NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM (NEW JUSTICE)
Quarterly Performance Report October – December 2016 (FY17 Q1)
January 30, 2017
January 30, 2017
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics International Inc. for the USAID Nove Pravosuddya Justice Sector Reform Program.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM (NEW JUSTICE)
QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2016 Contract No. AID-OAA-I-13-00032, Task Order No. AID-121-TO-16-00003 Contacting Officer’s Representative: Oleksandr Piskun, Democracy Project Management Specialist, Office of Democracy and Governance
Submitted to: US Agency for International Development Address: 4 Igor Sikorsky Street, Kyiv, Ukraine Tel: 380-44-521-5000 Fax: 380-44-521-5245
Submitted by: Chemonics International Inc.
DISCLAIMER This publication was produced by Chemonics International for review by the United States Agency for International Development. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
CONTENTS Contents ...... i Acronyms ...... iii Executive Summary ...... 5 Program Activities ...... 8 Objective 1: Judicial Independence and Self-Governance Strengthened ...... 8 Sub-Objective 1.1.: Judicial Independence Established through Reformed Constitutional, Statutory and Regulatory Framework ...... 8 Sub-Objective 1.2: Judicial Self Governance Strengthened ...... 10 Sub-Objective 1.3: Judiciary Exercises Independence Effectively ...... 14 Sub-Objective 1.4: Improper and Unlawful Influence on Judiciary Reduced ...... 18 Objective 1 Lessons Learned and Planned Activities for Next Quarter ...... 19 Objective 2: Accountablity and Transparency of the Judiciary to Citizens and the Rule of Law Increased ...... 20 Sub-Objective 2.1: Transparency by the Judiciary Increased ...... 20 Sub-Objective 2.2: Horizontal Accountability – Checks and Balances of the Judiciary by other Branches of Government Strengthened ...... 21 Sub-Objective 2.3: Social Accountability – Judiciary Held Accountable by Citizens, Civil Society and Independent Media ...... 23 Objective 2 Lessons Learned and Planned Activities for Next Quarter ...... 25 Objective 3: Administration of Justice Enhanced ...... 26 Sub-Objective 3.1: Judicial Administration Institutions, Policies, and Procedures Strengthered ...... 26 Sub-Objective 3.2.: Professional Competencies and Expertise of Judges and Judicial Personnel Improved ...... 28 Sub-Objective 3.3: Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Strengthened ...... 30 Sub-Objective 3.4: System of Enforcement of Judgments Improved ...... 30 Objective 3 Lessons Learned and Planned Activities for Next Quarter ...... 32 Objective 4: Quality of Legal Education Strengthened ...... 33 Sub-Objective 4.1: National Strategy and Standards for Legal Education and Accreditation Adopted ...... 34 Sub-Objective 4.2.: Quality Assurance Frameworks for Law Schools Developed ...... 36 Sub-Objective 4.3: Practice-Oriented and Skills-based Instruction, Curriculum, and Activities Integrated ...... 37 Objective 4 Lessons Learned and Planned Activities for Next Quarter ...... 41
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | i Objective 5: Access to Justice Expanded and Human Rights Protected...... 43 Sub-Objective 5.1: Justice Accessible to Citizens, Including the Most Vulnerable ...... 43 Sub-Objective 5.2: Human rRghts Protected, Especially the Rights of the Most Vulnerable ...... 44 Objective 5 Lessons Learned and Planned Activities for Next Quarter ...... 45 Donor Coordination ...... 47 Deliverables ...... 48 ANNEX A. Performance Management and Evaluation Summary ...... 49 ANNEX B. Milestones Progress Report ...... 72
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | ii
ACRONYMS
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution BPA Business Process Analysis CJC Community Justice Center CMI Court Management Institute COE Council of Europe COJ Council of Judges CRC Citizen Report Card CSO Civil Society Organization ER Expected Result FAIR USAID Fair, Accountable, Independent, and Responsible Judiciary Program in Ukraine GOU Government of Ukraine HCJ High Council of Justice HQC High Qualifications Commission of Judges IAHR Institute for Applied Humanitarian Research IFJSE International Framework for Judicial Support Excellence IT Information Technology JRC Judicial Reform Council JSRS Justice Sector Reform Strategy LGBTI Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex LNU Lviv National University MOE Ministry of Education and Science MOJ Ministry of Justice MSU Michigan State University NABU National Anti-Corruption Bureau NAPC National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption NGO Nongovernmental Organization NSJ National School of Judges ODR Online Dispute Resolution OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe PIO Public Information Officer
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | iii SAF Strategic Activities Fund SAG Strategic Advisory Group SGBV Sexual and Gender-based Violence SJA State Judicial Administration TOT Training of Trainers
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USAID/Ukraine awarded the Nove Pravosuddya Justice Sector Reform Program (New Justice) contract to Chemonics International on October 1, 2016. This program expands on the USAID/Ukraine Fair, Accountable, Independent and Responsible Judiciary Program in Ukraine (FAIR), which implemented activities from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2016.
New Justice is a four year and four month program that is designed to support the judiciary, government, parliament, bar, law schools, civil society, media, and citizens to create the conditions for an independent, accountable, transparent, and effective justice system that upholds the rule of law and to fight corruption in Ukraine. In achieving this overarching goal, New Justice focuses on the following five key objectives and Expected Results:
Objective 1: Judicial Independence and Self-Governance Strengthened 1.1: Improve the legal framework for the justice sector, namely, the Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges, the Law on the High Council of Justice, the Law on Bar and Law Practice, etc. Moreover, New Justice efforts are aimed at supporting the Constitutional Commission Human Rights Working Group activities and the development of the legislative provisions regarding the establishment of anticorruption and intellectual property courts. 1.2: Improve understanding and strengthen the support of new constitutional and legislative provisions by the judicial community and public. 1.3: Improve the effective interrelations between the judiciary, executive power and Parliament with the due respect to the judicial independence. 1.3: Ensure legislative and regulatory framework is amended in a manner that encourages inclusive discussion and vetting of reform proposals.
Under Objective 1, New Justice will support championed institutional, legislative, and regulatory reforms, build capacity of key judicial institutions and relevant executive and legislative authorities to implement those reforms and strengthen self-governance bodies, and strengthen safeguards to insulate the judiciary from improper political and other external interference. This quarter, the project made key achievements including presenting a “Commentary to the Code of Judicial Ethics” in coordination with the COJ Working Group; supporting the HQC to develop procedures for judicial qualifications evaluation and developing the skills of test evaluators in line with the new Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges; facilitating the establishment of the Working Group on Improving the Judicial Statistics; and implementing the “A New Look at Judicial Self-Governance” conference, which introduced to the European experience of structure, powers and authorities of the high councils for the judiciary.
Objective 2: Accountability and Transparency of the Judiciary to Citizens and the Rule of Law Increased 2.1: Support increased transparency of judiciary proceedings to encourage accountability of judicial leaders through internal and external accountability mechanisms. 2.2: Enhance mechanisms for central oversight of the judiciary, while also ensuring the judicial independence is not compromised.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 5 2.3: Create formal linkages between the Judiciary, GOU, Parliament, and civil society to improve the Judiciary’s accountability to media, civil society, and citizens.
Under Objective 2, New Justice will increase horizontal accountability of the judiciary to the other branches of government, and increase social accountability to citizens through civil society and media engagement. This quarter, the project worked jointly with the Judicial Reform Council Bar Working Group to approve the draft new version of the Law on Bar and Legal Practice; supported a Ukrainian delegation to participate in the “Limits of Transparent Justice” international conference in Bratislava, Slovak Republic, which discussed the media and its influence on the judiciary, balancing the open trial principle with the protection of privacy, and public control over the judiciary; established working relationships with NABU and agreed upon areas for future cooperation; and, facilitated the conclusion of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the COJ and the NGO “Human Rights Vector”, to increase public trust in the judiciary.
Objective 3: Administration of Justice Enhanced 3.1: Provide technical assistance to implement Ukraine’s justice reform priorities, including improvements to case management, e-justice tools, workflow analysis and management, budget and financial planning, and human resources. 3.2: Support the development of an improved court performance curriculum training program to ensure judges and judicial personnel have access to high quality, modern, and professional development services. 3.3: Provide tools and resources based on regional and international best practices to support the development of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. 3.4: Support establishing GOUs dispute enforcement mechanisms to strengthen enforcement of judgements and reduce susceptibility to corruption.
Under Objective 3, New Justice will support efforts to streamline and improve judicial administration policies and standard operating procedures, support strengthened human resources practices to raise judicial qualifications and professional competencies, support alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and improve the system for enforcing judicial decisions. This quarter, the project laid the foundation for upcoming program interventions by facilitating the creation and initial meetings of relevant working groups, including the working group for updating the case management regulation in the courts, the Working Group of Developers and Trainers to update materials of the On-line Judicial Ethics course, and the MOJ- led working group charged with launching private enforcement agents’ profession. Further, the project collaborated with the Norwegian Mission of Rule of Law Advisers to Ukraine (NORLAU) to conduct a study tour “Experience of Implementing e-Justice Tools in the Judicial System” to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Objective 4: Quality of Legal Education Strengthened 4.1: Support the development of a comprehensive legal education strategy that ensures uniformity and quality of legal education. 4.2: Support establishing effective quality assurance systems in accordance with the country’s Law on Higher Education. 4.3: Support the development of improved instructional methods and tools that prepare graduates for successful entry into the legal profession.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 6
Under Objective 4, New Justice will support reform of the legal education system, and will support the professionalism of prosecutors, Bar members, law school graduates, and jurists. This quarter, the project continued efforts to support the work of relevant working groups, including the MOE Working Group on Developing Legal Education Reform Concept Paper and Action Plan and the Working Group on Improving the Model Regulation on Legal Clinics in Ukraine. Further, the project jointly with OSCE, ULAF, and Kyiv-Mohyla Academy supported the ALCU in conducting a roundtable on “Legal Clinics: 20 Years of Practice-Based Education, Human Rights Protection, and Legal Training in Ukraine” to discuss international best practices of managing legal clinics.
Objective 5: Access to Justice Expanded and Human Rights Protected 5.1: Improve justice pathways for citizens, particularly vulnerable and marginalized populations (women, GBV and SGBV survivors, IDPs, persons with disabilities, veterans, etc.) to access services and obtain swift remedies to their unique challenges. 5.2: Improve knowledge on human rights laws and standards among the Judiciary and advocates to improve referral pathways for services support, and to empower citizens to advocate for their rights and the rights of the most vulnerable.
Under Objective 5, New Justice will support the removal of procedural, physical, economic, and legal obstacles for citizens to access judicial services and resolutions. This quarter, New Justice submitted the project’s draft Grants Program Manual to USAID for review. Objective 5 activities in the coming months will be launched upon receiving USAID approval of the manual.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 7 PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Pursuant to section F.3.D.1 of the contract, the following section contains a discussion and analysis of results and future prospects for achievement, problems encountered and proposed solutions, planned activities not completed, lessons learned and planned activities for the next quarter for each ER (when applicable) from October 1 through December 31, 2016. Any required or recommended changes or updates to the work plan are discussed.
OBJECTIVE 1: JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-GOVERNANCE STRENGTHENED
SUB-OBJECTIVE 1.1.: JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ESTABLISHED THROUGH REFORMED CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
ER 1.1.1: Constitutional safeguards for judicial independence strengthened in key areas, (including appointment, promotion, transfer, and discipline of judges), comply with international and European standards of judicial independence, and reflect citizen input
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement Legislative Framework. On December 21, 2016, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law on the High Council of Justice (No. 1798), developed by the Judicial Reform Council and submitted to the Parliament by the President of Ukraine. As noted in the success story included in this report, the law aims to create legal framework governing the operation of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) under its new structure and new scope of authority prescribed by the Law on Amending the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the judiciary (No. 3524). New Justice supported the Judicial Reform Council and MPs in amending the Law on the High Council of Justice and provided expert recommendations to bring the law in line with the Constitution and Venice Commission recommendations. More than 10 revisions related to the improvement of the judicial appointment, disciplinary procedure and overall operations of the HCJ provided by New Justice experts were included in this law. Moreover, as was planned in the Implementation plan, during the reporting period, New Justice worked to assess the newly adopted Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges to identify the gaps and inconsistencies.
Article 375 of the Criminal Code. New Justice engaged retired judge Volodymyr Koreniak to provide short-term assistance in conducting an analysis of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, “Delivery of a knowingly illegal sentence, judgment, ruling or order by a judge (or judges)”, and Article 376 “Interference with the operations of judicial bodies” implementation. During the next quarter, Judge Koreniak will develop practical recommendations regarding relevant changes to the legislation of Ukraine aimed at strengthening the liability for interference with the operations of judicial bodies. This activity will contribute to the review of the legislative framework in the judicial immunity area and support the proper implementation of the of the Constitutional amendments.
Anti-corruption Courts. During the reporting period, New Justice conducted series of the meetings with experts and key stakeholders, including the Administration of the President, representatives of the donor community and NGOs, to discuss and promote the proper
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 8
implementation of the anticorruption courts in the Ukrainian legal system. Aiming to develop a legislative framework to establish anti-corruption courts, meetings held during the reporting period identified the court’s jurisdiction, criteria for the selection of the judges and court staff for the court, and standards for the consideration of cases as key areas for additional investigation, consideration, and consensus-building.
On November 6-13, 2016, New Justice facilitated a USAID participant training study tour to Bratislava, Slovak Republic focusing on “Specialized Anti-Corruption Courts as a Tool to Improve Accountability and Access to Justice”. Centered on exploring lessons learned and best practices developed in Slovakia that can be applied in Ukraine, Ukrainian delegation members including members of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQC), the Council of Judges (COJ), member of the Parliament, as well as representatives of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), and civic activists visited Bratislava’s Specialized Criminal Court, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the National Criminal Agency, the Ministry of Justice, anti-corruption and justice sector NGOs, and relevant media outlets. Participants identified the following lessons learned that can be used to develop the sound and coherent legislative framework for the anti-corruption courts in Ukraine:
Build consensus among stakeholders, including the judiciary, Parliament, Presidential Administration and civil society to foster political will in designing anti-corruption court. Ensure court has national jurisdiction to limit local and regional interference and influence on corruption cases. Centralization increases judicial independence from local- level politics. Decisions of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors should be open and accessible, but with due respect for confidentiality. Identify quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure the performance of the anti- corruption court not limited to the total number of cases. Ensure proper facilities and technical equipment for specialized anti-corruption court, including a high level of courthouse and courtroom security. Provide comprehensive legal and judicial protection for whistleblowers. Allow sitting judges, attorneys and academics alike to apply to become judges of the anti-corruption court. Set specific criteria for selecting and testing judges of the anti-corruption court, including specialized knowledge of anti-corruption legislation as well as rigorous integrity, values and motivations tests for candidates. Ensure that information regarding the selection process is open and accessible for the public. Engage CSOs in monitoring the anti-corruption court, including instances of political influence on the consideration of corruption cases. Encourage CSOs to combine advocacy activities that provide strong legal support to whistleblowers, conducting public education campaigns on corruption issues, and investigating and reporting on corruption cases. Promote public awareness about the court as it will be seen as a positive step forward and may improve the overall level of trust in the judiciary.
ER 1.1.2: Participatory and inclusive consultative process for developing and implementing constitutional amendments, legislation and other normative acts related to judicial independence established
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 9
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 1.1.3: The judiciary positively influences the Parliament and Executive in the development and allocation of legislation affecting the Judiciary, including the judicial budget
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 1.1.4: Legislation, regulations, and operating procedures to implement constitutional amendments related to judicial independence adopted with public notice and consultation
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period. Upcoming activities will be implemented under Special Activity Fund grants programs.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 1.2: JUDICIAL SELF GOVERNANCE STRENGTHENED
ER 1.2.1: Authorities of judicial self-governance bodies (e.g. The High Council of Justice, among others) clearly defined and understood by judicial leadership, judges, and judicial personnel
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement Ukrainians want and deserve an In cooperation with the EU Project “Support independent, accountable, transparent, and to Justice Sector Reforms in Ukraine”, the effective justice system that upholds the rule Norwegian Mission of Rule of Law Advisers of law, stops corruption, protects human rights, and creates a stable environment for to Ukraine (NORLAU) and the Canadian- investors. Ukrainian Support to Judicial Reform Project, the project conducted the international — MARIE L. YOVANOVITCH, U.S. conference “A New Look at Judicial Self- AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE
Governance” in December 2016. With opening remarks given by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovitch, the conference centered on discussing current issues related to judicial self-governance and judicial administration, highlighting and reinforcing international and European standards and best practices regarding judicial self-governance, judicial ethics, and
judicial administration, identifying ways to HCJ Chair Ihor Benedysiuk discussing judicial reform issues with increase the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch. on December 5, 2016 in judicial self-governance institutions to Kyiv. PHOTO: USAID New Justice Program
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 10
safeguard judicial independence, improve court performance, and promote public trust and confidence in the judiciary, and defining areas and mechanisms for cooperation between the judiciary and other branches of government. The conference brought together more than150 participants, including leadership of the HCJ, COJ, HQC, State Judicial Administration (SJA) and the National School of Judges (NSJ), international experts from the U.S., Portugal, Italy, Georgia, Netherlands, Canada, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, judges and court staff, representatives of national executive agencies, professional associations of judges and lawyers, academics, and media. HCJ Chair Ihor Benedysiuk expressed gratitude to the partners for the assistance that has already been provided to the HCJ and suggested to continue the cooperation in order to support the HCJ in improving its procedures and developing internal U.S. Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch giving welcoming regulations. The conference resulted in the remarks to the conference “A New Look at Judicial Self- preparation of more than 20 recommendations Governance” participants on December 5, 2016 in Kyiv. PHOTO: USAID New Justice Program aimed at strengthening judicial self-governance in Ukraine, including broad agreement that the HCJ, COJ and HQC should build a constructive dialogue and cooperation in order to avoid inconsistency of policies and duplication of functions, whereas the HCJ should play a leading role in coordination between these self- governance institutions to assure independence and accountability of individual judge and judiciary as a whole. New Justice will build upon these recommendations when planning further activities in this area.
ER 1.2.2: The Judiciary experts leadership in development strategies, objectives, and initiatives to effectively promote and protect its independence, while ensuring accountability, integrity, transparency, and high ethical standards
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement In November 2016, New Justice in close collaboration with the COJ in presented a “Commentary to the Code of Judicial Ethics” to members of the HCJ, HQC, COJ, SJA, NSJ, Public Integrity Council (PIC), as well as judges, attorneys, journalists, lawyers, and academics. Building on the COJ Working Group’s progress under the FAIR project, the Commentary provides interpretation of Code of Judicial Ethics provisions for equal application by judges and judicial institutions. During the presentation, members of the HCJ, HQC, and COJ discussed the importance of application of the unified approach to judicial ethics related issues by all judicial institutions while performing their functions. New Justice will integrate the Commentary into future training activities benefitting judges and judicial candidates.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 11 Also during the reporting period, New Justice together with the EU Project “Support to Justice Sector Reforms in Ukraine” and Ukrainian Bar Association supported the Association of Judicial Self-Government Development in conducting the Regional Judicial Forum (Forum) in Vinnytsia. The Forum gathered leadership of the HCJ, COJ, SJA, HQC, Presidential Administration, judges, attorneys, and journalists from
Vinnytsia and other regions of Ukraine to discuss the judicial reform in general and the e-justice reform in Ukraine. New Justice Deputy Chief of Party Natalia Petrova at the Presentation of the Commentary to the Code of Judicial Ethics on Promoting strategic planning and November 17, 2016 in Kyiv. PHOTO: USAID New Justice Program judiciary policy development, the representatives of courts that piloted e- justice tools shared the results of their There are speculations about the level of public pilot activities, explaining the associated trust in the judiciary, but judges can reduce cost, resources, and time efficiency. The them by their hard work and adherence to high ethical standards which the Commentary to the Forum resulted in increased Code of Judicial Ethics will help them to better understanding of the e-justice concept understand. among judges, including its role in increasing the efficiency of court — VALENTINA SIMONENKO, CHAIR, operation for better protection of rights COUNCIL OF JUDGES OF UKRAINE of the citizens.
