Horrendous reports of corruption in Bogotá prompted me to explore Colombia’s justice, or lack of it. Over a series of articles I´ll be looking at the way Colombia´s judiciary works, its short comings, costs, and what sort of results it produces.

For this first article I´ll look at how Colombians themselves view the rule of law.

The Rule of Law Index (RLI) 2012-2013  records perceptions of those who come into contact with the Colombian justice system – those on the receiving end. Its results do not make for happy reading; satisfaction levels are painfully low.

The report tells us that a common perception is that justice is something “alien”, and that it´s ability to resolve daily conflicts is weak. I guess that’s why we have the expression “la ley es para los de ruana” (boldly translated to: law is only for the common folks). Justice and the rule of law is not for all, we´re told.

Though complex, Colombian justice is – or should be – largely based on end-user relationship with us, the citizens. Yet customer service standards are not applied to the treatment we receive at the hands of those who uphold the law and administer justice.

Justice is remote. But it should not be overly solemn, and formal, shielded by “judicial independence”, sometimes upholding decisions distant from reality, and of course la ruana. Justice should be closer to us, we should be able better to hold it to account – to have a stake in it.

In 2012-2013 Colombia scored average for Access to Civil justice and Fundamental Rights, while on Absence of Corruption and Criminal Justice we scored low.

The relatively favorable score on Fundamental Rights is largely due to the work of the Constitutional Court. “Sibling” and lower courts usually follow constitutional case law.

Meanwhile when it comes to civil justice,  the principal users are private individuals and organizations, who in search for expedite and feasible solutions, demand more from the system and work around cases and judges through options like “alternative dispute resolution”. We hope this is done legally, especially given the Colombia´s poor marks when it comes to corruption.

That which has perhaps the biggest impact on people´s life, however, is the criminal justice system. Most cases here relate to personal liberty and hardships and surprise surprise Colombia scores poorly in this area, and it perhaps here that the real problem lies. If punishment for crimes committed is not felt to be appropriate or fair, the state is in danger of breaking the contract it has with the society.

Let´s look in a bit more detail at the result of the index to get a full picture of their findings.

• In 2011 Access to Civil Justice scored above average while Effective Criminal Justice continued to score below average.
• For 2010 only Limited Government Powers and Access to Civil Justice scored above average. Absence of Corruption, Clear, Publicized and Stable Laws, Fundamental Rights, and Effective Criminal Justice scored low.
• Interestingly, the 2009 factors for Access to Justice scored above average, including: Impartial and accountable judicial system, Efficient, accessible and effective judicial system, Competent and independent attorneys or representatives, and Fair and efficient alternative dispute resolution.

Costs

Colombian justice has received, since 2010, the equivalent of around 9 billion US Dollars  in budget, as well as extras to reduce case backlog.

This equals approximately what the US government recently assigned in a single year to support costs of civilian-led programs and missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as well as critical interventions in health, food security, and climate change worldwide. We´re talking about some seriously big figures that the Colombian judiciary is in charge of spending.

Yet, every year the Consejo Superior de la Judicatura (Administrator for the judicial system) requests bigger budgets.

Budget additions from 2010 to 2013 have grown considerably.

But despite this mammoth spend, nothing is positively impacting our perception of the justice system.

What’s wrong, is the business model working, does it need changing?

If the justice sector assures it needs more money to improve services, why haven’t bigger investments improved user perception?

An unsatisfied customer means a bad service.

Constant requests for larger budgets give the impression of a self-perpetuating monster that grows with everything it takes in; if this is the case, do we want to keep feeding it?

Larger government budgets are becoming less popular.

Doing more with less will be the norm and should push for new practices. Financial constraints should drive organizations to be resource efficient. Should the justice sector come up with new ideas as opposed to “feeding” the old ones, and should justice officials see and do their work with a customer service approach?

As a potential customer, I hope they do.