{"id":11854,"date":"2022-06-25T15:10:48","date_gmt":"2022-06-25T13:10:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ild.al\/?p=11854"},"modified":"2022-06-27T11:52:07","modified_gmt":"2022-06-27T09:52:07","slug":"high-inspector-of-justice-presents-conclusions-of-the-international-conference-of-justice-inspection-services-tirana-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/2022\/06\/25\/high-inspector-of-justice-presents-conclusions-of-the-international-conference-of-justice-inspection-services-tirana-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"HIGH INSPECTOR OF JUSTICE PRESENTS CONCLUSIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF JUSTICE INSPECTION SERVICES TIRANA 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Thank you once again for your commitment today!<\/p>

The agenda was a bit intense, as the issues discussed were numerous. However, it was a necessary and very fruitful debate for all of us.<\/p>

I tried to keep notes, as much as I could, and at the same time I tried to synthesize some thoughts and feelings and, related to the issues addressed today. But they are numerous and the time available does not promise us. However, I will try to address some of them.<\/p>

Personally, I think, but also as far as it was presented by the participants in this roundtable, it is worth mentioning some moments:<\/p>

QUALITY OF JUSTICE<\/strong><\/p>

  • The quality of justice is a priority for all countries. There are problems which are the same for European Union countries. Some of them are on the same for all Council of Europe countries and others are specific to each of them.<\/li>
  • Improving the quality of justice is a dynamic and constantly evolving process. Achieving this goal requires an ongoing need to respond to the challenges of identifying new mechanisms to protect them.<\/li>
  • The activity of magistrates, but also courts, prosecutors\u2019 offices or other justice institutions should be subject to control or evaluation in terms of quality and efficiency of their activity.<\/li>
  • The concept of “justice quality” does not only include the quality of court decisions, which are generally subject to control within the judiciary itself, but includes a number of elements related to the proper functioning of the justice system such as clarity of court proceedings and decisions, access of individuals to the organs of the justice system, infrastructure, deadlines or mechanisms made available to the public.<\/li>
  • The efficiency of the work of magistrates on the one hand and of the justice systems on the other is a necessary condition for protecting the human rights, respecting the requirements of a fair trial, having legal certainty and guaranteeing public trust in the rule of law.<\/li><\/ul>

    PUBLIC TRUST<\/strong><\/p>

    • The level of citizens trust in the judiciary is a very important element of the justice system. In a democracy, justice is done on behalf of the citizens. Public trust is essential for the rule of law and this legitimacy requires the commitment of all societies to maintain this trust.<\/li>
    • Public trust and respect for the judiciary are guarantees of democracy and stability in a democratic society. The level of citizens trust in the judiciary is a very important element for the justice system, as it is an important indicator to evaluate how the justice system works and the rule of law in a country.<\/li>
    • In this context, not only should a magistrate be responsible for respecting or not the legal norms, but he should also be responsible for the people, society and state authorities, having in this way a direct affect on the public perception and trust in the justice system.<\/li>
    • However, gaining the trust of the public does not mean that the judiciary must be under constant pressure to make decisions that the public must like, or necessarily agree with. On the contrary the courts should be independent and should not be influenced by the public perception on a particular issue.<\/li>
    • A court decision may provoke public opposition and even anger or a sense of protest. But in this case the REACTION matters. The way the public reacts to a court decision, as well as the debate created, serves not only as inspiration and as an aid to building the social and political character of a country’s society, but also as an indicator of its level of trust in the justice system. .<\/li>
    • Judicial decisions can be subject to public discussion and debate, but they are always binding. The highest form of public trust in the justice system is the respect and recognition of the “legitimacy” of the judiciary. This is achieved when the citizens of a country devotedly recognize, implement and respect the decisions of the judiciary, acknowledging its “legitimacy” in every case, no matter if they agree with it or not.<\/li>
    • Now our common challenge is no longer the time to gain the public’s trust in the justice system, but to build a justice system that is respected by citizens.<\/li><\/ul>

      INDEPENDENCE OF MAGISTRATES<\/strong><\/p>

      • The justice system, in addition to the features and specifics that it may have in different countries, is characterized by the same values, and it operates on the same international standards and principles of its organization and functioning.<\/li>
      • The basic principles applied to the organization of the judiciary are based on the universal principle of judicial independence. An independent and impartial judiciary is the institution with the highest value in any society and constitutes an indispensable pillar of democracy and the rule of law.<\/li>
      • The independence of the judiciary can be accompanied by structural, institutional and legal changes, but it can only succeed when a country’s society has faith in the legitimacy of the judiciary and shows a real commitment to this standard.<\/li>
      • There is an important tendency to ensure the independence of the judiciary through formal guarantees and fixed procedures. However, it is important to acknowledge that the judicial systems in different countries have evolved or have had different paths of their consolidation. Thus, it is debatable whether a uniform international standard should be applied.<\/li><\/ul>

        ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM<\/strong><\/p>

        • It should be acknowledged that increasing the competence and independence of magistrates should be accompanied by an accountable system<\/li>
        • This is because independence is not a privilege, but a responsibility. In this case, there must be a continuous process of balancing independence and accountability. These processes must be characterized by action and counter-reaction at the same time. The more powers the judiciary possesses, the higher the demands for accountability must be.<\/li>
        • The function of independent magistrates charged with interpreting and enforcing the law is universally recognized as the fundamental feature of the modern democratic state, the cornerstone of the rule of law itself, but this power is not absolute. This is because magistrates are representatives of public bodies and they have only that power which is assigned to them by the legal order.<\/li>
        • To this end, it is necessary for the governing bodies of the judiciary to have an active approach to the accountability system<\/strong> of magistrates by applying new approaches, which consist in the combined application of the standards of their accountability <\/strong>and liability<\/b>.\u00a0<\/li>
        • The accountability system of magistrates should not be misused by other bodies of government in order to control and violate judicial independence.<\/li>
        • The accountability system should be guided primarily by the notion of magistrates\u2019 liability, as a preventive mechanism that ensures the construction of an independent and impartial judicial system.<\/li><\/ul>

          LIABILITY SYSTEM<\/strong><\/p>

          • If these remedies are not effective, then in exceptional cases, as well as depending on certain circumstances, measures on their criminal, civil or disciplinary liability may be applied, always within a regular legal process, pursuant to Article 6\/1 of the ECHR<\/li>
          • The most important consequence of the principle of independence of magistrates is the non-responsibility for the decisions they make according to their conviction, based on law. However, the consequence of the power and trust that society gives to magistrates is such that there must be several ways to hold them accountable, including removal in the event of violations that justify this action.<\/li><\/ul>

            ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF INSPECTION SERVICES<\/strong><\/p>

            • The national legislations of different countries provide different models of organization, functioning, or relations that the inspection bodies of the justice system have with other institutions.<\/li>
            • Each selected model must be understood as a result of the historical developments, the legal and constitutional tradition, or the political and social one of each country. These factors also dictate the result achieved.<\/li>
            • While the exercise of the right to appeal and control by a higher court and within the judiciary itself is the mechanism traditionally implemented by justice systems to guarantee the control, the quality of a judicial process, or the merits of the law, today this mechanism is complemented by other external forms of control to measure or monitor the quality of justice in the context of the proper conduct of court proceedings and the effective management of the justice system organs.<\/li>
            • This important mission, regarding the guarantee of these standards is entrusted to our institutions, inspection institutions.<\/li>
            • Inspection services should adapt and apply special control methodologies, and this process should be carried out gradually and based on a set of well-defined criteria, standards and guarantees.<\/li>
            • The rules regarding their organization and functioning should be clearly and exhaustively defined in the highest hierarchical legislative acts such as the Constitution or at least in the primary legislation of each country. This serves as a guarantee and stability for their activity.<\/li>
            • Another important aspect related to the organization and functioning of inspection services is the guarantee of independence and impartiality of its activity. The inspection service should be independent of the executive and the legislature and of the body that decides on the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. This should be achieved through the application of policies or measures aimed at guaranteeing the substantial, structural and financial independence of these bodies. On the other hand, in order to ensure credibility and legitimacy, the recruitment or selection of employees should be done on the basis of merit.<\/li><\/ul>

              COOPERATION BETWEEN INSPECTORATES<\/strong><\/p>

              • To achieve these things, we all need to work together. We all need to analyze and coordinate methods of controlling and evaluating justice institutions.<\/li>
              • This should be done through periodic meetings; exchange of experiences; unification of best methods and practices in accordance with the standards of democracy and the rule of law; creation of legal, administrative or practical mechanisms of cooperation; data exchange and mutual legal assistance between states.<\/li>
              • At the same time, this process should be carried out taking into account the implementation of European Union standards transposed into national legislation; principles, spirit and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, or the European Court of Justice; acts of the Council of Europe; as well as in applying the methods, instruments and best practices of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), to increase the quality and efficiency of the judicial system.<\/li>
              • In doing so, we will all contribute to the proper functioning of the organs of the justice system and to the improvement of the quality of the justice system, thus, achieving our common goal.<\/li><\/ul>