ER 1.2.3: Representation and leadership of women judges in judicial governance bodies and courts enhanced
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement Because judicial statistics in Ukraine lack of gender-disaggregated data, it is nearly impossible to assess the representation and leadership of women judges in judicial governance bodies and courts. Through continuous engagement under the predecessor FAIR project and fruitful cooperation with the COJ on gender issues, the COJ adopted the Decision No. 65 with recommendations to the SJA on including gender-disaggregated data to the judicial statistics in September 2016. During this reporting period, New Justice facilitated the establishment of the Working Group on improving the judicial statistics, and the Head of the SJA Zenoviy Kholodniuk signed the relevant order No. 318 on December 23, 2016 (published on the SJA’s official web-page http://dsa.court.gov.ua/userfiles/318.pdf.).
ER 1.2.4: Participation and inclusion of judges, judicial personnel, advocates and citizens in judicial governance strengthened
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this reporting period, New Justice launched activities aimed at promoting participation of citizens, judges, and lawyers in judicial governance. In cooperation with the COJ, the project held a Judiciary and Civil Society Cooperation Forum on November 29, 2016. Additional details can be found under ER 5.2.3.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 12
ER 1.2.5: Judicial performance standards for merit-based testing, vetting, recruitment, performance evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline and lustration established
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement On September 30, 2016, the new Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges came into force stipulating the procedures for judicial selection and qualifications evaluation, including selection of justices to a newly-reorganized Supreme Court. The law requires the HQC to select new Supreme Court justices within 6 months starting from September 30, 2016 with at least 65 justices selected and appointed by March 30, 2017. According to the new Law, candidates to be SC justices should pass qualifications evaluation that will be comprised of two stages: (1) anonymous testing and a case study exercise, and (2) a review of the judge's dossier and an interview. Considering these new procedures introduced by the Law, the HQC faced a challenge to develop and approve all regulations and forms for selecting new justices including new procedures related to the testing, interviewing, and overall evaluation of judge and non- judge candidates, as well as a new standardized application form. In addition, the HQC faced a challenge of quickly developing valid tests and case studies for the selection of SC justices in line with each cassation court specialization. Building on support provided by the predecessor FAIR project, and in line with the new Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges passed in September 2016, which stipulates the procedures for judicial selection and qualifications evaluation, in November the HQC approved: (1) Regulation on the Competition to Occupy the Vacant Position of a Judge, (2) Procedure and Methodology of Qualification Evaluation, Indicators of Compliance with Qualification Evaluation Criteria and Methods of Their Measurement, and (3) Regulation on Conducting the Exam and the Methodology of Determining its Results in the Qualification Evaluation Procedure. The regulations determine the procedure of competition for vacant judicial positions in local, appellate, high specialized courts and the SC as well as the procedure and methodology of qualifications evaluation and exam taking during qualifications evaluation of judges and judicial candidates.
During this reporting period, New Justice supported the HQC to develop the skills of test items evaluators. On October 26-28, 2016, New Justice, in cooperation with the EU Support to Justice Sector Reforms in Ukraine project and the Canadian Judicial Education for Economic Growth project, supported the HQC in conducting training for a group of test evaluators to review the developed test items and case study for SC justices selection to confirm their quality and utility. On January 20, 2016, the HQC published on its official web-site the list of test items for anonymous testing of judicial candidates to participate in the competition to fill the vacant position of justice of the SC http://www.vkksu.gov.ua/ua/news/tiestowi-zapitannia-dlia-konkursu- do-wierchownogo-sudu1/.
ER 1.2.6: Rules Regarding Corruption, judicial ethics, and illegal conduct, as well as related disciplinary sanctions and enforcement procedures, strengthened
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During the reporting period, New Justice engaged short-term local expert Mykola Khavronyuk to review the current Ukrainian legal framework related to the grounds, enforcement mechanisms, and procedures to combat judicial corruption, violation of judicial ethics and illegal conduct of judges, judicial personnel, advocates and citizens, as well as related disciplinary
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 13 sanctions, in order to reveal gaps and inconsistencies in respective laws and regulations. Relevant laws and regulations under review include the Procedure on Control over the Conflicts of Interest’ Statutory Compliance and Settlement by Judges and Representatives of Judicial System, approved by the COJ in February 2016, and the Methodological Recommendations on Prevention the Conflicts of Interest in Activities of the Persons Authorized to Perform State Functions and/or Local Government, Including Persons Equated to Them, approved by the NAPC in July 2016. During the next reporting period, the expert will identify areas and provisions to be revised and improved in order to strengthen anticorruption measures and judicial ethics enforcement procedures.
ER 1.2.7: Reporting corruption, unethical, or illegal conduct simplified and made more accessible for judges, judicial personnel, advocates, and citizens
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this reporting period, New Justice assigned short-term international expert Dr. Tilman Hoppe to review relevant Ukrainian laws, regulations and guidelines to assess, from the perspective of best international and European practices, the extent to which they effectively govern the prevention and resolution of conflicts of interest arising with respect to judges and other representatives of the judiciary, as well as any gaps that may exist. Further, Dr. Hoppe will assess the institutional capacity of the NACP, the COJ and the HCJ to prevent, track and resolve conflicts of interest for judges and court personnel.
ER 1.2.8: Protection increased for individuals who report corruption, unethical, or illegal conduct against judges, judicial personnel, and advocates
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement According to the Law on Access to Public Information, public officials who reported a breach of law or grave threat to public health, safety, or the environment, are not to be held liable, even if they were acting outside their professional duties. In order to address this issue and to provide adequate protection for citizens willing to inform authorities about corruption and other illegal conduct by the public officials, the Parliament steering committee considered and approved the draft law No. 4038a on Protection of Whistleblowers and Information Disclosure on Damages and Threats to Public Interests. However, this legal instrument does not cover situations specific to the justice sector. New Justice engaged several short-term experts to address these issues, including Dr. Tilman Hoppe to research and identify European best practices of corruption whistleblowers protection and incentive mechanisms during the reporting period, and Mykola Khavronyuk to review protection mechanisms for individuals who report corruption, unethical or illegal conduct by judges, judicial personnel and advocates, including the draft law No. 4038a. During the next reporting period, these short-term experts will develop and present reports with a list of provisions to be revised and recommendations for improvements of the mechanisms and tools for increasing incentives and protections for whistleblowers, as well as a summary of the European best practices of corruption whistleblowers’ protection and incentive mechanisms.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 1.3: JUDICIARY EXERCISES INDEPENDENCE EFFECTIVELY
ER 1.3.1: The Judiciary exercises independence with regard to judges, personnel, budget authority, and other areas of judicial competence
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 14
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement In order to introduce the leadership and members of Ukrainian judicial self-governance institutions to the European experience of structure, powers and authorities of the high councils for the judiciary, New Justice provided the participants of the conference “A New Look at Judicial Self-Governance” of December 5-6, 2016, with Ukrainian translation of the following reports by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ): (i) Councils for the Judiciary 2010-2011;1 (ii) Funding of the Judiciary 2015-1016;2 and (iii) Courts Funding and Accountability 2006-2007.3 New Justice facilitated Judge Nicola Clivio’s participation at this event. An ENCJ representative and the Member of the High Council for the Judiciary of Italy, Judge Clivio presented an overview of the Italian judicial system, its judicial disciplinary system in particular, in light of the High Council for the Judiciary’s role in safeguarding judicial independence.
As a result of the conference, and with the view of the new role and powers of the HCJ in achieving judicial independence, the participants to the event developed the following recommendations: The High Council of Justice shall have authority limited to administration of justice related issues, but not the jurisdictional function, as such authority would undermine judicial independence. It is important to clearly define the scope of judicial independence, including independence in adjudicating cases and making decisions pertaining to judicial administration matters. Judicial independence should not be interpreted as sovereignty.
ER 1.3.2: The Judiciary effectively exercises competencies in judicial testing, vetting, recruitment, performance evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline and lustration of judges using merit-based system
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement As mentioned under ER 1.2.5, the new Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges requires the HQC to select new SC justices within six months starting from September 30, 2016, with at least 65 justices selected and appointed by March 30, 2017. On November 8, 2016, the HQC announced a competition to fill 120 vacant positions of justices in the Cassation Courts of the SC. From November 9 to 25, 2016, a person who wishes to participate notified the Commission of his/her intention to participate in the competition by filling in a special form on the official website of the HQC and scheduling the day and time for submitting their documents. As a result, 1,436 candidates notified the HQC about their intention to participate in the new SC Justices selection. From November 17 to December 9, 2016, the HQC accepted the documents from 846 applicants who submitted their e-notifications. As a result of three meetings conducted on December 5, 13 and 20, the HQC considered documents of all 846 candidates and admitted 653 candidates to participate in the competition rejecting 193 candidates. 69% of candidates are judges, 12,5% are academics, 11% are lawyers and 7,5% are candidates with the cumulative record of professional experience. 32,3% candidates out of 653
1 https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/workinggroups/report_project_team_councils_for_the_judiciary_2010_201 1.pdf 2 https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/workinggroups/encj_2015_2016_report_funding_judiciary_adopted_ga.pdf 3 https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/workinggroups/encj_report_on_courts_funding_and_accountability_2006_ 2007.pdf
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 15 submitted documents to participate in the competition to fill the vacant position of justice in the Civil Cassation Court of the SC, 28,3% candidates – in the Criminal Cassation Court, 20,5% candidates – in the Commercial Cassation Court, and 18,8% candidates – in the Administrative Cassation Court. 230 candidates out of 653 are women and 423 are men.
As a next step, the HQC is planning to complete the background check and adopt the decision on its result, and then the exact number of the candidates admitted to the qualification evaluation procedure will be available. The HQC is planning to conduct anonymous testing on February 16 and case study on February 21, 2017.
Considering the new procedures introduced by the Law, the HQC must have a sufficient number of high quality, valid tests to be used in judicial selection and qualifications evaluations. According to the Law, the NSJ is responsible for providing scientific and methodological support to the HQC operations. To meet HQC needs, the NSJ formed a specialized unit known as the NSJ Testing Center, which will be responsible for developing, piloting, evaluating, and improving test items as well as enhancing the skills of test items developers and evaluators. To launch the NSJ Testing Center, the project engaged Serhii Rakov, a local expert in testing methodologies, to provide analysis and recommendations on the NSJ’s draft concept paper on creating effective business and administrative processes.
The new Law provides for establishing the PIC with the purpose of assisting the HQC in determining whether a judge (a judicial candidate) meets the professional ethics and integrity criteria as part of qualifications evaluation.
On December 6, 2016, the New Justice brought together members of the PIC, foreign judges, and international experts to attend “A New Look at Judicial Self-Governance” conference. Attended by Judge Richard D. Bennett, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland; Justice Mario Belo Morgado, Vice-President of the High Council for the Judiciary of Portugal, Justice of the Supreme Court of Portugal; Judge Vakhtang Tordia, Member of the High Council of Justice of Georgia; Judge Anthony J. Trenga, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia; Pim Albers, International Justice The meeting of the members of the Public Integrity Council with Sector Expert; Judge Dag Barthole, foreign judges and international experts – the participants of the conference “A New Look at Judicial Self-Governance” on December NORLAU Expert; Justice Stephen Kelleher, 6, 2016 in Kyiv. PHOTO: USAID New Justice Program Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada participated in the meeting, the conference provided a forum to discuss issues surrounding the PIC’s scope of authorities and functioning processes. Participants discussed issues and lessons learned from the international experience regarding the public involvement in the judicial selection and evaluation processes, the criteria for evaluating integrity, regulations and procedures of PIC activity. During the conference members of the PIC agreed with experts’ recommendations to develop as deep as possible the framework for PIC’s activity to make the process clear and transparent as well as to avoid any accusation in the conflict of interest or other violations.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 16
On December 10-11 and December 18-19, 2016, New Justice supported the PIC in conducting its strategic meetings. The aim of the meetings was to discuss the approaches and to develop the sub-criteria for determining the eligibility of a judge (a judicial candidate) in terms of meeting the criteria of professional ethics and integrity for the purposes of qualifications evaluation, discuss the possible ways and resources to collect the information about the candidate, as well as to discuss other issues of PIC’s organization and functioning. As a result of the meetings, the PIC members agreed to consider professional reputation, public resonant and odious court decisions, and compliance of the lifestyle with declared incomes as the criteria for determining the eligibility of a judge in terms of meeting the criteria of professional ethics and integrity. Also, the PIC members decided to learn from the US experience in the context of application of the criteria of professional uprightness and moral vigour to assess the professional ethics and integrity of a judge. Also, the PIC discussed the resources and necessary steps in collecting, checking and analysis of the information about a judge (judicial candidate) as well as communication policy and other issues of PIC’s organization and functioning. New Justice provided the PIC with the materials on judicial selection and performance evaluation previously developed and collected under FAIR.
ER 1.3.3: 90% of judicial testing, vetting, recruitment, performance evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline and lustration results published online No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 1.3.4: Implementation of ethics enforcement mechanisms strengthened
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During the reporting period, New Justice launched initial plans for a workshop to discuss problematic issues in judicial discipline procedures and judicial ethics enforcement mechanisms, and to share best international practices of disciplining judges. New Justice obtained preliminary consent to participate in the workshop from the short-term experts Judge Jose Manuel Cardoso, Judge of the Court of Appel of Lisbon District (Portugal), Ms. Reiko Callner, the Executive Director of the State of Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct (USA), and Mr. Richard Hyde, the Member of the State of Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (USA).
In order to support the HCJ in designing its internal regulations, New Justice engaged short- term local exert Olena Ovcharenko to review the draft Rules of Procedure, which details procedural functions of the HCJ in light of the draft Law on the High Council of Justice. Given the adoption on December 21, 2016, of the revised Law on the High Council of Justice, and following specific request of the HCJ, Ms. Ovcharenko’s assignment will be amended to include review and comment on the restated version of the Rules of Procedure to provide detailed procedures for the Law’s implementation.
New Justice continues to work with the HCJ to support this institution in equipping workstations and structural departments with a wide range of office hardware, with the aim to increase transparency of the HCJ activities and optimize its internal operations. Following a special HCJ request, New Justice met with the HCJ representatives, including Head of IT department, in December 2016 to assess and specify primary goals of the HCJ in view of the new powers and responsibilities of the HCJ according to the constitutional amendments and revised Law on the High Council of Justice.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 17
As of the January 5, 2017 - the effective date of the revised Law on the High Council of Justice, - the HCJ is empowered to perform in full its new constitutional powers. In particular, the HCJ becomes a single authority to discipline all Ukrainian judges, and shall set up a separate Services of Judicial Inspectors within its Secretariat. Over the course of the next reporting periods, New Justice will support the HCJ in establishing effective and efficient Services of Inspectors, including drafting respective procedures, organizing initial and ongoing trainings for the newly appointed judicial inspectors, and designing manuals and other practical tools for screening of complaints and investigation of judicial misconduct.
ER 1.3.5: Judges, judicial personnel, and advocates change attitudes towards reporting corruption, unethical, or other illegal conduct by their peers No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 1.3.6: Reporting of corruption, unethical, or illegal conduct by judges, judicial personnel, advocates, and citizens increased This ER will be completed during upcoming Program periods based on accomplishments of ER 1.2.7.
ER 1.3.7: Protections of individuals who report corruption, unethical, or illegal conduct against judges, judicial personnel, and advocates applied This ER will be completed during upcoming Program periods based on accomplishments of ER 1.2.8.
ER 1.3.8: Number of disciplinary measures against judges, judicial personnel, and advocates for corruption, unethical, or illegal conduct increased This ER will be completed during upcoming periods based on accomplishments of ER 1.2.6.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 1.4: IMPROPER AND UNLAWFUL INFLUENCE ON JUDICIARY REDUCED
ER 1.4.1: Judicial decisions are based solely on the facts and law, and reversed only through the appellate process No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 1.4.2: Members of the Presidential administration, government and parliament engage the Judiciary in a constructive manner that respects judicial independence and refrains from improperly or unlawfully interfering with the impartiality of judicial decision-making and professional conduct No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 1.4.3: Sufficient resources are allocated to protect judges and judicial personnel from threats such as harassment, assault, and other forms of intimidation and violence No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 1.4.4: Judges are empowered to report improper or illegal interference in their judicial decision-making and conduct
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 18
No significant programmatic activities took place under this ER during the reporting period. More on New Justice cooperation with the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) can be found under ER 2.2.2.
OBJECTIVE 1 LESSONS LEARNED AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT QUARTER
Lessons Learned, Challenges Encountered, and Proposed Solutions The specific responsibilities of the HCJ and the COJ on judicial self-governance remain to be clarified, which may cause tension between the two institutions. New Justice will closely monitor developments in this area and offer support in implementing provisions of the new Law on the HCJ. Due to delays in test item development and evaluation and challenges in gathering information about the candidates for the required background check process, the HQC changed the dates of anonymous testing and case study twice. To avoid such challenges in the future, the legislator should provide the real terms for Law implementation as well as the HQC should take into account problems and risks that could occur while planning its activity.
Planned Activities for the Next Quarter In the next quarter, New Justice plans to: Support institutional capacity building of the HCJ, COJ and other judicial self- government bodies to develop clear procedural rules, job descriptions, and related documents. Support the development of strategic plans for the HCJ and COJ, including clearly defined mission and vision statements in line with the Justice Sector Reform Strategy for 2015 to 2020. Support implementation of the Code of Judicial Ethics by the COJ, HQC, and HCJ, including updating and promoting use of the online training course for judges on ethical issues, developing online ethics quizzes, supporting the establishment of a hotline for judges to receive advice on ethical issues, and the publication of regular advisory opinions to provide guidance to judges to avoid violating ethical standards. Issue a grant to conduct a series of judicial forums in Odesa, Kherson, Kharkiv and Poltava jointly with the HCJ, HQC, and COJ on strengthening judicial independence and judicial administration issues in line with international and European standards in partnership with professional associations. Prepare recommendations based on discussions and present them to the HCJ and COJ for consideration. Establish a working group to develop a gender index for the judiciary to include quantitative and qualitative indicators. Conduct research on women judges as leaders based on international best practices and Ukrainian experience. Issue a grant to develop together with NSJ a training curriculum for women judges on increasing leadership skills and gender awareness. Continue to support the HQC to develop and improve the procedures for judicial selection and qualifications evaluation, to develop test items for anonymous testing, and to standardize tools for psychological and general abilities testing for judicial candidates and judges. Provide logistical support to the HQC in organizing the selection of new SC Justices, including other judicial selection and evaluation processes.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 19 Support the HQC in developing and implementing public outreach campaign regarding judicial selection and qualification evaluation. Finalize and present the report on recommendations for improvements to mechanisms and tools for reporting of corruption offences and conflicts of interest to judicial self- governance institutions and corruption prevention agencies to promote the implementation of recommendations. Finalize and translate into Ukrainian the summary of the European best practices of reporting corruption, violations of judicial ethics, and illegal conduct by judges, judicial personnel, advocates and citizens. Conduct analysis of the legislative and regulatory framework regarding judicial recruitment, performance evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline and lustration and provide recommendations to different stakeholders regarding these procedures and the analysis results. Broadly disseminate the results, including publishing online. Review the HCJ Rules of Procedure and provide the HCJ with the expert’ recommendations on its improvement. Support the HCJ in organizing initial trainings for judicial inspectors. Review and adapt curriculum for initial training of HQC disciplinary inspectors. Provide the HCJ with adapted curriculum. Issue RFP for procurement of the requested hardware equipment to the HCJ. Organize a roundtable to discuss ways and factors for changing attitude of judges, judicial personnel and advocates to reporting corruption, unethical or other illegal conduct by their peers. Work jointly with the key judicial institutions to develop a standardized form along with the guidelines for judges and court staff on how to report improper or illegal interference in judicial operations and decision-making.
OBJECTIVE 2: ACCOUNTABLITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE JUDICIARY TO CITIZENS AND THE RULE OF LAW INCREASED
SUB-OBJECTIVE 2.1: TRANSPARENCY BY THE JUDICIARY INCREASED
ER 2.1.1: Increased awareness among citizens of the right to and limitations of judicial transparency in courtroom proceeding and judicial governance
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement On November 30 - December 2, 2016, New Justice supported a Ukrainian delegation to participate in the “Limits of Transparent Justice” international conference in Bratislava, Slovak Republic. New Justice Deputy Chief of Party Nataliya Petrova delivered a presentation entitled “Fostering Transparency in the Judiciary: Ukraine.” Event participants gathered new tools, methodologies and approaches that could be applied in Ukraine. Organized by the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic on the occasion of the Slovak Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2016, the event and brought together justice system representatives from across Europe to discuss the media and its influence on the judiciary, balancing the open trial principle with the protection of privacy, and public control over the judiciary.
ER 2.1.2: Increased public access to courtroom and judicial governance proceedings in-person, online, via TV/radio, or through archived recordings and records No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 20
ER 2.1.3: Increased outreach by the judiciary to the public and Press No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 2.1.4: 90% Completion of financial and asset declarations by judges and judicial personnel, with 90% of judicial financial and asset declarations published online No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 2.2: HORIZONTAL ACCOUNTABILITY – CHECKS AND BALANCES OF THE JUDICIARY BY OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT STRENGTHENED
ER 2.2.1: Lustration and re-attestation process concludes (without violation of due process or human rights of lustrated judges and judicial personnel) Upcoming activities under this ER will be implemented upon finalization of the project Grants Manual, currently under USAID approval.
ER 2.2.2: Judiciary coordinates with the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (NAPC) to develop and implement corruption-prevention measures within the Judiciary
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this quarter, New Justice established working relationships with the NACP and agreed upon areas for future cooperation including:
Conducting a survey to identify the level of public awareness of corruption reporting procedures, and the level of the tolerance of corruptive activities. Conducting a public awareness campaign on the current status of corruption prevention and corruption reporting procedures and tools. Developing training programs in preventing and fighting corruption for judges. Monitoring of judges’ lifestyles and e-declarations, including timely filing of the asset declarations. Support cooperation between NAPC and the judiciary to develop a strategy of corruption prevention in the justice sector. Unify corruption prevention and anti-corruption practices, and develop a joint unified approach to corruption-related cases by NAPC and the judiciary. Conducting an analysis of the corruption risks in the judiciary. Supporting the development of the procedure for providing “whistleblower” status, protection procedures, etc.
Furthermore, New Justice gained agreement for the COJ leadership to support anti-corruption initiatives for the judiciary. During the meeting with Justice Valentina Simonenko, COJ Chair, it determined that joint efforts would involve the following:
Support the establishment of a clear delineation of authority between COJ and HCJ through expert evaluations and assistance in development of rules of procedure; Support the preparation of an action plan on how a judge should act in case of attempts to influence his/her decisions, including model forms for incident reporting; Develop “Stop Corruption” public awareness materials to be placed in the courts;
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 21 Develop leaflet for “How to Deal with Corruption”, to be posted in the courts.
Finally, New Justice provided consultations to the GRECO Mission in Ukraine during their 4th evaluation round of scrutiny on preventing corruption among parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors. The Mission’s report is tentatively scheduled to be available in June 2017.
ER 2.2.3: Judiciary facilitates National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and Prosecutor General’s Office investigations into alleged corruption or other illicit conduct by judges or judicial personnel
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this quarter, New Justice established working relationships with NABU and agreed upon areas for future cooperation including:
Establishment of the Anti-Corruption Court (ACC). Coordinate efforts in drafting the law on the ACC, promote the passage of the bill in the Parliament, and provide support to the HQC in selecting candidates as ACC judges. Public Awareness Campaign. Conduct campaign targeting the public and professional community (representatives of BAR, judiciary, court personnel, legal clinics, etc.) to inform citizens ways to report corruption and what could be counted as corruptive actions, while providing the professional community with information on such issues as the whistleblower process and guarantees of the anonymity of the reporter, to decrease the high level of tolerance for corruption in the judiciary and in general. Coordination of Efforts. Establish close cooperation between NABU, HQC, HCJ, COJ and NACP to develop a joint approach and mechanisms for preventing and combatting corruption in the justice sector while ensuring accountability within the existing system through thorough background checks of judicial candidates, verification of asset declarations, and accuracy of information stated in lifestyle declarations. Quality of Investigations. Coordinate efforts between NABU and judiciary to establish guidelines and tips for high quality investigations, focusing on the specifics of investigating judicial misconduct, taking into account the status, immunity and independence of judges. Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Rendering of the Knowingly Illegal Decision by a Judge (Judges)”. As NABU Director Mr. Artem Sytnyk supports the New Justice’s recommendation to eliminate this article because it is often used as a prosecutorial tool to put pressure on judges, parties agreed to coordinate efforts in promoting the respective changes to the Criminal Code.
ER 2.2.4: Judiciary coordinates with parliamentary oversight committees, with due respect for judicial independence and freedom from interference
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement On December 21, 2016, the Parliament adopted the new Law on the High Council of Justice, meeting the requirements of the amended Constitution of Ukraine. The Law extended authority of the HCJ, empowering the Council with the right to represent the Judiciary, to decide upon the number of judges in the courts, control the SJA, provide mandatory opinions regarding draft laws that influence the justice sector, and coordinate with the Parliament other activities. During the next reporting period, New Justice will collaborate with the HCJ,
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 22
Parliament and other counterparts to develop procedures to govern each new process designed in the new Law.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 2.3: SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY – JUDICIARY HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY CITIZENS, CIVIL SOCIETY AND INDEPENDENT MEDIA
ER 2.3.1: Citizens and CSOs actively participate in and monitor judicial reform process at the local and national levels
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this reporting period, New Justice conducted a desk review of partner CSO recent achievements in justice sector reform. Initial findings of this assessment indicated the need for building judicial reform-oriented CSOs’ capacity to bridge the gap between justice sector institutions and the community, facilitating dialogue to effectively conduct monitoring of GOU- implemented justice sector reform activities, and to advocate for the GOU to increase the effectiveness of these activities. In this reporting period, New Justice identified potential experts to conduct a deeper assessment of partner CSO capacity and to strengthen their skills to promote meaningful community participation in the judicial reform process, and to develop policy papers and advocating for their consideration by GOU, developing recommendations to partner CSOs on making their involvement in judicial reform more effective and successful.
ER 2.3.2: Court operations improved through direct citizen feedback (e.g. Citizen Report Cards) Upcoming activities under this ER will be implemented upon finalization of the project Grants Manual, currently under USAID approval.
ER 2.3.3: Formal linkages between civil society and judicial, governmental and parliamentary institutions established (through, e.g., Memoranda of Understanding or joint strategies and action plans)
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this reporting period, New Justice in cooperation with the COJ conducted a Judiciary and Civil Society Cooperation Forum, focusing on opportunities and organizational models of civil society and justice sector cooperation. Participants agreed upon pathways for such cooperation and developed recommendations for future joint activities and programs.
At the event the COJ concluded the Memorandum of Cooperation with the NGO “Human Rights Vector”, aiming to increase public trust in the judiciary as well as to support ensuring rights for fair trials and increasing transparency of court proceedings. According to this Memorandum Human Rights Vector will provide on-line streaming of high-profile court proceedings of cases that are of public interest. The COJ will support this NGO initiative. In addition, COJ representatives and independent CSO experts will comment on court proceedings in order to increase public understanding of court process. COJ and “Human Rights Vector” agreed that these comments should be delivered to the public following basic principles of independence, objectivity, neutrality, non-discrimination, and also avoid any promotion of political platforms. New Justice will use this initial successful MOU as a successful template for formalizing linkages between civil society and justice sector institutions for other CSO partners.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 23 ER 2.3.4: Citizen awareness of judicial reform and corruption increased No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 2.3.5: Citizen reports to anti-corruption organizations and agencies increased
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this reporting period, New Justice engaged local short-term Judicial Anti-corruption expert Prof. Mykola Khavronyuk to assess GOU capacity to provide citizens with effective tools to report corruption in the judiciary and review all available methodological recommendations on preventing conflicts of interest in order to assess their compliance with judicial independence and accountability standards. In upcoming reporting periods, the project will use the results of this assessment to publish and disseminate public awareness materials to promote increased reporting of public corruption.
ER 2.3.6: Judicial reform oriented CSO organizational capacity score increased
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement In this reporting period, New Justice identified a CSO capacity building expert to work with CSO partners to conduct organizational capacity assessments and develop roadmaps to implement recommendations. In upcoming reporting periods, the expert will develop an on-line training program for CSO partners and build referrals and linkages between these CSOs and donor civil society development projects, including the USAID/ENGAGE project.
ER 2.3.7: Professional associations and bar associations increase capacity for self- regulation and professional standards among members
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement New Justice worked jointly with the Judicial Reform Council Bar Working Group leadership to improve the legislative framework regarding self-regulation, self-governance and professional standards of the professional associations and bar associations. On December 15, 2016, the working group approved the draft new version of the Law on Bar and Legal Practice. New Justice engaged international experts Dr. Veronika Horrer and Robert A. Hawley to develop a comprehensive analysis of the current legal framework for the bar and draft legislative amendments to ensure compliance with international and European standards and best practices. The experts will focus on the issues of governing the legal profession, its independence and responsibility, terminology used in the legislation, the organization and limits of self-governance bodies, guarantees of due process during disciplinary procedures, attorney- client privilege guarantees, professional responsibility and ethics. The experts’ recommendations will be considered by the working group in upcoming reporting periods.
ER 2.3.8: Quality and volume of investigative journalism and other media reporting on corruption, judicial misconduct, judicial reforms, high-profile court cases, and other rule of law issues increased No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 2.3.9: Media and CSOs analyze and publicize financial and asset declarations compared to actual lifestyle No significant programmatic activities took place under this ER during the reporting period.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 24
OBJECTIVE 2 LESSONS LEARNED AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT QUARTER
Lessons Learned Many activities planned under ER 2.2 heavily rely on the clear understanding of the division of powers in the judicial system, specifically between HCJ, COJ and SJA in matters of leading anticorruption efforts and cooperation with the Parliament in providing official opinion on judicial related draft laws. These issues were settled with the adoption in December, 2016, of the new Law On the HCJ. Before that New Justice was cooperating with all listed above players plus NACP and NABU in order to bring them to the same page even while authority scope of the judicial institutions wasn’t yet provided by the legislator.
Planned Activities for the Next Quarter In the next quarter, New Justice plans to: Support the HCJ to develop and implement a public awareness campaign regarding its new structure and authorities, to broadcast their proceedings live online. Support the NSJ in conducting a regional series of training programs on court and community communications for judge-speakers and public information officers (PIOs) in courts together with the European Union Advisory Mission to Ukraine (EUAM). Release a grant solicitation to monitor the consideration of cases by the HCJ, High Administrative Court (HAC), SC and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against judges suspected of rendering illegal decisions against activists of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Release a grant solicitation to monitor the results of the lustration of public officials and prepare a summary of the effectiveness of the process with relevant statistics. Assess the legislation on the conflict of interests’ issues when covering judges and court personnel activities. Issue a grant solicitation to conduct public awareness campaigns on corruption reporting and preventing in the judiciary. Support dialogue and cooperation between the NAPC, NABU, HCJ, HQC, COJ and other relevant counterparts to develop joint approaches in applying anti-corruption measures to judges and court staff. Provide international expertise on effective communications between the judiciary and Parliament based on experience of European institutions with similar scope of duties and responsibilities. Support the HCJ and Parliament Committees in establishing effective communications, including providing the HCJ with opinions on draft laws related to the Judiciary, court budgeting and staffing. Assess CSO capacity to monitor and to contribute to the judicial reform implementation. Develop recommendations on strengthening this capacity and identify areas where CSO involvement will be the most effective and beneficial for justice sector reform success. Issue grant solicitations for CSOs to monitor judicial reform implementation, develop policy papers on this issue, promoting policy paper considerations by the GOU, to analyze results of CRC surveys focusing on implementing CSO-developed recommendations by courts and judicial institutions, survey public awareness on corruption reporting procedures and mechanisms and disseminate public awareness materials on effective reporting of the
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 25 corruption in the judiciary, and monitor financial asset declarations submitted by judges and court staff, assess gaps in information or issues with procedures, and make recommendations on how to improve filling compliance or content on the forms. Assist the National Bar Association of Ukraine (NBAU) in bringing the Bar Professional Conduct Rules in line with Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) standards and developing the commentary to them. Design and implement a regional series of training programs for journalists.
OBJECTIVE 3: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ENHANCED
SUB-OBJECTIVE 3.1: JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION INSTITUTIONS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES STRENGTHERED
ER 3.1.1: Judicial administration bodies function in a more coherent and coordinated fashion
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement As part of the conference “A New Look at Judicial Self-Governance” described in detail under ER 1.2.1., participants discussed the delineation of roles and responsibilities between the HCJ and COJ in the light of recent constitutional amendments. Discussions agreed that in order to comply with COE and Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) there should be one judicial self-governance body responsible for all matters related to the judiciary. However, to- date there are three institutions which exercise functions of judicial self-governance in Ukraine – the COJ, HCJ and HQC. Thus, it will be difficult to have a unified approach to the issues related to the judiciary and letting judiciary “speak with one voice”. Despite this, conference participants agreed that the HCJ should play a leading role in coordination between these self- governance institutions.
ER 3.1.2: Strategies, policies, and procedures for managing court operations, and providing quality services to the public implemented
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement As part of the conference “A New Look at Judicial Self-Governance” described above New Justice conducted the first presentation of the International Framework for Judicial Support Excellence (IFJSE) for members of the HCJ, COJ, SJA and other judicial institutions. The participants of the conference agreed that this methodology should be used by the Ukrainian judiciary after being tailored to meet its specific needs. In addition, the conference also addressed the issue of court consolidation, including criteria for court consolidation as well as typical problems likely to arise. New Justice also started translating the CEPEJ guidelines for court consolidation, which we will provide to Ukrainian judicial institutions.
ER 3.1.3: Courts equipped with and use the IT and e-Justice systems to improve efficiency of workflow, case management, and accessibility to services
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement On November 20-23, 2016, New Justice jointly with NORLAU conducted the “Experience of Implementing e-Justice Tools in the Judicial System of Bosnia and Herzegovina” study tour. Delegation members included the members of the High Council of Justice, as well as judges and court staff from the Kyiv District Court of Odessa City (which piloted the e-justice project in
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 26
their court). Together, they undertook a detailed study of e-justice solutions currently available in Bosnia and Herzegovina that support the work of justice sector institutions, including electronic case management, performance management, statistical reporting, and remote access to case files and communications.
During the study tour, delegates learned about the functions of judicial institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina as they relate to administrative management by familiarizing themselves with the software used in the district and appellate courts in the city of Mostar, which had been developed with the support of USAID and the Government of Norway. The members of the Ukrainian delegation were impressed with the unified case management system which is used by all the courts and judicial institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, noting that it saves resources, time, and increases the efficiency of delivering justice.
Also, the leadership of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) of Bosnia and Herzegovina presented the reform of the court management infrastructure including the automation of the judiciary, and the leading role HJPC played in this process. Representatives of the HJPC demonstrated the IT infrastructure monitoring systems, presented the legal framework for implementing the Case Management System and e-court, and presented the technical aspects of the implementation of the Case Management System including databases, Ukrainian delegation members getting acquainted with the work of servers, technology, storage capacities, and the electronic case management system in the Mostar District Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on November 21, 2016. PHOTO: USAID scanning module, discussing how these New Justice Program activities and tools improve judicial efficiency and implementation of the Performance Management framework. The Court automation is the future and we study tour resulted in the delegation’s don’t have a choice whether to implement improved understanding of the it or not. The Ukrainian judiciary will only be able effectively protect the rights of implementation of the automation of the citizens and business organizations when whole judiciary and the effective and strategic all the processes are transparent and planning of this process. HCJ Chair Ihor automated. We are grateful to our Benedysiuk positively evaluated this study international partners from the U.S. and Norway for supporting our efforts. tour and suggested starting the automation of the HCJ simultaneously with the courts automation. — IHOR BENEDYSIUK, CHAIR OF THE HIGH COUNCIL OF JUSTICE ER 3.1.4: Courts hear and conclude cases in a timely manner and without undue delays
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement On December 20, 2016, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovitch visited the Kyivskiy District Court of Odesa to learn about the work of the pilot e-Court project supported by
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 27 New Justice. In the course of the presentation, the Ambassador learned about the benefits of electronic document exchange between the court, parties and other institutions, including financial savings and significant reductions in the duration of court proceedings. Ambassador Yovanovitch gave positive feedback on the pilot and was interested in learning about future achievements in this area.
On December 29, 2016, New Justice participated in the first meeting of the Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovitch during the visit to the working group for updating the case Kyivskiy District Court of Odesa on December 20, 2016. PHOTO: management regulation in the courts, U.S. Embassy convened by the SJA. The goal of the group is to prepare draft revisions to the current court case management regulations in order to ensure uniformity in court processes in all court instances and jurisdictions, as well as to prepare for implementation of new electronic case management tools.
ER 3.1.5: Judicial budgeting, financial management, internal controls, and external auditing improved and compliant with national laws and international best practice
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement The issue of judicial budgeting was included for discussion during the “New Look at Judicial Self- Governance” conference. However, due to ongoing changes in the court budgeting processes and the new budgeting roles and responsibilities of the HCJ, New Justice has not been active in this area.
ER 3.1.6: Judicial procurement systems more transparent and compliant with national laws and international best practices
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 3.2.: PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES AND EXPERTISE OF JUDGES AND JUDICIAL PERSONNEL IMPROVED
ER 3.2.1. National School of Judges methodologies, core curriculum, and trainers strengthened and meet international standards
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement New Justice meetings with Mr. Volodymyr Masurok, Vice-rector, and Mr. Mykola Onishchuk, Rector of the NSJ in October and November 2016 discussed priorities for further cooperation over the next year, including development of a training program (curricula, pool of trainers, etc.) for newly appointed SC justices, continuation of work on distance learning: development of an on-line communication course for judge-speakers and chief judges and an on-line course on court administration for chief judges, and development of training program (curriculum, pool of trainers, tests, case studies, etc.) for the newly created High Anti-Corruption Court judges.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 28
Additionally, the NSJ leadership requested New Justice support in creation of the Testing Center (TC), in particular expert support with development of a Concept of the TC and Methodology of different audience testing, structure of the Center, selection and training of its staff, and automation (more information can be found at: http://nsj.gov.ua/ua/news/noviy-etap- spivrobitnitstva-v-rozvitku-pravosuddya/).
On December 7, 2016, New Justice participated in a meeting of donor organizations convened by NSJ, including representatives from the Canadian Embassy, EU, COE, OSCE Projects. NSJ presented its Concept for developing an orientation training program for newly appointed SC justices, soliciting input from the donor organizations on their possible input. Further, New Justice and the EU-funded Project “Support to Justice Sector Reforms in Ukraine” representatives met on December 21, 2016 with Rector of the NSJ to discuss content, duration, pool of trainers, and time frame of the orientation training program (more information can be found at: http://nsj.gov.ua/ua/news/skoordinovana-vzaemodiya-u-virishenni- aktualnih-zavdan/ and http://nsj.gov.ua/ua/news/zavdannya-sho-stanut-indikatorami-uspihu/).
ER 3.2.2: Judges and judicial assistants trained in core substantive and procedural law, judicial ethics, leadership, and management
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement New Justice collaborated with the NSJ to conduct a meeting of the Working Group of Developers and Trainers to update materials of the On-line Judicial Ethics course regarding amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges. After successful passing the updated course (November 25, 2016 – December 25, 2016) 37 judges received certificates. The next iteration of the course is planned for February 2017 (more information can be found at: http://nsj.gov.ua/ua/news/istoriya-uspihu-yaka- prodovjuetsya/).
ER 3.2.3: Judicial personnel demonstrate competencies in key areas of management and operational support
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this quarterly period, New Justice conducted discussions with Michigan State University (MSU) regarding the design of an academic certificate course on judicial administration based at Ukrainian universities and next steps in preparation of the reunion of MSU Judicial Administration Certificate Program graduates from 2013-2016 to share progress and exchange experience on MSU capstone project implementation. This discussion resulted in preparation of SOW for the MSU Expert Dr. Maureen Conner to provide her expertise in conducting assessment of graduate needs and expectations, designing the reunion activity, and providing facilitation support to its implementation.
