CReDO: Institutional Responsibility of Prosecutor Office - Conclusions and Recommendations

CReDO: Institutional Responsibility of Prosecutor Office - Conclusions and Recommendations

Institutional Responsibility Prosecutor[EN]
Responsabilitatea instituțională a Procuraturii[RO]
Институциональная ответственность прокурора[RU]

 

 

CReDO: Institutional Responsibility of Prosecutor Office - Conclusions and Recommendations 


The purpose of this report is to present a detailed analysis of system performance evaluation institutional of Prosecutor. Institutional performance evaluation prosecution presented based on a methodology developed by the author and based on best practice from countries of the European democracies and institutional practices (including examples from the UK, USA, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Sweden and France on the one hand and emerging best practices in Eastern European countries such as Romania, Georgia and others). The methodology addresses some essential aspect of institutional responsibility: 1) training priorities (priorities), 2) Monitoring and evaluation of institutional performance (performance), and 3) foreign institutional responsibility (Responsibility).

Practical and institutional evaluation methodology is widely used by various international bodies. If Moldova EU funding agreement specified need for an institutional performance evaluation system: a performance monitoring system supported by generating relevant statistics and establish a management information system at the sector level compatible between different institutions and stages of the proceedings. The author makes a direct contribution to facilitate comprehensive understanding of policy makers and society on the state of things with institutional responsibility of the Prosecutor.

The overall conclusion of the report is that accountability mechanisms are underdeveloped and far below international standards. Underdevelopment institutional accountability mechanisms resulting in the ineffectiveness of the Public Prosecutor, inefficient use of scarce resources and low trust in the institution of prosecution from society in Moldova.

Calculations for each area gives the situation: 25% of compliance promotion priorities, 33% conformation and 47% performance monitoring compliance accountability mechanisms. Per General shall develop poor accountability tools Prosecutor.

[1] HOTĂRÎRE din 02.09.2013 Nr. 669 privind aprobarea Acordului de finanţare dintre Guvernul Republicii Moldova şi Uniunea Europeană privind Programul de suport al reformei justiţiei, semnat la Bruxelles la 14 iunie 2013http://lex.justice.md/index.php?action=view&view=doc&lang=1&id=349537
www.unodc.org

Share: