KYRGYZSTAN TODAY Policy briefs on - Department of Geography

other indirect features of judicial corruption may include the sudden purchase by judges
of real estate, luxury items, expensive and fancy cars, frequent visits to saunas, casinos,
etc.
Recommendations on minimizing judicial corruption
To diminish the level of judicial corruption, a set of measures is required, because
complex problems do not have easy solutions. The following may be viewed as
comprehensive measures to tackle corruption:
1. Ensuring transparency of the entire judicial system [9]. Transparency includes
not only public access to any judicial decision or judicial practice on different categories
of cases, but also availability of certain information on any judge in any court.
When electing the legislative bodies and some executive officials, the public has
the right to become familiar with the biography of candidates, information about
their property, etc. As far as judges are concerned, very few people have access to
any information about who will be responsible for justice: some unknown former
investigator, court clerk, or someone who has earned a good reputation with the
public through their professional activities and gained a wealth of experience
working with people [5].
To increase transparency in the judiciary, it is important to take every opportunity
of informing the public about criminal cases and lawsuits submitted to the courts, as
well as about the decisions made, cases submitted to courts of review and courts of
appeal, and dates of case review. This can be done through the Internet, official websites
of the courts, and private web-portals. Any physical or legal entity should be able to
receive information about the status of their case at any time.
Another way to increase transparency in the judiciary is to publish an annual
report on judicial activities and expenses, while judges should be obliged to provide
information about their property and income.
2. It is important to narrow the scope of corruption as much as possible. This can
include minimizing judicial judgments when handling the case, and excluding factors
which are conducive to corruption. Corruption can also be reduced by introducing a
system for distributing cases among judges, which can be done by casting lots, through
a computer, or creating a strict order of case assignments. For example, to certify a
number of deals, notaries were forced to use special forms with a few protection levels
and a registration number. The same system should be introduced for judges, who
should use special forms for their decisions, as well as registration sheets where they
have to write their decisions or the sentences they announce. This measure will be a
positive step in many ways. In particular, it will be difficult to make decisions long
after they have to be made, or to hide certain cases from the management and prevent
them from being registered in order to make their own rulings single-handedly [5].
Also, it is crucial to speed up the work of the Supreme Court Assembly of developing
standard judicial policies, in order to eliminate contradictory judicial practices and the
ensuing corruption [7].
3. Control by civil society may be a strong instrument, particularly if not-for-profits
focus on one or several issues using a long-term perspective. If journalists start attending
court hearings, judges will have to think carefully before taking a bribe or announcing
a verdict that was ordered by someone else. Civil society should have the opportunity
to monitor the activities of the courts and to research the causes and manifestation of
corruption in this area.
149