Further, New Justice supported a translation of the article “Developing the Court Administration Viewpoint” by Dr. Conner. The article explores what it means to be in the court administration profession, competencies and qualifications, and viewpoints for excellence in court administration. The “Institute of Court Management” NGO will post the translated article in its newsletter to share widely with a network of Ukrainian court administrators in January 2017.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 29 ER 3.2.4: Attitude of judges and judicial personnel of themselves and their peers is positive (e.g., self-image as honest, professional, performing a public service, not- corrupt) No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 3.2.5: By the end of the program, the NSJ is able to provide high-quality, modern, professional development services to judges and judicial personnel with limited donor support No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 3.3: MEDIATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) STRENGTHENED
ER 3.3.1: Comprehensive analyses of current context, barriers and opportunities for developing mediation and other ADR processes in Ukraine completed No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 3.3.2: Normative (legislative, regulatory) framework for mediation and other ADR processes strengthened consistent with international best practices
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement New Justice started preparations for a study tour to the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Washington, DC for representatives of mediation community, members of the profile Committee of Legal Policy and Justice of the Parliament, MOJ, advocates, COJ and representatives of courts. This activity will focus on familiarizing Ukrainian authorities and organizations with ADR in the United States (role of U.S. advocates, U.S. Department of Justice and federal and state courts in this field), the regulatory framework for mediation and also how to manage mediation process for achieving better results.
ER 3.3.3: Professional association for mediators and other ADR practitioners strengthened No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 3.3.4: Professional knowledge, expertise, and integrity of mediators enhanced No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 3.3.5: Mediation and other ADR processes integrated into legal and court processes No significant programmatic activities took place under this ER during the reporting period.
ER 3.3.6: Use of mediation and other ADR processes in civil and commercial cases increased No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 3.4: SYSTEM OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IMPROVED
ER 3.4.1: Normative framework for enforcement of judgments revised
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 30
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement New Justice established working relationships with the Deputy Minister of Justice Mr. Serhiy Shkliar, who is leading the MOJ-led Working Group efforts in launching private enforcement agents’ profession in line with the Law on the Bodies and Persons Authorized to Enforce Court Decisions and Decisions of Other Bodies and the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, passed in October 2016, which introduced the newly created role of private enforcement agents and settled the rules for the private enforcement proceedings. New Justice joined the Working Group to provide advisory support and expertise developed during the predecessor FAIR project in launching merit-based judicial selection process.
In addition, New Justice developed working relationships with international expert Ms. Khatia Shelia, who successfully introduced the private bailiffs’ profession in Georgia, and Ms. Inese Boze, an experienced private enforcement agent from Latvia. When the first private enforcement agents begin operating in Ukraine, the project will review the current legal framework based on the experts’ practical experience, best European and international practices, and lessons learned.
ER 3.4.2: Rules and procedures for licensing, oversight, and assignment of private enforcement agents adopted
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During the reporting period, New Justice tracked progress toward the creation of private enforcement mechanisms, procedures, and rules. In accordance with the laws described in ER 3.4.1, the MOJ in cooperation with donors developed and launched on-line Automated System of Enforcement Proceedings (http://asvpweb.nais.gov.ua/#/search-debtors). Further, the MOJ launched the Unified Registry of Debtors as required by law (http://erb.nais.gov.ua/#/search- debtors). Related rules and regulations should be approved by the Association of Private Enforcement Agents once it is established. New Justice will provide expert support in developing these documents to the Association in upcoming reporting periods.
ER 3.4.3: Association of Enforcement Agents established and cadre of private enforcement agents trained and certified No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 3.4.4: Enforcement agents equipped with the necessary systems, tools, and sufficient budgetary support to manage case load and adequately care for assets under their supervision
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement The New Justice supports Deputy Minister of Justice Mr. Shkliar to monitor the status and progress in certification of the first private enforcement agents. During the reporting period, approximately 500 candidates expressed interest in participating in the selection process for the private enforcement agent position. The selection process will include a one-month training at the MOJ’s Institute of Law and Post-Graduate Education and a Ministry examination. The examination will include an anonymous multiple-choice test, a close-ended case study, and an open-ended case study. Although the training was initially planned to launch in November 2016, the MOJ has postponed until the draft list of trainees is approved.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 31 The Institute-approved curriculum includes such topics as enforcement of judgements process and procedures, rights and responsibilities of parties in the enforcement process, general knowledge of the Constitutional and Civil Law, management of the private enforcement agent activities, and psychological aspects of these activities. Training is expected to launch during the next quarter.
ER 3.4.5: Judgments are enforced in a timely and effective manner No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
OBJECTIVE 3 LESSONS LEARNED AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT QUARTER
Lessons Learned, Challenges Encountered, and Proposed Solutions Numerous activities under ER 3.4. depend from the Association of Private Enforcement Agents (PEA) which should be created by the PEAs and will be authorized to approve all related to the profession rules and procedures, ethical and other standards, etc. However due to delays in certification of the first batch of the PEAs the deadline for creation of the Association is not clear. Meanwhile New Justice is working on developing theoretical background with exploring best practices and international standards in operation of similar institutions around the world to be passed to the Association immediately after its creation. Activities under ER 3.1.5 have been pending the passage of the new Law on the HCJ, which took place at the end of this quarter. After the HCJ completes its transition and starts working in accordance with the new law, New Justice will launch activities to build HCJ capacity in this area. New Justice canceled an activity on supporting the participation of three senior judicial administration and court staff leaders in the Executive Leadership Program for court officials in Singapore. Planned for January 2017, this activity was canceled because the potential candidates do not possess sufficient English language skills. However, New Justice plans to encourage court administrators to increase their knowledge of English to take advantages of future opportunities with the international judicial leadership programs. The project will contact Executive Leadership Program organizers to explore the possibility of participating in such programs in the future.
Planned Activities for the Next Quarter In the next quarter, New Justice plans to: Promote the establishment of a HCJ/COJ/SJA coordination forum to ensure consistency in operations. Provide judicial administration institutions with comparative international materials on best practices in court administration. Support the adaptation of the International Framework for Judicial Support Excellence (IFJSE) for use by the Ukrainian Judiciary. Support SJA development of criteria for the consolidation of small trial courts with larger ones, as well as criteria for the establishment of appellate circuits. Support Business Process Analysis for the HCJ and the courts in order to prepare “as is” and “to be” models to guide further court automation efforts in line with the Concept for the Development of Infrastructure of Judicial Support Organizations. Support a study tour for HCJ and SJA staff to Moldova to learn about their experiences with court automation.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 32
Promote and support the implementation of electronic document exchange between courts and other state institutions to reduce the time required for court procedures. Support targeted e-Court pilot projects in various jurisdictions (including commercial courts and the HCJ) in order to evaluate the potential financial and time saving benefits for the judiciary and the public. Conduct an evaluation of the reasons for delays in court proceedings and prepare recommendations for increasing the efficiency and timeliness of court proceedings. Conduct two seminars for court personnel responsible for budgeting and finance on best international practices in court budgeting and statistics. Evaluate support for a unified court budgeting/accounting software system based on the model provided by the WB to Azerbaijan, as well as several other countries. Assist the NSJ in developing and implementing the orientation training program for newly appointed SC justices, and in updating a judicial training program focused on anti- corruption issues and handling corruption cases. Assist the NSJ in designing a competencies-based management training program for chief judges, in developing in-class and on-line courses for chief judges and judge-speakers on Court and Community Communications, and in designing a mentor training program for chief judges and court staff. Design an academic certificate course on judicial administration based at Karazin Kharkiv National University (Kharkiv) in cooperation with Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University (Kharkiv) and Michigan State University for postgraduate students. Conduct a reunion of MSU Judicial Administration Certificate Program graduates to share progress and exchange experience on their MSU capstone project implementation. Explore inviting U.S. and EU experts to develop a strategy, policy, and recommendations on how mediation would be best implemented in Ukraine. Support professional associations and ADR practitioners to develop a joint vision and approach for further ADR implementation in Ukraine. Conduct an expert review of the current legislative framework for enforcement of judgements based on the best international and European practices, including the institute of private enforcement agents. Engage international expertise to provide tips and recommendations on best practices in establishing private enforcement service and association. Explore best international standards for enforcement agents’ tools and means to be shared with the private agents once first of them are certified. Study the status and effectiveness of enforcement of judgements (by period/specialization/level of court/ region/MOJ department) to provide a baseline assessment of effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE 4: QUALITY OF LEGAL EDUCATION STRENGTHENED
Building on the FAIR efforts to support the Ministry of Education and Science (MOE) in strengthening legal education quality in Ukraine, on October 26, 2016, New Justice met with First Deputy Minister of Education Volodymyr Kovtunets to discuss the general status of legal education reform, including current and future cooperation aimed at strengthening legal education quality in Ukraine. The parties also agreed to further cooperate in the following key fields in line with New Justice’s objectives and ERs: (1) the development and adoption of the Legal Education Reform Concept Paper and the Action Plan to implement it, the national
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 33 standards for legal education and licensing of law schools; (2) the development of the methodology for accreditation of law curricula in cooperation with the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance (NAHEQA) and quality assurance frameworks for law schools in cooperation with the NAHEQA; and (3) the implementation of mandatory, unified, external, independent entrance examination for master’s degree program in law in 2017, based on the success of the pilot entrance exam of this kind supported by FAIR and administered for nine self-selected law schools in July 2016.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 4.1: NATIONAL STRATEGY AND STANDARDS FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION ADOPTED
ER 4.1.1: National education strategy and standards for legal education and accreditation adopted by the MOE, with input from the MOJ and key stakeholders, including the bar and civil society
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement Building on the FAIR efforts to support the MOE Working Group on Developing Legal Education Reform Concept Paper and Action Plan (WG) established by MOE Decree No. 787 of July 5, 2016, New Justice continued to assist the WG consisting of representatives of the MOE, MOJ, leading law schools, and bar associations as well as independent experts to further develop a draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper that the WG publicly presented in Kyiv on September 14, 2016.
New Justice provided a forum for the analysis of the stakeholder feedback on the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper. In November 2016, the project hosted a meeting of key WG members, including Mr. Boyko, Mr. Holovaty, Mr. Barabash, and Deputy Head of Verkhovna Rada Oksana Syroid and a former First Deputy Minister of Education and now Vice-President of Kyiv School of Economics Inna Sovsun. The WG members together with the New Justice leadership and representatives of the OSCE Project Coordinator in Ukraine discussed the stakeholder feedback received following the regional presentations and roundtable discussions of the draft (see ER 4.1.2 below) and possible amendments to improve the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper. As a result of this meeting, the WG members improved the draft and shared it with the MOE.
On December 22, 2016, New Justice supported the MOE in conducting a WG meeting, whose members together with First Deputy Minister of Education Kovtunets and Deputy Minister of Education Roman Hreba discussed the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper and key issues related to its prospective implementation. The MOE leadership and WG members agreed to have an additional meeting to continue the work on the draft in light of the stakeholder feedback received during and after the regional roundtable discussions.
To support the MOE and facilitate the preparation of the next WG meeting in January 2017, New Justice developed and shared with the WG a comparative table reflecting the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper’s provisions and key comments coupled with recommendations for improvement based on the stakeholder feedback. The WG will use this document to review the draft, finalize it, and present for MOE approval a comprehensive strategic vision of legal education reform and its implementation, including the legislative amendments necessary to introduce the reform, in particular those outlining the nature and scope of a potential exit exam for law school graduates nationwide.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 34
ER 4.1.2: Law school administrators, faculty leadership, and instructors aware of and understand national strategy and standards for legal education and accreditation
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this reporting period, New Justice in cooperation with the OSCE Project Coordinator supported the MOE and MOJ in presenting the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper in Ukraine’s three regions (Kharkiv, Chernivtsi, and Dnipro). Key WG members, including Andrii Boyko, HCJ Member, Serhiy Holovaty, Substitute Member of the Venice Commission from Ukraine, and Iurii Barabash, Vice-Rector of the Yuroslaw Mudryi National Law University, together with MOE and MOJ representatives, including Deputy Minister of Education Roman Hreba, Head of MOE Division on Normative Support for Higher Education Dmytro Kumkov, and Council to Minister of Justice Roman Usenko, participated in these events gathering more than 170 participants, including the administrators and faculty of local law schools, bar associations, and law student associations, who had an opportunity to provide feedback, suggestions, and ideas on the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper. New Justice also assisted the MOE, MOJ, leading Ukrainian law schools, and courts in raising public awareness about the developed draft Legal Education Concept Paper through other public events aimed at discussing legal education reform.
To this end, on October 21, 2016, New Justice supported the National University “Odesa Law Academy” (NUOLA) in conducting the International Conference “Contemporary Legal Education: Experience of the Past and a Prospects for the Future.” More than 50 academics, practicing lawyers, and law students participated in the event that discussed (a) the current state of legal education in Ukraine, (b) global trends, and (c) future developments in legal education reform. The conference also helped advance the public policy and academic discussion on legal education and resulted in recommendations for legal education reform going forward. On December 9, 2016, New Justice supported the Donetsk National University Law School (DonNU Law School) relocated to Vinnytsia and the Vinnytsia Oblast Appellate Court in organizing and conducting the roundtable discussion titled: “Judicial Reform: Legislative Framework and Ways to Implement It”. More than 30 judges, law school administrators, faculty, and practicing lawyers participated and shared their views on justice sector reforms in Ukraine, including legal education reform that the participants considered as a prerequisite for the sustainable success of other reforms in this sector.
The majority of the participants of these events opined that there is a pressing need for legal education reform and generally supported the presented draft Legal Education Reform Council of Justice Member and Member of the WG Andrii Boyko Concept Paper, including (1) the introduction presents the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper at the of a master’s degree as a base-degree in law, regional roundtable discussion in Chernivtsi on November 11, 2016. PHOTO: USAID New Justice Program (2) external, independent exit examination for law school leavers, and (3) insuring practice-focused and skills-based teaching of the law, in particular through clinical legal education.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 35
ER 4.1.3: Law schools revise policies, procedures, and legal education practices in compliance with national standards for legal education and accreditation No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 4.1.4: a minimal standard and gold standard accreditation is adopted to increase competition among law schools
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement New Justice assisted the MOE in improving a draft Licensing Requirements for Higher Educational Institutions (Licensing Requirements) that are to set minimum standards of a higher educational institution’s (HEI) functioning. New Justice provided the MOE with recommendations on implementing the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area in the Licensing Requirements, outlining requirements for internal policies, procedures, and practices as to higher education quality assurance. The Licensing Requirements, however, are very broad and do not spell out specific requirements for law schools. New Justice will collaborate with the MOE and HEIs to address this in accordance with Law on Higher Education stipulations on the adoption of the specialty- based operational standards for HEIs along with education standards.
New Justice also worked to engage Ukrainian bar associations in the legal education reform process. On November 2, 2016, New Justice in cooperation with the Association of Ukrainian Lawyers (AUL) and the Association of Ukrainian Advocates (AUA) conducted a roundtable discussion on best practices of bar associations in strengthening legal education quality. New Justice presented the Report on Practices of Bar Associations in Advancing Legal Education in Developed Countries and the Report on Accreditation and Rankings of Law Schools in the U.S. developed under FAIR. This activity helped support Ukrainian bar associations, in particular the AUL and AUA, who with FAIR’s assistance in January 2016 established their committees on advancing legal education, in their efforts to improve legal education in the country, implementing best bar association practices in advancing legal education, as well as developing and using the methodology for launching annual public accreditation of Ukrainian law schools based on the objective, pre-established criteria to facilitate the law schools' race to the top.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 4.2.: QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORKS FOR LAW SCHOOLS DEVELOPED
ER 4.2.1: Policies and procedures for comprehensive quality assurance frameworks based on international standards and comparative best practices adopted by leading law schools
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement Based on the FAIR achievements in revising legal education policies, procedures, and practices in compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and, in particular, on the Methodology for Independent, External, On-Site Assessment of Legal Education Quality (Methodology) developed and successfully tested at the Ivan Franko Law School and the Yuri Fedkovych Law School in 2014 and 2015, New Justice continued to advocate for law schools to revise their internal legal education policies, procedures, and practices.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 36
As the MOE has not yet adopted a national legal education standard, during this reporting period New Justice continued to promote the Methodology as a tested means for revising law schools’ internal policies, procedures, and practices in light of the ESG. In particular, building on the NUOLA’s interest to undergo such assessment, New Justice started to work closely with the law school on preparing for the on-site assessment of NUOLA and, per the NUOLA leadership’s request, its School of Advocacy in particular. The on-site assessment is scheduled for March 13–17, 2017.
During this reporting period, New Justice conducted a competitive process to select two prospective local and two international experts who can jointly conduct the independent, external, on-site assessment of legal education quality at NUOLA. The team includes Professor Speedy Rice of the Washington and Lee University School of Law (Lexington, Virginia, USA), Professor Delaine Swenson of the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin (Poland), Assistant Professor Mariia Tsypiashchuk of the National University “Ostroh Academy” (Ostroh), and Assistant Professor Ivan Romashchenko of the Taras Schevchenko Law School (Kyiv).
ER 4.2.2: Law school administrators, faculty leadership, instructors, and student government representatives trained on nature, scope, and operation of quality assurance framework No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 4.2.3: Quality assurance units in leading law schools established and functioning No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 4.3: PRACTICE-ORIENTED AND SKILLS-BASED INSTRUCTION, CURRICULUM, AND ACTIVITIES INTEGRATED
ER 4.3.1: Modern instructional methods adopted and implemented to ensure effective practice oriented, skills based learning and formally adopted into school curriculum
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement Building on FAIR’s achievements related to promotion of modern instructional methods ensuring effective practice-oriented and skills-based learning, New Justice during this reporting period focused on the modern instructional methods of teaching rule of law. To this end, New Justice assessed the modern teaching practices of rule of law courses in other countries in order to develop an outline of a rule of law certificate program. The importance of having such a program is caused by lack of understanding of this principle in Ukraine, therefore, the rule of law remains a theoretical concept which is not being practically implemented by representatives of the legal profession in the country.
This hypothesis was confirmed during discussions with academics and practitioners. Particularly, on December 16, 2016, New Justice participated in the conference titled “Rule of Law and Local Self-Governance” organized by the Folke Bernadotte Academy Project “Local self- Governance and the Rule of Law in Ukraine” and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, where the representatives of National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy presented the outline of the module on “Rule of Law in Public Administration” within the Master of Science Program on Public Administration. During the conference, deans of several law colleges raised the issue of an advanced training program on rule of law, because current training
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 37 curricula do not prepare law students to apply this principle in their work. As a result of this drawback, judges, attorneys, and lawyers do not possess enough knowledge to apply rule of law in practice. During the next reporting period, New Justice will support the local stakeholders in developing educational initiatives for law students and lawyers on practical application of the rule of law principle.
In the framework of the Rule of Law Lecture Series, New Justice during this reporting period continued to promote quality legal education by raising public awareness about crosscutting rule of law issues related to legal reforms in a democratic society. During the reporting period, New Justice jointly with the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU) Rule of Law Center in Lviv conducted two rule of law public events: on October 27, 2016, New Justice organized a lecture Prof. Erika Szyszchzak, who delivered her presentation titled “The Role of the National Judge and the Rule of Law when Applying EU Law Norms”., and on December 16, 2016, Dr. Bohdan Vitvitsky, Advisor to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and a former U.S. federal prosecutor, delivered his lecture entitled “The Rule of Law: So Critically Important, Yet So Elusive?”. The speakers used the Socratic dialogue method to elaborate on their topics and share their insights into the issues raised based on their extensive expertise strengthening the understanding of rule of law, as well as ensuring effective practice-oriented learning of rule of law issues. The events were attended by more than 100 law students, academics, various legal practitioners, and public officials who attended the lectures, while the live broadcast attracted over 215 unique viewers.
