Report on the UNDP access to justice survey in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States
Access to justice
Mar 20, 2016
2009 - Report on the UNDP access to justice survey in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Report on the UNDP access to justice survey in Europeand the Commonwealth of Independent States
Report UNDP’s surveyOn access to justiceIn Europe and CIS
Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States
Bratislava Regional Centre
March, 2009
Acknowledgements This report could not have been prepared without the contributions from the Regional Country Offices. The author
and the Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC) Human Rights and Justice Team would like to thank the following: Alla
Bakunts (Armenia), Uladzimir Shcherbau (Belarus), Mario Kresic (Croatia), Stella Isidorou and Nicolas Jarraud (Cyprus),
Natia Cherkezishvili (Georgia), Ainur Baimyrza (Kazakhstan), Virgjina Dumnica (Kosovo), Maksat Usupbaeva (Kyrgyzs-
tan), Lina Jankauskiene (Lithuania), Matilda Dimovska (Republic of Moldova), Jelena Djonovic (Montenegro), Olivera
Puric (Serbia), Alisher Karimov and Rastislav Vrbensky (Tajikistan), Leyla Sen and Seher Alacaci (Turkey), and Evgeniy
Abdullaev (Uzbekistan). Special thanks should also be given to Nina Berg (New York). In addition, contributions were
received for the Legal Aid Annex (Annex 3) from Atanas Politov and Olga Shepeleva from the Public Interest Law Ini-
tiative and from Milica Popovic. Thanks also to Barbara Hall for language editing.
Author: Joanna Brooks
Coordinators: Louise Nylin, Rustam Pulatov, Angela Dumitrasco
Design and layout: Valuer, Slovakia
Copyright 2009 United Nations Development Programme, All rights reserved
The views expressed in this study reflect the author’s opinion and do not necessarily reflect UNDP’s position.
2
Table of contentsACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Background and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Summary of Main Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Access to Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Structure of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. OVERVIEW OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN EACH RESPONDENT COUNTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1 Overview of the Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. UNDP’s ACCESS TO JUSTICE PORTFOLIO IN THE REGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1 UNDP’s Comparative Advantages and Entry Points into Access to Justice Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 Consultations with Rights-Holders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3 UNDP’s Future Access to Justice Programming in Europe and the CIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. UNDP’s SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. AREAS FOR FURTHER INTERVENTION/SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1 Identified Areas of Access to Justice of interest to Country Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2 Areas for Future Support from the Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
ANNEXES
Annex I Baseline Study on Access to Justice Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Annex II Country Offices and Participants in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Annex III Database of Legal Aid Providers in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Annex IV Database of Judicial Training Institutions in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Annex V Database of Access to Justice Projects in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Annex VI UNDP’s Partners and Donors in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
TABLES
Table 1 Overview of the Justice System in Respondent Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 2 Breakdown of Marginalized/Vulnerable Groups per Country and
Corresponding Protective Policies/Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3
FIGURES
Figure I Overview of Legal System Reform and Inter-Linkages between the Reform
Process and Capacity Building of Rights-Holders and Duty-Bearers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure II Legal Aid Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure III Breakdown of Marginalized/Vulnerable Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure IV UNDP’s Areas of Engagement in Access to Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure V Country Office Budgets for Access to Justice Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure VI Specific Thematic Studies and Knowledge Products of Interest to Country Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4
Acronyms and AbbreviationsADR Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
BRC Bratislava Regional Centre
CIS The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
CoP Community of Practice
CSO Civil Society Organization
EU European Union
FSU Former Soviet Union
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
JTC Judicial Training Centre
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
5
1.1 Background and Context
While development challenges in Europe and the CIS
vary widely, the region is united by three commonalities:
(a) European cultural/historical heritages, which influ-
ence prospects for regional integration and cooperation
(but which become weaker as one moves east and
south); (b) relatively high human development levels
(most countries in the region being middle-income
countries); and (c) the post-Communist transition.1 The
latter point refers both to the transition from authoritar-
ian politics and planned economies to market-based
democracies, and to the challenges of state- and nation-
building in successor states created by the dissolution
of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
Despite the modernization of public institutions and the
establishment of market economies, two formidable
governance challenges remain across the region: weak
political interest in further reform, which is a reflection
of inadequate efforts to promote inclusive citizenship
and empower the excluded; and inadequate state ca-
pacity to implement reforms, deliver public services and
ensure that elites are accountable to taxpayers and con-
stituencies. The ‘transition momentum’ that inspired an
unprecedented wave of democratic reforms in the 1990s
has largely stalled, which prompts the need for much
closer attention to detailed tuning and sequencing of
policy measures and to the choice of implementation
modalities, and for nurturing the internal drivers of
democracy, including justice and human rights.
Reform of the judiciary is a priority for many countries in
the region. Specifically, reform to create independent
justice sectors is underway in many countries, in both
the criminal and civil justice systems. In many countries
of the region, both courts and governments have been
operating inefficiently and without effective systems of
democratic accountability, and in some countries, pub-
lic corruption has been fostered at every level. Access to
justice is a vital part of the UNDP mandate to reduce
poverty and strengthen democratic governance. It is
also important to note that the rule of law and inde-
pendence of the judiciary are criteria for European Union
(EU) accession, which provides incentive for those coun-
tries in the region that are on the EU accession path.
Globally, UNDP supports national processes to acceler-
ate the progress of human development with a view to
eradicating poverty through development, equitable and
sustained economic growth and capacity development.
Accordingly, all UNDP policy advice, technical support,
advocacy and contributions to strengthening coherence
in global development must be aimed at the same end
result: real improvement in people’s lives and in the
choices and opportunities open to them. A focus on en-
hancing accountability and responsive governing insti-
tutions constitutes one of UNDP’s development priorities
of support for 2008–2011,2 since it is a critical element of
democratic governance for human development. UNDP
support to national governments focuses on three
branches of government: (a) strengthening legislatures,
regional elected bodies and local assemblies; (b) sup-
porting public administration reforms, in national gov-
ernments and local authorities; and (c) promoting access
to justice and the rule of law. In these areas, programme
priority is given to strengthening the responsiveness
mechanisms and public accountability to the concerns
and interests of poor people, women and other vulnera-
ble or excluded groups. Also, UNDP supports effective
national public policy processes where the public sector
– at local, regional and national levels – develops the ca-
pacity and resources to manage policies and services.
In light of the region’s characteristics, UNDP's long-term
mission of Europe and the CIS can be best described as
helping Europe and CIS countries develop socio-economic
structures and governance systems that ensure sustainable,
inclusive, equitable (particularly in terms of access to serv-
ices), high and growing human development. FollowingEX
EC
UT
IV
E
SU
MM
AR
Y
6
1. Executive summary
1 While exceptions can be found, all member Europe and CIS countries share at least one of these commonalities; many share all three.2 More details can be found in the UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, www.undp.org/execbrd/word/dp07-43Rev1.doc
this affirmation that access to justice is a basic human
right and a vital part of the UNDP mandate to reduce
poverty and strengthen democratic governance, the fol-
lowing main sub-areas of support were defined: legal
protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counselling, ad-
judication, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms and
law enforcement grounded in the human rights frame-
work. In these areas UNDP has supported a number of
projects in various countries in the region; in addition, a
strong interest and an increase in projects in the justice
sector have been observed in recent years. Since a pre-
dominant reason for the weakness of the justice system
in the region is the lack of people’s trust in the judiciary, a
number of projects have addressed this challenge by
supporting reform processes and finding ways in which
the judiciary would be more effective and transparent in
delivering services to people with a special focus on vul-
nerable groups.
The focus of UNDP’s Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC) in
this field is on providing support to Country Offices in
order to share and strengthen their knowledge on ac-
cess to justice and on building the capacities of national
justice institutions to better protect and promote human
rights at the national level. The work undertaken by BRC
aims to complement the projects implemented by
Country Offices at the national level through the provi-
sion of methodologies, tools, training and face-to-face
meetings, drawing on regional and international best
practices. Some regional strategic guidance material has
often been requested by the UNDP Country Offices to
complement the available materials, such as the UNDP
Access to Justice Practice Note3 and A Practitioner’s Guide
to a Human Rights-Based Approach to Access to Justice4.
To respond to a growing demand for support in the area
of access to justice expressed by UNDP Country Offices
in Europe and the CIS, during 2009 BRC will consolidate
its regional framework of support and is forming an Ac-
cess to Justice Community of Practice for work in the
sector. The first concrete step was organizing a two-day
working meeting with Justice Focal Points from five
Country Offices in the region,5 with programming expe-
rience from the justice sector. The focal points were in-
vited to provide advice and guidance on how to set up
a regional access to justice CoP and related building
blocks. The meeting was designed as an initial step in
developing the regional framework, which will provide
support mechanisms for the whole region.
At the meeting, it was agreed that a baseline study on
access to justice would be developed. It was also agreed
that the information gathered should contain some key
details on the access to justice situation in each country
of the region as well as UNDP initiatives. In this context,
the BRC Justice and Human Rights sub-practice was
commissioned to undertake the initial stock-taking of
UNDP’s regional assets in the access to justice area under
the overall justice and human rights umbrella. The infor-
mation was collected through an on-line Questionnaire
in cooperation with UNDP Country Office Focal Points
and further processed into a report. This report provides
an overall picture of access to justice in the region based
on the information contributed by the participating
Country Offices. The report also includes recommenda-
tions to help shape UNDP’s future access to justice pro-
gramming in the region and BRC’s support to Country
Offices in this respect.
1.2 Objective
The main objective of the report is to take stock of
UNDP’s assets on access to justice in the region, which
can be used to strengthen and shape its future access
to justice programming in order to ensure UNDP’s recog-
nition as a credible actor in support of justice reform and
access to justice in Europe and the CIS.
1.3 Summary of main conclusionsand recommendations
a. Conclusions
Some general conclusions that can be drawn from the
responses to the Questionnaire are as follows:
(I) UNDP is working in broad and diverse areas
of access to justice in the region;
EX
EC
UT
IV
E
SU
MM
AR
Y
73 http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/Justice_PN_En.pd4 http://regionalcentrebangkok.undp.or.th/practices/governance/a2j/docs/ProgrammingForJustice-AccessForAll.pdf5 The Justice Focal Points from UNDP Country Offices in Serbia, Moldova, Turkey, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the UNDP BDP Justice Adviser and the Special-
ist on Legal Empowerment of the Poor based in New York, United States of America, participated in the meeting. The meeting and related follow-up activities weremade possible by resources allocated from the Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund (DGTTF) for regional activities.
(II) UNDP has utilized many different entry
points into access to justice programming
in the region;
(III) Most countries, 85.7 percent, have a planned
or ongoing judicial reform process;
(IV) Separation of powers exists formally in all of
the respondent countries; however, de facto
judicial independence is still questioned in
some countries;
(V) There is an active Bar Association in all of the
respondent countries, but there are issues
affecting its independence in 71.4 percent
of them;
(VI) There are judicial training institutions
in all of the respondent countries;
(VII) Support to judicial training institutions
is a useful intervention for UNDP;
(VIII) All countries have vulnerable/marginalized
groups, the most frequent being women and
children and youth, 64.3 percent respectively;
(IX) Most countries, 78.6 percent, have a provision
for alternative dispute resolution (ADR);
(X) All countries have either a formal or informal
system of legal aid provision;
(XI) UNDP has created strong partnerships
in the region;
(XII) All Country Offices that responded expressed
a need for assistance, expertise and/or sup-
port from BRC.
b. Recommendations
The following general recommendations for further
UNDP programming and support at the regional level
can be drawn from the responses to the Questionnaire:
(I) To continue to support access to justice
programming in the region;
(II) To place capacity development and account-
able governance at the forefront of UNDP’s
programming in the region;
(III) To hold consultations with rights-holders
when developing projects and programmes;
(IV) To develop specific thematic areas and
knowledge products as requested by the
Country Offices;
(V) To continue to provide support for judicial
training institutions;
(VI) To facilitate increased knowledge and experi-
ence sharing in the region in order to enhance
the effectiveness of UNDP programming;
(VII) To facilitate enhancement of peer-to-peer
interaction and encourage the use of the
Access to Justice CoP workspace;
(VIII) To develop more regional programmes within
the subregions;
(IX) To provide training to UNDP staff in the region
on topics such as ombudsmen institutions,
free legal aid, legal empowerment and ADR;
(X) To provide Country Offices with information
on fundraising opportunities within UNDP;
(XI) To provide support in facilitating dialogue
between Country Offices and donors;
(XII) To increase UNDP resource allocation for
access to justice programming in the region.
EX
EC
UT
IV
E
SU
MM
AR
Y
8
2.1 Access to Justice
For the United Nations, ‘justice’ is an ideal of accounta-
bility and fairness in the protection and vindication of
rights and the prevention and punishment of wrongs.
Justice is closely related to UNDP’s mandate – poverty
eradication and human development. There are strong
links between establishing democratic governance, re-
ducing poverty and securing access to justice. Demo-
cratic governance is undermined where access to justice
for all citizens, irrespective of gender, race, religion, age,
class or creed, is absent.
UNDP upholds that access to justice is a basic human
right, as well as an indispensable means of combating
poverty and preventing and resolving conflict. Access to
justice is a vital part of the UNDP mandate to reduce
poverty and strengthen democratic governance. Within
the broad context of justice reform, UNDP’s specific niche
lies in supporting justice and related systems so that they
work for those who are poor and disadvantaged. Moreover,
this is consistent with UNDP’s strong commitment to the
Millennium Declaration and the fulfillment of the Millen-
nium Development Goals. Empowering the poor and dis-
advantaged to seek remedies for injustice, strengthening
linkages between formal and informal structures and
countering biases inherent in both systems can provide
access to justice for those who would otherwise be ex-
cluded.
UNDP is committed to using a human rights main-
streaming/integration approach in its programming,
guided by international human rights standards and prin-
ciples. Access to justice means much more than improv-
ing an individual’s access to courts or guaranteeing legal
representation. It consists in ensuring that legal and ju-
dicial outcomes are just and equitable, and that systems
work in practice for the poor and the disadvantaged.
In Europe and the CIS, reform to create independent jus-
tice sectors is underway in many countries, in both the
criminal and civil justice systems. In many countries of the
region, both courts and governments have been oper-
ated inefficiently and without effective systems of demo-
cratic accountability, while in some countries, public cor-
ruption has been fostered at every level. As a result, the
poor and other vulnerable groups have in many cases
been marginalized, without having recourse to justice.
There are six main support areas that focus UNDP’s work
on access to justice: legal protection, legal awareness,
legal aid and counselling, adjudication, traditional dispute
resolution mechanisms and law enforcement.
Figure I provides an overview of legal system reform
and shows the inter-linkages between the reform
process and capacity building of rights-holders and
duty-bearers. See page 10.
2.2 Structure
The report is structured around the broad areas con-
tained in the Questionnaire. The report gathers informa-
tion on the justice systems in the region through specific
country analysis and looks at the UNDP Access to Jus-
tice portfolio in the region. It presents donors and part-
ners, and provides conclusions and recommendations
for further intervention and support. It also includes a
number of useful annexes, including a database of all
UNDP access to justice projects in the region, a database
of all judicial training institutions in the region and a
compendium of legal aid information in the region.
2.3 Methodology
The study was conducted from 20 November to 5 De-
cember 2008, with an extension until 16 January 2009.
The data-collecting instrument was an on-line Ques-
tionnaire designed to gather information on UNDP’s as-
sets in terms of access to justice programming in the
region.
The Questionnaire consisted of separate sections, which
were developed in order to gather the most relevant in-
formation. The sections were divided as follows:
IN
TR
OD
UC
TI
ON
9
2. Introduction
(I) Introduction – to gather general information
on the respondent and his/her Country Office.
(II) Access to Justice Situation in the Country –
to ascertain details pertaining to the overall ac-
cess to justice and judicial reform situation in
the respondent’s country.
(III) UNDP Access to Justice Portfolio – to obtain
information on the areas of access to justice on
which each Country Office is working and to
gather information to complete a mapping of
all access to justice projects undertaken to date
in the region.
(IV) Donors and Partners – to obtain information
on each Country Office’s multilateral, bilateral
and United Nations System donors and part-
ners, including non-governmental organiza-
tions (NGOs) and other organizations.
(V) Access to Justice Areas for Further Informa-
tion – to identify areas that respondents would
be interested in learning more about, including
specific thematic studies and knowledge prod-
ucts. The information would then be used to help
shape UNDPs’ future access to justice program-
ming in the region and BRC’s future support.
Once the Questionnaire had been developed and final-
ized in consultation with UNDP BRC, it was placed on-
line and an introductory email sent to all Human Rights
and Justice Focal Points in the region.
Responses to the Questionnaire were received from the
following Country Offices: Armenia, Croatia, Cyprus,
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo,6 Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Re-
public of Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey
and Uzbekistan.7 It is important to point out that each
of the subregions were represented in the responses,
namely, Central Asia -Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan
IN
TR
OD
UC
TI
ON
10
Trust and Confidence in the Legal System
Cap
acity developm
ent
Legally Empowered People
Right and Duties
Capable Judicial Institutions
Paralegals
Lawyers
Cap
acity developm
ent
People Claiming
Rights
InstitutionsDelivering
Services
Figure I Legal System Reform
Figure I Overview of Legal System Reform and Inter-Linkages between the Reform Process and Capacity Building of Rights-Holders andDuty-Bearers
6 The United Nations Administered Territory of Kosovo, as per United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244.7 See Annex II for a list of Country Offices and Participants in the Study.
IN
TR
OD
UC
TI
ON
11
and Uzbekistan; the South Caucasus – Armenia and
Georgia; Russia and Western CIS – Moldova; and South
Eastern Europe – Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Ser-
bia. In terms of EU integration, responses were received
from: member states – Cyprus and Lithuania; candidate
countries – Croatia and Turkey; and potential candidate
countries – Montenegro and Serbia, including Kosovo.
Once the completed questionnaires were received, the
responses were analysed and compared in order to iden-
tify any regional trends and/or differences, draw certain
conclusions and make recommendations on future
UNDP access to justice programming and BRC’s support
to Country Offices. Conclusions provided in this report
are based on the data obtained through the Question-
naire.
Nota Bene
Best efforts were made to ensure that this report is as
comprehensive as possible. It should be pointed out,
however, that the Questionnaire identified specific
areas of access to justice and is not fully exhaustive.
In this context, this report does not provide the reader
with a fully comprehensive picture/situational analy-
sis of access to justice in the region. Moreover, it pres-
ents the responses of those Country Offices that
completed the Questionnaire and draws some broad
findings and conclusions by analysing the responses.
It provides some general information on the access to
justice system in the respondent countries and makes
conclusions and recommendations on UNDP’s access
to justice programming in the region. Additionally, it
should be noted that the interpretation of access to
justice is inevitably subjective, which leads to some
discrepancies in the comprehensiveness of the data
received and therefore impacts on the conclusions
and recommendations. This report will be placed on
the Access to Justice Community of Practice (CoP)
Workspace, where Country Offices will be invited to
contribute further to this report in order to make it
more comprehensive and systematic, and to provide
greater opportunity for analysis.
