TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN JUDICIARY

Introduction

Despite several legislative reforms carried out in recent years, public trust in the judicial system is still low. In addition to the fact that the waves of reform lacked systematicity and consistency, the challenges in everyday life beyond laws deserve special attention. For years, civil organizations and international partners talk about the problems such as the absence of political will to create an independent and free court;

connections between the ruling political power and the influential group in the judicial system and the politicization of the court; attempts to suppress dissenting opinion within the court; non-meritocratic personnel policy and the appointment of judges to important positions who are distinguished by their loyalty to the inner influential group.

This incomplete list of problems affects the level of public trust in the judicial system, however, this article does not aim to criticize the institutional arrangement of the judiciary or to assess how free it is from internal or external influence. The purpose of the text is to show more broadly the importance of trust in the court and its possible consequences for citizens, especially those in our society who have less access to legal services and information.

A crisis of trust in the judiciary

Beyond political neutrality and institutional arrangements, trust in the judiciary is significantly influenced by the competence and integrity of the judge. Despite the fact that the Constitution of Georgia directly refers to the criteria of competence and integrity in the process of appointment of judges, Georgian justice still has acute problems in this direction. This became especially obvious in the process of staffing the Supreme Court. First, in 2019, the process of selecting judges showed that there were serious questions regarding the professional competence and integrity of the candidates selected through the competition. In the following years, the process of selecting judges of the highest instance clearly showed us that only legislative and procedural improvements cannot automatically create guarantees for the selection of judges with high qualifications and integrity.

The institutional legitimacy of the judiciary is qualitatively different from the legitimacy of the political branches of the government and is entirely based on public trust. With the fragmented reforms, the risk of constant politicization, internal influences, and low qualifications of judges in the background, it is logical that today the Georgian court does not have high public trust. For example, a joint study by the Center for Social Justice and the Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC) found that according to more than half of the population, the Georgian court is not free from political influence. According to a 2021 public opinion survey by NDI, only 16% of the population believe that the justice system has improved in the last 10 years, while more than twice as many - 32% - say that the situation has worsened in this regard. The 2022 public opinion survey of the International Republican Institute (IRI) also indicates a difficult situation. According to the survey, only 38% of the population have a positive attitude toward the court, and 48% have a negative one. The same survey shows that the population of Georgia is favorable towards institutions such as the police, the President, the Parliament, political parties, etc. more than the court.

As mentioned, trust in the judiciary is formed by different factors and it can be determined both by the institutional and political context and by the experience and perception of specific individuals. It is also significant that the lack of trust directly affects the behavior of individuals - whether they address the court or try to protect their rights through legal means. In other words, the higher the level of distrust in the court, the less chance a citizen will turn to it to protect their personal interests. The absence of trust in the judiciary can have a particularly acute impact on the legal status of those individuals who have the least access to legal information and assistance.

Vulnerable groups and accessibility of the judiciary

One of the strongest factors of trust in the court is experience, which largely shapes citizens’ expectations of a potential legal dispute. Distrust towards the judicial system may be related to a discriminatory or less sensitive attitude from the courtside; insufficient clarifications regarding proceedings; the inconsistent practice of the court; duration of proceedings, related funds, etc.

According to a 2021 study by the Center for Social Justice, women victims of domestic violence often point to police indifference and ironic attitudes. The interviewees also talked about the high risk of social stigma and re-victimization towards women, as well as sexual harassment of women by the law enforcement officers themselves. In this case, the respondents focus not on the court, but on the attitude towards another agency, but this may also impact the belief in legal proceedings and legal protection of rights as a whole. Women victims of domestic violence also indicated hopelessness in terms of improving the situation and socio-economic vulnerability. These factors are also directly related to the court - in particular, how accessible, from a financial point of view, this institution is and how sensitive the court is to the social and economic challenges of different groups or individuals.

According to the same study, in cases of domestic violence, people, especially those living in rural areas, often refrain from using legal mechanisms – mainly because of shame and shyness; There are cases when mothers encourage their children to endure violence from the men. The opinion that “family issues should be resolved in the family and the police should not interfere” is also common. It is also noteworthy that these trends are more visible in villages than in urban areas. This once again shows the nature of the problem – mistrust towards the court, or other barriers to it, in the end, may have the most negative impact on the legal situation of individuals who have fewer opportunities to receive quality legal aid or seek the necessary legal information.

It is also clear that trust in the judiciary alone is not a sufficient criterion for evaluating the judicial system, and the extent to which justice is accessible to citizens shall be taken into account as well. For example, a survey conducted in 2020 shows that In terms of access to justice, the population cites court costs and the length of proceedings as the biggest barriers, only followed by the lack of trust in court. According to the same survey, the threat of reprisals, the complexity of preparation documents, cultural factors, insufficient knowledge of the language, etc. are other barriers for the population on the way to the court.

For summary

In order for the court to actually ensure the rule of law and the proper protection of human rights, it is necessary to have high public trust in the judiciary, although trust alone is not enough for the effective work of the court, and citizens should also apply to the court to protect their rights. In other words, the courts should be accessible to citizens, especially to marginalized, vulnerable groups.

Considering the effectiveness of justice only from a narrow legal perspective often not only does not provide thorough and in-depth answers to correct the situation but even makes it impossible to identify the real problem. For this purpose, it is necessary not to lose sight of the social and cultural factors that can directly determine the degree of trust in the judiciary and strengthen or weaken the citizen’s motivation to turn to the court.

Unfortunately, the history of the development of the Georgian judiciary in recent decades only speaks about the institutional arrangement, and the ongoing professional discussions on justice rarely went beyond legal frameworks. The legislative and institutional context is essential for the proper functioning of the system, but it is not enough to ensure quality and accessible justice for ordinary citizens. In order to increase trust in the judiciary, beyond institutional and political sustainability, it is necessary to have a high social sensitivity of the judiciary and to eliminate the cultural, economic, or other types of barriers that affect the trust of citizens, especially of vulnerable groups.

Beyond institutional and legal challenges, it is necessary to add topics to the political agenda, which may not be of vital importance for all citizens, but for a significant part of our population, they directly determine the degree of trust and access to the court.

---
Georgian Court Watch Project: "Active Citizen Involvement for a Better Judicial System"

The article was prepared with funding from the European Foundation, within the framework of a grant from the Danish International Development Agency. The author is responsible for its content. The article does not reflect the official positions of the European Foundation and the Danish International Development Agency.