment and interpretation of laws, the relevant stakeholders
could be judges of the Court of Cassation, court of 1st Instance and prosecutors relevant to this issue. If the
goal is to deal with prison population, the relevant stakeholders are DG prisons, judges and prosecutors.
Some of the key issues highlighted during the initial meetings are scoring of judges and prosecutors,
frequent amendments in laws, retrospective application of laws and procedures, uniform sentencing,
consistency in decision-making, form of judicial conferences, coordination of training system, consistency
in human rights based approach, consistency in interpretation, dealing with prison population, setting
performance indicators for courts and judges etc. (project tool 14).
2.8. Data entry and management
A transparent, consistent and structured procedure for keeping record of data collected through interviews,
desk reviews, case studies, observation visits and surveys analyzed and used to draw conclusions and
findings would be maintained, preserved and made available to UNDP (project tool 12).
2.9. Analysis, synthesis,validation of findings and conclusions
The consultant will analyze the data accessed and gathered against the Judicial Reform Strategy and Action
Plan and in the light of international best practices and standards to identify the most important impacts
making sure that impacts are direct results of interventions. The analysis will mainly focus on, among
others, administration of judiciary, policy making, impartiality, competency, accountability, training, flow
of a case file, case management, implementation gaps, evaluation of the legislation, finding gaps in
substantive laws, consistency in sentencing and decisions, transparent processes, predictable proceedings,
determining compliance of laws with international standards, identifying gaps, overlaps among the
activities of the institutions, thorny points, knowledge generation, experience documentation, lessons
learned and future challenges in the focused areas and any other area demanded by the stakeholders.
2.10. Assessing institutional and legal reforms, trends and markers for the future
The crucial impact enhancing pillars and reforms would be identified. The leaders in enhancing judicial
efficiency and effectiveness would be identified. The building blocks and necessary bonds for impact

15
would be established. The reforms impact on institutions and judicial processes and procedures is captured
minutely.
2.11. Developing and refining Common Strategic Framework for responsive, effective, efficient and
functioning judiciary
The findings of the assessment would be defined clearly, refined and translated into future Common
Strategic framework.
2.12. Developing performance standards and indicators for performance of judiciary, individual
courts and individual judges
The performance standards and indicators for judiciary as whole, individual courts performance standards
and individual judges performance standards and indicators is a proven and well-established standard for
enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of judiciary (project 1,2,3,4,9, 16).
2.13. Identifying areas for improvements, engagement, cooperation and programming for immediate
actions, short term, medium term and long term
The impact assessment exercise will also identify areas for immediate actions, short term, mediumterm and
  long term engagements, cooperation and programming.
Phase Two
3. Designing reform monitoring and evaluation mechanism
The phase two will continue to develop framework of excellence for judiciary and design mechanism for
monitoring and evaluation of reform process.The process will consist of following components:
3.1. Incorporating the strategic Framework into Judicial Reform Strategy and Action Plan
3.2. Developing evaluation questions and indicators for performance and progress measurement of the
judiciary, individual courts and individual judges
3.3. Developing and designing inclusive, transparent and sustainable reform process monitoring and
evaluation mechanism
The monitoring mechanism developed by CEPEJ is a good guideline in this regard.
3.4. Designing a transparent and accountable monitoring Plan (ANNEX 3)
3.5. Developing realistic and sustainable mechanism and benchmarks to address the backlog of pending
cases using international and European models
4. Work Plan
The proposed timeline for desk review, data assessing, data collection, analysis, report writing, and
designing of monitoring and evaluation is attached as ANNEX 2.