ER 4.3.2: Institutional curriculum effectively prepares law students for careers in the judiciary and other legal professions
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement Building on the FAIR project’s success implementing the pilot international online anti- corruption course during the Spring Semester in 2016 in cooperation with Prof. Speedy Rice of the Washington and Lee University School of Law and two Ukrainian leading law schools, namely the Ivan Franko Law School (Lviv) and the Yuri Fedkovych Law School (Chernivtsi), New Justice, in addition to the Yuri Fedkovych Law School, during the reporting period successfully engaged three other Ukrainian law schools, the YaroslavMudryi Law University (Kharkiv), the NUOLA, and the UCU School of Law, in developing and implementing the international online anti-corruption course in cooperation with Prof. Speedy Rice during the Spring Semester 2017.
Assisting these law schools in their preparations for this activity, on November 24-25, 2016, New Justice in cooperation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) supported the participation of their representatives at the UNODC Anti-Corruption Academic Expert Workshop in Tirana, Albania. New Justice sponsored the participation of Mr. Mykhailo Ryazanov of NUOLA and Ms. Mariia Taras of the UCU School of Law, while UNODC sponsored the participation of Mr. Oleksandr Bodnaruk of the Yuri Fedkovych Law School and Mr. Andrii Biletskyi of the Yaroslav Mudryi Law University to enhance the capacity of these law schools to deliver high-quality anti-corruption education.
Further, on December 22-23, 2016, using the momentum built by the international workshop, New Justice conducted a local workshop on developing the draft syllabus of the Ukrainian component of the international online anti-corruption course to be implemented in Spring 2017. Representatives of law schools implementing the course together with the
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 38
representatives of other Ukrainian law schools expressing interest in developing anti-corruption educational programs, namely the Kyiv-Mohyla Law School, the DonNU Law School, and the Taras Shevchenko Law School (Kyiv), considered the successful implementation of an online anti-corruption course in Spring 2016, as well as the lessons learned during the UNODC International Anti-corruption Academic Expert Workshop on November 24-25, 2016 in Tirana, Albania. The workshop participants also learned about the blended education methodology important for integrating online and in-class education in one syllabus. The workshop resulted in the draft syllabus outlining the Ukrainian component of the international online anti-corruption course focused on studying the ways in which the UN Convention against Corruption has been implemented into the Ukrainian legislation as well as the local context, including policies, procedures, and practices, in this field.
ER 4.3.3: Law school legal clinics (including specialized clinics) developed and integrated into formal curriculum
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this reporting period, New Justice actively worked on improving the legal clinical education in Ukraine. At the meeting with the Association of Legal Clinics in Ukraine (ALCU) Executive Director Andrii Halai, where he shared the ALCU needs and potential ideas for cooperation, New Justice conducted a coordination meeting with other donors working in this area, including OSCE, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation (ULAF) in order to agree upon the common vision of legal clinics development in Ukraine.
After the coordination meeting, New Justice jointly with OSCE, ULAF, and members of the ALCU board presented the key problems of legal clinical education in Ukraine to the Deputy Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine Roman Greba. Based on the discussed issues, the MOE Minister issued a decree on establishing a Working Group on Improving the Model Regulation on Legal Clinics in Ukraine which included representatives of legal clinics, deans of law faculties, members of the ALCU board, representatives of New Justice, OSCE, and ULAF.
At the first meeting of the Working Group, chaired by Deputy Minister Roman Greba, the members agreed upon crucial elements of the Model Regulation on Legal Clinics in Ukraine. By the end of January 2017, the Working Group sub-groups will prepare the first draft chapters and will present them for Working Group’s consideration. New Justice will support the improvement of the Model Regulation by
providing international expertise to First meeting of the Ministry of Education and Science Working evaluate the proposed amendments and Group on Improving the Model Regulation on Legal Clinics in Ukraine incorporate in it the international on December 14, 2016 in Kyiv. PHOTO: Association of Legal Clinics in Ukraine standards of legal clinical education.
Following the first Working Group meeting, New Justice jointly with OSCE, ULAF, and Kyiv- Mohyla Academy supported the ALCU in conducting a roundtable on “Legal Clinics: 20 Years of
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 39 Practice-Based Education, Human Rights Protection, and Legal Training in Ukraine” on December 15, 2016. Devoted to the 20 year anniversary of legal clinics in Ukraine, the roundtable gathered top-level officials from the MOE and MOJ, representatives of legal clinics, universities, IRF, ULAF, OSCE, Ukrainian Helsinky Human Rights Union to discuss international best practices of managing legal clinics, compare the, with the Ukrainian experience, identify challenges, and discuss the possible solutions. The roundtable resulted in recommendations and suggestions to the text of the Model Regulation on Legal Clinics in Ukraine, as well as conceptual suggestions regarding the functioning of legal clinics for members of the Working Group to take into account as they prepare amendments to the existing model regulation.
ER 4.3.4: Judicial clerkship program created in coordination with judicial self- governance bodies and courts
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement During this reporting period, New Justice introduced the concept of a judicial clerkship program. A new phenomenon for the Ukrainian educational system, at the Regional Judicial Forum reported under ER 1.2.2., New Justice presented the concept of such a program to participants in order to receive their feedback. Representatives of the COJ, judges, and lawyers agreed that the current externships for law students are not efficient and do not prepare them for future work; therefore, judicial clerkship program was considered as positive development. New Justice conducted a desktop research of the international and European good practices of judicial clerkship programs management, which describes the existing clerkship programs in the U.S. and other countries.
ER 4.3.5: Independent, external examinations for law school admissions and graduation implemented
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement Based on the successful implementation of independent, external, fair and corruption-free admissions examination for master’s degree programs in law in nine self-selected Ukrainian law schools in 2016, during this reporting period New Justice assisted the MOE providing legal basis for rolling-out this kind of examination to include all Ukrainian law schools and make such examination mandatory.
To this end, in October and December 2016, New Justice assisted the MOE in organizing and conducting a series of working meetings with the Minister Liliia Hrynevych, Deputy Minister Volodymyr Kovtunets, and Deputy Minister Roman Hreba, Head of Ukrainian Center for Evaluation of Education Vadym Karandii, and the leadership of nine Ukrainian law schools who participated in the implementation of the 2016 pilot examination. The meetings discussed the prospects of introducing a mandatory, independent external entrance examination for master’s degree programs in law in 2017, and ways it could be implemented based on the lessons learned in 2016. The meeting participants drafted recommendations for the MOE on (a) establishing a MOE working group to implementing the examination in 2017, (b) supporting such a working group, and (c) providing a legal basis for the examination implementation.
New Justice also successfully advocated for the MOE to include HCJ Member Andrii Boyko, Kyiv-Mohyla Law School Dean Denys Azarov, and Yuri Fedkovych Chernivtsi Law School Dean Petro Patsurkivskyi, who significantly contributed to the implementation of the 2016 pilot project, in the MOE Working Group on developing draft Rules of Admissions to Higher
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 40
Educational Establishments in 2017. New Justice also supported them as working group members in drafting the clauses stipulating the implementation of a mandatory, independent external entrance examination for master’s degree programs in law in 2017.
Further, New Justice assisted the MOE and the Ukrainian Center for Evaluation of Education in developing draft Rules of Procedure for the Implementation of the Mandatory, Independent External Entrance Examination for Master’s Degree Programs in Law in 2017. This document provides a detailed information on the process, timeline, and relevant public authorities’ responsibilities regarding the examination’s implementation.
Planned Activities for the Next Quarter New Justice will continue to support the MOE in implementing the mandatory, independent external entrance examination for master’s degree programs in law in 2017 and continue to advocate for the establishment of and, once established, provide support to, the MOE working group assisting the MOE to prepare and implement the examination.
ER 4.3.6: Memorandum of Understanding concluded with key educational partners to sustain USAID investments after the end of the program No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
OBJECTIVE 4 LESSONS LEARNED AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT QUARTER
Lessons Learned, Challenges Encountered, and Proposed Solutions New Justice saw reluctance on the part of the MOE and Minister Hrynevych personally to support the vision of legal education reform enshrined in the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper developed by the WG, even though Minister Hrynevych chairs it. Further, against the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper put forward by the MOE Working Group, the MOE sponsored the preparation of the draft Cabinet of Ministers’ (CM) Decree making law enforcement specialists prepared by MOI higher educational institutions formally eligible to occupy offices requiring quality legal education, for instance judicial, procuracy, and other offices. To address these challenges, New Justice continued to advocate for a comprehensive legal education reform in Ukraine based on European standards for higher education quality assurance as well as comparative best international legal education practices. New Justice also officially informed the MOE about the risks and possible harm to justice sector related to the adoption of the abovementioned CM Decree. During its cooperation with New Justice on organizing roundtable events, DonNU Law School demonstrated poor capacity to facilitate such events. To address this challenge, New Justice closely worked with the DonNU Law School to make sure the preparations for this event and the event itself go smoothly. When organizing joint events with its local partners, in particular law schools, New Justice should plan for providing an additional organizational support to compensate, as appropriate, for the lack of capacity on the part of its local partner. The MOE’s current leadership, in particular First Deputy Minister Volodymyr Kovtunets and Head of Department on Higher Education Oleh Sharov expressed the view that HEIs do not need the operation standards as they have to comply with the Licensing Requirements as stipulated in the Law on Licensing of Certain Types of Economic Activity. New Justice will continue to advocate for the MOE to develop the law school
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 41 operation standards based on the Law on Higher Education to ensure law school- specific minimum requirements as to law school internal business-processes aimed to ensure legal education quality. The UNODC International Anti-Corruption Academic Expert Workshop helped generate momentum for developing the international cooperation on anti-corruption education further. New Justice should use such events to forge links with international institutions, such as UNODC, and take international academic cooperation to a higher level. Effective functioning of legal clinics depends mainly on the attitude of the university’s leadership to legal clinics. Even the Model Regulation on Legal Clinics in Ukraine once approved by the Ministry of Science and Education of Ukraine will not be able to force universities opening legal clinics and integrating them into training curriculum. In order to reduce such reluctance, New Justice will support the ALCU in conducting peer-to- peer training sessions and other educational initiatives with involvement of deans and representatives of law faculties with successfully operating legal clinics in Ukraine in order to share their experience and demonstrate the positive outcomes of legal clinics functioning for the university. Even though New Justice activities resulted in written recommendations for the MOE to establish a working group on implementing the examination in 2017, including a list of recommended education stakeholders to serve as working group members, the MOE committed and failed to establish such a working group. As this working group is critical for successful implementation of the examination, New Justice will continue to advocate for establishing the working group under the MOE.
Planned Activities for the Next Quarter During the next quarter, New Justice will: Provide further support to the WG aimed to improve the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper, as well as develop a relevant draft Action Plan to become part of the National Legal Education Reform Program. Engage the JRC in the legal education reform process by using it as a platform for building consensus regarding key elements of the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper and advancing legal education reform. On a demand-driven basis, support the MOE Academic and Methodological Committee on National Legal Education Standards with the expert review of the draft national legal education standards. Assist the MOE in developing and adopting standards for legal education and accreditation of law programs and – once the standards are in place – assist Ukraine’s leading law schools, in particular the Yuri Fekovych Law School based in Chernivtsi and the National University “Odesa Law Acedemy”, in revising their policies, procedures, and legal education practices in light of the national standards for legal education and accreditation of law programs. Support Ukrainian bar associations, in particular the AUL and AUA, in implementing best bar association practices in advancing legal education as well as developing and using the methodology for launching annual public accreditation of Ukrainian law schools based on the objective, pre-established criteria to facilitate the law schools' race to the top. Amend the Methodology for Independent, External, On-Site Assessment of Legal Education Quality (Methodology) in light of the European Standards and Guidelines for
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 42
Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area approved at the Yerevan Ministerial Conference in May 2015. Conduct up to four TOTs on nature, scope, and application of the ESG and the ESG- based Methodology for law school administrators, faculty leadership, instructors, and student government members representing at least 10 Ukraine's leading law schools. Support the CNU Law School and its Academic Integrity Committee in developing its Rules of Procedure for the practical implementation of the CNU Law School Honor Code. Support on a demand-driven basis other Ukraine's leading law schools in developing their honor codes as part of their internal legal education quality assurance systems. Support a Ukrainian university in developing a concept of the certificate program in rule of law. Support the MOE in raising law school administrators, faculty leadership, instructors, and student government members' awareness of the principles and methods of student- centered learning (SCL), including blended education, to ensure effective practice oriented, skills based learning of law. Support up to three teams of Ukrainian law students in participating in the international moot court competitions. Advocate for and support up to 10 Ukraine's leading law schools that have been active in legal education reform in structuring their law curricula around three key components of modern legal education: 1) legal knowledge; 2) legal soft and hard skills; and 3) professional values. Support the ALCU in organizing the All-Ukrainian Client Counseling Competition for legal clinic consultants and support the winner in participating in the International Client Counseling Competition and applying their experience to improve the functioning of legal clinics in Ukraine. Convene a joint working group of COJ, SJA, NSJ, MOJ, MOE and law faculty members to develop guidelines for judicial clerkship programs.
OBJECTIVE 5: ACCESS TO JUSTICE EXPANDED AND HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTED
SUB-OBJECTIVE 5.1: JUSTICE ACCESSIBLE TO CITIZENS, INCLUDING THE MOST VULNERABLE
ER 5.1.1: Physical, geographic, cultural, financial, informational, legal and procedural barriers to the courts removed or lowered for all citizens, including vulnerable groups. No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 5.1.2: Citizens access to court information increased. No significant activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 5.1.3: E-Justice Systems accessible to citizens to ease case filling, tracking, document submission, payment and other court procedures and transactions
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 43 During the reporting period, New Justice identified an international expert who will conduct the evaluation of three e-courts in Odesa Oblast regarding their accessibility to citizens. This evaluation will take place next quarter focusing on ease case filing, tracking, documents submission, payment and other procedures. The expert will study the ratio of using e-court services versus using paper submissions at courts, identify the reasons for not using e-court services by citizens if applicable, and develop expert recommendations to judicial institutions and courts regarding e-court improvement.
ER 5.1.4: Citizens access to court-annexed mediation/ADR processes developed under 3.3 increased No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 5.1.5: Awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities, SGBV survivors, IDPs, veterans, and other vulnerable groups is increased among judges, judicial personnel, and advocates No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 5.1.6: SGBV survivors, children and other vulnerable victims or witnesses afforded greater protections No significant programmatic activities took place under this ER during the reporting period. Activities under this ER will start next quarter.
ER 5.1.7: Citizens, including vulnerable groups, actively participate in access to justice reforms
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement New Justice conducted a desk assessment of available CJC models and expertise in other countries, including the U.S., Australia and Singapore. This desk assessment is necessary for developing concept paper for establishing CJC in Ukraine and further presentation this concept paper to Ukrainian judicial institutions.
SUB-OBJECTIVE 5.2: HUMAN RRGHTS PROTECTED, ESPECIALLY THE RIGHTS OF THE MOST VULNERABLE
ER 5.2.1: Awareness of human rights and humanitarian law, how to exercise those rights, and the role of the courts in protecting human rights increased among judges, judicial personnel and advocates No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 5.2.2: Increased number of human rights and humanitarian law cases resolved No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 5.2.3: Referral networks among judges, judicial personnel, advocates, social workers, health workers, police, and community leaders strengthened
Results and Future Prospects for Achievement On November 29, 2016, New Justice in cooperation with the COJ conducted a Judiciary and Civil Society Cooperation Forum to provide a platform for dialogue between judiciary and civil society representatives to share lessons learned from and opportunities for civil society and
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 44
judiciary cooperation. Participants identified key challenges in their cooperation, including the lack of mutual trust and common understanding, limited cooperation between courts, CSOs and legal aid providers, and low level of legal culture among citizens. Participants developed ideas for areas of cooperation and potential joint initiatives, such as training programs for judges, “open door” days in the courts, online legal knowledge platforms, and “legal club” for judges, human rights defenders, and CSOs. Such initiatives would act as roadmaps for referral networks among stakeholders. In addition, the COJ and the CSO “Human Rights Vector” signed the Memorandum of Understanding aimed to improve citizen access to justice by providing online streaming of those court proceedings which are of public interest.
ER 5.2.4: Human rights coalitions monitor and successfully advocate the GOU, Judiciary, and legal aid centers for increased protection of human rights by the courts No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
ER 5.2.5: Judiciary coordinates regularly with the human rights ombudsman and other key human rights institutions to improve the protection of human rights and humanitarian law through courts No significant programmatic activities took place during the reporting period.
OBJECTIVE 5 LESSONS LEARNED AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT QUARTER
Lessons Learned, Challenges Encountered, and Proposed Solutions The project will report on lessons learned, challenges encountered, and proposed solutions when Objective 5 activities are launched in accordance with the project special activities and grants programs.
Planned Activities for the Next Quarter During the next quarter, New Justice will: Pending USAID approval the New Justice Grant Policy Manual, issue a grants solicitation for CSOs to analyze results of CRC surveys regarding physical, geographic, cultural, financial, informational, legal and procedural barriers to the courts. Select a CSO to monitor access to the courts and court services for persons with disabilities, and support activities to increase awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities among judges. Support the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Human Rights Working Group to develop amendments to the Law on Ensuring Equal Rights and Opportunities for Women and Men. Conduct a roundtable to discuss status and needs of judicial authorities to implement the COE Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). Support the NSJ in developing curriculum for judges on implementation of the COE Istanbul Convention. Conduct research on access to justice for SGBV victims affected by conflicts, including international experience and recommendations for Ukraine, and Support the NSJ in development of training curricula for judges and judicial personnel on implementation of UN SCR 1325, Access to Justice for GBV and SGBV survivors.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 45 Assist the NSJ and COJ in improving judges’ ability to apply, interpret, clarify, and enforce the application of international humanitarian law standards at the domestic level. Together with the OSCE Project Coordinator in Ukraine conduct trial monitoring training program and competitively select and support CSOs in monitoring and advocating for human rights protection by the courts. Support the COJ, Constitutional Court, SC in strengthening partnership with the Human Rights Ombudsman and other key human rights actors through expert discussions and coordination meetings to ensure better human rights protection and humanitarian law application through the courts including through improving amicus curie institute application.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 46
DONOR COORDINATION
During this reporting period, the New Justice team hosted three Rule of Law Donors and Implementers Meetings:
On October 5, 2016, the meeting included a presentation of the USAID Nove Pravosuddya Justice Sector Reform Program. Also, Mykhailo Zhernakov, expert on the Reanimation Package of Reforms’ Group on Reform of the Judiciary, provided an update on the Reanimation Package of Reforms initiatives and priorities with regard to judicial reform, including the process for selecting justices for the newly-reorganized Supreme Court and creation of the High Anti-Corruption Court pursuant to the amended Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges of June 2, 2016. On November 2, 2016, Dmytro Kumkov, Normative Support of Higher Education Division Head, MOE’s Department of Higher Education, provided an update on the Ministry's priorities and plans for improving the quality of legal education in line with European standards and job market requirements. On December 7, 2016, Anastasiya Krasnosilska, Advocacy Manager of the Anti- Corruption Action Centre, provided the vision of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre on the creation and work of an anti-corruption court in Ukraine. The meeting also included presentations of the new Canadian-Ukrainian Support to Judicial Reform Project financed by Global Affairs Canada and joint Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) and La Strada Project “Paving the Way for the Successful Implementation of the Istanbul Convention in Ukraine: Improving the Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence and Violence Against Women”.
New Justice representatives participated in the meeting on International Parliamentary Technical Assistance Coordination conducted by the USAID RADA Program in October 2016.
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 47 DELIVERABLES
New Justice submitted the following deliverable this reporting period:
Translated article “Developing the Court Administration Viewpoint” by Maureen E. Conner, Ph.D. Professor, Michigan State University (Eng., Ukr.); Report with recommendations on enhancing the capacity of academia to deliver high- quality anticorruption education developed (Ukr.); and Analysis and Recommendations to the Draft Concept Paper on Establishing of the Testing Center at the NSJ (Ukr.).
