Vietnam ranked 111 in 2006,
degraded to 123 in 2007
in the Global Corruption Report.
REAL JUSTICE IS PRICELESS - SAYS LABELLE HUGUETTE
OPENING STATEMENT
HUGUETTE LABELLE
Chair, Transparency International
On release of the
Global Corruption Report 2007
London, 24 May 2007
As prepared for delivery
Introduction
There may be nothing more fundamental to human security and social stability than
the rule of law. And very few things are as frightening as a justice system built on
greed and political expediency rather than fairness and objectivity.
We have a fundamental right to expect that the court will be the final arbiter of right
and wrong. We should be able to take for granted that if we are accused of a crime or
involved in a dispute, we will receive a fair and objective trial.
But what if the court’s decision is for sale? What if a bribe can tip the scales of justice
in favour of one party, or slam the door of the courthouse in the face of those too poor
to pay?
Justice with a price tag is no justice at all. Real justice is priceless.
Corrupt courts deny victims and the accused the basic human right to a fair and
impartial trial, sometimes even to a trial at all. Those who cannot or will not pay are
locked out. Legal instruments such as contracts - the fabric of business and commerce
– are meaningless. Criminals go unpunished, destroying effective governance and
democratic participation. Trade, investment and economic growth are diminished.
Today's Global Corruption Report 2007 shows that bribery and political interference
can occur at every point in the judicial process.
It is tempting to simply point an accusing finger at judges. The influence of a corrupt
judge can be huge. They may accept bribes or submit to political pressure to delay or
accelerate cases, accept or deny appeals, influence other judges or simply to decide a
case a certain way. They may issue biased verdicts or even participate in outright theft
of funds from judicial budgets.
But judicial corruption can extend to all players in the game. Court officials may seek
bribes for services that should be free; lawyers may charge additional ‘fees’ to
expedite or delay cases, direct clients to judges known to take bribes, collude with
judges to lose a case, or even act as intermediaries for bribe-paying. Clerks may
purposely lose certain files. Prosecutors may drop certain cases for a price.
In the United Kingdom, judges are seldom the target of allegations of corruption, but
law enforcement agencies frequently stand accused. In France, close links between
prosecutors and the executive leaves ample room for political interference,
particularly in the investigation of major corruption scandals. In Venezuela, studies
show that tampering with evidence by prosecutors for material gain is common
practice, casting doubt on any decisions the courts might reach.
Political interference in the judicial process can skew the system in favour of the
government or other powerful parties at the expense of the rule of law. In the United
States, for example, the Attorney General dismissed eight federal prosecutors
perceived to be too liberal, reputedly to make appointments more in line with the
government’s political views. Interference from politicians or civil servants can buy
“legal” cover for embezzlement, nepotism, cronyism and illegal political decisions.
The Report finds that after several decades of reform efforts, judges and courts around
the world continue to face pressure to rule in favour of powerful political or economic
interests.
Where does judicial corruption occur?
Judicial corruption is pervasive in many parts of the world. According to a recent
Transparency International survey, one in five citizens across Africa and Latin
America who had contact with the judiciary reported paying a bribe. Transparency
International Bangladesh found that two out of three individuals who used the lower
courts in 2004 paid a bribe, and that the typical payment was an astounding 25 per
cent of the average yearly income.
But judicial corruption is not just a phenomenon of poor countries. A 2004 poll in the
United States showed that a full 70 percent of respondents believed that judicial
campaign contributions have some influence on judges’ decisions.
Solutions
The Global Corruption Report 2007 brings together the testimony of dozens of
organisations and individuals who have dedicated their skills and efforts to ridding
justice institutions of corruption. Many are also human rights experts, because judicial
corruption and denial of human rights are intimately linked.
Together they show the profound impact of judicial corruption, its mechanisms and its
costs. But equally important, they offer detailed recommendations for strengthening
judicial integrity, independence and accountability. These are the concepts that
underlie the entire Report. When they are absent, the courts are vulnerable to abuse
and manipulation.
I would like to touch on just a few of the Report’s recommendations, many of which
are captured in the press release you have received.
First, judicial and prosecutorial appointments, case assignments and removals must be
transparent, independent of the executive and legislative branches, and merit-based.
Sufficient salaries will help strengthen the prestige of the profession. Ensuring the
physical safety of judges and court staff, and providing sufficient resources for their
work, are also important elements that contribute to judicial integrity and
independence.
Accountability can be strengthened by more effective mechanisms for detecting
corruption in the judiciary, because the threat of discovery is a strong disincentive to
corrupt behaviour. These include limiting judicial immunity, introducing rigorous
disciplinary rules for investigating complaints, and defining clear rights for judges in
such disciplinary proceedings, based on a code of judicial conduct.
Journalists must be free to monitor and comment on legal proceedings, reporting
reliable information on laws, proposed changes in legislation, court procedures and
judgements to the public.
Civil society has a vital oversight role. Citizens, journalists, legal associations and
civil society can all question, monitor and comment on how judges are selected, how
they are disciplined, how courts handle their caseloads and how judges arrive at their
decisions. It can scrutinise the political pressure brought to bear on the judicial system
and both hold it to account and bolster its independence.
TI’s work
Transparency International is active in monitoring and awareness-raising activities. TI
Ecuador has monitored Supreme Court appointments, TI Argentina has been active in
pushing for asset declarations for Supreme Court justices and TI Nicaragua has
carried out diagnostic research of corruption in the judiciary.
In Ghana, our national chapter has promoted civil society efforts to monitor courts,
including the publication of a manual on judicial monitoring. And TI’s Cambodia
chapter, the Centre for Social Development, has carried out its Court Watch Project,
monitoring thousands of cases over the last three years.
Across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, chapters are operating Advocacy and Legal
Advice Centres, assisting the victims of corruption, many of whom are specifically
victims of judicial corruption. They have helped thousands of citizens pursue their
cases and have harvested statistical data that form the basis for many of the
recommendations you see today.
Conclusion
No law can be effective without an independent, accountable and effective judiciary
to enforce it. One that has the confidence of all citizens that they are being treated
justly. Above all, judicial systems must be made more transparent. Sunshine is the
greatest driver of accountability. It is the most effective way to ensure that judicial
integrity, independence and accountability tip the scales of justice back into balance.
###
Transparency International is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption
Real justice is priceless, says TI’s Labelle
<bài viết được chỉnh sửa lúc 07.10.2007 08:32:13 bởi Ngọc Lý >