                These are some of my thoughts on today’s activity.<\/strong><\/p>

                However, I would not like to end this remark without expressing some gratitude and thanks.<\/p>

                Thank you to the Council of Europe; Thank you CEPEJ, thank you Roland, Muriel and Olsi for their continuous contribution by building the capacity of member countries on the organization and functioning of judicial systems, constantly elaborating international legal instruments and mechanisms regarding the efficiency, quality and evaluation of justice systems. At the same time, in addition to technical support, without EC financial support, these activities would not have been possible. Thank you for your support and professionalism.<\/p>

                On this occasion I would also like to extend my gratitude to RESIJ, thank you Delphine, Lucian and other colleagues. RESIJ brought us all together here today. HIJ is the youngest participant in RESIJ, but during this short time I have had an intensive and very useful cooperation with this Network. Today’s organization is a clear indication that the Network operates and brings concrete results and product in its work. For this reason, we must show confidence and we must have the good will to advance this initiative.<\/p>

                Thank you to all the leaders and representatives of the inspection service, representatives of justice institutions, as well as all participants in this conference, who share with great professionalism the experiences of their countries, models of organization and functioning of inspection services, standards and the best methods which we should all follow.<\/p>

                And finally, a special thank you to the HIJ office staff and my collaborators, Linda, D\u00ebshira, Moza, Klodi, Adela and all the staff, who have worked hard, until late hours for this activity. I express my gratitude for your dedication, commitment and the support you have given me to undertake this initiative.<\/p>

                Dear participants!<\/strong><\/p>

                When I was discussing with my colleagues the undertaking of this conference, we had some big dilemmas. What would the conference theme be?! What would be the common issues that unite us all?! What are the differences?! Or maybe as I emphasized in my greeting speech, our political, legal or social diversity creates a great distance and division between us, which cannot be approached, or cannot bring us all together to share with each other ideas, the same problems, or the right ways to solve them.<\/p>

                But no<\/strong>, this activity showed the opposite! Now I can say with all my conviction that this organization was worth it and it has achieved the purpose for which it was conceived.<\/p>

                This is due to the fact that it is based on our common belief in European values such as democracy and the rule of law, partnership, successful communication, as well as the good will to contribute to the development of the role of inspection services.<\/p>

                Now that this activity is in its concluding phase, I believe that this tradition should continue and this is just the beginning of a long process of cooperation and interaction between us.<\/p>

                Thank you everyone!<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

                \n\t\t\t\t
                \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

                FR<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>

                LE HAUT INSPECTEUR DE LA JUSTICE PRESENTE LES CONCLUSIONS DE LA CONFERENCE DES SERVICES D\u2019INSPECTION DE LA JUSTICE TIRANA 2022<\/strong><\/span><\/p>

                Merci encore a tous pour votre engagement aujourd\u2019hui\u00a0!<\/p>

                L\u2019ordre du jour \u00e9tait une peu charg\u00e9, parce que les sujets abord\u00e9s \u00e9taient nombreux. Mais c’\u00e9tait un d\u00e9bat n\u00e9cessaire et tr\u00e8s fructueux pour nous tous.<\/p>

                J’ai essay\u00e9 de prendre des notes, autant que j’ai pu, et en m\u00eame temps j’ai essay\u00e9 de synth\u00e9tiser certains sentiments et r\u00e9flexions, li\u00e9s aux questions abord\u00e9es aujourd’hui.\u00a0 Ils sont nombreux et le temps disponible ne suffit pas. Cependant, je vais essayer d’en aborder quelques-uns.<\/p>

                Personnellement, je pense, mais aussi dans la mesure o\u00f9 il a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 par les participants \u00e0 cette table ronde, il convient de mentionner quelques moments\u00a0:<\/p>