NOVE PRAVOSUDDYA JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROGRAM | 48
ANNEX A. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION SUMMARY INDICATOR DATA TABLE New Justice will achieve 88 expected results (ERs), which will lead, in turn, to high-level changes in the justice system. These changes represent five program objectives and sixteen program sub-objectives. New Justice team proposed 70 output and outcome indicators to measure program key results. Each sub-objective has, depending of its complexity, three to ten proposed indicators to measure Program progress to ensure effective management and sufficient reporting. The table below represents actual indicator values for Quarter One of FY2017 and current annual values for FY2017 against baseline and FY2017 targets. FY2018 and life-of-project (LOP) targets provided for reference and illustration of expected trends. Table also contains necessary notes and explanations for each indicator.
It is important to note that New Justice introduces a significant number of new outcome-level complex changed indicators where baseline data will only be available after comprehensive initial assessments are complete. Currently these assessments are scheduled for the end of Quarter Two of FY2017, further annual targets will be set for these indicators and New Justice will start data collection process.
In this reporting period New Justice made measurable progress under ERs 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 1.3.3, 2.2.1, 3.1.3, 3.2.2 and 4.1.2. The key achievements include: adoption and implementation of the Law on High Council of Justice contributes to the indicator Number of laws, regulations and procedures enhancing judicial independence adopted; publishing 100% of the High Council of Justice (HQC)’ decisions on its website contributes to the indicator Percent of HCJ and HQC decisions published on their websites; Increasing number of courts implementing e-justice from three (baseline) to four contributes to the indicator Number of courts implementing e-justice systems.
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Program Independent, accountable, transparent and effective justice system that upholds the rule of law and is empowered to fight Goal corruption Ratio of Ukrainian justice system compliance with the European Commission Baseline assessment Indicator 1 Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD for Democracy through scheduled for Q3 of FY2017 Law (Venice Commission) Rule of Law Checklist.
49
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Objective 1 Judicial Independence and Self-Governance strengthened Sub- Objective Judicial independence established through reformed Constitutional, Statutory and Regulatory framework 1.1 Expected Constitutional safeguards for judicial independence strengthened in key areas, (including appointment, promotion, transfer, and discipline of judges), Result 1.1.1 comply with international and European standards of judicial independence, and reflect citizen input Indexed score for European Network of Councils for Judiciary Baseline assessment Indicator 2 (ENCJ) basket of Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 indicators for objective and subjective judicial independence. Expected Inclusive consultative processes for developing and implementing constitutional amendments, legislation, and other normative acts related to judicial Result 1.1.2 independence established Number of judicial personnel, GOU, and civil society On December 5-6, 2017 representatives New Justice conducted involved in public judicial self-governance conference. Conference Indicator 3 discussions on the Output Sep-16 0 104 104 200 200 400 participants discussed implementation of implementation of amended constitutional and provisions in Constitution legislative amendments regarding HCJ. regarding justice sector reform Expected The Judiciary positively influences the parliament and executive branch in the development and allocation of legislation affecting the judiciary, Result 1.1.3 including the judicial budget Expected Legislation, regulations, and operating procedures to implement constitutional amendments related to judicial independence adopted with public Result 1.1.4 notice and consultation
50
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Number of laws, regulations and Law on High Council of Indicator 4 procedures enhancing Output Sep-16 21 1 1 6 5 11 Justice judicial independence adopted Sub- Objective Judicial Self-Governance Strengthened 1.2 Indexed Score of ENCJ indicator on Baseline assessment Indicator 5 Organizational Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 Autonomy of the Judiciary Expected Authorities of Judicial self-governance bodies (e.g., the High Council of Justice, among others) clearly defined and understood by judicial leadership, Result 1.2.1 judges, and judicial personnel Percent of judges and judicial personnel who Survey is scheduled for Q2 Indicator 6 consider judicial self- Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD and Q3 of FY2017 governance in Ukraine effective Expected The Judiciary exerts leadership in developing strategies, objectives, and initiatives to effectively promote and protect its independence, while ensuring Result 1.2.2 accountability, integrity, transparency and high ethical standards Indexed Score of ENCJ Indicator 5 indicator on Baseline assessment measures this Organizational Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 ER Autonomy of the Judiciary Expected Representation and leadership of women judges in judicial governance bodies and courts enhanced Result 1.2.3
51
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Percent of female chief judges in courts and Baseline assessment Indicator 7 female chairpersons in Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A 30% 30% 30% scheduled for next quarter judicial governance bodies Expected Participation and inclusion of judges, judicial personnel, advocates, and citizens in judicial governance strengthened Result 1.2.4 Indicator 5 Indexed Score of ENCJ mentioned indicator on Baseline assessment above Organizational Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 measures this Autonomy of the ER Judiciary Expected Judicial performance standards for merit-based testing, vetting, recruitment, performance evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline, and lustration Result 1.2.5 established Number of judicial No changes since baseline. performance indicators HQC operates with 10 Indicator 8 Output Sep-16 10 10 10 30 30 30 adopted and judicial performance implemented indicators adopted in 2015. Expected Rules regarding corruption, judicial ethics and illegal conduct, as well as related disciplinary sanctions and enforcement procedures, strengthened Result 1.2.6 Expected Reporting of corruption, unethical or illegal conduct simplified and made more accessible for judges, judicial personnel, advocates, and citizens Result 1.2.7 Expected Protections increased for individuals who report corruption, unethical or illegal conduct against judges, judicial personnel and advocates Result 1.2.8 Number of newly developed or improved New Justice engaged tools for reporting international short-term corruption, unethical or experts to research and Indicator 9 Output Sep-16 0 0 0 3 3 7 illegal conducts such as identify European best standardized forms, practices of corruption web-based petitions, whistleblowers protection. hotlines etc
52
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Sub- Objective Judiciary exercises independence effectively 1.3 Indexed score for European Network of Councils for Judiciary Baseline assessment Indicator 10 Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD (ENCJ) indicators for scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 subjective judicial independence Expected The Judiciary exercises independence with regards to judges, personnel, budget authority, and other areas of judicial competence Result 1.3.1 Index score for ENCJ Baseline assessment Indicator 11 indicator for funding of Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 the Judiciary Expected The Judiciary effectively exercises competencies in judicial testing, vetting, recruitment, performance evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline and Result 1.3.2 lustration of judges using merit-based system Expected 90% of Judicial testing, vetting, recruitment, performance evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline and lustration results published online Result 1.3.3 HCJ: 445 decisions, all of Percent of HCJ and them available on HCJ web- HQC decisions Indicator 12 Output Sep-16 62% 95% 95% 80% 90% 100% site (100%). HQC: 26 published on their decisions, only one is websites published on HQC web-site (4%). Expected Implementation of ethics enforcement mechanisms strengthened Result 1.3.4 Expected Judges, judicial personnel, and advocates change attitudes towards reporting corruption, unethical or other illegal conduct by their peers Result 1.3.5
53
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Percent of judges, judicial personnel and advocates who acknowledge their Survey scheduled for Q2 Indicator 13 Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD responsibility for and Q3 of FY2017 reporting corruption, unethical or illegal conduct by their peers Expected Reporting of corruption, unethical or illegal conduct by judges, judicial personnel, advocates and citizens increased Result 1.3.6 Expected Protections for individuals who report corruption, unethical or illegal conduct against judges, judicial personnel and advocates applied Result 1.3.7 Percent of survey respondents who report known or Survey scheduled for Q2 Indicator 14 personally experienced Context Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD and Q3 of FY2017 cases of corruption, unethical, or illegal conduct Expected Number of disciplinary measures against judges, judicial personnel and advocates for corruption, unethical or illegal conduct increased Result 1.3.8 Number of discipline Indicator 15 sanctions implemented Outcome Sep-16 4 4 4 5 6 7 No changes since baseline. by judiciary and bar Sub- Objective Improper and unlawful external influence on Judiciary reduced 1.4 Indexed score for procedures in case of Baseline assessment Indicator 16 threat to independence. Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 Part of ENCJ basket for judicial independence
54
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Expected Judicial decisions are based solely on the facts and law, and reversed only through the appellate process Result 1.4.1 Score for quality of judgment in European Annual data for this context Indicator 17 Context Mar-16 2.81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A indicator is available in Business Association March of each year. Court Index Expected Members of the Presidential Administration, Government and Parliament engage the Judiciary in a constructive manner that respects judicial Result 1.4.2 independence and refrains from improperly or unlawfully interfering with the impartiality of judicial decision-making and professional conduct Expected Sufficient resources are allocated to protect judges and judicial personnel from threats such as harassment, assault, and other forms of intimidation Result 1.4.3 and violence Indexed score for Indicator 16 procedures in case of Baseline assessment measures threat to independence. Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 these ERs Part of ENCJ basket for judicial independence Expected Judges are empowered to report improper or illegal interference in their judicial decision making and conduct Result 1.4.4 Percent of judges survey respondents who acknowledge their Baseline assessment Indicator 18 readiness to report Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 improper or illegal interference in their judicial decision making Objective 2 Accountability and Transparency of the Judiciary to Citizens and the Rule of Law Increased Index score ENCJ indicators for Baseline assessment Indicator 19 Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD accountability of the scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 judiciary and judges
55
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Sub- Objective Transparency by the Judiciary Increased 2.1 Percent of Ukrainian courts and judicial Baseline assessment Indicator 20 institutions that Output Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 develop and publish annual reports. Expected Increased awareness among citizens of the right to and limitations of judicial transparency in courtroom proceedings and judicial governance Result 2.1.1 Expected Increased public access to courtroom and judicial governance proceedings in-person, on-line, via TV/radio, or through archived recordings and Result 2.1.2 records Percent of citizens Survey scheduled for Q2 Indicator 21 reporting that judiciary Context Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A and Q3 of FY2017 is open and transparent Expected Increased outreach by the Judiciary to the public and press Result 2.1.3 Number of communication Indicator 22 strategies implemented Output Sep-16 24 24 24 30 40 50 No changes since baseline. by courts and judicial institutions Expected 90% completion of financial and asset declarations by judges and judicial personnel, with 90% of judicial financial and asset declarations published Result 2.1.4 online Percent of financial and assets declarations by judges and judicial Baseline assessment Indicator 23 personnel posted in Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 Unified Registry of Public Officials Declarations
56
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Sub- Objective Horizontal Accountability -Checks and Balances on the Judiciary by other Branches of Government strengthened 2.2 Expected Lustration process concludes without violations of due process or human rights of lustrated judges and judicial personnel Result 2.2.1 This quarter New Justice conducted Study tour to Number of government Slovak Republic on anti- officials receiving USG- corruption courts (Nov 6- supported anti- 13, 2016). Participants Indicator 24 Output Sep-16 0 13 13 300 300 500 corruption training include law makers and (FAF Standard DR.2.4- justice sector personnel. 1) Disaggregation: 8 men and 5 women.
Expected Judiciary coordinates with the NAPC to develop and implement corruption-prevention measures within the Judiciary Result 2.2.2 Expected Judiciary facilitates NABU and Prosecutor General’s Office investigations into alleged corruption or other illicit conduct by judges or judicial Result 2.2.3 personnel Number of stakeholder This quarter New Justice meetings to improve established working cooperation in relationships with NABU and agreed upon areas for Indicator 25 corruption Output Sep-16 0 0 0 1 4 11 future cooperation. investigations involving Stakeholder meetings judiciary and executive scheduled for Q3 or Q4 of branch FY2017. Expected Judiciary coordinates with parliamentary oversight committees, with due respect for judicial independence and freedom from interference Result 2.2.4
57
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Number of meetings between judicial representatives and parliament Indicator 26 representatives to Output Sep-16 0 0 0 1 4 11 Related meetings scheduled facilitate judicial for Q3 or Q4 of FY2017. independence and freedom from interference Sub- Objective Social Accountability - Judiciary Held Accountable by Citizens, Civil Society and Independent Media 2.3 Percent of Ukrainian courts that implement Related activities scheduled Indicator 27 Output Sep-16 42% N/A N/A 55% 65% 75% user satisfaction for Q3 and Q4 of FY2017. surveys Percent of partner CSOs performance Indicator 28 improvement Outcome Sep-16 57% N/A N/A 60% 65% 75% Same as above recommendations implemented by courts Expected Citizens and CSOs actively participate in and monitor judicial reform processes at the local and national levels Result 2.3.1 Number of citizens providing inputs in judicial reform Indicator 29 Output Sep-16 21,151 N/A N/A 10,500 10,500 50,000 Same as above implementation and monitoring and court performance evaluation Expected Court operations improved through direct citizen feedback (e.g., CRCs) Result 2.3.2
58
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 CRC integral score for Indicator 30 Outcome Sep-16 0.84 N/A N/A 0.8 0.82 0.85 Same as above participating courts Expected Formal linkages between civil society and judicial, governmental and parliamentary institutions established (through, e.g., MOUS or joint strategies Result 2.3.3 and action plans) Number of formalized linkages between civil This quarter New Justice society and judicial, counts Memorandum of governmental and Cooperation between COJ Indicator 31 Output Sep-16 0 1 1 2 4 11 parliamentary and NGO “Human Rights institutions established, Vector” signed on Nov 29, documented and 2016 implemented Expected Citizen awareness of judicial reform and corruption increased Result 2.3.4 Percent of survey respondents who indicate that are fully Survey scheduled for Q3 of Indicator 32 Context Sep-16 7% N/A N/A 12% 15% 21% aware and mostly FY2017 aware about the judicial reform Expected Citizen reports to anti-corruption organizations and agencies increased Result 2.3.5 Percent of survey respondents who Survey scheduled for Q3 of Indicator 33 indicate their extremely Context Sep-16 50% N/A N/A 55% 65% 70% FY2017 negative attitude towards corruption Expected Judicial-reform oriented CSOs organizational capacity score increased Result 2.3.6
59
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 USAID CSO Sustainability Index for Baseline data collection Indicator 34 Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD project partner judicial scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 reform oriented CSO Expected Professional associations and Bar associations increase capacity for self-regulation and professional standards among members Result 2.3.7 USAID CSO Baseline data collection Indicator 35 Sustainability Index for Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 Bar Associations Expected Quality and volume of investigative journalism and other media reporting on corruption, judicial misconduct, judicial reforms, high-profile court Result 2.3.8 cases, and other rule of law issues increased Percent of journalists trained by Nove Pravosuddya who apply new knowledge and skills in their professional activities No programmatic activities Indicator 36 Output Sep-16 0 N/A N/A 20% 25% 30% took place during this reporting on reporting period. corruption, judicial misconduct, judicial reforms, high-profile court cases, and other rule of law issues Expected Quality and volume of investigative journalism and other media reporting on corruption, judicial misconduct, judicial reforms, high-profile court Result 2.3.9 cases, and other rule of law issues increased Number of CSOs analyzing financial assets No programmatic activities Indicator 37 Output Sep-16 1 N/A N/A 3 3 3 took place during this declarations by judges reporting period. and court staff Objective 3 Administration of Justice Enhanced
60
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Ratio of Ukrainian justice system compliance with the Commission for Baseline data collection Indicator 38 Efficiency of Justice Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 (CEPEJ) Check-list for Promoting the Quality of Justice and the Courts Number of USG- assisted courts with Related activities scheduled Indicator 39 improved case Output Sep-16 383 N/A N/A 150 150 500 for Q3 and Q4 of FY2017. management systems (FAF DR.1.5-1) Sub- Objective Judicial Administration Institutions, Policies, and Procedures Strengthened 3.1 Expected Judicial administration bodies function in more coherent and coordinated fashion Result 3.1.1 Expected Strategies, policies, and procedures for managing court operations, and providing quality services to the public implemented Result 3.1.2 International Framework for Judicial Support Excellence Baseline data collection Indicator 40 (IFJSE) score for justice Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 sector supporting institutions (MOJ, HQC, HCJ etc.) Expected Courts equipped with and use IT and e-justice systems to improve efficiency of workflow, case management and accessibility to services Result 3.1.3
61
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
New Justice’ partner courts that implement e-justice system this quarter: Number of courts Odessa Oblast Court of Appeals, Kyivskyi District Indicator 41 implementing e-justice Output Sep-16 3 4 4 5 6 TBD Court of Odessa Oblast, systems Ovidiopolskyi Raion Court of the City of Odessa, Vinnytsia Administrative Court of Appeals Expected Courts hear and conclude cases in a timely manner and without undue delays Result 3.1.4 Clearance rate of Ukrainian courts (key SJA data for the calendar Indicator 42 Context Mar-16 99% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A year 2016 will be available CEPEJ indicator for the next quarter efficiency of justice) Expected Judicial budgeting, financial management, internal controls and external auditing improved and compliant with national laws and international best Result 3.1.5 practice Expected Judicial procurement systems more transparent and compliant with national laws and international best practices Result 3.1.6 Efficiency use of resources in Ukrainian courts calculated by SJA data for the calendar Indicator 43 Context Mar-16 80% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A year 2016 will be available CEPEJ-recommended next quarter method of simple linear regression Sub- Objective Professional Competencies and Expertise of Judges and Judicial Personnel Improved 3.2 Expected NSJ methodologies, core curriculum, and trainers strengthened and meet international standards Result 3.2.1 Expected Judges and judicial assistants trained in core substantive and procedural law, judicial ethics, leadership, and management Result 3.2.2
62
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
This reporting period trainings include study tour to Slovakia on anti- Number of judicial corruption courts, study personnel trained with tour to Bosnia on court Indicator 44 Output Sep-16 5,067 57 57 500 600 6.500 USG assistance (FAF automation, anti-corruption Standard DR.1.3-1). curricula development for legal education personnel. Disaggregation: 36 men (63%), 21 women (37%). Expected Judicial personnel demonstrate competencies in key areas of management and operational support Result 3.2.3 Preparatory work with MSU and Ukrainian universities is Number of court in progress. Next round of Indicator 45 Output Sep-16 120 N/A N/A 40 60 320 administrators certified certified administrators is expected by the end of FY2017. Expected Attitude of judges and judicial personnel of themselves and their peers is positive (e.g., self-image as honest, professional, performing a public service, Result 3.2.4 not-corrupt) Percent of judges and judicial personnel annual survey Survey scheduled for Q3 of Indicator 46 respondents who admit Outcome Sep-16 89% N/A N/A 90% 91% 95% FY2017 their positive attitude to themselves and their peers Expected By the end of the Program, the NSJ is able to provide high-quality, modern, professional development services to judges and judicial personnel with Result 3.2.5 limited donor support Number of training curricula implemented Indicator 47 by NSJ without donor Output Sep-16 5 5 5 6 7 10 No changes since baseline support (or very limited donor support)
63
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Sub- Objective Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Strengthened 3.3 Number of organizations providing Indicator 48 Outcome Sep-16 7 7 7 7 10 20 No changes since baseline ADR services supported by Program Expected Comprehensive analyses of current context, barriers and opportunities for developing mediation and other ADR processes in Ukraine completed Result 3.3.1 Expected Normative (legislative, regulatory) framework for mediation and other ADR processes strengthened consistent with international best practices. Result 3.3.2 Number of laws, regulations and procedures for ADR Draft Law on Mediation Indicator 49 Output Sep-16 0 0 0 2 3 5 passed first reading in the processes developed Parliament. and improved with project support Expected Professional association for mediators and other ADR practitioners strengthened. Result 3.3.3 Expected Professional knowledge, expertise, and integrity of mediators enhanced Result 3.3.4 Expected Mediation and other ADR processes integrated into the legal culture and court processes. Result 3.3.5 Expected Use of mediation and other ADR processes in civil and commercial cases increased. Result 3.3.6 Organizational capacity score for association of Baseline data collection Indicator 50 mediators using the Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD scheduled for Q2 of FY2017 SCO Sustainability Index
64
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Sub- Objective System of Enforcement of Judgments Improved 3.4 Expected Normative framework for enforcement of judgments revised Result 3.4.1 Expected Rules and procedures for licensing, oversight, and assignment of private enforcement agents adopted Result 3.4.2 Number of project supported newly New Justice joined the adopted and improved Working Group to provide advisory support and Indicator 51 laws, regulations and Output Sep-16 0 0 0 2 TBD TBD expertise in launching procedures for private enforcement agents’ enforcement of profession. judgments Expected Association of Enforcement Agents established and cadre of private enforcement agents trained and certified Result 3.4.3 Number of private enforcement agents Indicator 52 Output Sep-16 0 0 0 TBD TBD TBD Same as above trained and certified with USAID support Enforcement agents equipped with the necessary systems, tools, and sufficient budgetary support to manage case load and adequately care for assets Expected under their supervision Result 3.4.4
Expected Judgments are enforced in a timely and effective manner Result 3.4.5 Percent of judgments enforced within Baseline data collection Indicator 53 Context Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD timeframe stipulated by planned for Q2 of FY2017. law Objective 4 Quality of Legal Education Strengthened
65
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Number of host country tertiary This quarter New Justice education institutions supported Odessa Law Indicator 54 receiving capacity Output Sep-16 10 2 2 12 14 20 Academy and Donetsk development support National University Law with USG assistance School (FAF ES.2-1) Sub- Objective National Strategy and Standards for Legal Education and Accreditation Adopted 4.1 Expected National education strategy and standards for legal education and accreditation adopted by Ministry of Education, with input the MOJ and key Result 4.1.1 stakeholders including representatives of civil society Number of policies and/or procedures developed with USAID This quarter New Justice support regarding supported the Working Indicator 55 Output Sep-16 0 0 0 3 TBD TBD Group on Developing Legal national standards for Education Reform Concept legal education and Paper and Action Plan. implemented by law school Expected Law school administrators, faculty leadership, and instructors aware of and understand national strategy and standards for legal education and Result 4.1.2 accreditation Number of tertiary- level educators and faculty who complete Disaggregation: 16 men Indicator 56 Output Sep-16 149 30 30 100 110 300 professional (53%) and 14 women (47%) development activities with USG assistance. Expected Law schools revise policies, procedures, and legal education practices in compliance with national standards for legal education and accreditation Result 4.1.3
66
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Number of host country tertiary This quarter New Justice Indicator 54 education institutions supported Odessa Law measures this receiving capacity Output Sep-16 10 2 2 12 14 20 Academy and Donetsk ER development support National University Law with USG assistance School (FAF ES.2-1) Expected A minimal standard and gold standard accreditation is adopted to increase competition among the law schools Result 4.1.4 Number of policies and/or procedures developed with USAID This quarter New Justice Indicator 55 support regarding supported the Working measures this Output Sep-16 0 0 0 3 TBD TBD Group on Developing Legal national standards for ER Education Reform Concept legal education and Paper and Action Plan. implemented by law school Sub- Objective Quality Assurance Frameworks for Law Schools Developed 4.2 Expected Policies and procedures for quality assurance frameworks based on international standards and comparative best practices adopted by leading law Result 4.2.1 schools Expected Law school administrators, faculty leadership, instructors, and student government representatives trained on nature, scope, and operation of QAF Result 4.2.2 Expected Quality Assurance Units in leading law schools established and functioning Result 4.2.3 Number of quality assurance units in law Related activity planned Indicator 57 schools established and Output Sep-16 0 N/A N/A N/A 10 20 outcome is expected in functioning with USAID FY2018 support
67
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Sub- Objective Quality Assurance Frameworks for Law Schools Developed 4.3 Expected Modern instructional methods adopted and implemented to ensure effective practice oriented, skills based learning and formally adopted into school Result 4.3.1 curriculum Expected Institutional curriculum effectively prepares law student for career in the Judiciary and other legal professions Result 4.3.2 Expected Law school legal clinics (including specialized clinics) developed and integrated into formal curriculum Result 4.3.3 Number of law schools implementing methodology of class Indicator 58 room effectiveness Output Sep-16 2 2 2 3 4 7 No changes since baseline rating using USAID- developed methodology Expected Judicial clerkship program created in coordination with judicial self-governance bodies and courts Result 4.3.4 Number of law schools Indicator 59 implementing judicial Output Sep-16 0 0 0 N/A 2 3 No changes this quarter clerkship program Expected Independent, external examinations for law school admissions and graduation implemented. Result 4.3.5 Expected Memorandum of Understanding concluded with key legal education partners to sustain USAID investments after the end of the Program. Result 4.3.6 Number of legal education partners concluded Indicator 60 Output Sep-16 3 3 3 3 4 7 No changes since baseline memorandum of understanding with USAID.