OV
ER
VI
EW
O
F
TH
E
JU
ST
IC
E
SY
ST
EM
I
N
EA
CH
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
T
CO
UN
TR
Y
12 3. O
verv
iew
of t
he ju
stic
e sy
stem
in e
ach
resp
onde
nt c
ount
ryTa
ble
1 O
verv
iew
of t
he
Just
ice
Syst
em in
Res
pon
den
t Cou
ntr
ies
Cou
ntr
yTy
pe
of
jud
icia
l sy
stem
Min
istr
y of
Jus
tice
Man
dat
e
Sep
arat
ion
of P
ower
sJu
dic
ial
Refo
rmPr
oces
s
Bar
A
ssoc
iati
onLe
gal
Aid
Pr
ovis
ion
Alt
ern
ativ
eD
isp
ute
Reso
luti
on(A
DR)
JTC
an
d it
s m
and
ate
Arm
enia
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em
Legi
slatio
n an
dpe
nite
ntia
ry s
yste
mYe
sO
ngoi
ng
Yes,
not f
ully
inde
pend
ent
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Bar A
ssoc
iatio
n an
dle
gal c
linic
s in
Crim
inal
, civ
il, la
bour
,co
mm
erci
al,
adm
inist
rativ
eco
nstit
utio
nal, f
amily
and
soci
al c
ases
Yes
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors,
cond
uctin
g of
qual
ifica
tion
test
for
com
pilin
g th
e lis
t of
judi
cial
can
dida
tes
Cro
atia
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em
Legi
slatio
n,ap
poin
tmen
t of
Pres
iden
ts o
f the
cou
rts,
nota
ries a
nd ju
dici
alad
vise
rs, ju
dici
aled
ucat
ion,
pris
onsy
stem
, coo
pera
tion
with
inte
rnat
iona
lco
urts
, adm
inist
rativ
esu
perv
ision
of j
udic
ial
inst
itutio
ns
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Bar A
ssoc
iatio
n, N
GO
san
dun
iver
sity
lega
l clin
ics
in c
rimin
al, c
ivil
and
adm
inist
rativ
e ca
ses
Yes
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors
OV
ER
VI
EW
O
F
TH
E
JU
ST
IC
E
SY
ST
EM
I
N
EA
CH
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
T
CO
UN
TR
Y
13Cou
ntr
yTy
pe
of
jud
icia
l sy
stem
Min
istr
y of
Jus
tice
Man
dat
e
Sep
arat
ion
of P
ower
sJu
dic
ial
Refo
rmPr
oces
s
Bar
A
ssoc
iati
onLe
gal
Aid
Pr
ovis
ion
Alt
ern
ativ
eD
isp
ute
Reso
luti
on(A
DR)
JTC
an
d it
s m
and
ate
Cyp
rus
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em
Legi
slat
ion,
the
Polic
eFo
rce,
Ye
s Co
mpl
eted
Ye
sYe
s, pr
ovid
ed b
y th
eM
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e an
dth
e Ba
r Ass
ocia
tion
incr
imin
al, h
uman
right
s vi
olat
ions
,fa
mily
and
cro
ss-
bord
er c
ases
Yes
No,
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed th
roug
h th
eEu
rope
an Ju
dici
alTr
aini
ng N
etw
ork
Geo
rgia
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal
lega
l sys
tem
Legi
slat
ion,
ha
rmon
izat
ion
with
inte
rnat
iona
l rul
esan
d re
gula
tions
, law
enfo
rcem
ent
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
–Le
gal A
id S
ervi
ce a
ndLe
gal A
id B
urea
u, th
eBa
r Ass
ocia
tion,
lega
lcl
inic
s in
crim
inal
, civ
ilan
d ad
min
istr
ativ
eca
ses
No
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors
Kaz
akh
stan
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes,
not f
ully
inde
pend
ent
Yes,
prov
ided
by
univ
ersi
ties,
the
Bar A
ssoc
iatio
nan
d th
e M
inis
try
ofJu
stic
e in
crim
inal
case
s
No
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors
OV
ER
VI
EW
O
F
TH
E
JU
ST
IC
E
SY
ST
EM
I
N
EA
CH
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
T
CO
UN
TR
Y
14 Cou
ntr
yTy
pe
of
jud
icia
l sy
stem
Min
istr
y of
Jus
tice
Man
dat
e
Sep
arat
ion
of P
ower
sJu
dic
ial
Refo
rmPr
oces
s
Bar
A
ssoc
iati
onLe
gal
Aid
Pr
ovis
ion
Alt
ern
ativ
eD
isp
ute
Reso
luti
on(A
DR)
JTC
an
d it
s m
and
ate
Kos
ovo
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em
Legi
slatio
n, ju
stic
epo
licy,
the
priso
nsy
stem
, pro
visio
n of
lega
l ass
istan
ce to
vict
ims
of c
rime,
miss
ing
pers
ons,
fore
nsic
med
icin
e,in
tern
atio
nal
assis
tanc
e an
d co
-op
erat
ion
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Lega
l Aid
Com
mis
sion
in C
ivil
and
Crim
inal
Cas
es
Yes
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors
Kyrg
yzst
anTh
ree-
tiere
dco
ntin
enta
l leg
alsy
stem
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
Lega
lcl
inic
s in
hum
an ri
ghts
viol
atio
ns, g
ende
rdi
scrim
inat
ion
and
crim
inal
cas
es
Yes
Yes,
trai
ning
for
judg
es
Lith
uan
iaTh
ree-
tiere
dco
ntin
enta
l leg
alsy
stem
Yes
Com
plet
ed
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
univ
ersi
ties,
the
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
(MoJ
),leg
al c
linic
s,Lo
cal G
over
nmen
tEx
ecut
ive
Inst
itutio
nsan
d th
e Co
unci
l of
Law
yers
in c
ivil,
crim
inal
and
adm
inis
trat
ive
case
s
Yes
The
JTC
is n
owin
corp
orat
ed in
to th
eM
oJ a
nd p
rovi
des
initi
al a
nd c
ontin
uous
trai
ning
for j
udge
san
d pr
osec
utor
s
OV
ER
VI
EW
O
F
TH
E
JU
ST
IC
E
SY
ST
EM
I
N
EA
CH
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
T
CO
UN
TR
Y
15Cou
ntr
yTy
pe
of
jud
icia
l sy
stem
Min
istr
y of
Jus
tice
Man
dat
e
Sep
arat
ion
of P
ower
sJu
dic
ial
Refo
rmPr
oces
s
Bar
A
ssoc
iati
onLe
gal
Aid
Pr
ovis
ion
Alt
ern
ativ
eD
isp
ute
Reso
luti
on(A
DR)
JTC
an
d it
s m
and
ate
Mol
dova
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em
Polic
y an
d le
gisla
tion,
repr
esen
ts th
eM
oldo
van
Gov
ernm
ent i
n th
eCo
nstit
utio
nal C
ourt
and
befo
re th
ein
tern
atio
nal c
ourt
s;re
gist
ers p
oliti
cal
part
ies a
nd o
ther
soci
al, p
oliti
cal a
ndpu
blic
org
aniz
atio
ns;
prov
ides
logi
stic
alsu
ppor
t for
the
cour
ts;
perfo
rms o
vers
ight
thro
ugh
an in
tern
alau
dit s
yste
m; h
ears
petit
ions
and
com
plai
nts d
irect
edag
ains
t cou
rts a
ndju
dges
; ove
rsee
s and
licen
ses n
otar
ies a
ndat
torn
eys,
and
since
2002
, rec
ruits
, em
ploy
san
d su
perv
ises b
ailiff
s;an
d pr
ovid
es g
ener
alov
ersig
ht o
f the
peni
tent
iary
syst
em;
cert
ifies
med
iato
rs
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Min
istry
of J
ustic
e,Th
e Ba
r Ass
ocia
tion,
Nat
iona
l Cou
ncil
for
Stat
e G
uara
ntee
dLe
gal A
id a
nd it
ste
rrito
rial o
ffice
s in
civi
l, crim
inal
and
adm
inist
rativ
e ca
ses
Yes,
med
iatio
n,ar
bitr
age
Yes –
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
fo
r jud
ges a
ndpr
osec
utor
s is
prov
ided
; tra
inin
g is
prov
ided
to m
edia
tors
and
cour
t cle
rks.
OV
ER
VI
EW
O
F
TH
E
JU
ST
IC
E
SY
ST
EM
I
N
EA
CH
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
T
CO
UN
TR
Y
16 Cou
ntr
yTy
pe
of
jud
icia
l sy
stem
Min
istr
y of
Jus
tice
Man
dat
e
Sep
arat
ion
of P
ower
sJu
dic
ial
Refo
rmPr
oces
s
Bar
A
ssoc
iati
onLe
gal
Aid
Pr
ovis
ion
Alt
ern
ativ
eD
isp
ute
Reso
luti
on(A
DR)
JTC
an
d it
s m
and
ate
Mon
ten
egro
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em
Legi
slat
ion,
don
orco
ordi
natio
n an
d pr
ojec
tim
plem
enta
tion,
judi
cial
str
ateg
y
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Mun
icip
al L
egal
Aid
Offi
ces
and
NG
Os
in c
ivil,
crim
inal
and
hum
an ri
ghts
viol
atio
ns c
ases
Yes
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
is
pro
vide
d fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors
Serb
ia
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em
Legi
slat
ion,
the
judi
ciar
y, th
e fig
htag
ains
t cor
rupt
ion,
trai
ning
, co
-ord
inat
ing
inte
rnat
iona
l act
iviti
esan
d pr
ojec
ts
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Bar A
ssoc
iatio
n,le
gal c
linic
s an
dva
rious
org
aniz
atio
nsan
d N
GO
s in
crim
inal
and
hum
an ri
ghts
viol
atio
ns c
ases
Yes
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors
Tajik
ista
n
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em a
nd m
ilita
ryco
urts
Legi
slat
ion,
juve
nile
just
ice,
org
aniz
e w
ork
of c
ourt
offi
cers
Yes
Plan
ned
Yes,
not f
ully
inde
pend
ent
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Bar A
ssoc
iatio
n in
civi
l, cr
imin
al a
ndad
min
istr
ativ
e ca
ses
No
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors
Turk
ey
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
-ta
l leg
al sy
stem
Legi
slatio
n, p
erso
nnel
,st
rate
gy d
evel
opm
ent,
judi
cial
refo
rm a
nd re
-st
ruct
urin
g, se
lect
ion
of ju
dici
al c
andi
date
s
Yes
Plan
ned
Yes
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Bar A
ssoc
iatio
n in
civ
il,co
mm
erci
al a
nd a
d-m
inist
rativ
e ca
ses
Yes
Yes,
initi
al a
nd c
ontin
u-ou
s tra
inin
g is
pro-
vide
d fo
r jud
ges a
ndpr
osec
utor
s
Uzb
ekis
tan
Thre
e-tie
red
cont
inen
tal l
egal
syst
em a
nd m
ilita
ryco
urts
Legi
slat
ion,
regi
ster
ing
of N
GO
s,ci
vil s
ocie
ty a
ndre
ligio
us o
rgan
izat
ion,
lega
l edu
catio
n
Yes
Ong
oing
Yes,
not f
ully
inde
pend
ent
Yes,
prov
ided
by
the
Bar A
ssoc
iatio
n,le
gal c
linic
s an
dN
GO
s
Yes
Yes,
initi
al a
ndco
ntin
uous
trai
ning
ispr
ovid
ed fo
r jud
ges
and
pros
ecut
ors
3.1 Overview of the Justice System
As shown in Table 1, most countries that responded, 85.7
percent, have an on-going judicial reform process. In
14.3 percent of the countries, the reform process is
planned or completed. The structure of the court system
in most of the countries is a three-tiered continental
legal system. In two of the Central Asian Country Offices
that responded, military courts are still operational.
In all countries, there is a clearly defined separation of
powers in either the constitution and/or legislation.
However, the judiciary was viewed as independent and
impartial in its work in only 35.7 percent of the countries.
The main factors cited as affecting judicial independ-
ence and impartiality were corruption and politicization
and/or abuse of power.
According to the survey data, the mandates of the Min-
istry of Justice are diverse, although in all countries the
Ministry of Justice is responsible for legislative drafting. In
Croatia, Serbia and Turkey, the Ministry of Justice is re-
sponsible for judicial appointments, and in Croatia, Ser-
bia and Uzbekistan, it is responsible for judicial training.
In the Western Balkan countries that responded, the
Ministry of Justice is responsible for international assis-
tance and cooperation in the field, while in Armenia,
Croatia, Kosovo and Kyrgyzstan, it is also responsible for
the prison system. In Moldova, the Ministry of Justice
also has a role in coordinating international assistance,
and the Penitentiary System Department is subordi-
nated to it. In Moldova and Uzbekistan, the Ministry of
Justice is responsible for registering NGOs, civil societies
and religious organizations, and in Kosovo, its mandate
extends to responsibility for missing persons and foren-
sic medicine. In Cyprus, the Ministry of Justice is also re-
sponsible for the police force.
In all countries, there is an active Bar Association; how-
ever, in 28.6 percent of them, respondents commented
that there are issues affecting their full independence. In
countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU), it has been
suggested that the main reasons have been attributed
to their Soviet legacy, with its strong domination of the
Prosecution, as well as low professional capacities and
lack of knowledge of defence attorneys. This, in turn,
leads to widespread lack of trust and perceptions of cor-
ruption of the Prosecution and the Defence. Further,
lawyers have very limited powers to collect evidence,
which hampers their capacity to counterbalance the
powers of the Prosecution and impact on the judicial
process.
In all countries that responded, there is a system of legal
aid in place, which is provided predominantly in both
criminal and civil matters; others areas, for example, are
administrative, family, human rights and commercial
matters.8 As shown in Figure II, the legal providers con-
stitute mostly representatives of Bar Associations (50 per-
cent) and legal clinics (42.9 percent).
Figure II Legal Aid Providers
In 78.6 percent of the respondent countries, there is pro-
vision for alternative dispute resolution (ADR); out of
those countries with provision for ADR, the mechanisms
are active in 81.8 percent of them.
In all respondent countries, there is provision for judicial
training, with 92.9 percent of the countries having a for-
mal judicial training centre or institution.9 In the remain-
ing 7.1 percent, the judicial training is provided by the
European Judicial Training Network.
In terms of marginalized/vulnerable groups identified in
the region, according to Figure III, women and children
and youth constitute the two most marginalized/vul-
nerable groups, each at 64.3 percent of respondent
countries, closely followed by the elderly, persons with
disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and others, all four OV
ER
VI
EW
O
F
TH
E
JU
ST
IC
E
SY
ST
EM
I
N
EA
CH
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
T
CO
UN
TR
Y
178 Please see Annex III for a breakdown of Legal Aid Frameworks in the region, together with some further resources relating to the provision of Legal Aid.9 For a database of all judicial training institutions in the region, see Annex IV.
Ministry of Justice 21.4%
University 14.3%
Other 28.6%
Bar Associations 50%
Legal Clinics 42.9%
groups at 57.1 percent. Other marginalized/vulnerable
groups include refugees, the poor, drug addicts, asylum
seekers, victims of trafficking and migrant workers. In
62.9 percent of respondent countries, there are special
policies or laws on vulnerable/marginalized groups;
mechanisms for enforcement are in place in 88.9 per-
cent of these countries.
Figure III Breakdown of Marginalized/Vulnerable Groups
Table 2 provides a breakdown of marginalized/vulnerable
groups per Country Office, according to the Questionnaire,
and corresponding protective policies or laws enforced.
OV
ER
VI
EW
O
F
TH
E
JU
ST
IC
E
SY
ST
EM
I
N
EA
CH
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
T
CO
UN
TR
Y
18
Women
Children and Youth
Elderly
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with HIV
Other
Ethnic Minorities
Persons with non-heterosexual
orientation
64.3 %
64.3 %
57.1 %
57.1 %
57.1 %
57.1 %
50.0 %
35.7 %
OV
ER
VI
EW
O
F
TH
E
JU
ST
IC
E
SY
ST
EM
I
N
EA
CH
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
T
CO
UN
TR
Y
19Cou
ntr
yEt
hn
icM
inor
itie
sW
omen
Ch
ildre
nan
d Y
outh
The
Eld
erly
Pers
ons
wit
h
Dis
abili
ties
Pers
ons
wit
hH
IV/A
IDS
Non
-Het
ero
sexu
alO
ther
Polic
ies
Law
s Pr
o-
tect
ing
Vul
-n
erab
le/M
arg
inal
ized
Gro
ups
Polic
ies
and
Law
sEn
forc
ed?
Arm
enia
xx
xx
xx
xx
x
Cro
atia
xx
xx
xx
Cyp
rus
xx
x
Geo
rgia
xx
x
Kaz
akh
stan
xx
x
Kos
ovo
xx
xx
xx
xx
Kyrg
yzst
anx
xx
xx
x
Lith
uan
ia
xx
xx
xx
Mol
dov
ax
xx
xx
xx
Mon
ten
egro
xx
xx
xx
Serb
iax
xx
xx
x
Tajik
ista
nx
xx
xx
xx
xx
x
Turk
eyx
xx
Uzb
ekis
tan
xx
xx
x
TAB
LE 2
B
REA
KD
OW
N O
F M
ARG
INA
LIZE
D/V
ULN
ERA
BLE
GRO
UPS
PER
CO
UN
TRY
AN
D C
ORR
ESPO
ND
ING
PRO
TEC
TIV
E PO
LIC
IES/
LAW
S
4.1 UNDP’s Comparative Advantages and Entry Points into Access to Justice Programming
The respondents to the Questionnaire consider that
UNDP’s comparative advantages in terms of Access to
Justice Programming in the Region are found in the fol-
lowing areas:
(I) Ability to provide an enabling environment
and capacity building (organizational
and individual)
(II) Use of project implementation units based
in ministries
(III) Experience in the field globally
(IV) Impartiality, neutrality and flexibility
(V) Credibility to facilitate policy dialogue
(VI) Credibility to facilitate partnerships with
and among different actors
(VII) Resource mobilization potential
(VIII) Commitment to long-term programming
(IX) Access to non-financial resources within
UNDP and the United Nations System
(knowledge and experience)
(X) Reputation as a mentor not a director
(XI) Reputation as a trusted partner
(XII) Ability to identify gaps and create appropriate
projects to fill the gaps.
According to Figure IV, UNDP’s entry points into and en-
gagements in access to justice programming varied
from providing support predominantly to Ombudsman
institutions/Human Rights Defenders in 64.3 percent of
cases, and judicial training institutions in 57.1 percent of
cases, to developing anti-discrimination legislation and
systems in 50 percent of cases. Other entry points have
been broader in providing support to the Ministries of
Justice and the judicial reform process as a whole.
Figure IV UNDP’s Areas of Engagement in Access to Justice
4.2 Consultations with rights-holders
Most of the Country Office representatives in nine of the
respondent Country Offices, or 64.3 percent, responded
that consultations with rights-holders had taken place.
When asked to provide more details on which rights-
holders were consulted, it was mentioned that consul-
tations were undertaken with the Ministries of Justice,
courts, prosecutors, judges, defence attorneys, judicial
training centres, international organizations, NGOs and
civil society organizations (CSOs), ombudsmen offices
and other relevant stakeholders, such as professional or-
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
OR
TF
OL
IO
20
4. UNDP’s access to justice portfolio
Ombudsmen Systems
Judicial Education
Anti-Discrimination
Legal Empowerment
Public Legal Aid
Judicial Independence
Transitional Justice
Other
Alternative Dispute
Resolution
Mutual Legal Assistance
64.3 %
57.1 %
50.0 %
42.9 %
35.7 %
28.6 %
21.4 %
21.4 %
14.3 %
14.3 %
ganizations. In this context, it seems that the definition
of a rights-holder varies from one respondent to another.
This may indicate a lack of common understanding of
the concept of duty-bearers and rights-holders among
the respondents.10 The methodology used in consulting
rights-holders varied: informal and formal interviews,
focus group meetings, brainstorming sessions, statistics
and reports, bilateral meetings, lessons learned and the
development of problem and task trees. In 35.7 percent
of the countries, no consultations with rights-holders
were reported as being undertaken.
