Why key law-enforcements institutions do not deliver?

Why key law-enforcements institutions do not deliver?

Why key law-enforcements institutions do not deliver?[EN]
Why key law-enforcements institutions do not deliver?[RO]
Why key law-enforcements institutions do not deliver?[RU]



Why key law-enforcements institutions do not deliver ?


The scope of the research is to answer the questions how to make law-enforcement institutions effective and that they deliver for the society. Why in the last two decades, these institutions have not been enjoyed the credibility and trust on one side and effectiveness on the other side.

The effectiveness is understood as the change produced in the society – the combating of the corruption, criminality, keeping better the public order, reducing criminal behavior, etc. In this research we limited to only 2 aspects of the effectiveness of the 4 recognized namely are: 1) institutional independence, and 2) institutional accountability of the institutions. The other two aspects that have not been part of the research are: 3) existence of the institutional capacity of the adequate technology, skills and leadership to exercise the institutional mandate, and 4) existence of the adequate non-restrictive and non-contradictory legal framework to implement mandate is not considered in this research.

On the basis of the comprehensive research we come to the following 2 sets of the indicators against which these institutions have been evaluated:

Institutional Independency indicators

Institutional Accountability indicators


1. LEADERSHIP (5 indicators)

1.1Autonomy and security of the mandate indicator

1.2 Appointment requirements indicator

1.3 Appointment procedure indicator

1.4 Dismissal conditions and procedure indicator

1.5 Internal promotion procedure indicator


2. AUTONOMY (5 indicators)

2.1 Formal guarantees of independence indicator

2.2 Operational and decisional autonomy indicator

2.3 Intra-institutional autonomy indicator

2.4 Budgetary autonomy indicator

2.5 Financial autonomy indicator


3. TRANSPARENCY (3 indicators)

3.1 Internal control indicator

3.2 External control indicator

3.3 Institutional transparency indicator


1. SETTING PRIORITIES (3 indicators)

1.1 Elaboration priorities indicator

1.2 Adoption priorities indicator

1.3 Implementation priorities indicator


2.  MONITORING PERFOMANCE (3 indicators)

2.1 Performance indicators indicator

2.2 Ensuring data integrity indicator

2.3 Systematic evaluation indicator



3.1 External mechanisms indicator

3.2 Internal mechanisms indicator

3.3 Transparency and media indicator


Institutional independence

On institutional leadership. Leadership of the institution is at the core of the independence guarantees. Criteria, duration of mandate, destitution have been manipulated to undermine the institutions.

On operational autonomy.  Operational autonomy at the level of the institution and at the individual level are key to pursue the priorities established and defend the institution from the un due external influence that is still the reality including through the interference with the budget aspects.

On media transparency. Openness on the individual cases, provision of the adequate information about the institutional performance are at the core of the building the trust and also cultivate the responsiveness towards the societal needs an d not the individual circles of influence.


Institutional accountability

On setting priorities. The practice for the setting priorities is generally not in place, there are some ellemnts that are not coherently used. The evaluation shows that the indicators and below the basic requirements. Given the fact that priority setting is not an inclusive, rational and participatory process frequently they are blaimed as politically motivated. 

On monitoring performances. The absence of the evaluation of the institutional performance frameowrk makes the institutions un responsive and not bound to the evaluation from the society. The cuurent state is below even the basic one when information is not disclosed and not collected with integrity.

On institutional accountability mechanismsm. Holding the law-enforcement institutions accountable requires both procedures, information based on the priorities already set and the comprehensive information collected as well as the active use of the existing mecanisms. These mechanisms are the review of the external entities as Parliament and Government. The opractice is effectively absenct.


The report is composed of the five chapters. After the 1st chapter of the introduction, chapter 2 is composed of the Conclusions and Recommendations. Chapter 3 contains the analysis of the situation on the institutional independence of the law-enforcements and institutional accountability of the law-enforcements as well as the interplay of these factors. Chapter 4 refers to the separate analysis of 3 institutions, namely Prosecutor, CNA and Police, in the separate sections. Chapter 5 contains comprehensive information on the pathway of the codification of the indicators to evaluate both independence and accountability indicators.