68
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017
Objective 5 Access to Justice Expanded and Human Rights Protected Sub- Objective Justice Accessible to Citizens, including the Most Vulnerable 5.1 Number of professionals trained to increase justice Indicator 61 accessibilities (sign Output Sep-16 589 0 0 100 100 800 No changes this quarter language interpreters, judges, judicial personnel) Expected Physical, geographic, cultural, financial, informational, legal and procedural barriers to the courts removed or lowered for all citizens, including Result 5.1.1 vulnerable groups Expected Citizens’ access to court information increased Result 5.1.2 CRC annual index for accessibility of court Next CRC round scheduled Indicator 62 Outcome Sep-16 0.84 N/A N/A 0.85 0.86 0.88 facility and access to for Q3 and Q4 of FY2017 information Expected E-justice systems accessible to citizens to ease case filing, tracking, document submission; payment and other court procedures and transactions Result 5.1.3 CRC Score for courts Next CRC round scheduled Indicator 63 Outcome Sep-16 0.76 N/A N/A 0.8 0.84 0.88 implementing e-justice for Q3 and Q4 of FY2017 Expected Citizens access to court-annexed mediation/ADR processes developed under 3.3 increased Result 5.1.4 Percent of CRC survey respondents that Next CRC round scheduled Indicator 64 indicate their Context Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD for Q3 and Q4 of FY2017 awareness about ADR opportunities
69
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Expected Awareness of the rights of Persons with Disabilities, SGBV survivors, IDPs, veterans and other vulnerable groups is increased among judges, judicial Result 5.1.5 personnel and advocates Expected SGBV survivors, children and other vulnerable victims or witnesses afforded greater protections Result 5.1.6 Percent of judges, judicial personnel and advocates annual survey respondents who Survey scheduled for Q2 Indicator 65 Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD acknowledge applying and Q3 of FY2017 their knowledge of the rights of vulnerable groups in their job Expected Citizens, including vulnerable groups, actively participate in access to justice reforms Result 5.1.7 Number of vulnerable group representatives participating in project- Indicator 66 Output Sep-16 50 0 0 60 75 150 No changes this quarter supported public events on access to justice reforms Sub- Objective Human Rights Protected, especially the rights of the most vulnerable 5.2 Number of human rights defenders trained Indicator 67 Output Sep-16 0 0 0 40 50 150 No changes this quarter and supported (FAF Standard DR.6.1-2) Expected Awareness of human rights and humanitarian law, how to exercise those rights, and the role of the courts in protecting human rights increased Result 5.2.1 among judges, judicial personnel and advocates Expected Increased number of human rights and humanitarian law cases resolved Result 5.2.2
70
Actual Actual Indicator Baseline Baseline Target Target Target Log Frame ID Log Frame Statement Quarter Annual Notes and Explanations Level M - Y Value 2017 2018 LOP 1 2017 2017 Expected Referral networks among judges, judicial personnel, advocates, social workers, health workers, police, and community leaders strengthened Result 5.2.3 Per cent of judges, judicial personnel and advocates who acknowledge their full Survey scheduled for Q2 Indicator 68 or mostly full Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD and Q3 of FY2017 awareness about the rights of vulnerable groups and humanitarian law Expected Human rights coalitions monitor and successfully advocate the GOU, Judiciary, and Legal Aid Centers for increased protection of human rights by Result 5.2.4 the courts Number of policy paper proposals, reports, and assessments prepared Indicator 69 by human right Output Sep-16 0 0 0 2 3 9 No changes since baseline coalition and submitted to GOU for consideration Expected Percent of judges who report their awareness of the Amicus Curie Institute Result 5.2.5 Percent of judges who report their awareness Survey scheduled for Q2 Indicator 70 Outcome Mar-17 TBD N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD of the Amicus Curie and Q3 of FY2017 Institute
71
ANNEX B. MILESTONES PROGRESS REPORT Nove Pravosuddya Justice Sector Reform Program. October 2016 – December 2016 (FY2017 Q1).
New Justice Work Plan for the Program Year One (FY2017) foresees 158 milestones under 80 Program Expected Results (ERs). Eight ERs do not have milestones for this Program Year because related activities are planned for next years, not the Year One. Although New Justice has just started and now is presenting its first quarterly report, the program achieved nine milestones. 63 milestones are in progress, e.g. related activity started and is underway. 86 milestones are pending as scheduled for the next reporting periods. This annex provides the detailed listing of all Program Year One milestones and their current status.
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY Program Goal: Independent, accountable, transparent and effective justice system that upholds the rule of law and is empowered to fight corruption
Objective 1: Judicial Independence and Self-Governance strengthened
Sub-Objective 1.1: Judicial independence established through reformed Constitutional, Statutory and Regulatory framework
Preliminary consent from experts Technical review of draft constitutional amendments 04/2017 Pending ER 1.1.1 Constitutional safeguards for related to human rights conducted received judicial independence strengthened in key Joint PTP anti-corruption court study visit to Slovakia 11/2016 Achieved areas, (including appointment, promotion, designed and implemented transfer, and discipline of judges), comply Draft concept paper for establishing the High Specialized The coordination working group with international and European standards 02/2017 In progress of judicial independence, and reflect Anti-Corruption Court developed conducts its meetings citizen input. The experts is working on the Amendments to Article 375 of the Criminal Code drafted 03/2017 In progress report ER1.1.2 Inclusive consultative processes for developing and implementing Six seminars conducted to promote the new constitutional Activities are planned later this 07/2017 Pending constitutional amendments, legislation, and legislative provisions with respect to judicial year and other normative acts related to judicial independence conducted independence established. ER1.1.3 The Judiciary positively Roundtable with key stakeholders on judicial 04/2017 Pending Activities are planned later this influences the parliament and executive independence and the rule of the law conducted year
72
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY branch in the development and allocation Information campaign on judicial independence launched Waiting for the Grant/Sub- 05/2017 Pending of legislation affecting the judiciary, contract Manual including the judicial budget. ER1.1.4 Legislation, regulations, and operating procedures to implement Public awareness campaign on judicial reform launched Waiting for the Grant/Sub- constitutional amendments related to 0532017 Pending contract Manual judicial independence adopted with public notice and consultation
Sub-Objective 1.2: Judicial Self-Governance Strengthened
Judicial self-governance conference conducted 12/2016 Achieved ER 1.2.1 Authorities of Judicial self- governance bodies (e.g., the High Council HCJ internal rules of procedure developed Started discussing this issue of Justice, among others) clearly defined 09/2017 Pending during JSG conference, will be and understood by judicial leadership, part of BPA efforts judges, and judicial personnel. Work will start after HCJ begins HCJ governance structure, including specialized 09/2017 Pending committees, established operations under the new law
ER 1.2.2 The Judiciary exerts leadership in Online tools to promote compliance with ethical standards 09/2017 Pending developing strategies, objectives, and developed and expanded. initiatives to effectively promote and Up to up to six judicial forums on strengthening judicial protect its independence, while ensuring 2 out 6 judicial forums already independence and judicial administration conducted 9/2017 In progress accountability, integrity, transparency and conducted high ethical standards Judicial statistics take into account gender disaggregation On December 23, 2016 the SJA data 9/2017 In progress established the Working Group on improving judicial statistic New Justice is in the process of ER 1.2.3 Representation and leadership of Gender index for the judiciary developed 9/2017 In progress women judges in judicial governance hiring respective expert New Justice is in the process of bodies and courts enhanced. Research on women judges as leaders conducted 9/2017 In progress hiring respective expert Training curriculum for women judges on leadership and 9/2017 Pending Waiting for Grants Manual gender awareness developed
73
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY
ER 1.2.4 Participation and inclusion of Forum promoting a dialogue between the judiciary and 11/2016 Achieved judges, judicial personnel, advocates, and civil society conducted citizens in judicial governance Two roundtable discussions aimed at promoting improved Related activity planned for next 09/2017 Pending strengthened. bar-bench relations conducted quarter Analyses and recommendations on the regulatory framework for judicial selection and qualifications 09/2017 In progress evaluation developed On January 17, NSJ transferred ER 1.2.5 Judicial performance standards Test items for anonymous testing procedures for selecting new Supreme Court justices developed 01/2017 Achieved to the HQC developed and for merit-based testing, vetting, evaluated test items recruitment, performance evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline, and Training for test item evaluators conducted 10/2016 Achieved lustration established. New Justice is in the process of Tools for psychological and general abilities testing for 4/2017 In progress judicial candidates and judges standardized hiring respective expert
Set of comprehensive materials on judicial selection and 12/2016 Achieved performance evaluation provided to the HCJ Report with recommendations on amending rules ER 1.2.6 Rules regarding corruption, regarding judicial corruption, violation of judicial ethics judicial ethics and illegal conduct, as well and illegal conduct of judges, judicial personnel, advocates 04/2017 In progress as related disciplinary sanctions and and citizens prepared and disseminated enforcement procedures, strengthened.
Report on legal obstacles and disincentive mechanisms for 04/2017 In progress reporting judicial corruption developed and disseminated ER 1.2.7 Reporting of corruption, Survey on reporting judicial corruption and protection of Activity is contingent on approval unethical or illegal conduct simplified and 09/2017 Pending informers and whistleblowers conducted of SAF Manual made more accessible for judges, judicial personnel, advocates, and citizens. Informational materials on reporting judicial corruption Work will start upon completion and protection and incentive mechanisms for those who 07/2017 Pending of respective expert' report report designed and disseminated under this ER ER 1.2.8 Protections increased for Report with recommendations on legal mechanisms on the individuals who report corruption, protection and incentives for individuals who report 04/2017 In progress unethical or illegal conduct against judges, judicial corruption developed and disseminated judicial personnel and advocates.
74
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY
Sub-Objective 1.3: Judiciary exercises independence effectively ER 1.3.1 The Judiciary exercises Survey of judges on judicial independence and independence with regards to judges, Activity is contingent on approval accountability conducted 09/2017 Pending personnel, budget authority, and other of SAF Manual areas of judicial competence. New Justice hired respective Recommendations to improve the legal and regulatory 9/2017 In progress framework for the PIC developed expert Related activity planned for next Roundtable to discuss the results of the selection of new 4/2017 Pending ER 1.3.2 The Judiciary effectively Supreme Court justices conducted quarter exercises competencies in judicial testing, Monitoring of processes for judicial selection and New Justice is in the process of vetting, recruitment, performance hiring respective expert. Waiting evaluation conducted 9/2017 In progress evaluation, transfer, promotion, discipline for Grants Manual and lustration of judges using merit-based system. Concept paper for establishing judicial testing center NSJ with New Justice expert support developed draft Concept developed 9/2017 In progress Paper and Regulation on the Tasting Center ER 1.3.3 90% of Judicial testing, vetting, Analysis of the legislative and regulatory framework recruitment, performance evaluation, New Justice is in the process of regarding the online publication of information regarding 9/2017 In progress transfer, promotion, discipline and hiring respective expert. the judicial selection, promotion and discipline developed lustration results published online. Report with recommendations on amending HCJ internal 03/2017 In progress regulations developed Related activity is pending of ER 1.3.4 Implementation of ethics IT needs assessment of the HCJ conducted 07/2017 Pending finalization New Justice SAF enforcement mechanisms strengthened. manual. Related activity will start next Curriculum for initial training of HCJ judicial inspectors 09/2017 Pending developed quarter ER 1.3.5 Judges, judicial personnel, and Roundtable on reporting judicial corruption by peers advocates change attitudes towards Work will start upon completion conducted 09/2017 Pending reporting corruption, unethical or other of survey under ER 1.2.7 illegal conduct by their peers.
75
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY ER 1.3.6 Reporting of corruption, unethical or illegal conduct by judges, TBD N/A N/A No activities planned for FY2017 judicial personnel, advocates and citizens increased. ER 1.3.7 Protections for individuals who report corruption, unethical or illegal TBD N/A N/A No activities planned for FY2017 conduct against judges, judicial personnel and advocates applied. ER 1.3.8 Number of disciplinary measures against judges, judicial personnel and TBD N/A N/A No activities planned for FY2017 advocates for corruption, unethical or illegal conduct increased.
Sub-Objective 1.4: Improper and unlawful external influence on Judiciary reduced ER 1.4.1 Judicial decisions are based Judicial opinion writing manual and curriculum updated Waiting for the Grant/Sub- solely on the facts and law, and reversed 06/2017 Pending contract Manual only through the appellate process. Waiting for the Grant/Sub- ER 1.4.2 Members of the Presidential International Standards for the Judiciary book updated and 09/2017 Pending Administration, Government and broadly disseminated contract Manual Parliament engage the Judiciary in a At least one mechanism for bar-bench cooperation constructive manner that respects judicial established independence and refrains from Activities will be conducted later 09/2018 Pending improperly or unlawfully interfering with this year the impartiality of judicial decision- making and professional conduct. ER 1.4.3 Sufficient resources are allocated Assessment report on the resources needed to protect to protect judges and judicial personnel judges and judicial personnel from threats, intimidation, Activities will be conducted later from threats such as harassment, assault, and violence drafted 04/2017 Pending this year and other forms of intimidation and violence. ER 1.4.4 Judges are empowered to report Standardized form and guidelines for judges and court Activities will be conducted later improper or illegal interference in their staff to report improper or illegal interference developed 03/2017 Pending this year judicial decision making and conduct.
76
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY
Objective 2: Accountability and Transparency of the Judiciary to Citizens and the Rule of Law Increased
Sub-Objective 2.1: Transparency by the Judiciary Increased Up to 5 participants of “Limits of Transparent Justice” New Justice supported participation of two COJ conference supported 12/2016 Achieved ER 2.1.1 Increased awareness among members in “Limits of Transparent Justice” Conference citizens of the right to and limitations of Related activity will start in April judicial transparency in courtroom Public awareness campaign designed and implemented 09/2017 Pending proceedings and judicial governance. 2017 Related activity planned for June “Judicial Images” conference conducted 06/2017 Pending 2017 Public awareness campaigns regarding the HCJ and HQC This activity is pending Grant ER 2.1.2 Increased public access to Policy Manual approval by USAID conducted 09/2017 Pending courtroom and judicial governance and planned to start in March proceedings in-person, on-line, via 2017 TV/radio, or through archived recordings Audio and visual needs assessment regarding HCJ and Related activity planned for next and records. 03/2017 Pending HQC conducted quarter Related activity planned for next Regional series of training programs for judge-speakers 05/2017 Pending ER 2.1.3 Increased outreach by the and PIOs conducted quarter Judiciary to the public and press. Related activity planned for next Job descriptions for judge-speakers and PIOs updated 03/2017 Pending quarter ER 2.1.4 90% completion of financial and asset declarations by judges and judicial Number of judicial declarations published online increased 03/2017 In progress personnel, with 90% of judicial financial and asset declarations published online.
Sub-Objective 2.2: Horizontal Accountability -Checks and Balances on the Judiciary by other Branches of Government strengthened Monitoring of the judicial vetting process conducted ER 2.2.1 Lustration process concludes 09/17 Pending Waiting for Grants Manual without violations of due process or human rights of lustrated judges and Results of the monitoring of the lustration of public officials 09/17 Pending Waiting for Grants Manual judicial personnel. conducted and discussed New Justice Program is hiring ER 2.2.2 Judiciary coordinates with the International and European best practices in preventing 09/17 In Progress NAPC to develop and implement judicial corruption identified and shared respective experts
77
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY corruption-prevention measures within the NAPC capacity to implement measures to prevent judicial 09/17 In Progress Same as above Judiciary corruption assessed Dialogue between the NAPC and judiciary established 09/17 In Progress
New Justice Program hiring ER 2.2.3 Judiciary facilitates NABU and International and European best practices in investigating 09/17 In Progress Prosecutor General’s Office investigations judicial corruption collected and disseminated respective experts into alleged corruption or other illicit NABU capacity to investigate corruption related cases 09/17 In Progress Same as above conduct by judges or judicial personnel judges assessed ER 2.2.4 Judiciary coordinates with Report with international and European best practices parliamentary oversight committees, with related to effective communications between the judiciary 09/17 In Progress Same as above due respect for judicial independence and and Parliament drafted and disseminated freedom from interference.