In 75.4 percent of respondent countries, special tools
were used based on the human rights-based approach
or similar methodologies that involved rights-holders in
their current access to justice projects: research and sur-
veys, interviews, needs assessment and other relevant
methodologies.
4.3 UNDP’s future access to justice programming in Europe and the CIS
In ten out of 14 respondent countries, 75.4 percent,
UNDP has plans for future programming in the access to
justice field. This encompasses all countries except
Cyprus and Lithuania, where the reform process has
been completed, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where
the reform process is in its very early stages of develop-
ment. In terms of development areas in access to justice,
the respondents named support to ombudsmen insti-
tutions, ADR, transitional justice, anti-discrimination, free
legal aid, legal empowerment, access to justice for vic-
tims of torture and persons with disabilities, legal system
reform and support to the Human Rights Defender’s Of-
fice. Response to the question on the potential funding
allocations forecast for access to justice programming
varied from less than US$100,000 to more than
US$1,000,000.
Figure V Country Office Budgets for Access to Justice Programming11
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
OR
TF
OL
IO
2110 In some cases, rights-holders are understood as individuals in society and in some cases, individuals working in public institutions. 11 Kyrgyzstan did not respond to this question.
What is your Country Office's budget forecast in termsof access to justice programming?
<$100,000 (Cyprus, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkey)
<$250,000 (Uzbekistan)
<$500,000 (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Montenegro)
<$750,000 (Croatia, Georgia)
>$1,000,000 (Kosovo, Moldova, Serbia)
23 %
15 %8 %
31 %
23 %
In 50 percent of the countries that responded, UNDP
had created successful partnerships with the Ministry of
Justice. In 35.7 percent of respondent countries, UNDP
created successful partnerships with local NGOs.
Other successful partnerships have been created with
Supreme Courts, ombudsmen offices, National Institutes
for Justice, judicial training centres, Legal Aid Commis-
sions and other professional bodies. In relation to donors,
successful partnerships are recorded with the EU, USAID,
ABA/CEELI (now ABA/ROLI), OSCE, OSI etc. There are also
examples of cooperation with other UN agencies such
as UNICEF, UNHCR, UNODC, OHCHR, UNIFEM. 5 country
offices have also benefitted from funding from the UNDP
Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund.
It was noted that the success of partnerships depends
on the interest of participants, and if so, then much can
be achieved even with low political will.12
UN
DP
’S
S
UC
CE
SS
FU
L
PA
RT
NE
RS
HI
PS
22
5. UNDP’s successfulpartnerships
12 For a full breakdown of UNDP’s partners and donors in the region, see Annex VII.
6.1 Identified Areas of Access toJustice of Interest to CountryOffices
The following areas were identified as areas of interest
to certain Country Offices:
(I) Link between Mediation and Legal Aid
(II) Access to Justice for Vulnerable Groups
(women and juveniles, persons with
disabilities and ethnic minorities)
(III) Enhanced United Nations Agency
Co-ordination
(IV) UNDP Gender Mainstreaming Programme
(V) Judicial Reform
(VI) Alternative Dispute procedures
(VII) Legal Empowerment
(VIII) Legal Framework
(IX) Justice in Prisons
(X) Human Rights Monitoring
(XI) Development of a Legal Aid System
(XII) Human Rights-Based Approach
(XIII) Evaluation
(XIV) Public Access to Judicial Information
(XV) Ombudsmen Institutions
According to Figure VI, the respondents also showed
particular interest in the development of thematic stud-
ies and knowledge products in public legal aid, at 64.3
percent, and in comparative analysis on JTCs, ADR, legal
empowerment and legal framework/policy, each at 57.1
percent.
Figure VI Specific Thematic Studies andKnowledge Products of Interest toCountry Offices
6.2 Areas for Future Support fromthe Bratislava Regional Centre(BRC)
All Country Offices expressed their need for assistance,
expertise or support from BRC in their future access to
justice programming.13 The type of support requested
varied from human resources, provision of technical ad-
vice, expertise in implementation, expertise in drafting
project proposals, enhanced knowledge exchange, in-
formation on potential sources of funding, information
on experts, best practices and lessons learned ex-
changes and support in undertaking in-country needs
assessment.
AR
EA
S
FO
R
FU
RT
HE
R
IN
TE
RV
EN
TI
ON
/S
UP
PO
RT
23
6. Areas for furtherintervention/support
13 Cyprus and Tajikistan did not respond to this question.
Public Legal Aid
Comparative Analysis JTCs
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Empowerment
Legal Framework/Policy
Judicial Independence
Institutional Restructuring
Judicial Council inc.functional review
64.3 %
57.1 %
57.1 %
57.1 %
57.1 %
50.0 %
35.7 %
28.6 %
7.1 Conclusions
From analysing the responses to the Questionnaire, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
(I) UNDP is working in broad and diverse areas of ac-
cess to justice in the region, namely, judicial inde-
pendence, judicial education, transitional justice,
ADR, public legal aid, mutual legal assistance, om-
budsmen systems, anti-discrimination, legal em-
powerment, witness and victim support, public
access to judicial information, and human rights.
(II) UNDP has used many different entry points into ac-
cess to justice programming in the region. One of
UNDP’s most visible strengths is identifying
gaps/niches in development programming and
designing suitable projects to fill them.
(III) Most of the countries, 85.7 percent, have a planned
or ongoing judicial reform process. In Cyprus and
Lithuania, it is accepted that the reform process was
completed upon entry into the EU.
(IV) There is a formal separation of powers in all of the
respondent countries since it is included in the
Constitution and/or legislative framework. How-
ever, in 64.3 percent of the countries, there are still
issues affecting the independence and impartiality
of the judiciary.
(V) There is an active Bar Association in all of the re-
spondent countries, but in 71.4 percent of them,
there are issues affecting its independence.
(VI) Judicial Training Institutions exist in all of the re-
spondent countries; UNDP has supported judicial
training initiatives in 57.1 percent of them.
(VII) Support to Judicial Training Institutions is a useful
intervention for UNDP. This is because the projects
are easy to set up, have measurable results, are flex-
ible in size and resource requirements, and are
highly visible. Having the potential to reach a large
number of beneficiaries, donor collaboration is usu-
ally easily established in this field.
(VIII) All countries have vulnerable/marginalized groups,
the highest percentage being that of women and
children, both groups at 64.3 percent. Others include
the elderly, persons with disabilities and persons
with HIV/AIDS, all at 57.1 percent, ethnic minorities at
50 percent and persons of a non-heterosexual ori-
entation at 35.7 percent. Others include refugees,
largely in the countries of the Western Balkans, the
poor, migrant workers and asylum seekers.
(IX) Most countries, 78.6 percent, have provision for
ADR, which is actively used in most of them, 81.8
percent.
(X) All respondent countries have either a formal or in-
formal system of legal aid provision, with Bar Asso-
ciations providing legal aid in 50 percent of them.
This is followed by legal clinics, at 42.9 percent, Min-
istries of Justice, at 21.4 percent, and universities, at
14.3 percent.14
(XI) Just over half of the respondent countries, 64.3 per-
cent, use special tools based on the human rights-
based approach to programming, namely though
research, interviews, needs assessments, focus
groups, surveys and other methodologies.
(XII) UNDP has created strong partnerships in the re-
gion, largely with Ministries of Justice, courts and
judicial personnel, ombudsman institutes and judi-
CO
NC
LU
SI
ON
S
AN
D
RE
CO
MM
EN
DA
TI
ON
S
24
7. Conclusions andrecommendations
14 The Questionnaire did not include an option of selecting NGOs as providers of legal aid.
cial training institutes, the donor community and
the government at large, Human Rights Defender’s
Offices, professional associations and NGOs.
(XIII) All Country Offices that responded to the Ques-
tionnaire expressed a need for assistance, expertise
and/or support from BRC. The type of support in-
cluded more human resources, technical support
and advice, drafting of project proposals, enhanced
knowledge exchange, information on potential
sources of funding, comparative experiences from
different countries, best practices and lessons
learned.
7.2 Recommendations
(I) UNDP should continue to support access to justice
programming in the region and should develop its
programmes in particular in Central Asia where its
programming in the Access to Justice Sector is not
as developed. UNDP is recognized among stake-
holders, governments and the donor community
as a trusted partner with a high level of knowledge
and expertise. Its access to justice programming in
the region is having measurable results and far-
reaching effects, which should be capitalized on.
(II) Capacity development and accountable gover-
nance should be at the forefront of UNDP’s access to
justice programming in the region. Through increas-
ing capacities, establishing or strengthening institu-
tions, and developing accountability mechanisms,
the accountability of governments and public insti-
tutions (duty bearers) towards the beneficiaries
(rights holders) is also strengthened".
(III) Consultations with rights-holders should always be
undertaken in developing its projects and pro-
grammes. Consultation ensures that local knowl-
edge is resourced and harnessed. The use of local
stakeholders is absolutely essential in carrying out
a thorough needs assessment, and local knowl-
edge can prove invaluable in gaining on-the-
ground information as well as creating networks
and partnerships within the target country. Partici-
pation of local actors is key to capacity develop-
ment and to ensuring country ownership and thus
sustainability. Furthermore, participation of key
stakeholders creates an environment in which the
reform initiative is shaped by those whom it serves
to assist.
(IV) Specific thematic areas and knowledge products as
requested by the Country Offices should be devel-
oped in the following areas: legal aid, comparative
analysis of judicial training centres, legal frame-
work/policy, legal empowerment of the poor, ADR
and ombudsman institutions.
(V) UNDP should continue to provide support for judi-
cial training institutions since such interventions
have high success rates and high visibility, are easy
to set up and yield measurable results.15
(VI) An increase of knowledge and experience sharing
in the region should be facilitated in order to en-
hance the effectiveness of UNDP’s programming.
All Country Offices expressed a need for further
support from BRC; an effective approach to facili-
tate this is through enhanced knowledge exchange
and experience sharing.
(VII) Enhanced peer-to-peer interaction should be facil-
itated and the use of the Access to Justice Com-
munity of Practice Workspace should be
encouraged. This will facilitate enhanced knowl-
edge and experience sharing as identified above
and will further strengthen UNDP’s access to justice
programming in the region.
(VIII) More regional programmes within the regional
sub-clusters should be developed in order to build
on potential synergies between Country Offices.
(IX) Training should be provided to UNDP staff in the
region on topics such as ombudsman institutions,
free legal aid, legal empowerment and ADR. This
training could be undertaken exclusively among
UNDP staff sharing their knowledge and experi-
ences on certain topics to others, or opened to a
wider audience.
CO
NC
LU
SI
ON
S
AN
D
RE
CO
MM
EN
DA
TI
ON
S
2515 This is also reflected in the forthcoming Rule of Law Global Programme to be published in 2009.
(X) Country Offices should be provided with informa-
tion regarding fundraising opportunities within
UNDP and external fundraising opportunities in re-
lation to access to justice projects.
(XI) Support should be provided in facilitating dialogue
between Country Offices and donors, notably Eu-
ropean Commission delegations.
(XII) UNDP’s resource allocation for access to justice pro-
gramming in the region should be increased. As
suggested by the Questionnaire data, there is
greater access to justice and a more developed ju-
dicial reform process in countries where UNDP has
higher programming resources.
CO
NC
LU
SI
ON
S
AN
D
RE
CO
MM
EN
DA
TI
ON
S
26
Background and Purpose of the Study: To respond to a growing demand for support in the areas of access to jus-
tice, legal empowerment and justice reform expressed by UNDP Country Offices in Europe and the CIS, the Bratislava
Regional Center (BRC) is in the process of formulating a regional framework of support and forming an access to jus-
tice community of practice (CoP) for work in the sector. As part of this process, it has been agreed to undertake a
baseline study on access to justice in the region, the results of which will be used to form a comparative study on
access to justice programming in the region. In this context, we would greatly appreciate you sharing your knowl-
edge and experience on access to justice programming in your country and Country Office. For the purposes of
this study, access to justice encompasses all six main pillars of support: legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid
and counselling, adjudication, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms and law enforcement. Related counter-
parts in this work could include: the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the High Judiciary, the court sys-
tem, legal aid providers, Bar Associations, national human rights institutions, the Prosecution Offices,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and/or the media.
Instructions: In order to gather information on UNDP’s assets in terms of access to justice programming in the region
and to prepare a baseline for the strengthening of the Access to Justice CoP, please complete the Questionnaire on-
line and include as many details as possible. In addition, if you have any supporting documents, for example, laws, stud-
ies, and assessments, please also email them to Joanna Books at [email protected].
Estimated time for completion: 1 hour
Thank you in advance for your kind contributions and participation in this study!
A. INTRODUCTION
1. What is your name and title?
2. In which UNDP Country Office are you based?
B. ACCESS TO JUSTICE SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY
1. Is there a judicial reform process in your country?
a. Planned
b. Ongoing
c. Completed
If so, please describe briefly.
2. What is the structure of the court system in your country? Please provide brief details.
AN
NE
X
I
BA
SE
LI
NE
S
TU
DY
O
N
AC
CE
SS
T
O
JU
ST
IC
E
27
Annex IBaseline Study on Access to Justice
3. Is there a separation of powers stated in the constitution or legislation in your country?
a. Yes
b. No
4. In your opinion, is the judiciary in your country independent and impartial in its work?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, please describe briefly.
5. What is the task and mandate of the Ministry of Justice in your country? Please describe briefly.
6. Is there a Bar Association in your country?
a. Yes
b. No
Are there any issues/problems preventing the Bar Association from being fully independent?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, please describe briefly.
7. Has there been a recent study on access to justice in your country?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, prepared it? Please email it or provide a hyperlink to it, if possible.
8. Which are the key vulnerable/marginalized groups with respect to access to justice in your country? Please
tick all those that apply.
a. Ethnic minorities (please state which ones)
b. Women
c. Children and youth
d. The elderly
e. Persons with disabilities
f. Persons with HIV/AIDS
g. Persons with non-heterosexual orientation
h. Other (Please state)
9. Are there any special policies or laws regarding vulnerable/marginalized groups and access to justice in
your country?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, are they enforced?
a. Yes
b. No
Please provide further details as appropriate.
8. Is there provision for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in your country?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, is it active?
AN
NE
X
I
BA
SE
LI
NE
S
TU
DY
O
N
AC
CE
SS
T
O
JU
ST
IC
E
28
a. Yes
b. No
Please provide further details as appropriate.
9. Please list any (not limited to UNDP) failed or successful access to justice projects and initiatives imple-
mented in your country and, if possible, provide brief details on the reasons for this success/failure.
10. Is there a system of legal aid in your country?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, who provides it? Please tick all those that apply.
a. University
b. Ministry of Justice
c. Bar Association
d. Legal clinics
e. Other
In which types of cases is it available? Please list.
11. Is there a judicial training institution in existence and if so, what is its mandate?
C. UNDP ACCESS TO JUSTICE PORTFOLIO
1. In which areas of access to justice is your Country Office working?
a. Judicial Independence
b. Judicial Education
c. Transitional Justice
d. Alternative Dispute Resolution
e. Public Legal Aid
f. Mutual Legal Assistance
g. Ombudsman Systems
h. Anti-discrimination
i. Legal Empowerment
j. Other (Please state).
2. What is the title and objective of your access to justice programme(s)?
3. How many access to justice projects have been/are being implemented in your Country Office?
4. Have you consulted right-holders when developing access to justice projects?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, how it was done?
AN
NE
X
I
BA
SE
LI
NE
S
TU
DY
O
N
AC
CE
SS
T
O
JU
ST
IC
E
29
Type of project Planned Ongoing Completed
Concrete access tojustice project
Projects with access tojustice components
5. Do you use special tools based on the human rights-based approach or similar methodologies (focus
groups, interviews, survey, needs assessments, etc.) to involve and include right-holders in your current ac-
cess to justice project?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, what are they?
6. What is the most successful partnership (NGOs, government institutions, municipalities etc.) you have
established within your access to justice projects and why?
7. How many staff in your Country Office are working on access to justice projects
8. In order to verify and complement information obtained through Atlas, please identify all access to jus-
tice projects in your country by completing the table below.
9. What was UNDP’s entry point into access to justice programming in your country?
10. In your opinion, what is UNDP’s niche and comparative advantage in access to justice programming in
your country?
11. Does UNDP in your Country Office have future plans in the area of access to justice programming?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, please describe briefly.
12. Would you need any assistance/expertise/support to implement these projects?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, what kind?
13. What is your Country Office’s budget forecast in terms of access to justice programming?
a. < $100,000
AN
NE
X
I
BA
SE
LI
NE
S
TU
DY
O
N
AC
CE
SS
T
O
JU
ST
IC
E
30
Type of contract No. of staff
National staff
International staff
Title of Project
ATLAS Project I.D No.
Year(s) ofimplementation
Budget Donors Partners
b. <$250,000
c. <$500,000
d. <$750,000
e. >$1,000,000
E. DONORS AND PARTNERS
1. Who are UNDP’s main donors and/or partners in access to justice programming in your county? Please tick
on all those that apply:
AN
NE
X
I
BA
SE
LI
NE
S
TU
DY
O
N
AC
CE
SS
T
O
JU
ST
IC
E
31
Type Name Donor Partner
Multilateral European Union
World Bank
Other (please specify)
Bilateral Canada (CIDA)
Denmark
France
Germany
Great Britain (DfID)
Greece
The Netherlands
Norway
Romania
Sweden (SIDA)
Switzerland (SDC)
United States of America (USAID)
Other (please specify)
United Nations Sys-tem
Global Environment Fund (GEF)
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Thematic Trust Fund (TTF)
UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
UN Women’s Fund (UNIFEM)
United Nations Hgh Commissioner forRefugees (UNHCR)
United Nations Office for Drugs andCrime (UNODC)
Other (Please specify)
F. RESOURCE PERSONS
1. In order to assist in the compilation of a pool of experts, please provide information on consultants,
both local and international, that have participated in your access to justice programming whom you
would recommend.
G. ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE1. Which areas of access to justice would you be interested in learning more about?
2. Which specific thematic studies and knowledge products would you be interested in? Please tick all those
that apply:
(I) Institutional restructuring
(II) Judicial independence
(III) Legal framework, policy
(IV) Judicial council including functional review
(V) Legal empowerment
(VI) Alternative Dispute Resolution – criminal and civil justice + contact with the justice system
(VII) Comparative analysis on Judicial Training Centres
(VIII) Legal aid
(IX) Other
Thank you very much for participating!