16
In brief, research and desk review of international and EU best practices; national legal and institutional
framework and strategies are completed in May. In the month of June, I would like to visit Ankara, collect
data from MOJ, courts of appeals, courts of first instance, interviews, complete case studies and field visits
out of Ankara identified and arranged by MOJ. In first half of July, I would analyze data, confirm data
where required, arrange focus groups on issues identified. The second half of July would be used come up
with recommendations and conclusions and submit draft and final report as well. In August, I would like to
develop monitoring and evaluation mechanism and a plan.
5. Logistic and support
UNDP, Initiation Project will provide support and infrastructure to facilitate work of the consultant. UNDP
will also coordinate activities with the relevant stakeholders. The cooperation and coordination with
Ministry of Justice, Presidency for Strategy Development is also paramount for success of the impact
assessment initiatives.
Setting up a Task Force or a Steering Committee of relevant stakeholders is very critical for success of this
project. It would provide direction, guidelines, focus, and coherence and would be very useful particularly
in designing a sustainable, judiciary owned and lead monitoring and evaluation mechanism. The
arrangement should be lead by the Presidency of Department of Strategy Ministry of Justice under general
guidance of the Undersecretary. The composition, at this stage, may include members from Court of
Cassation, HCoJP, Council of State, High Office of Chief Prosecutor, Justice Academy, relevant DGs, and
other members invited by MOJ. MOJ may enlarge membership at some appropriate stage. The Committee
or Task Force will engage stakeholders, enhance ownership, and provide space for sharing ideas and skills.
It also will ensure their commitment, build strength and ensure sustainability of reforms. The collaboration
and coordination is precondition for success of this assessment and for follow up of Common Strategic
Framework, monitoring and evaluation mechanism.
ANNEX 1
Compendium of project tools
Project tool 1
1. United Nations Rules of law Index, United Nations rule of law definition (United Nations Security
Council, this 2004, S/2004/616),
2. Rule of Law Index, World Justice Project,
3. Developing Indicators to Measure the Rule of Law: a Global Approach,2008, Vera Institute of Justice
Project tool 2
International Consortium for Excellence in Judiciary, CEPEJ is member of this Consortium
1. International Framework for courts excellence, by International Consortium of Court Excellence, 2nd
edition 2013
2. Global Measures of Courts Performance
3. Court Excellence Self-Assessment Questionnaire
Project Tool 3
1. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and UN Basic Principles on Judicial Independence,
2. UN basic principles on the role of lawyers
3. UN guidelines on the role of prosecutors

17
4. European Guidelines on ethics and Conduct for Prosecutors (Budapest Guidelines)
Project Tool 4
1. CEPEJ Checklist for promoting the quality of justice and the courts
2. SATURN Guidelines for Judicial Time management, CEPEJ
3. Handbook for Conducting Satisfaction Surveys Aimed at Courts Users in European Union Countries
4. CEPEJ Evaluation Process of EU Judiciary
Project Tool 5
Relevant human rights justice standards
The UDHR, ECHR, ICCPR, EU Charter on the Status of Judges, 1998, Council of Europe
Recommendation, 1994, TI Fair trial manual, Commonwealth fair trail manual, Marx Plank Fair Trial
manual and others
Project Tool 6
1. Global best practices: judicial Integrity standards and consensus principles,IFES, 2004
2. Global Best Practices: A Strategic Tool for Promoting, monitoring and reporting on judicial integrity
reforms, IFES Rule of law White paper Series, 2004
Project Tool 7
Law and Justice Institutions,the World Bank
Project Tool 8
1. UNODC Criminal Justice Assessment Tool, 2006
2. UNODC Juvenile Justice Assessment tool,2006
Project Tool 9
1. UNDP Capacity Development, Measuring Capacity document
2. UNDP Programming for Justice: Access for All
3. UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation for Development Results, 2009
4. UNDP Access to Justice, Practice Note, 2004
Project tool 10
1. USAID TIPS Monitoring the Policy Reform Process, 2000 Number 14
2. USAID TIPS Measuring the Institutional Capacity, 2000, Number 15
Project tool 11
1. United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems, UN
General Assembly Resolution (E/CN.15/2012/L.14/Rev.1)
2. Dutch Legal Aid principles and experience
3. UK Legal Aid principles and experience
Project tool 12
Documents/interview Record Form
Project tool 13
Field Data Collection Form
Project tool 14

18
Focus Groups format
Project tool 15
Courts Users’ Survey Questionnaire
Project Tool 16
CourTools for performance measures of courts, developed by NCSC
ANNEX 2
Work Plan for Impact Assessment
ANNEX 3
Performance Monitoring Matrices
ANNEX 4
Model Regulatory Impact Analysis/Assessment
ANNEX 5
SIGMA Standards for Compliance and Draft Verification
ANNEX 6
Terms of Reference
-----------End-------------

Inception Report-Assessment and Strategic Framework for Judicial Reforms

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Inception Report-Assessment and Strategic Framework for Judicial Reforms

Similar to Inception Report-Assessment and Strategic Framework for Judicial Reforms (20)

More from Zafar Gondal

More from Zafar Gondal (7)

Inception Report-Assessment and Strategic Framework for Judicial Reforms