                QUALIT\u00c9 DE LA JUSTICE<\/strong><\/p>

                • La qualit\u00e9 de la justice est une priorit\u00e9 pour tous les pays. Il y a des probl\u00e8mes qui sont les m\u00eames pour les pays de l’Union Europ\u00e9enne. Certains sont communs \u00e0 tous les pays du Conseil de l’Europe et d’autres sont sp\u00e9cifiques \u00e0 chacun.<\/li>
                • L’am\u00e9lioration de la qualit\u00e9 de la justice est un processus dynamique et en constante \u00e9volution. Atteindre cet objectif n\u00e9cessite un besoin continu de r\u00e9pondre aux d\u00e9fis de l’identification de nouveaux m\u00e9canismes pour les prot\u00e9ger.<\/li>
                • L’activit\u00e9 des magistrats, mais aussi des tribunaux, des procureurs ou d’autres institutions judiciaires doit \u00eatre l’objet d’un contr\u00f4le ou d’une \u00e9valuation en termes de qualit\u00e9 et d’efficacit\u00e9 de leur activit\u00e9.<\/li>
                • Le concept de \u00ab\u00a0qualit\u00e9 de la justice\u00a0\u00bb n’inclut pas seulement la qualit\u00e9 des d\u00e9cisions de justice, qui sont g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement soumises \u00e0 un contr\u00f4le au sein m\u00eame de la justice, mais comprend \u00e9galement un certain nombre d’\u00e9l\u00e9ments li\u00e9s au bon fonctionnement du syst\u00e8me judiciaire, tels que la clart\u00e9 des proc\u00e9dures et d\u00e9cisions de justice, acc\u00e8s des justiciables aux organes de la justice, infrastructures, d\u00e9lais ou m\u00e9canismes mis \u00e0 la disposition du public.<\/li>
                • L’efficacit\u00e9 du travail des magistrats d’une part et des syst\u00e8mes judiciaires d’autre part est une condition n\u00e9cessaire \u00e0 la protection des droits de tous les individus, au respect des exigences d’un proc\u00e8s \u00e9quitable, \u00e0 la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 juridique et garantir la confiance du public dans l’\u00c9tat de droit.<\/li><\/ul>

                  CONFIANCE PUBLIQUE<\/strong><\/p>

                  • Le niveau de confiance des citoyens dans le syst\u00e8me judiciaire est un \u00e9l\u00e9ment tr\u00e8s important pour le syst\u00e8me judiciaire. Dans une d\u00e9mocratie, la justice est rendue au nom du peuple. La confiance du public est essentielle pour l’\u00c9tat de Droit et cette l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 exige l’engagement de toutes les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s \u00e0 maintenir cette confiance.<\/li>
                  • La confiance du public et le respect du pouvoir judiciaire sont des garanties de d\u00e9mocratie et de stabilit\u00e9 dans une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9mocratique. Le niveau de confiance des citoyens dans le syst\u00e8me judiciaire est un \u00e9l\u00e9ment tr\u00e8s important pour le syst\u00e8me judiciaire, car il s’agit d’un indicateur important pour \u00e9valuer le fonctionnement du syst\u00e8me judiciaire et l’\u00c9tat de droit dans un pays.<\/li>
                  • Dans ce contexte, un magistrat devrait \u00eatre responsable non seulement du respect ou du non-respect des normes l\u00e9gales, mais aussi des citoyens, de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et des autorit\u00e9s de l’\u00c9tat, affectant ainsi directement la perception du public et la confiance dans le syst\u00e8me judiciaire.<\/li>
                  • Cependant, gagner la confiance du public ne signifie pas que le pouvoir judiciaire doit \u00eatre constamment sous pression pour prendre des d\u00e9cisions, que le public devrait aimer ou avec lesquelles le public doit n\u00e9cessairement \u00eatre d’accord. M\u00eame les tribunaux devraient \u00eatre ind\u00e9pendants et ne devraient pas \u00eatre influenc\u00e9s par la perception publique d’une question particuli\u00e8re.<\/li>
                  • Une d\u00e9cision de tribunal peut provoquer une opposition publique, m\u00eame la col\u00e8re ou un sentiment de proteste. Mais dans ce cas, ce qui compte c\u2019est la R\u00c9ACTION. La fa\u00e7on dont le public r\u00e9agit face a une d\u00e9cision du tribunal, et m\u00eame le d\u00e9bat ouvert, sert non seulement comme une inspiration ou une aide a la formation du caract\u00e8re social et politique de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019un pays mais aussi comme indicateur de son niveau de confiance dans le syst\u00e8me judiciaire.<\/li>
                  • Les d\u00e9cisions des tribunaux peuvent faire l’objet de la discussion et du d\u00e9bat publique, mais elles sont obligatoires \u00e0 appliquer. La forme la plus \u00e9lev\u00e9e de la confiance du public dans le syst\u00e8me judiciaire est le respect et la reconnaissance de la \u00ab l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 \u00bb du pouvoir judiciaire. Ceci est r\u00e9alis\u00e9 lorsque les citoyens d’un pays reconnaissent, mettent en \u0153uvre et respectent pieusement les d\u00e9cisions du pouvoir judiciaire, reconnaissant sa “l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9” dans tous les cas, qu’ils soient ou non d’accord avec lui.<\/li>
                  • D\u00e9sormais, le d\u00e9fi de chacun d’entre nous n’est plus le temps de gagner la confiance du public dans le syst\u00e8me de justice, mais de construire un syst\u00e8me de justice qui soit respect\u00e9 par le public.<\/li><\/ul>