AN
NE
X
I
BA
SE
LI
NE
S
TU
DY
O
N
AC
CE
SS
T
O
JU
ST
IC
E
32
Name Status(International/Local)
Area/s of Expertise Contact Details
Type Name Donor Partner
NGOs and Others American Bar Association CentralEurope and Eurasia Law Initiative (ABACEELI)
Council of Europe
Open Society Institute/Soros
Foundation
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
Other (Please specify)
AN
NE
X
II
L
IS
T
OF
C
OU
NT
RY
O
FF
IC
ES
A
ND
R
ES
PO
ND
EN
TS
P
AR
TI
CI
PA
TI
NG
I
N
TH
E
ST
UD
Y
33
Annex IIList of Country Offices and RespondentsParticipating in the Study
Country Office Name Position E-mail
Armenia Alla Bakunts Democratic GovernancePortfolio Analyst
Croatia Mario Kresic Project Manager [email protected]
Cyprus Stella Isidorou Junior Legal Specialist [email protected]
Georgia Natia Cherkezishvili [email protected]
Kazakhstan Ainur Baimyrza Programme Analyst [email protected]
Kosovo Virgjina Dumnica [email protected]
Kyrgyzstan Maksat Usupbaeva, Democractic GovernanceProgramme Assistant
Lithuania Lina Jankauskiene Programme Officer [email protected]
Moldova Matilda Dimovska Deputy ResidentRepresentative
Montenegro Jelena Djonovic Project Manager [email protected]
Serbia Olivera Puric Team Leader, Capacity Developmentand AccountableGovernance Cluster
Tajikistan Alisher Karimov Project Manager [email protected]
Turkey Leyla SenSeher Alacaci
Programme ManagerProject Associate
[email protected] [email protected]
Uzbekistan Evgeniy Abdullaev Programme LegalSpecialist
AN
NE
X
II
I
RE
GI
ON
AL
L
EG
AL
A
ID
F
RA
ME
WO
RK
S
AN
D
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
34
Annex IIIRegional Legal AidFrameworks and Resources
Regional Legal Aid frameworks
Country Legal Aid Providers Types of eligible cases
Albania Legal clinics, Bar Association Criminal, Civil, Administrative
Armenia Bar Association,Legal clinics
Criminal, Civil, Labour, Commercial,Administrative, Constitutional, Family and Social
Azerbaijan Bar Association Criminal, Civil, Administrative
Belarus Bar AssociationSpecialized Legal Aid Agency (Barmembers provide legal aid)
Civil, Business, Administrative
Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Justice, NGOs Civil, Criminal
Bulgaria National Legal Aid Bureau,Bar Councils
Criminal, Civil, Administrative
Croatia Bar Association, NGOs,University Legal clinics
Criminal, Civil, Administrative
Cyprus Ministry of Justice,Bar Association
Criminal, human resources violations,Family, Cross-border
Czech Republic Bar Association Civil, Labour, Family, Business Law,Administrative
Georgia Ministry of Justice – Legal Aid Serv-ice and Legal Aid Bureau, Bar Associ-ation, Legal clinics
Criminal, Civil, Administrative
Hungary Bar Association, Notaries, NGOs,University legal clinics
Civil, Criminal
Kazakhstan Universities, Bar Association,Ministry of Justice
Criminal
Kosovo Legal Aid Commission Criminal and Civil
Kyrgyzstan Legal clinics Human rights violations, Gender dis-crimination, Criminal
Latvia Legal Aid Administration Civil, Administrative, Criminal
Lithuania Universities, Ministry of Justice,Legal clinics, Local Government Executive Institutions, Council of Lawyers
Civil, Administrative, Criminal
Legal Aid Resources
Open Society Justice Initiative, Legal Aid Reform
The website provides numerous documents on the reform of the legal aid frameworks within several countries in
Europe and CIS region, with a comprehensive legal aid database providing:
1. International Standards on the Right to Legal Aid
2. Legal Aid Laws & Regulations, and Related Legal Instruments
3. Organization and Management of a Legal Aid System
4. Models and Schemes for Legal Aid Delivery
5. Legal Aid Quality Standards and Quality Assurance Mechanisms
6. Legal Aid Research and Studies
7. Training Materials on Criminal Legal Aid Issues
8. Selected Sources Organizations Working on Legal Aid
Council of Europe, Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Operation of Justice, http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_
Affairs/Legal_co-operation/Operation_of_justice/Access_to_justice_and_legal_aid/
The website provides further information on the CoE framework for the provision of legal aid, from the conference
“Towards the better access to justice for individuals”, held in Brussels, Belgium in 2004, including infomration from
AN
NE
X
II
I
RE
GI
ON
AL
L
EG
AL
A
ID
F
RA
ME
WO
RK
S
AN
D
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
35
Russian Federation State Legal Aid Bureaus, RegionalDivisions of Social Services, BarAssociation, Legal clinics, NGOs
State social assistance scheme,Criminal, some Civil andAdministrative
Serbia Bar Association, Legal clinicsVarious organizations
Human rights violations, Criminal
Slovenia Legal Aid Professional Service, BarAssociation, NGOs (with approval of the Ministry of Justice)
Civil, Commercial, Criminal (exceptfor criminal acts of defamation)
Tajikistan Bar Association Civil, Criminal, Administrative
FYROM Bar Association Civil, Criminal, Administrative
Turkey Bar Association Civil, Commercial, Administrative
Turkmenistan Bar Association,Legal Aid Organizations
Ukraine Bar Association Criminal
Uzbekistan Bar Association, Legal clinics, NGOs
Country Legal Aid Providers Types of eligible cases
Malta Advocate for Legal Aid Civil, Criminal
Moldova Ministry of Justice, Bar Association,National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Aid and its territorial offices, NGOs, Academia
Criminal, Civil, Administrative
Montenegro Municipal Legal Aid Offices, NGOs Human rights violations, criminal, civil
Poland Bar Association Civil
Romania Bar Association Criminal, Civil
the European Commission’s European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters which provides compre-
hensive overview of legal aid systems in EU member countries and brief information sheets on the provision of legal
aid in countries members of the Council of Europe.
Recently, the CoE website published results of the research initiative ‘Access to Justice in Europe’. Results includes
overview of judicial systems including legal aid scheme in CoE member states. Materials are available at:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/cepej/series/Etudes9Acces_en.pdf
The European Commission, Justice and Home Affairs, Civil matters – Judicial Cooperation
The website is presenting the EU framework in cross-border legal aid and minimum standards, providing links to the
directive adopted by the European Council in 2003, minimum standards agreed in Tampere, Finland in 1999, which
were followed by a Green Paper “Legal Aid in civil matters: the problems confronting the cross-border litigant” and
two standard forms established by the Commission to simplify the transmission of legal aid applications.
European Roma Rights Centre, Legal Aid for 800 million Europeans: the Council of Europe efforts by Gianluca Es-
posito
This brief and concise paper provides an overview of the theoretical and legal framework of legal aid, set up and ini-
tiated by CoE, including the recent developments in the field.
USAID, success stories and articles in Europe and CIS
The articles describe success stories of USAID-funded and -supported legal aid projects.
Ukraine: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/press/success/legal_aid_center.html
Ukraine: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/press/success/2006-03-12.html
Moldova: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/press/success/moldova_law_clinics.html
The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Results from an International Conference on Legal Aid
This report summarizes the results of the Conference that took place in 2007 in Kiev, Ukraine, providing the link to a
more comprehensive report including the conclusions, programme and participants of the Conference, together
with a link to the adopted the Kyiv Declaration on the Right to Legal Aid.
Public Interest Law Institute
http://www.pili.org/en/content/view/51/53/
A collection of reports describing the situation of legal aid in a number of Central and East European countries.
AN
NE
X
II
I
RE
GI
ON
AL
L
EG
AL
A
ID
F
RA
ME
WO
RK
S
AN
D
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
36
AN
NE
X
IV
D
AT
AB
AS
E
OF
J
UD
IC
IA
L
TR
AI
NI
NG
I
NS
TI
TU
TI
ON
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
37Ann
ex IV
Dat
abas
e of
Jud
icia
l Tra
inin
g In
stit
utio
ns
in th
e R
egio
n
Inst
itut
ion
/org
aniz
atio
nA
dd
ress
Tel/
fax
Con
tact
nam
e an
d/o
r e-m
ail
Alb
ania
Th
e Sc
hool
of M
agis
trat
es, A
lban
iaA
ddre
ss: R
r.”El
basa
nit,
(Pra
ne) F
akul
teti
iG
jeol
ogji
Min
iera
ve T
irane
, Alb
ania
Tel:
+ 3
55 4
2 36
3 91
4A
rben
RIS
TAN
I, D
irect
or
Arb
enRI
STA
NI@
mag
jistr
atur
a.ed
u.al
D
irect
Tel
: + 3
55 4
2 23
6494
3, 2
3639
14 /
210
info
@m
agjis
trat
ura.
edu.
al
Arm
enia
Judi
cial
Sch
ool o
f the
Rep
ublic
of A
rmen
ia40
Naz
rbek
yan
dist
rict
YERE
VAN
Tel:+
374
10
31 9
1 59
Fax:
+ 3
74 1
0 31
91
62D
irect
or: M
r Arm
an V
ARD
AN
YAN
vard
anya
n@ho
tmai
l.com
Arm
enia
Repu
blic
of A
rmen
ia
Pros
есut
ors'
Trai
ning
Sch
ool
Tigr
an M
ets
50.
YERE
VAN
375
008
Tel:
+ 3
74 1
0 57
36
96E
Dire
ctor
: Мr G
rigor
SA
RGSY
AN
mai
l: sc
hool
@ge
npro
c.am
Aze
rbai
jan
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
1,
av.
Insh
aatc
hila
r 37
0 07
3 BA
KUM
r Tog
hrul
MU
SAYE
V, D
eput
y M
inis
ter o
fJu
stic
e
Bel
aru
sIn
stitu
te fo
r Re-
trai
ning
and
Upg
radi
ngQ
ualifi
catio
ns o
f Jud
ges,
Pros
ecut
ors
and
Lega
l Pro
fess
iona
ls a
t the
Bel
arus
ian
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
Sove
tska
ya 1
4M
insk
220
030
Bela
rus
Tel:
+8
017
227
4745
Fax:
+8
017
227
4056
ippl
@bs
u.by
Bos
nia
an
d H
erze
gov
ina
Publ
ic In
stitu
tion
Cent
re fo
r Jud
icia
l and
Pros
ecut
oria
l Tra
inin
g of
the
Fede
ratio
n of
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erze
govi
na
Ham
dije
Kre
sevl
jako
vica
98/
a, 7
1000
Sa
raje
vo, B
osni
a an
d H
erze
govi
na
Tel:
+38
7 33
562
550
Fax:
+38
7 33
445
475
Sane
la P
ARI
POVI
C, D
irect
or
Sane
la.p
arip
ovic
@fb
ih.c
est.g
ov.b
a
Cro
atia
Judi
cial
Aca
dem
y, C
roat
iaH
einz
elov
a 4a
1000
0 Za
greb
,C
roat
ia
+ 3
85 1
460
0 83
1+
385
1 4
600
850
Ivan
a G
ORE
NIC
, Dire
ctor
,Te
l: +
385
1 46
00 8
31 E
mai
l:ig
oran
ic@
prav
osud
je.h
r
Cyp
rus
Supr
eme
Cour
t, Cy
prus
C
har.
Mou
scou
str.
CY-
1102
NIC
OSI
AM
r Jus
tice
Myr
on N
ICO
LATO
S, Ju
dge
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Aca
dem
y of
Just
ice
Just
iční
aka
dem
ie C
R,
Mas
aryk
ovo
nám
. 183
76
7 01
KRO
MER
IZTe
l: +
420
573
505
111
Fax:
+42
0 57
3 50
1 10
1D
irect
or: M
s D
anie
la K
OVA
ROVA
kr
omer
iz@
akad
emie
.just
ice.
cz
Cont
act p
erso
n: M
r Jar
osla
v O
PRAV
IL
– Te
l: +
420
737
244
317
Esto
nia
Esto
nian
Law
Cen
tre
Foun
datio
nLo
ssi 1
9 TA
RTU
510
03Te
l: +
372
7 30
9 07
5 Fa
x: +
372
7 30
9 02
9ta
nel@
lc.e
e D
irect
or: M
r Tan
el K
ASK
Geo
rgia
Trai
ning
inst
itutio
n fo
r jud
ges
, The
Hig
hSc
hool
of J
ustic
e, G
eorg
ia
7A B
ulac
haur
i Str
eet
3800
67 T
BILI
SITe
l: +
995
32 3
8 11
61
Fax:
+99
5 32
37
00 6
3D
irect
or: M
r Dav
id S
AA
KASH
VILI
hs
oj@
hsoj
.ge
Cont
act p
erso
n: M
r Sho
ta R
UKH
AD
ZE
– Te
l: +
995
32 3
7 17
93
Geo
rgia
Trai
ning
inst
itutio
n fo
r pro
secu
tors
O
ffice
of t
he P
rose
cuto
r Gen
eral
24 G
orge
sali
str.
Tbili
si 0
133
Tel:
+99
5 32
40
50 9
6 Fa
x: +
995
32 9
3 26
71
Dire
ctor
: Mr G
eorg
e JO
KHA
DZE
gj
okha
dze@
pog.
gov.
ge
Cont
act p
erso
n: M
r Rus
ydan
MIK
HEL
IDZE
–
Tel:
+99
5 32
40
50 9
6
Hun
gar
yO
ffice
of N
atio
nal C
ounc
il of
Just
ice,
Sz
alay
u. 1
6H
-105
5 BU
DA
PEST
AN
NE
X
IV
D
AT
AB
AS
E
OF
J
UD
IC
IA
L
TR
AI
NI
NG
I
NS
TI
TU
TI
ON
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
38 Inst
itut
ion
/org
aniz
atio
nA
dd
ress
Tel/
fax
Con
tact
nam
e an
d/o
r e-m
ail
Bos
nia
an
d H
erze
gov
ina
Publ
ic In
stitu
tion
Cent
re fo
r Jud
icia
l an
d Pr
osec
utor
ial T
rain
ing
of th
e Re
publ
ika
Srps
ka, B
osni
a an
d H
erze
govi
na
Bule
var S
tepe
Ste
pano
vica
60
Banj
a Lu
ka,
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erze
govi
naTe
l: +
387
(51)
430
420
Fax:
+38
7 (5
1) 4
34 0
40
info
rs@
rs.c
est.g
ov.b
a
Bul
gar
iaN
atio
nal I
nstit
ute
of Ju
stic
e, B
ulga
ria14
, Ekz
arh
Yoss
if, 1
301,
Sofi
a, B
ulga
riaTe
l: +
359
2 93
5 91
00Fa
x: +
359
2 93
5 91
01ni
j@ni
j.bg
Bul
gar
iaM
agis
trat
es T
rain
ing
Cent
re, B
ulga
ria
Don
duko
v av
. 2A
, Fl 8
cab
. 826
, 10
00 S
ofia,
Bul
garia
Te
l: +
359
2 93
3 22
76Fa
x: +
359
2 98
8 55
30m
tc@
dir.b
g
Latv
iaLa
tvia
n Ju
dici
al T
rain
ing
Cent
reA
lber
ta ie
la 1
3LV
-101
0 RI
GA
Tel:
+37
1 70
39
304
/ +
371
70 3
9 30
1Fa
x: +
371
70 3
9 30
2D
irect
or :
Mm
e So
lvita
KA
LNIN
Ace
ntrs
@ltm
c.lv
Co
ntac
t per
son:
M. I
ndul
is B
ALM
AKS
Lith
uan
iaM
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e of
Lith
uani
a Tr
aini
ng C
entr
e
Sank
lodi
škių
vil.
LT
-333
33 M
OLE
TAI R
EGIO
N, L
ithua
nia
Tel:+
370
700
2950
6D
eput
y D
irect
or: M
s In
ga K
ON
DEL
EVSK
YTĖ
Cont
act p
erso
n: M
r Rai
mun
das
RAKA
USK
AS
– Fa
x: +
370
700
2950
3
Mac
edon
iaA
cade
my
for T
rain
ing
Judg
es
and
Pros
ecut
ors
of th
e Re
publ
ic
of M
aced
onia
Blvd
. Jan
e Sa
dans
ki 1
2,
1000
Sko
pje,
Mac
edon
iaTe
l: +
389
2 2
401
560
Fax:
+ 3
89 2
240
1 57
0D
irect
or, T
anja
TEM
ELKO
SKA
-MIL
ENKO
VIC
Tanj
a.te
mel
kosk
a-m
ilenk
ovic
@jp
acad
emy.
gov.
mk
info
@jp
acad
emy.
gov.
mk
Mal
taJu
dici
al S
tudi
es C
omm
ittee
Chi
ef Ju
stic
e’s
Cha
mbe
rsCo
urts
of J
ustic
e, R
epub
lic S
tree
tVA
LLET
TA C
MR
02, M
alta
Dr.
Vinc
ent A
. De
GA
ETA
NO
, Chi
ef Ju
stic
e
Mol
dov
aN
atio
nal I
nstit
ute
of Ju
stic
e 1
Lazo
Str
eet
MD
- 20
09 C
hisi
nau
Tel:
+37
3 22
228
185
/ 1
86
Fax:
+37
3 22
228
187
Dire
ctor
: Eug
enia
FIS
TIC
AN
Mon
ten
egro
Judi
cial
Tra
inin
g Ce
ntre
of t
he R
epub
lic o
fM
onte
negr
o
Jova
na T
omas
evic
a 2
8100
0 PO
DG
ORI
CA
Tel:
+38
2 81
201
890
/ 8
91 /
893
Fa
x: +
382
81 2
01 8
92co
scg@
cg.y
u D
irect
or: M
me
Ana
GRG
URE
VIĆ
Co
ntac
t per
son:
Ms
Maj
a M
ILO
SEVI
C
– Te
l: +
382
81 2
01 8
90 /
891
/ 8
93
Pola
nd
Nat
iona
l tra
inin
g ce
ntre
for t
he s
taff
of c
om-
mon
cou
rts
and
publ
ic p
rose
cuto
rs o
ffice
,
Wyb
rzei
e Ko
sciu
szko
nski
e st
r. 47
PL-0
0-34
7 W
ARS
AWTe
l: +
48 2
2 55
27
269
Fax:
+48
22
55 2
7 26
8D
irect
or: M
r And
rzej
LEC
IAK
Cont
act p
erso
n: M
r Woj
ciec
h PO
STU
LSKI
– Te
l: +
48 2
2 55
27
269
w.p
ostu
lski
@kc
-sk
spip
.gov
.pl
AN
NE
X
IV
D
AT
AB
AS
E
OF
J
UD
IC
IA
L
TR
AI
NI
NG
I
NS
TI
TU
TI
ON
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
39Inst
itut
ion
/org
aniz
atio
nA
dd
ress
Tel/
fax
Con
tact
nam
e an
d/o
r e-m
ail
Kaz
akh
stan
Judi
cial
Tra
inin
g Ce
ntre
Kos
ovo
Koso
vo Ju
dici
al In
stitu
te
Agi
m R
amad
ani,
3800
0 Pr
istin
a, K
osov
o,(U
nite
d N
atio
ns A
dmin
iste
red
Terr
itory
) Te
l: +
381
38
248
688
Lavd
im K
rasn
iqi,
Dire
ctor
Lavd
im.k
rasn
iqi@
kjiju
dici
al.o
rg
Kyrg
yzst
anJu
dici
al T
rain
ing
Cent
re o
f the
Kyr
gyz
Repu
blic
(web
site
und
er c
onst
ruct
ion)
Tel:
+99
6 31
2456
605
Ms.
Aid
a Jo
gosh
tieva
. Te
l: +
996
5557
5077
1 E-
mai
l: ja
idat
@m
ail.r
u.
