Since 2008 the Colombian Government has approved millions of dollars in international loans to strengthen justice, and the application of the rule of law.

Efforts have focused on improving efficiency, broadening access, and on speeding up the time judges take in delivering rulings.

Does this approach sacrifice quality over quantity? Does pushing for a higher output rate for rulings offer us a real solution to the problems at the heart of the nation´s justice system?

Public opinion tells us that concerns are linked to the accountability of some high courts, the conduct of high justices, their benefits, management, and election practices. Clearly there are bigger problems than case backlogs and the time it takes for decisions to be done.

Sure, it`s good the Judicial Branch acknowledges there is a problem. I guess that`s the first step to take on the road to recovery or improvement. But given all the money and efforts invested in improving justice throughout the years, we sadly continue to see  the justice service as something distant, not something we would necessarily go to for help to resolve a dispute. For some, extra-judiciary options offer greater appeal.

International assistance to the Judicial Branch in Colombia has found that problems are systemic. Their findings confirm case backlog, low productivity in judges’ chambers, and slow proceedings, which lead to delays in decision-making and results. Minor advances in improving access are there, but these remain minor solutions to the wider difficulties.

As we looked closely at the work of the international bodies, we came across a report by the Contraloria (The General Comptroller`s office) on the operation of the justice system, a report that revealed a series of alarming facts about the delivery of justice.

Since 2003, Colombian courts have been building up case backlogs – and in spite of the increase in case work required, the output of rulings has in fact decreased. Low productivity rates characterize our court system.

Given this scenario, case backlog will continue, even if productivity rates were to increase. Almost safe to say therefore, that Colombians cannot count on the system to provide prompt solutions to their disputes, or at least not for a few good years yet.

Frankly, delays in decisions and proceedings equivalate to a denial or curtailment of liberty. Untimely justice = injustice, or an absence of justice.

Exponential rise in labour costs

The report we analyzed points out that the justice sector spent approximately a whopping 83% of its 2010-2012 budgets on staff related costs. Strange indeed; why would the justice system require so much labour?

I can imagine that say, the construction and manufacturing sectors are labour intense and require a lot of workforce, but the justice system…?

The rationale behind this is mind-boggling.

Staff related costs for justice increased about 7% in 2011 and 18% in 2012. This is substantial and has not really contributed to anything, considering continuous low public perception towards justice and terrible findings like the ones in the report.

Adding more and more people to work in justice seems like a near-sighted solution to the problem.

While we continued with our detailed analysis of the report, we come across contradictions on how the justice sector makes decisions to improve delivery. In 2012 there was a reduction of costs related to construction and improvement of court chambers, technology procurement, and staff training, as opposed to increases in previous years.

There is something very wrong here.

Why are investments in staff increasing without proportional investments for the “infrastructure” to support this? What is driving these decisions and what are the criteria to assign resources this way?

This is a clear indicator of a dysfunctional business and investment model for justice.

If we invest in staff, we need more space to house them, technology and training to help them do their work better. Why isn`t this happening?

I hope we are not the only ones to see this. This only contributes to an even darker future for justice and of course, the use of taxpayer’s money.

Increased efficiency?

The report’s analysis on court efficiency shows that since 2010 civil, labour, and mixed courts increased productivity per judge, but strangely decreased in 2011.

Administrative, criminal, and family courts decreased productivity from 2010 to 2011 and increased slightly in 2012. Most of the special courts created to reduce case backlog increased productivity except for a few.

The Contraloria found that special courts are more productive than regular courts, probably because these are required to produce performance results based on number of rulings, hence more pressure than regular courts.

This only confirms that there is no coherent strategy for the justice business model and no significant shift in efforts to reduce case backlog despite increasing budget and staff.

It seems we are sacrificing justice only to reduce the number of cases in the system. Are we really getting the value for our taxpayer money for this type of service?

Only a fraction of disputes in the system were solved during 2010-2012.

Poor performance found in the report, is probably the explanation for why justice received fewer resources to invest in new projects through the years, and this is why it probably relies on international assistance.

This model is not sustainable and we should be concerned about how it can improve, otherwise justice will only become more distant from the real problems the nation´s citizens face. A grave situation.

Photo, El Espectador