The results of the
independent research in the judicial system of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Modern development of the judicial system in Kazakhstan suggests strengthening
mechanisms for transparency and openness in the work of the judiciary. One of the
main criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the judicial system is the level of
trust in the country's population.
In this regard, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) in Kazakhstan is
implementing the project "Improving transparency and accountability of the
judicial system".
The Strategic Plan of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 20112015 has tasks to ensure "adequate coverage of all vessels periodic sociological
research conducted among trial participants and the legal profession with the
participation of representatives of non-governmental organizations".
To identify the level of trust and satisfaction of citizens with the quality of the
courts and the provision of judicial services, an objective assessment of the quality
and efficiency of the justice system, Legal Policy Research Centre in collaboration
with UNDP in the first half of 2012, implemented an independent sociological
research (a survey of trial participants and the legal profession) in the courts of the
Republic of Kazakhstan.
The study was conducted from April 2 to May 15, 2012, in which about 6,000 trial
of the participants were surveyed and the legal profession in the 114 courts of 14
oblasts, as well as in the cities Astana and Almaty.
According to statistics on the respondents most of the respondents were
representatives of the most active social and demographic groups: working adult
population aged 25 to 55 years. At the same interviewers were aimed at gender
balance among the interviewed respondents.
The survey was conducted through questionnaires. Participants were asked to
evaluate the professional level of judges, quality indicators trial fairness and
impartiality of cases based on a questionnaire designed to meet international
criteria for assessing the activity of the courts. Quantitative research methodology
assumed personal survey of trial participants and the legal profession, the courts
held in the halls or at the entrance to the court. At the same time, a survey was of
anonymous respondents.
As participants and other processes involved in the case, mainly according to a
survey serve citizens from 25 to 55 years, i.e. representatives of the most active
socio-demographic group - working adult population. Also, it was revealed that the
majority of those surveyed, had a higher education.
In the course of questioning a special place was given to the quality of staff
offices courts. Questions contained in the questionnaire were aimed at identifying
the level of professionalism of the staff offices, ethics and fairness in the
performance of official duties, openness and free access.
The majority of respondents were satisfied with the behavior of the staff of the
Office. Thus, more than 75 % of respondents noted friendliness and respect from
employees Chancery courts. 19.7 % of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with
the fact that the Office of the workers were not always due respect when dealing
with citizens, contact the office of the courts, and 5 % reported that they were rude.
This means that a quarter of those surveyed, had difficulties in applying to the
courts. According to the survey, more than two-thirds of respondents indicated a
high level of service and professionalism of the Office of the Courts.
5.20%
Office employess of the court
were kind and respectfull
19.70%
75.10%
Office employess of the court
not always were kind and
respectfull
Office employees of the court
were rude and unrespectfull
In turn, 30 % of the staff of the Office were not sufficiently competent or behaved
unprofessionally in consultation with the citizens involved in the orbit of the
proceedings as representatives of parties or other persons involved in the case.
7.10%
22.80%
Office employees gave full
answers to my questions
71.00%
Not all office employess gave
full answers to my questions
Office employees didn't know
the answers to my questions
In general, the survey results showed a good picture of the level of work behavior
and professionalism of the office. At the same time, an average of 1/5 of those
surveyed do not believe the Office of the Courts.
Behavior of judges and their compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics is an
important factor in assessing the impartiality of judges. The judiciary should make
their decision based on the facts and in accordance with the law, to the exclusion of
any direct or indirect restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures,
threats or interference, wherever they occur and whatever motivated. The UN
Committee on Human Rights has indicated in a decision that the right to be heard
by an independent and impartial tribunal is and cannot be subject to restrictions or
how. This principle means that the court imposed the objective requirements of
impartiality, according to which both sides have equal procedural position.
According to the Code of Judicial Ethics of the Republic of Kazakhstan "the judge
must be polite, tolerant, considerate and respectful in relation to the trial
participants. A judge should require similar conduct of all persons participating in
the proceedings. "
The judge's impartiality interviewers assessed by the degree of correctness and
ethics that reflect his attitude to the case, as well as subjective evaluation of those
interviewed. According to the survey, in 87 cases out of 100 judges attentively
listen to speeches litigators. However, respondents noted that judges in 13 % of
cases, partially or completely inattentive treated to performances of participants
processes or other persons involved in the case.
19.10%
3.90%
Judge carefully listened to my
speech
87.00%
Judge listened my speech not
carefully
Judge not always listened to me
carefully
A similar trend was noted in the results of the evaluation of correctness of the
judge. For example, 12.1 % of those surveyed said that the judge allowed improper
attitude to individual actors and others participating in the party, which was a
direct violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics and indirectly may indicate a lack of
impartiality.
4.30%
7.80%
Judge is correct to me during
the process
Judge is not correct to me
during the process
87.90%
Judge is not always correct to
me during the process
More satisfactory picture has been developed to the level of public confidence in
judges. 82.4 % of respondents expressed confidence in judges. However, 3.1 % of
those surveyed felt the judges are not credible, based on personal beliefs and
experiences.
82.40%
I think judge is a person to trust
Judge is not a person to trust
1.4
Judge is not a person to trust in
whole
3.10%
The analysis showed that more than 82 % of respondents were satisfied with the
level of justice proceedings. Nevertheless, 17 % of the questionnaires interviewees
questioned the fairness of the consideration of the case to individual judges.
5.50%
11.60%
Judge rightly hears my case
Judge hears my case not rightly
82.90%
Judge is not obhective in whole
Professional level of judges evaluated from the standpoint of competence,
knowledge and communication skills of judges. Despite the fact that the
professionalism of the judge was rated at a high level in 65% of cases, part of the
respondents (20.5%) indicated that the level of knowledge, competence and
sociability judges were not sufficient for the judiciary.
64.90%
On a high level
On a medium level
1.2
15.60%
On a low level
It's hard to respond
4.90%
Respondents' assessment of compliance with the equality of the parties
3.90%
The parties had equal
opportunities to have views and
give information during the
process
11.60%
84.50%
The parties had equal
opportunities in whole to have
views and give information
during the process
The parties had equal
opportunites to have views and
give information during the
process
Assessing the level of training of judges for trial
90.10%
The judge was ready enough to
the trail
Judge was not in whole ready to
the trail
1.4
Judge was not enough ready to
the trail
7.80%
Evaluation of objectivity and impartiality of the process
3.40%
11.60%
Process was objective and
impartial
Process was objective and
impartial not in whole
85.00%
Process was not objective and
impertial
It should be noted that the questionnaire contained checklists aimed at identifying
reliable data on citizens assessment of objectivity and impartiality of judges of the
Republic of Kazakhstan. In particular, the questionnaire was provided previously
considered questions about assessing the level of confidence in judges and
appraisal respondents to fair trial judge. Analysis of three diagrams indicates that
the data provided in the questionnaires have a sufficient degree of reliability and
representativeness.
An important element of proper administration of justice is a timely start of
hearings designated for consideration. Compliance with the designated start time of
the court hearing evidence of the manifestation of respect for the court to litigants,
and promotes public confidence in the judiciary. 58% of respondents confirmed
that the meeting started on time trial. It should be noted that in the poll was
conducted special research on the causes of meetings late.
Information about the timely beginning of the trial
11.60%
Meeting started on time
30.90%
57.50%
eeting started with a little late
Meeting started on time with a
little late
Respondents for representatives of the parties have provided information on cases
of unlawful interest of judges and court staff in the outcome of the case. A
summary of the responses of representatives of the parties show more than 80 % of
the judges and / or court staff showed no interest in the outcome of the case, while
18.2 % reported that informal interest, judges and court officials in the outcome of
the case.
Representatives of the parties were asked to respond to a question regarding
further action planning in case of disagreement with the decision of the court.
Analyzing the data, attention is drawn to the fact that 5.9 % of respondents intend
to restore their rights, using informal methods and practices. For example, turn to
influential people, patrons. We believe that the existence of informal strategies and
tactics to solve their problems connected with ambiguous citizens' perceptions
judicial institution as a whole and with the confidence that these measures are
practiced in the judicial system.
Compliance with the established order at the hearing (the judge was in the mantle
was removed in the deliberation room, etc.)
2.30%
7.70%
Order is observed
90.00%
Order is not observed
Order is observed not
fully
These are the highlights of the study. In general, it should be noted that the
independent study showed a very positive picture of the activities of the courts of
the country. Especially when you consider that questioned not just random people,
namely the trial participants who are involved in court orbit
We believe that the vast geography of the Project, as well as the use of
standardized methodology to ensure high reliability and objectivity of the results of
the study.
Conclusions and recommendations made on the basis of the information collected,
are designed to make a useful contribution to the debate on improving the
functioning of the judicial system in the Republic of Kazakhstan.