Russ
ian
Fed
erat
ion
Fede
ral E
stab
lishm
ent o
f Hig
her P
rofe
ssio
nal
Educ
atio
nA
cade
my
of th
e O
ffice
of t
he P
rose
cuto
rG
ener
al o
f the
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
117
638,
Azo
vska
ya s
tr.Bl
d.2,
blo
ck1
MO
SCO
W
Tel:
+7
495
256
0085
Tel:
+7
495
256
5463
; +7
499
613
6772
niig
p@m
sk.rs
net.r
u D
irect
or: M
r Igo
r ZVE
CH
ARO
VSKI
YCo
ntac
t per
son:
Mr F
eodo
r FIL
IPPO
V –
Tel:
+7
495
259
1441
Serb
iaJu
dici
al T
rain
ing
Cent
re
of th
e Re
publ
ic o
f Ser
bia
Kara
djor
djev
a 48
, Bel
grad
e 11
000,
Ser
bia
Tel:
+38
1 11
184
030
Fax:
+38
1 11
183
276
cent
ar@
pcsr
bija
.org
.yu
Nen
ad V
ujic
, Dire
ctor
+ 3
81 1
1 18
3 25
0N
enad
.vuj
ic@
pcsr
bija
.org
.yu
Slov
akia
Judi
cial
Aca
dem
y,
Suvo
rovo
va 5
/C
902
01 P
EZIN
OK
Tel:
+42
1 33
641
33
95
Fax:
+42
1 33
641
33
98D
irect
or: M
s Zu
zana
DU
RISO
VA
Cont
act p
erso
n: M
s So
ňa S
MO
LOVÁ
–
Tel:
+42
1 33
641
32
32
sona
.smol
ova@
just
ice.
sk
Slov
enia
Judi
cial
Tra
inin
g Ce
ntre
of S
love
nia
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
of th
e Re
publ
ic o
f Slo
ve-
nia,
Zup
anci
ceva
3, 1
000
Ljub
ljana
, Slo
veni
aTe
l: +
386
1 36
9 53
94Bi
serk
a JA
VORS
EK, D
epar
tmen
t fo
r Int
erna
tiona
l Co-
oper
atio
nBi
serk
a.ja
vors
ek@
gov.
si
Tajik
ista
nJu
dici
al T
rain
ing
Cent
re
20 K
aram
ov S
tree
tD
usha
nbe
7340
0, T
ajik
ista
nTe
l: +
2 37
2242
074
Ms.
Kano
at K
HA
MID
OVA
Turk
eyTu
rkis
h Ju
stic
e A
cade
my
Ahl
atlıb
el, Ç
anka
ya
AN
KARA
060
95Te
l: +
90 3
12 4
90 1
0 54
Fa
x: +
90 3
12 4
90 0
8 57
Dire
ctor
: Dr.
Birs
en K
ARA
KAŞ
taa@
adal
et.g
ov.tr
Te
l: +
90 3
12 4
90 1
0 54
Turk
men
ista
n
Ukr
ain
eA
cade
my
of Ju
dges
of U
krai
neLi
pska
str.
16-
g 01
021
KIEV
Tel:
+38
044
230
31
46Pr
esid
ent:
Ms
Iryna
VO
YTYU
K iry
navo
t@lv
iv.g
u.ne
t Co
ntac
t per
son:
Ms T
etya
na P
UST
OVO
YTO
VATe
l: +
38 0
67 2
33 5
5 12
Uzb
ekis
tanA
NN
EX
I
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
JU
DI
CI
AL
T
RA
IN
IN
G
IN
ST
IT
UT
IO
NS
I
N
TH
E
RE
GI
ON
40 Inst
itut
ion
/org
aniz
atio
nA
dd
ress
Tel/
fax
Con
tact
nam
e an
d/o
r e-m
ail
Rom
ania
Nat
iona
l Ins
titut
e of
Mag
istr
ates
of
the
Repu
blic
of R
oman
ia
Blvd
. Reg
ina
Elis
abet
a, n
r 53,
sec
tor 5
, Buc
-cu
rest
i, Ro
man
iaTe
l: +
40 2
1 31
0 21
10Fa
x: +
40 2
1 31
1 02
34M
ihai
SEL
EGEA
N, D
irect
or
Russ
ian
Fede
ratio
nRu
ssia
n A
cade
my
of Ju
stic
e69
, Nov
oche
rem
ushk
insk
aya
MO
SCO
W 1
1741
8Re
ctor
: Mr V
alen
tin Y
ERSH
OV
Emai
l: in
ter_
raj@
ru.ru
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
41Ann
ex V
Dat
abas
e of
UN
DP’
s A
cces
s to
Jus
tice
Pro
ject
sin
the
Reg
ion
Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Arm
enia
Prom
otin
g H
uman
Rig
hts
and
Faci
litat
ing
Publ
ic A
war
enes
s of
the
Publ
ic D
efen
der’s
Offi
ce in
Arm
enia
Serv
ice
Line
: Jus
tice
and
hum
anrig
hts
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ner:
Min
istr
y of
Terr
itoria
l Adm
inis
trat
ion
Oth
er P
artn
ers:
Nat
iona
l Ass
embl
y,W
omen
’s Co
unci
l at t
he P
rime
Min
ster
’s O
ffice
, Min
istr
y of
Lab
our
and
Soci
al Is
sues
, Min
istr
y of
Fore
ign
Affa
irs, M
inis
try
ofEd
ucat
ion
and
Scie
nce,
Min
istr
y of
Hea
lth, M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e, M
inis
try
of C
ultu
re a
nd Y
outh
Affa
irs, P
ublic
Def
ende
r’s O
ffice
, Pol
ice,
Dep
artm
ent o
f Mig
ratio
n an
dRe
fuge
es, l
ocal
aut
horit
ies,
mas
sm
edia
, loc
al N
GO
s an
dco
mm
unity
-bas
ed o
rgan
izat
ions
The
mai
n do
nors
in A
rmen
ia in
the
field
of d
emoc
ratic
gov
erna
nce
are:
Dep
artm
ent f
or In
tern
atio
nal
Dev
elop
men
t (D
fID) i
n th
e U
K,Eu
rope
an U
nion
, Gov
ernm
ents
of
Arm
enia
, Net
herla
nds,
Nor
way
,Sw
eden
and
the
Uni
vers
al P
osta
lU
nion
(UPU
)
To fa
cilit
ate
the
cons
olid
atio
n of
dem
ocra
cyan
d pr
omot
e hu
man
righ
ts b
y bu
ildin
gpu
blic
aw
aren
ess
and
enco
urag
ing
broa
dde
bate
.
Arm
enia
Sout
h C
auca
sus
Ant
i-dru
g Pr
ojec
t(S
CA
D)
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No.
: 000
5794
1
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ner:
UN
DP
Oth
er P
artn
ers:
Min
istr
y of
Hea
lth,
Polic
e of
the
Repu
blic
of A
rmen
ia,
Nat
iona
l Sec
urity
Ser
vice
s,Cu
stom
s Co
mm
ittee
, Pro
secu
tor
Gen
eral
’s O
ffice
, Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
Min
istr
y of
Edu
catio
n &
Scie
nce,
Nat
iona
l Ins
titut
e of
Hea
lth
Euro
pean
Com
mis
sion
, UN
DP
Am
endm
ents
to re
leva
nt d
rug
law
s an
dth
eir i
mpl
emen
tatio
n.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
42 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Arm
enia
e-Ju
dici
ary
Com
pone
nt o
f the
Stre
ngth
enin
g A
war
enes
s an
dRe
spon
se in
Exp
osur
e of
Corr
uptio
n in
Arm
enia
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
000
5172
6
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ner:
Min
istr
y of
Fore
ign
Affa
irsO
ther
Par
tner
s: O
ffice
of t
hePr
esid
ent,
Offi
ce o
f the
Prim
eM
inis
ter,
Ant
i-Cor
rupt
ion
Coun
cil,
Ant
i-Cor
rupt
ion
Mon
itorin
gCo
mm
issi
on, M
inis
try
of T
errit
oria
lA
dmin
istr
atio
n, M
inis
try
of H
ealth
,M
inis
try
of E
duca
tion
& Sc
ienc
e,N
atio
nal A
ssem
bly,
Cou
ncil
ofEu
rope
, OSC
E, T
he B
ritis
h Co
unci
l,G
loba
l Opp
ortu
nitie
s Fu
nd,
Regi
onal
Adm
ins,
Loca
l Aut
horit
ies,
Loca
l NG
Os/
Com
mun
ity B
ased
Org
aniz
atio
ns
UN
DP
TRA
C 1
,G
over
nmen
t of N
orw
ay, S
wis
sD
evel
opm
ent C
oope
ratio
n
Esta
blis
hmen
t of d
iffer
ent c
ompo
nent
s of
the
web
por
tal f
or th
e Co
urt o
f Cas
satio
n,w
hich
ena
bled
pub
lic a
cces
s to
just
ice
info
rmat
ion,
judi
cial
act
s an
d co
urt v
erdi
cts.
Arm
enia
Ant
i-Tra
ffick
ing
Proj
ect
Cap
acity
Bui
ldin
g: P
hase
II
Vict
im’s
Ass
ista
nce:
Pha
se II
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
000
1126
7
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ner:
Min
istry
of
Fore
ign
Affa
irsO
ther
Par
tner
s: In
ter-A
genc
yCo
mm
issio
n on
Ant
i-Tra
ffick
ing,
Min
istry
of T
errit
oria
l Adm
inist
ratio
n,Pr
osec
utor
Gen
eral
’s O
ffice
,N
atio
nal S
ecur
ity S
ervi
ce, P
olic
e of
the
Repu
blic
of A
rmen
ia, J
udic
iary
,M
inist
ry o
f Lab
our &
Soc
ial I
ssue
s,M
inist
ry o
f Edu
catio
n &
Scie
nce,
Min
istry
of H
ealth
, Min
istry
of
Just
ice,
Min
istry
of C
ultu
re &
You
thA
ffairs
, Nat
iona
l Ass
embl
y, Cu
stom
sSe
rvic
e, M
ass
Med
ia N
etw
ork,
Loc
alN
GO
s N
etw
ork,
UM
COR,
IOM
,U
nite
d N
atio
ns A
genc
ies,
Coun
cil o
fEu
rope
, US
Emba
ssy
(INL)
, Eur
opea
nCo
mm
issio
n, O
SCE,
ILO
,IC
MPD
,M
igra
tion
Age
ncy
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Nor
way
,G
over
nmen
t of B
elgi
umPr
opos
ing
amen
dmen
ts a
ndre
com
men
datio
ns to
rele
vant
law
s.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
43Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Arm
enia
Stre
ngth
enin
g th
e H
uman
Rig
hts
Cap
acity
of t
he H
uman
Rig
hts
Def
ende
r’s O
ffice
in A
rmen
ia
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
000
5558
1
Hum
an R
ight
s D
efen
der’s
Offi
ce in
Arm
enia
Rau
l Wal
lenb
erg
Insi
titut
e, S
wde
n, S
IDA
, TRA
C
Arm
enia
Prot
ectin
g H
uman
Rig
hts
and
Prom
otin
g H
uman
Rig
hts
and
Hum
an R
ight
s Ed
ucat
ion
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
000
4436
1
Hum
an R
ight
s D
efen
der’s
Offi
ce,
Cour
t of C
assa
tion,
Judi
cial
Sch
ool
SID
A
Leve
l of a
pplic
atio
n of
sel
ecte
d Ra
tified
hum
an ri
ghts
trea
ties
in A
rmen
ian
cour
tsan
alys
ed a
nd p
rom
oted
Bel
aru
sPr
omot
ing
the
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Proc
edur
es R
efor
m (A
PR) i
n Be
laru
sA
tlas
proj
ect I
D n
o: 0
0051
710
Nat
iona
l Cen
ter o
f Leg
isla
tion
and
Lega
l Res
earc
h of
the
Repu
blic
of
Bela
rus
UN
DP
The
ultim
ate
obje
ctiv
e of
the
proj
ect i
s to
prom
ote
cohe
rent
and
effi
cien
tad
min
istr
ativ
e pr
oced
ures
refo
rm (A
PR) f
ully
in li
ne w
ith th
e co
nstit
utio
nal r
ight
s of
Bela
rusi
an c
itize
ns a
nd in
ord
er to
pro
mot
eth
e pr
inci
ples
of t
rans
pare
ncy
and
acco
unta
bilit
y in
the
gove
rnm
ent
stru
ctur
es. T
he p
roje
ct w
ill b
e im
plem
ente
dus
ing
the
best
inte
rnat
iona
l pra
ctic
es in
deve
lopm
ent t
he d
raft
law
for A
PR b
ased
on th
e re
leva
nt h
uman
righ
ts p
rinci
ples
,ca
paci
ty b
uild
ing
of p
ublic
inst
itutio
ns to
enab
le th
em to
car
ry o
ut a
n A
PR, a
ndaw
aren
ess-
rais
ing
amon
g th
e pu
blic
on
thei
r leg
al ri
ghts
.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
44 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Bel
aru
sPr
ogra
m fo
r the
Pre
vent
ion
of D
rug
Abu
se a
nd th
e Fi
ght a
gain
st D
rug
Traffi
ckin
g in
Bel
arus
, Ukr
aine
and
Mol
dova
, 3rd
pha
se (B
UM
AD
-3)
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
no:
000
5262
9
NEX
-Min
istr
y of
Inte
rior
UN
DP,
Euro
pean
Com
mis
sion
BUM
AD
-3 is
the
succ
esso
r of B
UM
AD
-1 a
ndBU
MA
D-2
impl
emen
ted
in B
elar
us in
200
3-20
06.
The
mai
n go
al o
f the
pro
ject
is to
stre
ngth
en th
e ca
paci
toes
of t
he n
atio
nal
agen
cies
and
NG
Os
to fi
ght a
gain
st d
rug
traffi
ckin
g. T
he p
roje
ct a
pplie
s a
com
plex
appr
oach
and
is im
plem
ente
d th
roug
h 6
com
pone
nts:
(1) L
egal
ass
ista
nce,
aim
ed a
tth
e im
prov
emen
t of B
elar
usia
n dr
ugle
gisl
atio
n; (2
) Lan
d bo
rder
con
trol
; (3)
Dru
gin
telli
genc
e; (4
) Dru
g pr
even
tion
amon
gsc
hool
chi
ldre
n an
d yo
uth
on th
e ba
sis
ofth
e in
ters
ecto
ral a
ppro
ach;
(5) D
rug
and
drug
abu
se m
onito
ring
syst
em; a
nd (6
)Su
ppor
t of N
GO
s, w
orki
ng in
the
field
of
drug
abu
se, h
arm
redu
ctio
n an
dre
habi
litat
ion
of d
rug
user
s.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
45Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Bel
aru
sPr
omot
ion
of a
wid
er a
pplic
atio
nof
inte
rnat
iona
l hum
an ri
ghts
stan
dard
s in
the
adm
inis
trat
ion
ofju
stic
e in
Bel
arus
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
no:
000
5178
4
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
of th
eRe
publ
ic o
f Bel
arus
UN
DP,
UN
ICEF
, Eur
opea
nCo
mm
issi
onTh
e Pr
ojec
t aim
s at
impr
ovin
g th
ead
min
istr
atio
n of
just
ice
in B
elar
us th
roug
h:
• bet
ter a
cces
s fo
r jud
ges
and
cour
t sta
ff,pr
osec
utor
s an
d th
e st
aff fr
om th
ePr
osec
utor
’s O
ffice
, and
law
yers
toin
form
atio
n ab
out i
nter
natio
nal h
uman
right
s st
anda
rds
and
rele
vant
cas
e-la
w, a
ndfa
mili
ariz
atio
n w
ith b
est i
nter
natio
nal
prac
tices
;
• dev
elop
men
t of r
ecom
men
datio
ns to
furt
her i
mpr
ove
the
natio
nal l
egis
latio
nan
d la
w e
nfor
cem
ent i
n th
e ar
ea o
fad
min
istr
atio
n of
just
ice;
• inc
reas
ed p
ublic
aw
aren
ess
of th
e ro
le o
fth
e ju
dici
ary
in a
dem
ocra
tic la
w-a
bidi
ngst
ate.
The
Proj
ect w
ill c
ontr
ibut
e to
a b
ette
run
ders
tand
ing
and
appl
icat
ion
ofin
tern
atio
nal h
uman
righ
ts s
tand
ards
,es
peci
ally
thos
e re
late
d to
lega
l pro
tect
ion,
by ju
stic
e se
ctor
pro
fess
iona
ls, s
tude
nts
and
prof
esso
rs o
f Uni
vers
ity la
w fa
culti
es a
ndre
pres
enta
tives
of t
he o
ther
inte
rest
edor
gani
zatio
ns (g
over
nmen
tal a
nd a
cade
mic
)an
d N
GO
s.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
46 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Bel
aru
sD
isse
min
atio
n of
the
lega
l clin
ical
educ
atio
n co
ncep
tIm
plem
entin
g Pa
rtne
r: Be
laru
sian
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
UN
DP,
UN
HC
RTh
e pr
ojec
t dev
elop
ed le
gal c
linic
aled
ucat
ion
at th
e Be
laru
s Sta
te U
nive
rsity
toim
prov
e tr
aini
ng o
f law
stud
ents
thro
ugh
free
prov
ision
of l
egal
con
sulta
tions
for t
he p
oor.
Bel
aru
sIm
prov
emen
ts o
f the
Leg
isla
tive
Proc
ess
in B
elar
us th
roug
h Im
pact
Ass
essm
ent
ATLA
S pr
ojec
t ID
no:
000
3421
0
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ner:
Nat
iona
lCe
ntre
of L
egis
lativ
e A
ctiv
ities
unde
r the
Aus
pice
s of
the
Pres
iden
t of t
he R
epub
lic o
fBe
laru
sO
ther
Par
tner
s: th
e Pa
rliam
ent,
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
Min
istr
y of
Econ
omy,
Adm
inis
trat
ion
of th
ePr
esid
ent
UN
DP
The
Proj
ect a
ims
to in
crea
se th
e qu
ality
of
polic
y-m
akin
g in
Bel
arus
. In
orde
r to
help
key
law
dra
ftin
g in
stitu
tions
in B
elar
us to
carr
y ou
t im
pact
ass
essm
ent o
f pol
icie
s an
dle
gisl
atio
n th
at a
re b
eing
dev
elop
ed, t
hew
orki
ng g
roup
will
focu
s on
ex-
post
impa
ctas
sess
men
t pra
ctic
es a
nd d
evel
opin
g of
impa
ct a
sses
smen
t ski
lls o
f the
offi
cial
s,in
volv
ed in
to th
e le
gisl
ativ
e pr
oces
s. O
bjec
tives
: Inc
reas
ing
capa
city
for f
easi
bilit
yst
udy
and
impa
ct a
naly
sis
of fu
ture
law
s an
dpo
licie
s; M
odifi
catio
n of
the
curr
ent d
raft
ing
proc
ess
and
deve
lopm
ent o
f pro
posa
ls fo
ram
endm
ent o
f the
legi
slat
ive
and
inst
itutio
nal b
asis
for e
nabl
ing
impa
ctas
sess
men
t; Pu
blic
par
ticip
atio
n in
the
law
draf
ting
proc
ess
and
publ
ic a
cces
s to
the
info
rmat
ion
enab
led.
