Resource Allocations. The same need to coordinate is required between the active and inactive case units although the cramped quarters in which they work has compelled them to informally coordinate day to day cohabitation. Further coordination with other entities that share similar interests will also save duplication in the future. For example, as persons learn of the work of the Unit they are coming into the office to solicit certifications that establish that the original criminal charges against them have been dismissed, something that should be furnished by the Office of Criminal records (Oficina de Antecedentes Penales) who are ignorant of the actions of the Purging unit and will continue to report the original charges to be still pending when asked. Absence of written directives or operational manuals inhibits institutionalization of procedures and prevents application of adequate control mechanisms. The inactive case unit, for example, prepared a draft “reglamento” that was forwarded ot the UTR but has been awaiting action since August 2003. Likewise directives from the UTR or the Insterinstitutional Commission that affect the work of the Purging Unit are communicated verbally. Manuals detailing the process for filing cases, numbering them and coding them are also absent as are written materials that detail the composition and operation of the databases. Insufficient filing and storage facilities are evident as the number of case files grow regularly and a considerable amount of space has been assigned to the active case judges who were never contemplated to share the space with the inactive case judges. Since case files lay throughout the facility, with those to be reviewed in stacks of 25 in accordance with the date of entry, and completed case files in shelves, in open areas, security is not adequate to prevent theft or modification of case files materials. Databases that permit information storage, statistical analysis and rapid identification of materials are rudimentary at best. Insufficient number of backups and UPSs to guarantee security of information maintained electronically. Lack of clarity on what constitutes a closed case file. A cursory reading of the UTR reports, and even the manner in which the Purging Unit has operated thus far, indicates that there is confusion as to whether closing of a case is achieved by the certification by a secretary of the actions of a judge who dismisses the charges or whether public notification is required. There appears now to be agreement that review by prosecutors and public defenders is salutary and that posting and notification is required prior to considering a case to be closed. The original estimate of 125,000 cases to be purged during this transitional period seriously underestimated the number of cases. As is evident from the amount of cases already closed (approximately 140,000) and the number of incoming cases as teams inventory remaining Letras and Justice of the Peace courts. While the efforts of the depuradores and inactive case judges are praiseworthy, there is insufficient information on the universe of cases to be considered that permits one to conclude that this effort will be concluded before December 31, 2006. Because the establishment of the active case unit appears to have been an afterthought to solve the rising caseloads under the new system and to expedite entering final judgments under the old, less planning has taken place in establishing the unit, appointing personnel, training them and providing adequate support. It appears clear that the resources of the Seccional Court are being devoted more and more to the new CCP cases and less and less attention is being paid to the old cases. These judges operate under an unclear appointment in which their subsequent tenure is not is unsure, operate in inadequate quarters, have no support staff, have no training, can count on no law books or legal databases and receive no feedback from superior, appellate or otherwise, on the sufficiency and correctness of their rulings. Absence of a chain of command confuses their situation even further as they act independently and in isolation from the regular court system. Absence of adequate statistical material prevents us from determining whether the active judges and the Letras Seccional judges assigned to the old CCP will be able to conclude the processes for the amount of cases still pending. While this uncertainty clouds the picture in the capital, the situation is even more murky in the remainder of the court in which no active court judges have being supplementing the work of the regular Letras judges. Many of the foregoing discussions point to the absence of controls to regulate conduct, prevent abuses, and ensure consistency. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ case assignment, especially in the case of the active case judges and absence of processing records (dockets for example) prevents application of control mechanisms. Similarly, the lack of written rules contributes to this situation. Additionally, the Judicial Inspector general’s Office (Inspectoría Judicial) has seldom taken proactive actions except when complaints have been filed.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Program Performance Report
Resource Allocations. The same need to coordinate is required between the active and inactive case units although the cramped quarters in which they work has compelled them to informally coordinate day to day cohabitation. Further coordination with other entities that share similar interests will also save duplication in the future. For example, as persons learn of the work of the Unit they are coming into the office to solicit certifications that establish that the original criminal charges against them have been dismissed, something that should be furnished by the Office of Criminal records (Oficina de Antecedentes Penales) who are ignorant of the actions of the Purging unit and will continue to report the original charges to be still pending when asked. • Absence of written directives or operational manuals inhibits institutionalization of procedures and prevents application of adequate control mechanisms. The inactive case unit, for example, prepared a draft “reglamento” that was forwarded ot the UTR but has been awaiting action since August 2003. Likewise directives from the UTR or the Insterinstitutional Commission that affect the work of the Purging Unit are communicated verbally. Manuals detailing the process for filing cases, numbering them and coding them are also absent as are written materials that detail the composition and operation of the databases. • Insufficient filing and storage facilities are evident as the number of case files grow regularly and a considerable amount of space has been assigned to the active case judges who were never contemplated to share the space with the inactive case judges. Since case files lay throughout the facility, with those to be reviewed in stacks of 25 in accordance with the date of entry, and completed case files in shelves, in open areas, security is not adequate to prevent theft or modification of case files materials. • Databases that permit information storage, statistical analysis and rapid identification of materials are rudimentary at best. • Insufficient number of backups and UPSs to guarantee security of information maintained electronically. • Lack of clarity on what constitutes a closed case file. A cursory reading of the UTR reports, and even the manner in which the Purging Unit has operated thus far, indicates that there is confusion as to whether closing of a case is achieved by the certification by a secretary of the actions of a judge who dismisses the charges or whether public notification is required. There appears now to be agreement that review by prosecutors and public defenders is salutary and that posting and notification is required prior to considering a case to be closed. • The original estimate of 125,000 cases to be purged during this transitional period seriously underestimated the number of cases. As is evident from the amount of cases already closed (approximately 140,000) and the number of incoming cases as teams inventory remaining Letras and Justice of the Peace courts. While the efforts of the depuradores and inactive case judges are praiseworthy, there is insufficient information on the universe of cases to be considered that permits one to conclude that this effort will be concluded before December 31, 2006. • Because the establishment of the active case unit appears to have been an afterthought to solve the rising caseloads under the new system and to expedite entering final judgments under the old, less planning has taken place in establishing the unit, appointing personnel, training them and providing adequate support. It appears clear that the resources of the Seccional Court are being devoted more and more to the new CCP cases and less and less attention is being paid to the old cases. • These judges operate under an unclear appointment in which their subsequent tenure is not is unsure, operate in inadequate quarters, have no support staff, have no training, can count on no law books or legal databases and receive no feedback from superior, appellate or otherwise, on the sufficiency and correctness of their rulings. Absence of a chain of command confuses their situation even further as they act independently and in isolation from the regular court system. • Absence of adequate statistical material prevents us from determining whether the active judges and the Letras Seccional judges assigned to the old CCP will be able to conclude the processes for the amount of cases still pending. While this uncertainty clouds the picture in the capital, the situation is even more murky in the remainder of the court in which no active court judges have being supplementing the work of the regular Letras judges. • Many of the foregoing discussions point to the absence of controls to regulate conduct, prevent abuses, and ensure consistency. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ case assignment, especially in the case of the active case judges and absence of processing records (dockets for example) prevents application of control mechanisms. Similarly, the lack of written rules contributes to this situation. Additionally, the Judicial Inspector general’s Office (Inspectoría Judicial) has seldom taken proactive actions except when complaints have been filed.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Program Performance Report