Pristina – Kosovo Law Institute (KLI), with the support of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX), within the project “Building trust in the judicial system and enhancing realization of human rights through lay trial monitoring”, published the report “Justice in the eyes of citizens”, as a result of court hearings monitoring by citizens
For the first time, the monitoring of the criminal justice system in Kosovo by lay citizens has brought a direct perspective on how they see the transparency and performance of the justice system in respecting human rights and fair trial standards.
18 lay monitors, selected based on a diverse set of criteria, including gender, ethnicity, age, education and profession, monitored a total of 360 court hearings in five Basic Courts (Pristina, Prizren, Pejë/Peć, Gjilan/Gnjilane and Mitrovica) and two Branches of the Basic Courts (Gllogovc/Glogovac, Vushtrri/Vučitrn).
The monitoring findings show that the courts in the criminal field are almost entirely transparent. Out of 360 monitored hearings, it results that 347 or 97% were open to the public: 311 or 86% of the hearings were held in courtrooms, whereas 49 or 14% of them were held in the offices of judges. In 358 or 99.5% of these hearings the citizens had easy access to the court, whereas in 300 or 84% monitored hearings, judges had a good approach to the monitors and the public. In 54 or 15.5% of the cases judges had a friendly approach, whereas in 3 or 0.5% of them, the judges did not have a good approach to the monitors and the public.
Respect for fundamental rights and freedoms in a criminal procedure is a prerequisite for a fair, impartial, and professional trial, based on the most advanced standards of criminal justice. In this regard, citizens’ perception of how criminal proceedings are conducted is vital towards building citizens’ trust in the judicial system. The monitoring findings in this regard show that out of 360 monitored hearings, in 357 or 99.8% of them the citizens managed to clearly identify the parties to the proceedings such as the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel etc.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 297 or 82% of them, citizens declared that they have understood clearly the charges against the accused, in 47 or 13% of them, citizens declared that they have not understood clearly the charges against the accused; while in 16 or 5% of them, citizens declared that they did not know whether they have clearly understood the charges against the accused.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 311 or 87% of them, citizens declared that the court asked the defendant if he/she understands the charges, in 30 or 8% of them citizens declared that the court did not ask the defendant if he/she understands the charges, whereas in 19 or 5% of them citizens declared that they do not know whether the court asked the defendant if he/she understands the charges.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 254 or 71% of them, the citizens declared that the court instructed the defendant on his/her rights, in 48 or 13% of them, the citizens declared that the court has partially instructed the defendant on his/her rights, in 32 or 8% of them, the citizens declared that the court did not instruct the defendant on his/her rights, whereas in 32 or 8% of them, the citizens declared that they do not know whether the court has instructed the defendant on the rights.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 265 or 74% of them, the citizens declared that the defendants had a defense counsel while in 95 or 26% of them, the citizens declared that the defendants had no defense counsel.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 244 or 68% of them, the citizens declared that they have understood the role of the witness in the proceedings, in 40 or 11% of them, the citizens declared that they did not understand the role of the witness in the proceedings, while in 76 or 21% of them, the citizens declared that they do not know whether they have understood the role of the witness in the proceedings
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 330 or 92% of them, the citizens declared that the judge has conducted the proceedings clearly to be understood, in 9 or 2% of them, the citizens declared that the judge did not conduct the proceedings clearly to be understood, whereas in 21 or 6% of them, the citizens declared that they do not know whether the judge has conducted the proceedings clearly in order to be understood.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 309 or 86% of them, the citizens declared that the presiding judge treated the defense and the prosecutor equally, in 11 or 3% of them, the citizens declared that the presiding judge did not treat the defense and the prosecutor equally, whereas 40 or 11% of them, the citizens declared that they do not know whether the presiding judge treated the defense and the prosecutor equally.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 7 or 2% of them, the citizens declared that the judge has not behaved in an intimidating or disrespectful manner towards a party, in 346 or 96% of them, the citizens declared that the judge has behaved in an intimidating or disrespectful manner towards a party, whereas in 7 or 2% of them, the citizens declared that they do not know whether judge has behaved in an intimidating or disrespectful manner towards a party.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 177 or 49% of them, the citizens declared that the judge made discriminatory comments against the parties, in 176 or 49% of them, the citizens declared that the judge did not make discriminatory comments against the parties, whereas in 7 or 1% of them the citizens declared that the they do not know whether the judge made discriminatory comments against the parties.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 7 or 1% of them, the citizens declared that the judge failed to be attentive during the hearing, in 345 or 97% of them, the citizens declared that the judge has not failed to be attentive during the hearing, whereas in 8 or 2% of them, the citizens declared that they do not know whether the judge failed to be attentive during the hearing.
Out of 360 monitored hearings, in 234 or 65% of them, the citizens declared that the performance of defense counsels has been appropriate, in 49 or 14% of them, the citizens declared that the performance of defense counsels has been inappropriate, in 8 or 3% of them the citizens declared that they do not know whether the performance of defense counsels has been appropriate, whereas in 32 or 8% of cases of the accused had no defense counsel at all.
The full report in three languages can be found at this link: http://kli-ks.org/drejtesia-ne-syte-e-qytetareve/