Bos
nia
-Her
zeg
ovin
aSu
ppor
ting
Nat
iona
l Cap
aciti
es in
Tran
sitio
nal J
ustic
e U
ND
P - U
nite
d N
atio
nsD
evel
opm
ent P
rogr
amm
e,G
over
nmen
t of S
pain
, Gov
ernm
ent
of S
wed
en, G
over
nmen
t of
Switz
erla
nd
The
issu
es o
f Tra
nsiti
onal
Just
ice
whi
ch d
eal
with
inju
stic
es a
nd h
uman
righ
ts v
iola
tions
durin
g co
nflic
t fue
l pro
foun
d gr
ieva
nces
inth
e po
pula
tion
and
ther
efor
e ne
ed to
be
addr
esse
d if
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
ent i
s to
be e
nsur
ed. A
s gl
obal
exp
erie
nce
has
dem
onst
rate
d, d
ealin
g w
ith th
e pa
st in
post
-con
flict
cou
ntrie
s is
an
esse
ntia
l pre
-re
quis
ite fo
r bui
ldin
g a
stab
le a
ndsu
stai
nabl
e fu
ture
, fre
e fro
m th
e th
reat
of
retr
ibut
ion
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
47Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Bos
nia
-Her
zeg
ovin
aJu
dici
al T
rain
ing
Proj
ect –
Min
orO
ffenc
e Co
urts
Offi
ce o
f the
Hig
h Re
pres
enta
tive,
OSC
E, O
pen
Soci
ety
Fund
(Sor
os)
UN
DP,
Ope
n So
ciet
y Fu
nd (S
oros
)Th
e ov
eral
l obj
ectiv
e of
this
pro
ject
is to
stre
ngth
en th
e co
urt s
truc
ture
in B
osni
a an
dH
erze
govi
na, i
mpl
ying
that
the
judi
ciar
ybe
com
es in
depe
nden
t, effi
cien
t and
effec
tive
part
of t
he n
atio
nal i
nstit
utio
nal
stru
ctur
e. M
oreo
ver,
proj
ect a
ims
atin
crea
sing
the
effec
tiven
ess
and
effici
ency
of th
e M
inor
Offe
nce
Cour
t sys
tem
by
prov
idin
g tr
aini
ngs
to p
rofe
ssio
nals
: jud
ges
and
inte
rest
ed la
wye
rs. A
noth
er s
egm
ent o
fth
e ac
cess
to ju
stic
e br
ief i
s en
surin
g fu
llac
cess
to in
form
atio
n fo
r the
pub
lic.
Bos
nia
-Her
zeg
ovin
aLe
gisl
atio
n D
atab
ase
Proj
ect
The
proj
ect i
s de
velo
ping
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
data
base
for B
iH le
gisl
atio
n, w
hich
will
be
fully
acc
essi
ble
thro
ugh
an in
tegr
ated
Web
port
al. A
bas
ic v
ersi
on o
f the
legi
slat
ion
data
base
will
pro
vide
pub
lic a
cces
s, fre
e of
char
ge, t
o th
e offi
cial
ver
sion
of a
ll la
ws
onBi
H, F
biH
, RS
and
Brck
o di
stric
t. A
n ex
tend
edve
rsio
n w
ill p
rovi
de s
peci
alis
ts w
ith m
ore
soph
istic
ated
sea
rch
optio
ns a
nd a
cces
s to
rele
vant
com
men
tarie
s an
d an
nota
tions
.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
48 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Bos
nia
-Her
zeg
ovin
aSu
ppor
t to
the
Esta
blis
hmen
t of
the
War
Crim
es C
ham
ber i
n Bi
H –
Trai
ning
of L
egal
pro
fess
iona
ls
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
no:
0004
1482
Gov
enrm
ent o
f Jap
an, U
ND
P U
ND
P is
sup
port
ing
stre
ngth
enin
g of
the
cour
t str
uctu
re in
BiH
, im
plyi
ng th
at th
eju
dici
ary
beco
mes
an
inde
pend
ent,
effici
ent
and
effec
tive
part
of t
he n
atio
nal
inst
itutio
nal s
truc
ture
. The
judi
ciar
y sh
ould
cons
eque
ntly
be
able
to u
nder
take
its
sign
ifica
nt ro
le in
con
flict
pre
vent
ion,
impr
ovin
g et
hnic
repr
esen
tatio
n,ad
dres
sing
gen
der i
mba
lanc
es a
ndpr
omot
ing
equi
tabl
e an
d su
stai
nabl
ehu
man
dev
elop
men
t for
all.
Th
e m
ost s
igni
fican
t asp
ect o
f the
lega
lre
form
is e
nhan
cing
of c
ompe
tenc
ies
of th
ena
tiona
l leg
al p
rofe
ssio
nals
and
oth
er s
taff
invo
lved
in p
roce
ssin
g of
war
crim
es. H
ence
,la
w e
nfor
cem
ent a
s w
ell a
s ca
paci
tybu
ildin
g th
roug
h tr
aini
ng a
nd e
xcha
nge
ofex
perie
nces
am
ong
lega
l pro
fess
iona
ls is
requ
ired
to e
nsur
e fu
ll fu
nctio
ning
of
judi
ciar
y at
all
leve
ls.
Bul
gar
iaIm
prov
ed Ju
veni
le Ju
stic
eTh
e M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e,Bl
agoe
vgra
d M
unic
ipal
ity, B
urga
sM
unic
ipal
ity,
Ope
n So
ciet
y Fo
unda
tion
(Sor
os)
UN
DP
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Nor
way
The
proj
ect a
ims
to a
ssis
t rel
evan
tin
stitu
tions
in ju
veni
le ju
stic
e re
form
.
Bul
gar
iaEs
tabl
ishm
ent o
f a N
ew S
yste
m o
fA
dmin
istr
ativ
e Ju
stic
e in
Bul
garia
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
UN
DP
Bulg
aria
n G
over
nmen
tBr
itish
Em
bass
y C
IDA
Oth
ers
To s
uppo
rt th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
ein
stitu
tiona
l and
str
uctu
ral c
hang
es
requ
ired
for t
he e
stab
lishm
ent o
f a n
ewad
min
istr
ativ
e ju
stic
e sy
stem
.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
49Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Bul
gar
iaCo
mpr
ehen
sive
Rev
iew
of t
heA
dmin
istr
ativ
e an
d Co
mm
erci
alJu
stic
e Sy
stem
s in
Bul
garia
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
UN
DP,
Briti
sh E
mba
ssy
The
mai
n ob
ject
ives
of t
he p
roje
ct h
ave
been
to: p
rodu
ce re
com
men
datio
ns to
mod
erni
ze th
e ad
min
istr
ativ
e ju
stic
e sy
stem
and
to im
prov
e th
e co
mm
erci
al ju
stic
esy
stem
in v
iew
of e
nhan
cing
its
effici
ency
and
effec
tiven
ess;
and
to p
rodu
ce a
Stra
tegy
and
an
Act
ion
Plan
to im
plem
ent
Revi
ew re
com
men
datio
ns.
Cro
atia
A
ssis
tanc
e in
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f aW
itnes
s an
d Vi
ctim
Sup
port
Syst
em in
Cro
atia
ATLA
S Pr
ojec
t ID
no:
584
75
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Bur
eau
for C
risis
Prev
entio
n an
d Re
cove
ry (B
CPR
)G
over
nmen
t of t
he N
ethe
rland
s,U
SAID
To d
evel
op a
witn
ess
and
vict
ims
supp
ort
syst
em in
cou
rts,
stra
tegi
c m
anag
emen
t of
the
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
and
publ
icaw
aren
ess.
Geo
rgia
Supp
ort t
o Ju
stic
e Sy
stem
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
No:
000
5241
8
The
Supr
eme
Cour
t, H
igh
Scho
olof
Just
ice
of G
eorg
ia a
nd S
upre
me
Cour
t of G
eorg
ia
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Geo
rgia
, UN
DP
The
proj
ect a
ims
to s
uppo
rt re
form
s in
the
cour
t sys
tem
of G
eorg
ia a
nd in
crea
se a
cces
sto
just
ice
thro
ugho
ut s
ocie
ty, i
nclu
ding
the
vuln
erab
le a
nd m
argi
naliz
ed g
roup
s. Th
epr
ojec
t als
o pr
omot
es a
new
ly e
stab
lishe
din
stitu
te o
f the
Mag
istr
ate
and
Spea
ker
Judg
e an
d pr
ovid
es tr
aini
ng fo
r jud
ges
and
jour
nalis
ts to
incr
ease
tran
spar
ency
of t
heco
urt s
yste
m.
Mor
e sp
ecifi
cally
, the
pro
ject
impl
emen
tsth
e fo
llow
ing:
Tra
inin
g of
judg
es w
ith a
part
icul
ar fo
cus
on h
uman
righ
ts,
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
law
s, an
d ac
cess
to ju
stic
eby
mar
gina
lized
gro
ups;
Trai
ning
for
mag
istr
ate
and
spea
ker j
udge
s an
d m
edia
repr
esen
tativ
es in
fund
amen
tal h
uman
right
s do
cum
ents
and
effe
ctiv
eco
mm
unic
atio
ns; a
nd P
ublic
out
reac
hac
tiviti
es to
incr
ease
aw
aren
ess
on ju
dici
ary
syst
em in
Geo
rgia
.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
50 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Geo
rgia
Ass
ista
nce
to th
e Pu
blic
Def
ende
r'sO
ffice
(PD
O)
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
no:
000
1269
2
Gov
ernm
ents
of G
eorg
ia,
and
Nor
way
, UN
DP
The
over
all o
bjec
tive
of th
e pr
ojec
t is
tofu
rthe
r inc
reas
e ca
paci
ties
with
in th
e PD
Oto
pro
vide
pro
fess
iona
l sup
port
in th
eva
rious
fiel
ds o
f hum
an ri
ghts
and
to e
xten
dits
act
iviti
es th
roug
hout
the
regi
ons.
Inor
der f
or P
DO
to b
e ab
le to
resp
ond
tova
rious
nee
ds, i
t wou
ld b
e es
sent
ial t
oes
tabl
ish
spec
ializ
ed c
entr
es w
ithin
the
office
. Bas
ed o
n ex
perie
nce
colle
cted
by
the
office
ove
r its
yea
rs o
f ope
ratio
n, th
ese
cent
res
wou
ld fo
cus
on: R
esea
rch
and
prot
ectio
n of
relig
ious
righ
ts, P
rote
ctio
n of
wom
en’s
right
s, Ri
ghts
of m
ilita
ry p
erso
nnel
,an
d Le
gisl
ativ
e m
atte
rs, a
s w
ell a
sde
velo
ping
four
regi
onal
offi
ces.
Geo
rgia
Enha
ncem
ent o
f Con
stitu
tiona
lJu
stic
eCo
nstit
utio
nal C
ourt
The
mai
n do
nors
are
: the
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Geo
rgia
, the
Glo
bal
Envi
ronm
enta
l Fac
ility
(GEF
), th
eD
epar
tmen
t for
Inte
rnat
iona
lD
evel
opm
ent (
DFI
D) i
n th
e U
K, th
eEu
rope
an C
omm
issi
on,
Gov
ernm
ents
of t
he N
ethe
rland
s,G
reec
e, D
enm
ark,
Nor
way
and
Ger
man
y, th
e Sw
edis
hIn
tern
atio
nal D
evel
opm
ent
Age
ncy
(SID
A),
the
Swis
s A
genc
yfo
r Dev
elop
men
t and
Co-
oper
atio
n (S
DC
), U
SAID
, KfW
(Ger
man
y) a
nd W
orld
Ban
k.
This
pro
ject
aim
s to
sup
port
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f Con
stitu
tiona
l jus
tice
in G
eorg
ia.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
51Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Kaz
akh
stan
Dev
elop
men
t of N
atio
nal
Cap
aciti
es fo
r Effe
ctiv
e Pr
otec
tion
of H
uman
Rig
hts
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
no:
000
1322
1
Hum
an R
ight
s Co
mm
issi
on (H
RC)
unde
r the
Pre
side
nt o
f Kaz
akhs
tan
UN
DP,
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Nor
way
The
proj
ect a
ims
to ra
ise
awar
enes
s of
law
enfo
rcem
ent o
ffici
als
and
inst
itutio
ns o
nin
tern
atio
nal o
blig
atio
ns u
nder
ratifi
edhu
man
righ
ts tr
eatie
s an
d ob
ligat
ions
; to
trai
n m
ass
med
ia a
nd N
GO
s on
inte
rnat
iona
lob
ligat
ions
.
Kaz
akh
stan
Dev
elop
men
t of o
pera
tiona
lca
paci
ties
of th
e N
atio
nal
Om
buds
man
Inst
itutio
n
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
no:
0001
3232
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ner:
Offi
ce o
fth
e N
atio
nal O
mbu
dsm
an (H
uman
Righ
ts C
omm
issi
oner
)O
ther
Par
tner
s: Eu
rope
and
the
CIS
/Bra
tisla
va, H
uman
Rig
hts
Stre
ngth
enin
g (H
URI
ST)
Prog
ram
me,
OSC
E/O
DIH
R,Eu
rope
an C
omm
issi
on, S
pani
shO
mbu
dsm
an a
nd G
reek
Om
buds
man
UN
DP
Obj
ectiv
es w
ere:
to d
evel
op a
nd s
tren
gthe
nth
e ca
paci
ty o
f the
Om
buds
man
Inst
itutio
nfo
r effe
ctiv
e pr
otec
tion
of h
uman
righ
tsag
ains
t inf
ringe
men
ts a
nd v
iola
tions
;aw
aren
ess
rais
ing
of c
ivil
soci
ety
and
prom
otio
n of
hum
an ri
ghts
in th
e w
ider
soci
ety;
to e
nhan
ce th
e offi
ces
capa
city
tofu
lfil o
mbu
dsm
an’s
man
date
and
furt
her
cons
olid
ate
its s
tatu
s vi
s-à-
vis
natio
nal
legi
slat
ion
and
the
inst
itutio
nal s
yste
m.
Kos
ovo
Koso
vo Ju
dici
al/B
ar E
xam
inat
ion
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
Kos
ovo
Judi
cial
Coun
cil a
nd K
osov
o Ju
dici
alIn
stitu
te
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Jap
an, M
inis
try
ofJu
stic
eTh
e Ju
dici
al/B
ar E
xam
inat
ion
is th
e m
ain
prec
ondi
tion
for K
osov
o la
wye
rs to
be
incl
uded
in th
e ju
stic
e sy
stem
. Thi
s ex
amen
able
s th
em to
be
qual
ified
for p
osts
as
judg
es, p
rose
cuto
rs o
r priv
ate
atto
rney
s. Th
epu
rpos
e of
und
erta
king
the
Judi
cial
/Bar
exam
inat
ion
is to
ver
ify a
nd e
valu
ate
the
theo
retic
al a
nd p
ract
ical
ski
lls o
f law
yers
,al
low
ing
them
to in
depe
nden
tly p
erfo
rmth
e ta
sks,
impl
emen
t the
law
s an
d be
com
efa
mili
ariz
e w
ith p
rofe
ssio
nal e
thic
s, hu
man
right
s an
d ba
sic
freed
oms
reco
gniz
ed in
dom
estic
and
inte
rnat
iona
l law
.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
52 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Kos
ovo
UN
DP
BCPR
Glo
bal P
rogr
amm
e on
Just
ice
and
Secu
rity
Sect
or R
efor
mpr
ogra
mm
e
Impr
oved
acc
ess
to ju
stic
e th
roug
h th
epr
ovis
ion
of le
gal a
id a
nd in
form
atio
n an
daw
aren
ess-
rais
ing,
esp
ecia
lly fo
r vul
nera
ble
grou
ps.
Kos
ovo
Wom
en’s
Safe
ty a
nd S
ecur
ityIn
itiat
ive
2007
-200
8A
tlas
Proj
ect I
D N
o: 0
0053
737
Offi
ce fo
r Pub
lic S
afet
y, O
ffice
for
Goo
d G
over
nanc
e, A
genc
y fo
rG
ende
r Equ
ality
, Tra
ffick
ing
inH
uman
Bei
ngs
Sect
or o
f the
Koso
vo P
olic
e Se
rvic
e, c
ivil
soci
ety
repr
esen
tativ
es
DFi
D, G
over
nmen
t of F
inla
nd, B
CPR
The
proj
ect a
ims
to s
tren
gthe
n ca
paci
ties
ofci
vil s
ocie
ty to
mon
itor a
nd a
dvoc
ate
for t
heac
coun
tabi
lity
of p
ublic
inst
itutio
ns in
com
batin
g an
d in
crea
sed
capa
city
of p
ublic
inst
itutio
ns to
com
bat V
iole
nce
Aga
inst
Wom
en.
Kyrg
yzst
an
Act
ion
II Pi
lotin
g
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
no:
000
5621
9
UN
DP,
UN
HC
R, U
NIS
EF, U
NFP
A,
UN
ESCO
, WH
O, U
NO
HC
HR,
UN
RC,
UN
IFEM
Act
ion
II, U
ND
P, U
NH
CR,
UN
ISEF
,U
NFP
A, U
NES
CO, W
HO
, UN
OH
CH
R,U
NRC
, UN
IFEM
The
Join
t Pro
ject
aim
s a
t sup
port
ing
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Cou
ntry
Tea
m in
its
cont
ribut
ion
to e
ffort
s of
the
Kyrg
yzRe
publ
ic in
str
engt
heni
ng n
atio
nal h
uman
right
s pr
omot
ion
and
prot
ectio
n sy
stem
s.
Latv
iaSu
ppor
t to
the
Judi
ciar
yM
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e,
Cons
titut
iona
l Cou
rt,
Supr
eme
Cour
t,Ju
dici
al T
rain
ing
Cent
re,
Latv
ian
Judg
es A
ssoc
iatio
n,So
ros
Foun
datio
n,
Latv
ian
Cent
re fo
r Hum
an R
ight
san
d Et
hnic
Stu
dies
, Le
gal A
id C
linic
of t
he L
atvi
aU
nive
rsity
,Ri
ga G
radu
ate
Scho
ol o
f Law
Gov
ernm
ents
of N
orw
ay,
Finl
and
and
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
The
proj
ect a
ims
to p
rom
ote
inde
pend
ence
and
effec
tiven
ess
and
acce
ssib
ility
of
judi
ciar
y in
Lat
via.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
53Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Latv
iaSt
reng
then
ing
Com
mun
icat
ions
Cap
acity
of t
he Ju
dici
ary
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
Cons
titut
iona
l Cou
rt
Supr
eme
Cour
tLa
tvia
n Ju
dges
Ass
ocia
tion
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Nor
way
The
inst
itutio
nal c
apac
ity o
f the
Lat
vian
judi
ciar
y sy
stem
can
be
grea
tly e
nhan
ced
by c
reat
ing
and
adop
ting
an e
ffect
ive
com
mun
icat
ion
polic
y fo
r the
sec
tor.
Syst
emat
ic a
nd h
ighl
y pr
ofes
sion
alco
mm
unic
atio
ns c
an m
obili
ze s
uppo
rt to
the
refo
rms
unde
rtak
en a
s w
ell a
s m
otiv
ate
civi
l soc
iety
to d
eman
d po
licy
mak
ers
toad
dres
s th
e ch
alle
nges
of t
he ju
dici
ary
with
appr
opria
te re
sour
ces
and
com
mitm
ent.
The
proj
ect d
evel
opm
ent o
bjec
tive
is to
crea
te in
stitu
tiona
l fra
mew
orks
and
stre
ngth
en th
e ca
paci
ty o
f hum
an re
sour
ces
in th
e ju
dici
ary
to e
nabl
e tr
ansp
aren
t and
prof
essi
onal
com
mun
icat
ions
bet
wee
n th
eju
dici
ary
and
civi
l soc
iety
, thu
s de
crea
sing
the
gap
betw
een
judi
ciar
y an
d th
e w
ay it
ispe
rcei
ved
by c
ivil
soci
ety.
It is
exp
ecte
d th
atst
reng
then
ed c
apac
ity o
f the
judi
ciar
y in
com
mun
icat
ions
wou
ld p
rom
ote
trus
t in
judi
ciar
y an
d im
prov
e th
e en
viro
nmen
t to
adva
nce
refo
rms
unde
rtak
en in
the
judi
ciar
y.
Latv
iaC
apac
ity D
evel
opm
ent o
f the
Latv
ian
Judi
ciar
y an
d Co
urts
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
Cons
titut
iona
l Cou
rt
Supr
eme
Cour
tJu
dici
al T
rain
ing
Cent
re
Latv
ian
Judg
es A
ssoc
iatio
nSo
ros
Foun
datio
n La
tvia
n Ce
ntre
for H
uman
Rig
hts
and
Ethn
ic S
tudi
es
Lega
l Aid
Clin
ic o
f the
Lat
via
Uni
vers
ity
Riga
Gra
duat
e Sc
hool
of L
aw
Gov
ernm
ents
of N
orw
ay, F
inla
ndan
d th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mTh
e pr
ojec
t aim
s to
pro
mot
e in
depe
nden
cean
d eff
ectiv
enes
s an
d ac
cess
ibili
ty o
f the
judi
ciar
y in
Lat
via.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
54 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Latv
iaIm
plem
enta
tion
of A
ltern
ativ
eM
easu
res
for J
uven
ile O
ffend
ers
inM
unic
ipal
ities
The
Inst
itute
of P
hilo
soph
y an
dSo
ciol
ogy
UN
DP
The
proj
ect a
ims
to a
ssis
t rel
evan
tin
stitu
tions
in ju
veni
le ju
stic
e re
form
.
Lith
uan
iaSt
reng
then
ing
Hum
an R
ight
sTh
roug
h Le
gal E
duca
tion
of th
ePu
blic
, Pha
se II
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
UN
DP
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
This
pro
ject
aim
s to
incr
ease
the
acce
ssib
ility
of l
egal
info
rmat
ion
to th
epu
blic
and
est
ablis
hing
a lo
ng-t
erm
bas
isfo
r leg
al a
war
enes
s-ra
isin
g th
roug
h le
gal
educ
atio
n of
the
yout
h. T
he p
roje
ct a
ims
atin
crea
sing
the
acce
ssib
ility
of l
egal
info
rmat
ion
to th
e pu
blic
and
est
ablis
hing
alo
ng-t
erm
bas
is fo
r leg
al a
war
enes
s-ra
isin
gth
roug
h le
gal e
duca
tion
of y
outh
.It
build
s on
the
resu
lts o
f the
pro
ject
“Str
engt
heni
ng h
uman
righ
ts th
roug
h le
gal
educ
atio
n of
the
publ
ic”, i
mpl
emen
ted
from
Apr
il 20
02 to
Dec
embe
r 200
3.
Lith
uan
iaJu
veni
le Ju
stic
e Pr
ogra
mm
eTh
e M
inist
ry o
f Jus
tice,
Cent
re fo
r the
Pre
vent
ion
of C
rime,
Law
Inst
itute
, Pro
secu
tor’s
Offi
ce,
Lith
uani
an C
entr
e fo
r Hum
an R
ight
s
UN
DP,
Cent
re fo
r Pre
vent
ion
of C
rime,
UN
ICEF
,Th
e M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e
The
prog
ram
me
aim
s to
ass
ist r
elev
ant
inst
itutio
ns in
juve
nile
just
ice
refo
rm.
Lith
uan
iaSt
reng
then
ing
Hum
an R
ight
sth
roug
h Le
gal E
duca
tion
of th
ePu
blic
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
UN
DP,
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
This
pro
ject
aim
s to
incr
ease
the
acce
ssib
ility
of l
egal
info
rmat
ion
to th
epu
blic
and
est
ablis
hing
a lo
ng-t
erm
bas
isfo
r leg
al a
war
enes
s-ra
isin
g th
roug
h le
gal
educ
atio
n of
the
yout
h.
Lith
uan
iaSu
ppor
t to
the
Legi
slat
ive
Refo
rmTh
e M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
eTh
e La
w In
stitu
teU
ND
P,Th
e M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e,O
pen
Soci
ety
Fund
–Li
thua
nia
This
pro
ject
aim
s to
pro
vide
tech
nica
l ass
is-
tanc
e to
the
Com
mis
sion
whi
ch is
und
erta
k-in
g a
com
preh
ensi
ve s
tudy
of l
aw-m
akin
gan
d in
pre
parin
g a
mod
el o
n la
w-m
akin
gan
d its
impl
emen
tatio
n.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
55Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Lith
uan
iaEs
tabl
ishm
ent o
f a ju
dici
al tr
aini
ngce
ntre
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
the
Supr
eme
Cour
t, th
e A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Lith
uani
an Ju
dges
UN
DP,
Ope
n So
ciet
y Fu
nd,
ABA
CEE
LI, T
he M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e,Th
e Su
prem
e Co
urt,
The
Ass
ocia
tion
of L
ithua
nian
Judg
es
The
proj
ect a
ims
to s
tren
gthe
n th
e ju
dici
ary
thro
ugh
trai
ning
and
edu
catio
n fo
r jud
ges
and
othe
r cou
rt p
erso
nnel
.
Lith
uan
iaSu
ppor
t to
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Nat
iona
l Hum
an R
ight
s A
ctio
n Pl
anG
over
nmen
t of L
ithua
nia,
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
Min
istr
y of
Soci
al S
ecur
ity a
nd L
abou
r,M
inis
try
of In
terio
r, Pa
rliam
enta
ryCo
mm
ittee
on
Hum
an R
ight
s
UN
DP,
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Lith
uani
aTh
e pr
ojec
t aim
s at
sup
port
ing
the
Lith
uani
an a
utho
ritie
s in
impl
emen
ting
the
Nat
iona
l Act
ion
Plan
for t
he P
rom
otio
n an
dPr
otec
tion
of H
uman
Rig
hts.
It w
illco
ntrib
ute
to fu
rthe
r pro
gres
s in
resp
ectin
g,pr
otec
ting
and
exer
cisi
ng h
uman
righ
ts in
Lith
uani
a.
Mol
dov
aSu
ppor
t in
Stre
ngth
enin
g th
eN
atio
nal P
reve
ntiv
e M
echa
nism
as
per O
PCAT
pro
visi
ons
Atla
s ID
No:
000
6919
4
Parli
amen
tary
Adv
ocat
es,
Cent
re fo
r Hum
an R
ight
sEC U
ND
PTh
e pr
ojec
t aim
s at
pre
vent
ing
the
prev
alen
ce/in
cide
nce
of to
rtur
e an
d ot
her
crue
l, in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
rPu
nish
men
t By
Stre
ngth
enin
g Th
e N
atio
nal
Prev
entiv
e M
echa
nism
in c
ompl
ianc
e w
ithth
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns C
onve
ntio
n A
gain
stTo
rtur
e (C
AT)/
Opt
iona
l Pro
toco
l to
the
CAT
(OPC
AT).
requ
irem
ents
and
und
er o
vera
llna
tiona
l hum
an ri
ghts
pro
tect
ion
and
prom
otio
n sy
stem
.
Mol
dov
aSt
reng
then
ing
the
Inst
itutio
nal
Cap
acity
of t
he N
atio
nal I
nstit
ute
of Ju
stic
e A
tlas
ID N
o: 0
0058
757
Hig
h Co
unci
l of M
agis
trac
y,M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e, P
arlia
men
t,Co
urts
, Uni
ted
Nat
ion
Age
ncie
s, EC
Del
egat
ion
to M
oldo
va, C
ounc
il of
Euro
pe, O
SCE,
civ
il so
ciet
yor
gani
zatio
ns
UN
DP
This
pro
ject
aim
s at
sup
port
ing
the
Nat
iona
lIn
stitu
te o
f Jus
tice
in s
tren
gthe
ning
its
inst
itutio
nal c
apac
ity to
per
form
its
lega
lfu
nctio
ns in
a m
ore
tran
spar
ent a
ndeffi
cien
t man
ner,
ther
eby
incr
easi
ng th
eed
ucat
ion,
trai
ning
and
com
pete
ncy
ofju
dges
, pro
secu
tors
and
oth
er ju
stic
ere
pres
enta
tives
. Thi
s w
ould
resu
lt in
thei
ren
hanc
ed c
apac
ities
to m
ake
fair,
just
and
equi
tabl
e de
cisi
ons
and
ensu
re a
cces
s to
just
ice.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
56 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Mol
dov
aSu
ppor
t to
the
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Nat
iona
l Hum
an R
ight
s A
ctio
nPl
an 2
004-
2008
Atla
s ID
No:
000
3534
7
Parli
amen
t, N
atio
nal H
uman
Rig
hts
Act
ion
Plan
, NG
Os,
the
priv
ate
sect
or a
nd th
e m
ass
med
ia
UN
DP
Glo
bal H
URI
ST P
rogr
amm
e Th
is p
roje
ct w
ill im
plem
ent t
he N
atio
nal
Hum
an R
ight
s A
ctio
n Pl
an u
nder
the
glob
alH
URI
ST p
rogr
amm
e to
intr
oduc
e a
cons
iste
nt a
nd tr
ansp
aren
t sys
tem
of
mon
itorin
g hu
man
righ
ts. I
t will
als
o bu
ildca
paci
ties
for i
mpr
ovin
g th
e pr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
t of r
epre
sent
ativ
es o
f jus
tice
and
will
rais
e aw
aren
ess
on h
uman
righ
tsan
d m
echa
nism
s fo
r the
ir pr
otec
tion.
Mol
dov
aEffi
cien
t jus
tice
adm
inis
trat
ion
inth
e Re
publ
ic o
f Mol
dova
Atla
s ID
No:
0003
9548
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
Hig
h Co
unci
l of
Mag
istr
acy,
NG
Os
UN
DP
Soro
s Fo
unda
tion
This
pro
ject
aim
s to
sup
port
the
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Mol
dova
in c
onso
lidat
ing
the
mec
hani
sm fo
r the
effi
cien
t fun
ctio
ning
of th
e ju
dici
ary
by: e
nhan
cing
nat
iona
lca
paci
ty fo
r an
effici
ent m
anag
emen
t of
case
s; su
ppor
ting
the
gove
rnm
ent t
oid
entif
y di
sput
e se
ttle
men
t alte
rnat
ives
tosi
mpl
ify c
ourt
pro
ceed
ings
; and
effi
cien
tlym
anag
ing
the
reso
urce
s av
aila
ble
to c
ourt
s.
The
proj
ect w
ill c
ontr
ibut
e to
str
engt
heni
ngna
tiona
l cap
aciti
es to
sec
ure
tran
spar
ency
of ju
stic
e ad
min
istr
atio
n an
d by
iden
tifyi
ngm
echa
nism
s to
redu
ce ju
dici
al c
osts
by
ratio
nal m
anag
emen
t of r
esou
rces
and
alte
rnat
ives
to d
ispu
te s
ettle
men
t. Th
ese
effor
ts s
houl
d de
term
ine
the
cons
olid
atio
nof
a m
ore
func
tiona
l and
acc
essi
ble
judi
ciar
y/ju
stic
e se
rvic
e fo
r its
ben
efici
arie
s.It
will
als
o co
ntrib
ute
to th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent
of a
sys
tem
cap
able
of p
rope
rly c
arry
ing
out
its d
utie
s to
saf
egua
rd a
nd p
rote
ct h
uman
right
s an
d to
rem
edy
the
viol
atio
ns o
f the
serig
hts.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
57Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Mol
dov
aSt
reng
then
ing
Mol
dova
’sG
over
nmen
t and
civ
il so
ciet
yca
paci
ty to
figh
t cor
rupt
ion
and
toim
prov
e go
vern
ance
Atla
s ID
No:
0001
3631
The
Gov
ernm
ent,
the
Pres
iden
cy,
civi
l soc
iety
, the
priv
ate
sect
or a
ndth
e m
ass
med
ia
UN
DP
Mol
dova
,U
ND
P Th
emat
ic T
rust
Fun
dTh
e pr
ojec
t aim
s to
sup
port
gov
ernm
ent
stru
ctur
es in
figh
ting
corr
uptio
n an
dst
reng
then
ing
the
capa
city
of i
ndep
ende
ntN
GO
s to
car
ry o
ut a
nti-c
orru
ptio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Mol
dov
aCe
ntre
for L
egal
Stu
dies
and
Polic
ies
Atla
s ID
Num
ber:
0001
3637
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
the
Hig
hCo
unci
l of M
agis
trac
y, JT
C, I
nstit
ute
for C
rimin
al R
efor
ms,
Law
yers
for
Hum
an R
ight
s, La
w C
entr
e, TA
CIS
Prog
ram
, ABA
CEE
LI
UN
DP,
Soro
s Fo
unda
tion
The
proj
ect a
ims
to d
evel
op fa
ir an
deffi
cien
t adm
inis
trat
ion
of ju
stic
e by
prom
otin
g in
tern
atio
nal s
tand
ards
for
natio
nal h
ighe
r leg
al e
duca
tion
and
mod
erni
zing
the
crim
inal
just
ice
syst
em.
Mon
ten
egro
Re
form
of t
he L
egal
Aid
Sys
tem
inM
onte
negr
o: C
reat
ing
and
Effec
tive
and
Sust
aina
ble
Syst
emof
Leg
al A
idA
tlas
ID N
o: 0
0063
398
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
Sup
rem
e Co
urt,
Coun
cil o
f Eur
ope,
OSC
E, F
oS,
UN
HC
R, B
ar A
ssoc
iatio
n
Gov
ernm
ent o
f the
Net
herla
nds,
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Nor
way
, UN
DP
TRA
C
In O
ctob
er 2
008,
UN
DP
laun
ched
the
proj
ect “
Cre
atin
g an
effe
ctiv
e an
dsu
stai
nabl
e sy
stem
of p
rovi
ding
Leg
al A
id”,
cons
istin
g of
two
com
pone
nts:
(i) D
raft
ing
of th
e La
w o
n Le
gal A
id;
(ii) I
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Law
on
Lega
l Aid
.
Mon
ten
egro
Stre
ngth
enin
g C
apac
ities
of
Judi
ciar
y to
Fig
ht C
orru
ptio
n an
dO
rgan
ized
Crim
e
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
Sup
rem
e Co
urt,
Supr
eme
Stat
e Pr
osec
utor
’s O
ffice
,Sp
ecia
l Pro
secu
tor f
or O
rgan
ized
Crim
e an
d Co
rrup
tion,
the
Judi
cial
Trai
ning
Cen
tre
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Nor
way
In Ja
nuar
y 20
08, U
ND
P la
unch
ed th
e pr
ojec
tSt
reng
then
ing
Cap
aciti
es o
f Jud
icia
ry to
Figh
t Cor
rupt
ion
and
Org
aniz
ed C
rime,
cons
istin
g of
thre
e co
mpo
nent
s: (i)
Sup
port
to th
e M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e in
its
legi
slat
ive
effor
ts; (
ii) D
evel
opin
g tr
aini
ng p
rogr
amm
esfo
r the
Judi
cial
Tra
inin
g Ce
nter
(JTC
); (ii
i)D
evel
opin
g of
IT c
apac
ities
for t
he ju
dici
ary.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
58 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Mon
ten
egro
Stre
ngth
enin
g C
apac
ities
of t
heM
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e of
Mon
tene
gro
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Nor
way
In Ja
nuar
y 20
09, U
ND
P la
unch
ed th
e pr
ojec
tSt
reng
then
ing
Cap
aciti
es o
f the
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
of M
onte
negr
o, c
onsi
stin
g of
five
com
pone
nts:
(i) Im
prov
emen
t of t
heor
gani
zatio
nal s
etup
of t
he M
inis
try;
(ii)
Dev
elop
men
t of t
he m
anag
emen
tca
paci
ties
of th
e M
inis
try;
(iii)
Str
engt
heni
ngof
the
capa
citie
s of
the
Min
istr
y to
pla
n,de
velo
p an
d im
plem
ent E
urop
ean
inte
grat
ion
and
inte
rnat
iona
l leg
alas
sist
ance
/co-
oper
atio
n po
licie
s; (iv
)Su
stai
nabl
e im
prov
emen
t in
the
info
rmat
ion
tech
nolo
gy c
apac
ities
of t
heM
inis
try;
and
(v) P
rom
otio
n of
the
publ
icre
latio
ns a
spec
t of t
he M
inis
try’
s op
erat
ions
Rom
ania
Law
Enf
orce
men
t Bes
t Pra
ctic
eM
anua
lM
inis
try
of th
e In
terio
rU
ND
P/Eu
rope
and
the
CIS
, Uni
ted
Nat
ions
/CIC
P, SE
CI
UN
DP
USA
IDIn
tern
atio
nal C
entr
e fo
r Mig
ratio
nPo
licy
Dev
elop
men
t
The
role
of t
his
proj
ect i
s to
form
ulat
e a
The
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
anua
l was
des
igne
d to
enha
nce
inte
rcou
ntry
coo
pera
tion
and
the
capa
citie
s of
law
enf
orce
men
t and
pros
ecut
oria
l uni
ts w
ithin
ben
efici
ary
coun
trie
s to
com
bat t
he tr
affick
ing
ofhu
man
bei
ngs.
Rom
ania
Supp
ort t
o th
e im
plem
enta
tion
ofth
e La
w A
cces
s to
Pub
licIn
form
atio
n in
Rom
ania
The
Min
istr
y of
Pub
lic In
form
atio
nU
ND
PU
ND
P Th
emat
ic T
rust
Fun
dTh
e pr
ojec
t aim
s at
bui
ldin
g ca
paci
ties
ofci
vil s
ocie
ty o
rgan
izat
ions
to e
ffect
ivel
ym
onito
r and
sup
port
impl
emen
tatio
n of
and
com
plia
nce
with
the
Law
on
Acc
ess
toPu
blic
Info
rmat
ion.
Serb
ia
Esta
blis
hmen
t of t
he Ju
dici
alTr
aini
ng C
ente
r for
Pro
fess
iona
lA
dvan
cem
ent o
f Jud
ges
and
Pros
ecut
ors
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
156
54/1
5655
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
The
Judg
esA
ssoc
iatio
n of
Ser
bia,
The
Sup
rem
eCo
urt o
f Ser
bia
RNE/
SID
ATh
e pr
ojec
t aim
s at
: the
est
ablis
hmen
t of
the
Judi
cial
Tra
inin
g Ce
ntre
as
an in
stitu
tion;
the
crea
tion
of re
sear
ch c
apac
ity, a
nd th
ede
sign
of c
urric
ula
for a
ll be
nefic
iarie
s an
dof
co-
ordi
natio
n m
echa
nism
s.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
59Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Serb
iaSt
reng
then
ing
the
Judi
cial
Reso
urce
and
Sup
port
Fun
ctio
ns in
the
Judi
cial
Tra
inin
g Ce
ntre
(JTC
)A
tlas
Proj
ect I
D N
o: 3
6743
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
The
Judg
esA
ssoc
iatio
n of
Ser
bia,
The
Sup
rem
eCo
urt o
f Ser
bia
CID
AU
nder
the
scop
e of
exp
andi
ng JT
Cfu
nctio
ns, t
he p
ropo
sed
proj
ect a
ctiv
ities
cons
ist o
f set
ting
up a
spe
cial
ized
them
atic
data
base
, sup
port
ing
judi
cial
coo
pera
tion,
assi
stin
g cu
rric
ula
adva
ncem
ent a
nden
cour
agin
g re
sear
ch a
nd tr
aini
ngev
alua
tion.
Serb
iaSt
reng
then
ing
Hum
an R
ight
sPr
otec
tion
Mec
hani
sms
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
344
22
Min
istr
y fo
r Min
ority
and
Hum
anRi
ghts
, Jud
icia
l Tra
inin
g Ce
ntre
U
ND
P - T
TFTh
e pr
ojec
t foc
used
on
expo
sing
judg
esan
d pr
osec
utor
s to
new
teac
hing
tech
niqu
es o
n hu
man
righ
ts p
rote
ctio
n,an
d ra
isin
g pu
blic
aw
aren
ess
and
educ
atin
gth
e pu
blic
on
mec
hani
sms
for h
uman
righ
tspr
otec
tion.
Serb
iaSt
reng
then
ing
the
Syst
em o
fM
isde
mea
nors
and
Mag
istr
ates
'Co
urts
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
381
44/5
4821
The
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
The
Ass
ocia
tion
of M
agis
trat
es, T
heJu
dici
al T
rain
ing
Cent
er
SID
ATh
e pr
ojec
t will
be
carr
ied
out t
hrou
gh le
gal
regu
latio
n an
d de
velo
ping
pro
fess
iona
lst
anda
rds
and
a co
de o
f eth
ics.
The
proj
ect
activ
ities
will
be
unde
rtak
en b
y th
e Pr
ojec
tIm
plem
enta
tion
Uni
t, in
clo
se c
oope
ratio
nw
ith th
e M
inis
try
of Ju
stic
e of
the
Repu
blic
of S
erbi
a an
d th
e A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Mag
istr
ates
.
Serb
iaTr
ansi
tiona
l Jus
tice
Prog
ram
me:
Build
ing
up th
e C
apac
ity fo
rEn
surin
g A
cces
s to
Just
ice
in a
Post
-Con
flict
Soc
iety
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
435
54, 5
4794
The
Judi
cial
Tra
inin
g Ce
ntre
,na
tiona
l and
regi
onal
judi
ciar
y,na
tiona
l and
inte
rnat
iona
l NG
Os,
IGO
s.
UN
DP,
BCPR
, RN
E Th
e lo
ng-t
erm
goa
ls o
f the
Tra
nsiti
onal
Just
ice
Prog
ram
me
are
stre
ngth
enin
gre
sear
ch, t
rain
ing
and
publ
ic in
form
atio
nca
paci
ty o
f pos
t-co
nflic
t soc
ial i
nstit
utio
nsto
pro
vide
reco
urse
to ju
stic
e. T
hepr
ogra
mm
e in
tend
s to
gra
dual
ly d
evel
opth
ree
mut
ually
re-e
nfor
cing
cap
aciti
es in
the
dom
ain
of p
ost-
confl
ict r
efor
m: (
i) Re
sear
ch;
(ii) T
rain
ing;
and
(ii)
Publ
ic in
form
atio
n.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
60 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Serb
iaJu
dici
al E
duca
tion
for
Dev
elop
men
t – th
e Tu
rn G
uide
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
448
21
Judi
cial
Tra
inin
g Ce
ntre
, Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
UN
DP
– Si
gnat
ory
Serv
ice
Spec
ial
Aw
ard
The
Turn
Gui
de w
ill h
ave
the
pote
ntia
l to
allo
w o
ther
s to
rapi
dly
incr
ease
thei
r jud
icia
lre
form
por
tfolio
and
con
trib
ute
mor
eeff
ectiv
ely
to th
e pr
omot
ion
of D
emoc
ratic
Gov
erna
nce.
Serb
iaFr
ee L
egal
Aid
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
515
65/5
4946
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice,
citi
zens
, the
judi
ciar
yU
ND
P/SI
DA
The
long
-ter
m g
oal o
f the
Firs
t Pha
se o
f the
Free
Leg
al A
id p
roje
ct is
to e
stab
lish
aro
adm
ap fo
r the
cre
atio
n of
an
effec
tive
and
affor
dabl
e st
ate-
fund
ed a
nd s
tate
-run
lega
lai
d sy
stem
for t
hose
who
can
not a
fford
lega
l ser
vice
s. Th
e sh
ort-
term
goa
ls a
re to
form
ulat
e a
stra
tegy
for t
he re
form
of t
hele
gal a
id s
yste
m th
at w
ill b
e ac
cept
ed b
yth
e ke
y st
akeh
olde
rs a
nd to
incr
ease
acc
ess
to ju
stic
e fo
r the
mos
t vul
nera
ble
and
mar
gina
lized
gro
ups.
Serb
iaA
nti-D
iscr
imin
atio
n –
Firs
t Pha
se
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
513
65
Min
istr
y of
Hum
an a
nd M
inor
ityRi
ghts
, NG
Os,
EAR,
Cou
ncil
ofEu
rope
UN
DP/
EAR
This
pro
ject
aim
s at
the
crea
tion
of a
com
preh
ensi
ve le
gal f
ram
ewor
k fo
rpr
even
ting
and
com
batin
g di
scrim
inat
ion.
Its p
rimar
y fo
cus
will
be
to u
se a
part
icip
ator
y pr
oces
s of
pub
lic c
onsu
ltatio
nto
pro
duce
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
Dra
ft L
aw o
nA
nti-D
iscr
imin
atio
n co
nsis
tent
with
Euro
pean
and
inte
rnat
iona
l nor
ms.
This
will
be a
chie
ved
thro
ugh
its s
uppo
rt to
the
adop
tion
of s
uch
an a
nti-d
iscr
imin
atio
n la
win
Ser
bia
and
Mon
tene
gro
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
61Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Serb
iaA
nti-D
iscr
imin
atio
n –
Seco
ndPh
ase
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
547
59
Min
istr
y of
Lab
our a
nd S
ocia
lPo
licy,
om
buds
men
, NG
Os,
Com
mis
sion
for P
rote
ctio
n of
Equa
lity
Euro
pean
Age
ncy
for
Reco
nstr
uctio
nA
s pa
rt o
f the
wid
e-ra
ngin
g eff
ort c
urre
ntly
unde
rtak
en p
rimar
ily b
y th
e go
vern
men
tan
d ci
vil s
ocie
ty to
fulfi
ll th
e cr
iteria
for
clos
er in
tegr
atio
n w
ith th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
,a
key
com
pone
nt h
as b
een
devo
ted
to th
ein
trod
uctio
n of
legi
slat
ion
seek
ing
to m
ore
effec
tivel
y pr
even
t and
com
bat
disc
rimin
atio
n of
min
oriti
es a
nd v
ulne
rabl
egr
oups
in S
erbi
a. U
ND
P ha
s, in
par
tner
ship
with
the
Age
ncy
for H
uman
and
Min
ority
Righ
ts a
nd th
e Eu
rope
an A
genc
y fo
rRe
cons
truc
tion,
sup
port
ed th
e pr
epar
atio
nof
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
Dra
ft A
nti-
disc
rimin
atio
n A
ct e
labo
rate
d w
ithgo
vern
men
tal s
uppo
rt a
nd in
coo
pera
tion
with
inte
rnat
iona
l age
ncie
s. In
ord
er to
incr
ease
the
impa
ct o
f the
legi
slat
ive
wor
kun
dert
aken
unt
il no
w a
nd to
gua
rant
ee th
eeff
ectiv
enes
s of
pre
sent
and
fort
hcom
ing
prov
isio
ns, i
t app
ears
nec
essa
ry to
car
ry o
uta
proj
ect c
ompo
sed
of th
e fo
llow
ing
com
pone
nts:
Inst
itutio
nal s
uppo
rt to
the
agen
cies
and
bod
ies
invo
lved
in th
eim
plem
enta
tion
of c
urre
nt a
nd fu
ture
ant
i-di
scrim
inat
ion
legi
slat
ion;
Enh
anci
ng a
ndm
ains
trea
min
g of
furt
her l
egis
lativ
ede
velo
pmen
ts in
the
field
of
antid
iscr
imin
atio
n; S
tren
gthe
ning
of t
hero
le o
f alte
rnat
ive
disp
ute
reso
lutio
nm
echa
nism
s in
the
over
all i
mpl
emen
tatio
nof
ant
idis
crim
inat
ion
prov
isio
ns; a
ndA
war
enes
s-ra
isin
g am
ong
key
grou
ps a
ndso
ciet
y at
larg
e on
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f equ
altr
eatm
ent a
nd th
e re
leva
nce
of n
ewan
ti.di
scrim
inat
ion
rule
s.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
62 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Serb
iaN
otio
ns o
f Jus
tice
and
War
Crim
es
Atla
s Pr
ojec
t ID
No:
606
22W
ar C
rimes
Cha
mbe
r of t
heBe
lgra
de D
istr
ict C
ourt
, Cou
rts
inKo
sovo
, Cou
rts
in C
roat
ia, C
ourt
s in
Mon
tene
gro,
The
Inte
rnat
iona
lCo
urt o
f Jus
tice,
Inte
rnat
iona
lC
rimin
al T
ribun
al fo
r the
form
erYu
gosl
avia
(IC
TY),
The
Stat
e Co
urt
of B
osni
a an
d H
erze
govi
na, T
heW
ar C
rimes
Pro
secu
tors
’ Offi
ce o
fth
e Re
publ
ic o
f Ser
bia,
ICTJ
, JTC
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Rom
ania
Dom
estic
cou
rts
in th
e fo
rmer
Yug
osla
via
have
ben
efite
d fro
m th
e w
ork
of th
e IC
TYon
out
reac
h an
d ha
ve a
ll se
t up
publ
icre
latio
ns o
ffice
s to
exp
lain
pro
ceed
ings
,in
dict
men
ts a
nd ju
dgm
ents
. How
ever
, the
activ
ities
of t
hese
offi
ces
are
mos
tly li
mite
dto
pre
ss b
riefin
gs, a
nd p
oten
tial s
ubst
antiv
eou
trea
ch e
ffort
s ar
e hi
nder
ed b
y bu
dget
ary
cons
trai
nts.
The
proj
ect w
ill h
elp
to d
evel
op a
met
hodo
logy
to im
part
exp
ertis
e in
outr
each
from
the
inte
rnat
iona
l sec
tor t
olo
cal s
take
hold
ers
who
lack
exp
erie
nce
inin
tern
atio
nal l
aw a
nd p
roce
edin
gs, w
ith th
eid
ea o
f cre
atin
g a
flexi
ble
and
expo
rtab
leou
tcom
e, w
hile
pro
vidi
ng th
e in
tern
atio
nal
expe
rts
with
idea
s fo
r bet
ter m
echa
nism
s to
inco
rpor
ate
a lo
caliz
ed a
ppro
ach
in th
eir
own
outr
each
effo
rts.
The
proj
ect w
illde
velo
p la
stin
g ex
pert
ise
at th
e lo
cal l
evel
inBo
snia
and
Her
zego
vina
, Cro
atia
, UN
MIK
-Ko
sovo
, Mon
tene
gro
and
Serb
ia in
expl
aini
ng th
e na
ture
of i
nter
natio
nal l
egal
proc
eedi
ngs.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
63Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Turk
eySu
ppor
t to
Judi
cial
Ref
orm
in th
ePe
rspe
ctiv
e of
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
The
proj
ect a
t han
d, e
ntitl
ed S
uppo
rt to
Judi
cial
Ref
orm
in th
e Pe
rspe
ctiv
e of
Org
aniz
atio
nal A
dmin
istr
atio
n, a
ims
tosu
ppor
t the
Hig
h Co
unci
l of J
udge
s an
dPr
osec
utor
s, an
d th
e hi
gh c
ourt
s su
ch a
sCo
urt o
f Ces
satio
n an
d Co
unci
l of S
tate
inth
eir e
ffort
s in
bui
ldin
g in
stitu
tiona
l cap
acity
for b
ette
r acc
ess
to ju
stic
e fo
r all.
In th
esc
ope
of th
e Pr
ojec
t, an
eva
luat
ion
of th
eor
gani
zatio
nal a
dmin
istr
atio
n of
the
Turk
ish
judi
cial
sys
tem
to d
evel
op a
road
map
for
the
full-
fledg
ed im
plem
enta
tion
of ju
dici
ary
refo
rms
in th
e EU
acc
essi
on p
roce
ss w
ill b
eco
nduc
ted.
Thi
s or
gani
zatio
nal
adm
inis
trat
ion
revi
ew o
f the
judi
cial
sys
tem
will
pro
vide
an
over
all e
valu
atio
n of
the
stru
ctur
es a
nd in
tera
ctio
ns a
mon
g th
e H
igh
Coun
cil o
f Pro
secu
tors
and
Judg
es, t
he h
igh
cour
ts s
uch
as C
ourt
of C
essa
tion
and
Coun
cil o
f Sta
te. O
utpu
t of t
his
revi
ew w
illbe
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
situ
atio
n an
alys
is o
f the
exis
ting
stru
ctur
es a
nd p
roce
sses
.U
ltim
atel
y, th
e pr
ojec
t sha
ll pr
ovid
e an
exte
nsiv
e fra
mew
ork,
whi
ch w
ill b
ecom
e a
basi
s fo
r defi
ning
a ro
ad m
ap fo
r fur
ther
polic
y re
com
men
datio
ns a
nd c
apac
ity-
build
ing
prog
ram
mes
in th
e on
goin
gju
dici
ary
refo
rm p
roce
ss o
f Tur
key.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
64 Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Turk
eyPr
epar
ator
y A
ssis
tanc
e Pr
ojec
t for
the
Dev
elop
men
t of P
ract
ice
ofM
edia
tion
in C
rimin
al Ju
stic
eSy
stem
Min
istr
y of
Just
ice
UN
DP’
s sp
ecia
l nic
he in
the
stud
ies
of th
eju
stic
e se
ctor
in T
urke
y w
ill p
rovi
dete
chni
cal k
now
-how
tow
ards
ach
ievi
ngin
stitu
tiona
l cap
acity
bui
ldin
g ba
sed
on it
sgl
obal
exp
erie
nce
and
capa
city
. It w
illac
cord
ingl
y pr
ovid
e m
ulti-
coun
try
stru
ctur
es a
nd le
sson
s le
arne
d as
wel
l as
expe
rtis
e in
the
area
of i
ts c
orpo
rate
man
date
and
the
embo
dim
ent o
f hum
anrig
hts-
base
d ap
proa
ches
to a
ll fie
lds
ofse
rvic
e de
liver
y an
d ac
ts o
f dut
y-be
arer
s.
Uzb
ekis
tan
Dev
elop
men
t of t
he C
apac
ities
Nat
iona
l Hum
an R
ight
s In
stitu
tions
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
No:
000
4449
7
Nat
iona
l Hum
an R
ight
s Ce
ntre
,O
mbu
dsm
en, l
awye
rs, l
egal
clin
ics,
yout
h or
gani
zatio
ns
UN
DP,
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Net
herla
nds,
Dem
ocra
tic G
over
nanc
e Th
emat
icTr
ust F
und
The
mai
n ob
ject
ive
of th
e pr
ojec
t is
tost
reng
then
cap
aciti
es o
f the
nat
iona
lhu
man
righ
ts in
stitu
tions
and
rele
vant
bodi
es to
effe
ctiv
ely
fulfi
ll th
eir m
anda
tes
for p
rom
otin
g an
d pr
otec
ting
hum
an ri
ghts
in U
zbek
ista
n. T
he p
roje
ct fo
cuse
s pr
imar
ilyon
act
iviti
es re
latin
g to
hum
an ri
ghts
mat
ters
that
form
par
t of t
he m
anda
te a
ndda
y-to
-day
wor
k of
ope
ratio
nal n
atio
nal
hum
an ri
ghts
inst
itutio
ns, w
hich
wou
ldco
nseq
uent
ly im
prov
e th
e pr
omot
ion
and
prot
ectio
n of
hum
an ri
ghts
.
AN
NE
X
V
DA
TA
BA
SE
O
F
UN
DP
’S
A
CC
ES
S
TO
J
US
TI
CE
P
RO
JE
CT
S
IN
T
HE
R
EG
IO
N
65Cou
ntr
yof
Imp
lem
enta
tion
Proj
ect t
itle
an
d
ATLA
S ID
no.
Part
ner
Inst
itut
ion
sD
onor
Inst
itut
ion
s Pr
ojec
t Dev
elop
men
t Ob
ject
ive
Uzb
ekis
tan
Supp
ort t
o th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
arbi
trat
ion
cour
ts a
nd o
ther
alte
rnat
ive
met
hods
of d
ispu
tese
ttle
men
t
Atla
s pr
ojec
t ID
no:
000
5971
5
Cha
mbe
r of C
omm
erce
and
Indu
stry
UN
DP,
Cha
mbe
r of C
omm
erce
and
Indu
stry
The
mai
n ob
ject
ive
of th
e pr
ojec
t is
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
arb
itrat
ion
cour
ts a
ndot
her a
ltern
ativ
e w
ays
of d
ispu
te re
solu
tion
thro
ugh
crea
tion
of th
e A
rbitr
atio
nD
evel
opm
ent C
ente
r und
er th
e C
ham
ber o
fCo
mm
erce
and
Indu
stry
.
To a
chie
ve th
is o
bjec
tive,
the
proj
ect w
illfa
cilit
ate
the
deliv
ery
of fo
llow
ing
mai
nin
puts
: 1.
Est
ablis
hing
and
dev
elop
men
t of
inst
itutio
nal c
apac
ities
of t
he A
rbitr
atio
nD
evel
opm
ent C
ente
r und
er th
e C
ham
ber o
fCo
mm
erce
and
Indu
stry
of t
he R
epub
lic o
fU
zbek
ista
n;
2. R
esea
rch
on th
e cu
rren
t situ
atio
n of
arbi
trat
ion
proc
ess
and
med
iatio
n in
Uzb
ekis
tan;
3.
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
inte
rnat
iona
lst
anda
rds
of d
ispu
tes
reso
lutio
n th
roug
htr
aini
ng a
nd c
ertifi
catio
n of
arb
itrat
ion
judg
es; e
ncou
rage
men
t of w
omen
arb
iters
and
brea
king
the
gend
er b
arrie
r; 4.
Pre
para
tion
of d
raft
am
endm
ents
to th
ele
gisl
atio
n in
the
field
of a
rbitr
atio
n co
urts
and
tria
ls.
AN
NE
X
VI
U
ND
P’
S
MA
IN
D
ON
OR
S
AN
D
PA
RT
NE
RS
I
N
EU
RO
PE
A
ND
T
HE
C
IS
66
Annex VIUNDP’s Main Donors andPartners in Europe and the CIS
Organization Donor Partner
European Union Croatia, Moldova, Serbia Croatia, Georgia, Moldova,Montenegro
World BankArmenia
Canada (CIDA) Serbia
France Uzbekistan
Germany Uzbekistan
The Netherlands Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia Croatia
Norway Armenia, Kosovo, Montenegro Georgia
Romania Serbia
Sweden (SIDA) Armenia, Serbia, Tajikistan Georgia
Switzerland (SDC) Armenia
United Kingdom (FCO/DFiD) Kazakhstan Croatia
United States of America (USAID) Croatia, Kyrgyzstan Armenia, Croatia, Kyrgyzstan,Uzbekistan
OHCHR Moldova Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan
TTF Georgia, Lithuania, Republic ofMoldova, Serbia, Turkey
UNICEF Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
UNIFEM Kazakhstan
UNHCR Armenia, Kazakhstan, Montenegro
AN
NE
X
VI
U
ND
P’
S
MA
IN
D
ON
OR
S
AN
D
PA
RT
NE
RS
I
N
EU
RO
PE
A
ND
T
HE
C
IS
67
Organization Donor Partner
UNODC Lithuania Armenia, Serbia
OTHER Kosovo – Europe and the CIS Montenegro – UNDPNYHeadquarters
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION(Central and Eastern Europe LawInitiative (ABA/ROLI)
Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Serbia
Council of Europe Armenia, Moldova, Montenegro
Open Society Institute/SorosFoundation
Armenia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania,Montenegro
OSCE Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova,Montenegro, Serbia, Uzbekistan
Other Local NGOs and HRDs
UNDP Bratislava Regional CentreGrösslingova 3581109 BratislavaSlovak Republic
Tel: (421-2) 59337-111Fax: (421-2) 59337-450http://europeandcis.undp.org/
Related Documents
