Vatan Abdurahmanov, a well-known retired Tajik judge, shares his opinion on what needs to be changed. Most of his suggestions concern the need to ensure transparency in Tajikistan's judicial system – this relates not only to the transparency of court proceedings and specific cases but also to the hiring process and certification of judges.
One of the main issues, according to him, is that, contrary to the norms of the Constitution of Tajikistan and the Constitutional Law "On the Courts of the Republic of Tajikistan," which establish a 10-year term for judges, judges are dismissed upon reaching retirement age and before their term expires.
Retired prosecutors, according to the "Prosecutor's Office" law, enjoy such benefits, and they are issued identification cards.
Vatan Abdurahmanov
Judges are bearers of judicial authority, one of the branches of government. There are about 400 judges in the country. When they retire or resign, they are not permanent. Appropriate amendments should be made to the "Law on the Courts."
Young people need to be taught in a new way
Access to the judicial profession should be provided not only to young lawyers, who must undergo special training, but also to experienced lawyers.
The level of experience in the legal profession required for candidates to apply for judicial positions should be determined after thorough evaluation by a relevant commission.
University programs should focus more on developing analytical skills. Educational methods such as case analysis, practical exercises, legal clinics, and mock trials should be included in the curriculum.
Higher educational institutions should provide equal levels of education, including through distance learning.
The educational program should focus on what is particularly needed in the work of a judge and supplement university education.
Training should include courses on ethics, communication skills, conflict resolution, management, and legal writing.
Judges have the right to be heard
The evaluation of a judge’s work should primarily be based on qualitative indicators and focus on their skills, including professional competence; personal competence (ability to handle workloads, make decisions, openness to new technologies); public competence (negotiation and reconciliation skills, respect for parties); as well as leadership skills.
The criteria for professional evaluation should be clearly defined, transparent, and standardized. The main criteria should be specified in the law.
Questions regarding the evaluation of judges should be within the jurisdiction of qualification boards. The evaluation should include reviewing the judge’s written decisions and observing how the judge conducts proceedings. The evaluation must be transparent, and judges have the right to be heard and should be informed of the evaluation results with the possibility of appealing them.
Encourage journalists' access to courts
Transparency should be the norm in legal proceedings. To confirm the actions of a judge in the courtroom and to accurately reproduce the course of the process, hearings should be recorded using electronic means that allow for full reproduction.
To improve professional and public accountability of judges, their decisions should be published in databases or on websites in such a way that they are readily available to the public free of charge.
To strengthen public trust in the courts, journalists' access to courts should be encouraged, and press secretary positions should be created in courts.
The procedure for preparing and adopting the act on the composition of the courts should be transparent, and this should be clearly stated in the law on the courts. Announcements about available vacancies and additional conditions and requirements should be published and distributed.
The list of candidates (or at least those who passed the preliminary selection) should be publicly available.
The qualification commission, when considering candidates for selection, should be independent. Commissions should conduct interviews with candidates who have reached the final round.
Court management
Court management should enhance the independence and impartiality of judicial proceedings within the right to a fair trial and the principle of the rule of law. Judicial management should not be used to influence the content and procedures of judicial decisions. Judicial management procedures should be transparent.
This body should consist of judges, elected by their peers, representing the entire judiciary. The body should also include academic lawyers and, ideally, representatives of the bar to promote transparency.
Representatives of the president and parliament should not be part of the body.
The role of court chairpersons should be strictly limited
Court chairpersons should not interfere in the decision-making process of other judges and should not participate in the selection procedures of judges.
Court chairpersons should have representative and administrative functions, including control over non-judicial personnel.
Administrative decisions that may influence the substantive side of judicial proceedings should not be the exclusive competence of the court chairperson. One such example is the distribution of cases, which should either be done by lottery or according to predetermined rules with clear and objective criteria set by the judges themselves.
Court chairpersons should be appointed for a fixed term, with the possibility of extending their term no more than once.
The procedure for selecting court chairpersons should be transparent. Announcements about vacancies for court chairpersons should be published, and all judges with the necessary experience and qualifications should have the opportunity to apply. The competent selection body may conduct interviews with candidates.
On arbitration courts
Unfortunately, the Judicial and Legal Reform Program does not address alternative dispute resolution methods. The "Law on Arbitration Courts" was adopted by the Tajik parliament on January 5, 2008, but it is practically non-functional, and its functions were significantly reduced by amendments to the law.
Arbitration courts, as non-governmental bodies, could play a positive role in delivering fair justice and would greatly ease the workload of the courts.