Sub-Objective 2.3: Social Accountability - Judiciary Held Accountable by Citizens, Civil Society and Independent Media Assessment of CSO capacity to monitor and contribute to 05/17 In progress the implementation of judicial reform completed ER 2.3.1 Citizens and CSOs actively participate in and monitor judicial reform Up to four CSO projects on monitoring judicial Related activity will start after the New Justice Grant Manual processes at the local and national levels. performance evaluation, selection and discipline as well as 05/18 Pending overall judicial reform implemented. approval and publishing Annual Program Statement
Results of 2015-2016 CRC surveys in courts analyzed and 09/17 In progress communicated. ER 2.3.2 Court operations improved CRC surveys conducted in at least 150 courts that through direct citizen feedback (e.g., 12/17 Pending Related activity will start after participate in this initiative first time CRCs) the New Justice Grant Manual Court staff in at least 100 courts learned how to conduct approval and announcement of 12/17 Pending CRC surveys and utilize their results RFA ER 2.3.3 Formal linkages between civil At least five formal linkages between judicial reform society and judicial, governmental and Signed MoU between Council of oriented CSO and their GOU partners newly established or parliamentary institutions established 09/17 In progress Judges of Ukraine and Human strengthened (through, e.g., MOUS or joint strategies Rights Vector NGO and action plans). Waiting for the ER 2.3.4 Citizen awareness of judicial Information materials updated 03/2017 Pending reform and corruption increased. Grant/Subcontract Manual
78
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY Local expert began the GOUs capacity to provide citizens with effective tools to 06/17 In Progress report corruption in the judiciary assessed. assessment Survey of the public awareness on corruption reporting ER 2.3.5 Citizen reports to anti-corruption 09/17 Pending Waiting for Grant Manual procedures and mechanisms conducted organizations and agencies increased. Public awareness materials on effective reporting of the corruption in the judiciary developed, published and 09/17 Pending Same as above disseminated Baseline organizational capacity score for judicial reform oriented CSOs calculated and verified by Stakeholder 05/17 In progress ER 2.3.6 Judicial-reform oriented CSOs Advisory Group organizational capacity score increased. Online training program on organizational capacity Related activity will start after development for judicial reform oriented designed and 09/17 Pending completion of partner CSO implemented institutional capacity assessment Bar Professional Conduct Rules revised Preliminary discussions with the ER 2.3.7 Professional associations and Bar 06/2017 Pending National Bar Association associations increase capacity for self- conducted regulation and professional standards Survey of lawyers conducted Preliminary discussions with the among members. 04/2017 Pending National Bar Association conducted ER 2.3.8 Quality and volume of Regional series of training programs for journalists Related activities will start next 06/2017 Pending investigative journalism and other media conducted quarter reporting on corruption, judicial Courts and Media Manual for Journalists updated and misconduct, judicial reforms, high-profile Related activities will start next disseminated 06/2017 Pending court cases, and other rule of law issues quarter increased.
ER 2.3.9 Media and CSOs analyze and CSO monitoring of financial asset declarations submitted Related activity will start after the New Justice Grant Manual publicize financial and asset declarations by judges and court staff conducted 05/18 Pending approval and publishing Annual compared to actual lifestyle. Program Statement
Objective 3: Administration of Justice Enhanced
Sub-Objective 3.1: Judicial Administration Institutions, Policies, and Procedures Strengthened
79
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY ER 3.1.1 Judicial administration bodies Coordination of activities between HCJ and COJ takes function in more coherent and coordinated place in a structured and sustainable format 09/2017 In progress fashion.
IFJSE presented and discussed with members of the HCJ, 09/2017 In progress ER 3.1.2 Strategies, policies, and COJ and SJA procedures for managing court operations, and providing quality services to the Analytical report on best international practices in the field public implemented. of court consolidation prepared and submitted to the HCJ, 09/2017 In progress Translation of CEPEJ re COJ and SJA Two TORs for Business Process Analysis for the HCJ and 06/2017 In progress ER 3.1.3 Courts equipped with and use IT the courts prepared, service providers identified and e-justice systems to improve efficiency of workflow, case management Two study tours conducted for HCJ and SJA staff to Tour to Bosnia completed, tour and accessibility to services. Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina to study successful 04/2017 In progress to Moldova preliminarily international court automation experiences scheduled for April Up to six regional discussions to promote the experience 04/2017 In progress Conducted 1 in Vinnytsia ER 3.1.4 Courts hear and conclude cases of the e-Court project conducted in a timely manner and without undue Reasons for delays in court proceedings evaluated, delays. recommendations for improvement prepared and 09/2017 Pending Will be part of the BPA submitted to the HCJ, COJ and SJA ER 3.1.5 Judicial budgeting, financial management, internal controls and external Two seminars for court personnel responsible for auditing improved and compliant with budgeting and finance on best international practices in 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year national laws and international best court budgeting and statistics conducted practice ER 3.1.6 Judicial procurement systems Processes and procedures currently governing court more transparent and compliant with procurement evaluated, and recommendations prepared 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year national laws and international best and submitted to COJ, SJA and HCJ practices
Sub-Objective 3.2: Professional Competencies and Expertise of Judges and Judicial Personnel Improved Judicial training program on anti-corruption issues and 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year handling corruption cases updated
80
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY ER 3.2.1 NSJ methodologies, core Training program for newly appointed judges of the curriculum, and trainers strengthened and Supreme Court of Ukraine developed 06/2017 In progress meet international standards.
ER 3.2.2 Judges and judicial assistants Course for chief judges on Courts and Community 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year trained in core substantive and procedural Communications developed law, judicial ethics, leadership, and Course for judge-speakers on Courts and Community 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year management. Communications developed Up to 80 court administrators share their experience, 03/17 In progress approaches, and results on capstone project implementation in their courts. Agreement signed on design and implementation of the academic certificate course on judicial administration 09/17 In progress between Karazin Kharkiv National University, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University and Michigan State ER 3.2.3 Judicial personnel demonstrate University competencies in key areas of management Waiting for finalizing SOW and University faculty recruited for the academic certificate 09/17 Pending and operational support. subcontract with US University course on judicial administration to be signed Waiting for finalizing SOW and Teaching plan prepared for the academic certificate course 09/17 Pending subcontract with US University on judicial administration to be signed In the process Participation of up to 5 judicial leaders in the IACA Eighth 09/17
International Conference supported
ER 3.2.4 Attitude of judges and judicial personnel of themselves and their peers is positive (e.g., self-image as honest, TBD N/A N/A No activities planned for FY2017 professional, performing a public service, not-corrupt).
81
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY ER 3.2.5 By the end of the Program, the NSJ is able to provide high-quality, modern, professional development TBD N/A N/A No activities planned for FY2017 services to judges and judicial personnel with limited donor support.
Sub-Objective 3.3: Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Strengthened
ER 3.3.1 Comprehensive analyses of Strategy and Recommendations developed and presented current context, barriers and opportunities to Ukrainian stakeholders for how mediation would be 09/2017 In progress for developing mediation and other ADR best implemented in Ukraine processes in Ukraine completed. Conference on Online Dispute Resolution conducted 04/2017 In progress Two discussions of a draft Law on Mediation conducted ER 3.3.2 Normative (legislative, 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year regulatory) framework for mediation and other ADR processes strengthened Up to 15 representatives of Ukrainian stakeholders consistent with international best practices. participated in a Study Tour to the Superior Court of the 06/2017 In progress District of Columbia in Washington, DC A working group to develop consolidated approaches to ER 3.3.3 Professional association for rules of conduct, accreditation procedure, selection and mediators and other ADR practitioners 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year trainings of mediators, monitoring of their activities, strengthened. continuous trainings created ER 3.3.4 Professional knowledge, 16 representatives of regional free legal aid centers and expertise, and integrity of mediators NGOs participated in training on mediation skills and 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year enhanced earned certificates ER 3.3.5 Mediation and other ADR Mediation information campaign developed 09/2017 Pending Will happen later in the year processes integrated into the legal culture and court processes. ER 3.3.6 Use of mediation and other ADR processes in civil and commercial cases TBD N/A N/A No activities planned for FY2017 increased.
Sub-Objective 3.4: System of Enforcement of Judgments Improved
82
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY Conduct a review of the legislative framework for enforcement of judgements based on the best international 07/17 In Progress Hiring respective expert ER 3.4.1 Normative framework for and European practices enforcement of judgments revised. Recommendations on improving enforcement processes 07/17 In Progress Same as above and procedures provided ER 3.4.2 Rules and procedures for licensing, oversight, and assignment of TBD N/A N/A No activities planned for FY2017 private enforcement agents adopted. ER 3.4.3 Association of Enforcement Foreign expertise to support establishment of the Waiting for the Association to be 09/17 Pending Agents established and cadre of private Association of Enforcement Agents provided established enforcement agents trained and certified. ER 3.4.4 Enforcement agents equipped with the necessary systems, tools, and Waiting for the first batch of sufficient budgetary support to manage Enforcement agents provided with the best international 09/17 Pending private enforcement agents to be case load and adequately care for assets tools for enforcement of judgements certified. under their supervision.
ER 3.4.5 Judgments are enforced in a Baseline for the enforcement of judgements identified 09/17 Pending Same as above timely and effective manner. Objective 4: Quality of Legal Education Strengthened
Sub-Objective 4.1: National Strategy and Standards for Legal Education and Accreditation Adopted
Draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper improved 03/17 In progress ER 4.1.1 National education strategy and and prepared for the Cabinet of Ministers’ approval standards for legal education and Draft Legal Education Reform Action Plan developed 03/17 In progress accreditation adopted by Ministry of Education, with input the MOJ and key Draft Legal Education Standards improved based on the Waiting for the Legal Education stakeholders including representatives of Legal Education Reform Concept Paper and regional civil society. 04/17 Pending Reform Concept Paper to be stakeholder discussions and prepared for the MOE approved. approval
83
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY Three regional presentations and roundtable legal In addition to the planned education stakeholder discussions on the draft Legal regional discussions, New Justice also supported the discussions of Education Reform Concept Paper in Kharkiv, Chernivtsi, 11/16 Achieved and Dnipro conducted the draft Legal Education Reform Concept Paper in Odesa and ER 4.1.2 Law school administrators, Vinnitsia. faculty leadership, and instructors aware of Three regional presentations and roundtable legal Waiting for the National Legal and understand national strategy and education stakeholder discussions on the National Legal standards for legal education and 06/17 Pending Education Standards to be Education Standards in Kharkiv, Lviv, and Odesa adopted. accreditation. conducted Up to four TOTs on implementing the National Legal Waiting for the National Legal Education Standards to be Education Standards for law school administrators, faculty 09/17 Pending leadership, instructors, and students representing at least adopted. 10 Ukraine's leading law schools nationwide conducted
External, independent, onsite assessment of legal 03/17 In progress ER 4.1.3 Law schools revise policies, education quality at the NUOLA conducted procedures, and legal education practices CNU and NUOLA revised their policies, procedures and in compliance with national standards for legal education practices in light of the ESG, best 09/17 In progress legal education and accreditation. international legal education practices, and national standards for legal education and accreditation
Report on Practices of Bar Associations in Advancing 11/2016 Achieved ER 4.1.4 A minimal standard and gold Legal Education presented to Ukrainian bar associations standard accreditation is adopted to Draft Methodology for Public Accreditation of Ukrainian increase competition among the law Waiting for the Annual Program 09/17 Pending schools. Law Schools based on the objective, pre-established Statement criteria developed Sub-Objective 4.2: Quality Assurance Frameworks for Law Schools Developed Study tour to the U.S.A. for up to 15 policy-makers, ER 4.2.1 Policies and procedures for representatives of leading Ukrainian law schools, and quality assurance frameworks based on Ukrainian bar associations aimed at learning policies and international standards and comparative 09/17 In progress procedures for comprehensive legal education quality best practices adopted by leading law assurance conducted schools.
84
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY Up to four TOTs on nature, scope, and application of the ER 4.2.2 Law school administrators, ESG and the ESG-based Methodology for External, faculty leadership, instructors, and student Independent, On-Site Assessment of Legal Education New Justice planned this activity 08/17 Pending government representatives trained on Quality for law school administrators, faculty leadership, for March – July 2017. nature, scope, and operation of QAF. instructors, and student government members representing at least 10 Ukraine's leading law schools conducted ER 4.2.3 Quality Assurance Units in Draft concept paper on a model Legal Education Quality New Justice planned this activity leading law schools established and Assurance Unit and its business processes developed 09/17 Pending for April - September 2017. functioning. Sub-Objective 4.3: Practice Oriented and Skills Based Instruction, Curriculum, and Activities Integrated Concept and draft curriculum for the certificate program in The draft SOW for the subcontract to develop the rule of law developed 05/2017 In progress curriculum prepared and will be published shortly. Up to two basic TOT on modern methods of interactive Due to the busy program teaching and learning the law for law school faculty and schedule, in particular because of student self-governance members representing at least 10 the regional discussions of the draft Legal Education Reform Ukraine’s leading law schools conducted 05/17 Pending Concept Paper, New Justice ER 4.3.1 Modern instructional methods postponed this activity to spring adopted and implemented to ensure 2017. effective practice oriented, skills based learning and formally adopted into school Capacity of up to four Ukraine’s leading law schools to curriculum. deliver high-quality anti-corruption education enhanced and the international online anticorruption course in up to 05/17 In progress four of Ukraine’s leading law schools implemented in cooperation with the W&L
Draft Rules of Procedure for the implementation of the 08/17 In progress CNU Law School Honor Code developed Assistance in conducting up to 12 events aimed at raising public awareness about global trends in the understanding 09/17 In progress of the rule of law provided
85
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY Chernivtsi Department of the Student Anticorruption Action Center’s capacity to fight corruption in the 09/17 In progress academia strengthened Draft concept paper on the nature, mandate, and operations ER 4.3.2 Institutional curriculum of Law School Boards of External Advisors aimed to Waiting for the Annual Program effectively prepares law student for career ensure the law school curriculum effectively prepares law 09/17 Pending Statement in the Judiciary and other legal students for career in the judiciary and other legal professions. professions developed Report on international and European best practices of managing and monitoring the legal clinics presented to 04/2017 Pending stakeholders
Draft Model Clinical Legal Education Program developed 09/2017 Pending and reviewed using international expertise ER 4.3.3 Law school legal clinics Standards for Legal Clinics reviewed using international 04/2017 Pending (including specialized clinics) developed expertise and integrated into formal curriculum. Draft Regulation on Legal Clinics reviewed using The Draft Regulation is being developed by the WG after international expertise 05/2017 In progress which it will be reviewed by the expert.
Draft Concept Paper on Anticorruption Legal Clinic 09/2017 Pending developed Report on international and European best practices for ER 4.3.4 Judicial clerkship program organizing and managing judicial clerkship programs 07/2017 Pending created in coordination with judicial self- presented to stakeholders governance bodies and courts. Guidelines for judicial clerkship programs developed by 09/2017 Pending the joint working group ER 4.3.5 Independent, external Mandatory, independent, external entrance exam for examinations for law school admissions master’s degree programs in law implemented nationwide 09/2017 In progress and graduation implemented.
86
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY Memorandum of Understanding with key legal education New Justice plans to conclude ER 4.3.6 Memorandum of Understanding reform stakeholders to ensure smooth implementation of memorandums of understanding with key legal education reform concluded with key legal education the USAID Nove Pravosyddya Program and sustainability 03/2017 Pending partners to sustain USAID investments of USAID investments after the end of the Program partners, including the MOE and after the end of the Program. executed the MOJ, during the next reporting period. Objective 5: Access to Justice Expanded and Human Rights Protected
Sub-Objective 5.1: Justice Accessible to Citizens, including the Most Vulnerable
ER 5.1.1 Physical, geographic, cultural, Results of previous CRC surveys in Ukrainian courts 09/17 Pending financial, informational, legal and regarding barriers in access to courts analyzed procedural barriers to the courts removed Recommendations to remove or lower barriers to access or lowered for all citizens, including courts developed and communicated to the GOU 09/17 Pending Related activity will start after vulnerable groups. the New Justice Grant Manual approval and announcement of Results of previous CRC surveys in Ukrainian courts 09/17 Pending RFA ER 5.1.2 Citizens’ access to court regarding access to court information analyzed information increased. Recommendations to improve access to court information 09/17 Pending developed and communicated to GOU
Expert evaluation of three e-courts in Odessa oblast 06/17 In progress ER 5.1.3 E-justice systems accessible to regarding their systems accessibility to citizens completed citizens to ease case filing, tracking, document submission; payment and other Expert recommendations to improve e-court services court procedures and transactions. accessibility developed and communicated to HCJ, SJA 06/17 In progress and courts ER 5.1.4 Citizens access to court-annexed mediation/ADR processes developed TBD N/A N/A No activities planned for FY2017 under 3.3 increased. Grant issued to conduct monitoring of access to the courts ER 5.1.5 Awareness of the rights of and court services for people with disabilities (PWD) and Persons with Disabilities, SGBV support activities on awareness of PWD rights among 09/17 Waiting for USAID approval of survivors, IDPs, veterans and other Pending judges though design and implementation of the program the Grant Manual vulnerable groups is increased among on increasing communication skills in work with PWD for judges, judicial personnel and advocates. judges.
87
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY 09/17 Waiting for USAID approval of Grant issued to train and certify sign language court Pending interpreters. the Grant Manual Grant issued on awareness of the rights of SGBV 09/17 Waiting for USAID approval of Pending survivors, IDPS, veterans and other vulnerable groups the Grant Manual among judges, judicial personnel and advocates. Grant issued to support elimination of LGBTI 09/17 Waiting for USAID approval of Pending communities discrimination and to ensure better protection the Grant Manual of their rights through the courts Roundtable to discuss status and needs of the judicial New Justice will organize authorities in preparation of implementation of the COE roundtable after the completion Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence 09/2017 Pending of the report on the problems against Women and Domestic Violence (COE Istanbul and needs conducted by La Convention) after its ratification conducted Strada Ukraine NGO Grant issued to support NSJ in developing training course Waiting for USAID approval of 09/2017 Pending for judges on implementation of the COE Istanbul the Grant Manual Convention Research on access to justice for SGBV victims affected New Justice is in the process of ER 5.1.6 SGBV survivors, children and 09/2017 In progress by conflicts: international experience and hiring respective expert. other vulnerable victims or witnesses recommendations for Ukraine conducted afforded greater protections. Event to discuss needs and problems of SGBV survivors, New Justice will conduct an children and other vulnerable victims or witnesses event after the completion of the afforded greater access to justice conducted Research on access to justice for 09/2017 Pending SGBV victims affected by conflicts: international experience and recommendations for Ukraine Training curricula for judges and judicial personnel on New Justice is in the process of 09/2017 In progress implementation of UN SCR 1325, access to justice for hiring respective expert GBV and SGBV survivors developed Community Justice Center concept paper developed and 09/17 In progress ER 5.1.7 Citizens, including vulnerable presented to the GOU and Ukrainian civil society groups, actively participate in access to justice reforms. Paralegal training program developed
88
Estimated Expected Result Milestone Statement Completion Status Notes and Explanations MM/YY Sub-Objective 5.2: Human Rights Protected, especially the rights of the most vulnerable ER 5.2.1 Awareness of human rights and Training curricula for judges on application of the IHL and humanitarian law, how to exercise those protection of the rights of the most vulnerable in conflict rights, and the role of the courts in 09/17 In progress context developed protecting human rights increased among judges, judicial personnel and advocates National practice on execution of the ECHR judgements ER 5.2.2 Increased number of human improved 09/17 In progress rights and humanitarian law cases resolved
ER 5.2.3 Referral networks among judges, Referral networks among judges, judicial personnel, judicial personnel, advocates, social advocates, social workers, health workers, and police and 09/17 In progress workers, health workers, police, and community leaders are in place community leaders strengthened ER 5.2.4 Human rights coalitions monitor Related activity will start after and successfully advocate the GOU, Up to three CSOs selected and supported in monitoring the New Justice Grant Manual Judiciary, and Legal Aid Centers for 04/17 Pending and advocating for human rights protection by the courts approval and announcement increased protection of human rights by of RFA the courts. ER 5.2.5 Judiciary coordinates regularly with the Human Rights Ombudsman and Partnership among judiciary and key human rights other key human rights institutions to institutions strengthened 09/17 In progress improve the protection of human rights and humanitarian law through the courts.
89