Assessing the level of independence of public institutions and authorities responsible for policy implementation in the justice field in the Republic of Moldova[EN]
Analiza independenţei instituţionale a unor autorităţi şi instituţii publice responsabile de implementarea politicilor din domeniul dreptului[RO]
Analiza independenţei instituţionale a unor autorităţi şi instituţii publice responsabile de implementarea politicilor din domeniul dreptului[RU]
The purpose of this comparative study is to identify international best practices (IBP) regarding the autonomy and independence (from political influence) of public institutions responsible for policy implementation in the justice field, and assess to what extent the legislation and practices in the Republic of Moldova correspond to these standards.
The study covers 5 institutions in the Republic of Moldova: Prosecutors Office, Security and Intelligence Service (SIS), National Anti-Corruption Center (CNA), Center for Human Rights (CpDOM) and National Integrity Commission (CNI).
At the first stage, we identified 76 legal provisions and objective criteria that represent good and best practices regarding the autonomy and independence of the prosecution service, police, intelligence, anti-corruption and ombudsman institutions. Compilations of best practices made by international organizations (the UN, Council of Europe, OSCE, OECD, IMF) as well as prominent NGOs and research centers in the field were used as sources (Annex A).
The criteria are grouped in 13 categories, which in their turn refer to three main fields of institutional independence: 1) Depoliticizing of the institutionР Р†Р вЂљРІвЂћСћs leadership, 2) Functional and operational independence and autonomy, 3) Transparency and accountability.
At the second stage, we assessed to what extent the legislation of the Republic of Moldova, in particular, the laws regulating the studied institutions, corresponds to these standards. For each of the 76 criteria, the institution was awarded 1 point if the relevant provision exists in the legislation (or if the objective criterion is satisfied), 0 points if the provision is absent (or the criterion is not met), or 0.5 points if the provision is partially present or not fully functional (with an explanation).
Each category contains 5-7 criteria. Thus, an institution can get a maximum of 5 to 7 points in a particular category in case its legislation and activity is fully in line with identified international best practices. The raw category score is a sum of points an institution gained in the category. The final category score is calculated according to the formula:
Final score institution, category = (raw score institution, category / max score category ) * 100% ,and measures to which extent an institution corresponds to international best practice. The weight of each criterion in the final category score is equal.
Institution score in a particular field is calculated as an average of the institutionР Р†Р вЂљРІвЂћСћs final scores in all categories from this field. The weight of each category in this score is equal. General score for an institution is calculated as an average of its scores in the three fields. The weight of each field in this score is equal.
This methodology is the first step towards a more ample analysis, which would use focus group and expert survey techniques to improve assessment criteria, determine their relative importance and weight, as well as assess how well legal provisions in question are implemented in practice.