                    IND\u00c9PENDANCE DES MAGISTRATS<\/strong><\/p>

                    • Le syst\u00e8me judiciaire, outre les caract\u00e9ristiques et sp\u00e9cificit\u00e9s qu’il peut avoir dans diff\u00e9rents pays est caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 par les m\u00eames valeurs et fonctionne selon les m\u00eames normes et principes internationaux d’organisation ou de fonctionnement.<\/li>
                    • Les principes de base appliqu\u00e9s \u00e0 l’organisation de la justice reposent sur le principe universel de l’ind\u00e9pendance judiciaire. Un pouvoir judiciaire ind\u00e9pendant et impartial est l’institution qui a la plus haute valeur dans toute soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et constitue un pilier indispensable de la d\u00e9mocratie et de l’\u00c9tat de droit.<\/li>
                    • L’ind\u00e9pendance du pouvoir judiciaire peut subir des changements structurels, institutionnels et juridiques, mais elle ne peut r\u00e9ussir, que si la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d’un pays confie dans la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 du pouvoir judiciaire et d\u00e9montre un r\u00e9el engagement vis-\u00e0-vis de cette norme.<\/li>
                    • Il existe une tendance importante \u00e0 assurer l’ind\u00e9pendance du pouvoir judiciaire par des garanties formelles et des proc\u00e9dures fixes. Bien qu’il soit important de reconna\u00eetre que les syst\u00e8mes judiciaires des diff\u00e9rents pays ont \u00e9volu\u00e9 ou ont suivi des voies diff\u00e9rentes de leur consolidation. Cependant, on peut se demander si une norme internationale uniforme devrait \u00eatre appliqu\u00e9e.<\/li><\/ul>

                      SYST\u00c8ME DE COMPTABILIT\u00c9<\/strong><\/p>

                      • Il faut reconna\u00eetre que l’augmentation de la comp\u00e9tence et de l’ind\u00e9pendance des magistrats doit s’accompagner d’un syst\u00e8me de responsabilisation<\/li>
                      • En effet, l’ind\u00e9pendance n’est pas un privil\u00e8ge, mais une responsabilit\u00e9. Dans ce cas, il doit y avoir un processus continu d’\u00e9quilibre entre l’ind\u00e9pendance et la responsabilit\u00e9. Ces processus doivent \u00eatre caract\u00e9ris\u00e9s \u00e0 la fois par l’action et la contre-r\u00e9action. Plus le syst\u00e8me judiciaire poss\u00e8de de pouvoirs, plus les exigences en mati\u00e8re de responsabilit\u00e9 doivent \u00eatre \u00e9lev\u00e9es.<\/li>
                      • La fonction de magistrats ind\u00e9pendants, charg\u00e9s d’interpr\u00e9ter et d’appliquer la loi est universellement reconnue comme la caract\u00e9ristique fondamentale de l’\u00c9tat d\u00e9mocratique moderne, la pierre angulaire de l’\u00c9tat de Droit, mais ce pouvoir n’est pas absolu<\/em>. En effet, les magistrats sont des repr\u00e9sentants d’institutions publiques et ils n’ont que le pouvoir qui leur est attribu\u00e9 par l’ordre juridique.<\/li>
                      • A cet effet, il est n\u00e9cessaire que les instances dirigeantes de la justice aient une approche active du syst\u00e8me de responsabilisation<\/em><\/strong> des magistrats en appliquant de nouvelles approches qui consistent dans l’application conjointe des normes obligatoires de rendre compte<\/strong> et de<\/strong> responsabilit\u00e9<\/strong>.<\/li>
                      • Le syst\u00e8me de responsabilit\u00e9 des magistrats ne doit pas \u00eatre utilis\u00e9 \u00e0 mauvais escient par d’autres organes du gouvernement dans le but de contr\u00f4ler et de violer l’ind\u00e9pendance judiciaire.<\/li>
                      • Le syst\u00e8me de responsabilisation devrait \u00eatre guid\u00e9 principalement par la notion de responsabilit\u00e9 des magistrats, en tant que m\u00e9canisme pr\u00e9ventif qui assure la construction d’un syst\u00e8me judiciaire ind\u00e9pendant et impartial.<\/li><\/ul>

                        SYST\u00c8ME DE RESPONSABILIT\u00c9<\/strong><\/p>