Justice Sector Reform

Additional Information: Value of state budget allocated for legal aid

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators (47): Whether victims of miscarriage of justice have access to effective legal recourse and redress Question: “To what extent do you agree that people who are wrongfully convicted are able to receive compensation or other forms of redress?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Please define X before the start of the project. Please consider/check availability and quality of administrative records (e.g. completeness, accuracy, quality control, timeliness, etc.) to judge whether they are appropriate to use for monitoring purposes. If public records have gaps or inconsistencies, the project needs to conduct its own study.  

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators (49): Whether and to what extent indigent defendants receive free legal assistance (both legal advice and legal representation for people without financial means, particularly women) at all stages of criminal and/or civil proceedings against them. Survey question: How often do indigent people accused of serious crimes actually receive free legal assistance at all stages of proceedings against them? Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very often (4); often (3); rarely (2); never (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. NOTE - Applicable for all UN Rule of Law Indicators: these are indicators proposed by the UN for projects/ programmes working in the justice sector; the relevant data collection is carried out by the projects/programmes themselves, based on different data collection methods: public survey, expert survey, document review, or administrative and field data. Thus, it is up to the project/programme to design the appropriate data collection mechanism to gather data on the indicator of interest.    

Additional Information:

UN Rule of Law indicators (45): How available are the services of interpreters (e.g. for criminal, civil, administrative procedures)

Survey question: How would you rate the availability of interpreters to assist victims and defendants during criminal proceedings?

Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: 

• very good (4); 
• good (3); 
• poor (2); 
• very poor (1). 

Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to help determine whether interpreters are available to only one of these groups. Please consider/check availability and quality of prison records/statistics (e.g. completeness, accuracy, quality control, timeliness, etc) to judge whether it's appropriate to use for monitoring purposes.

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators (50): The quality of the legal representation generally available to defendants during criminal proceeding. Survey question: “How would you rate the legal representation generally available to defendants during criminal proceedings?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. NOTES:  •    Expert perception can also be coupled with information on outcomes of such proceedings. •    This indicator can be expanded to legal representation available to defendants during civil proceedings   

Additional Information: European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems (2014-2016)- Question 8: Are litigants required in general to pay a court tax or fee to start a proceeding at a court  of general jurisdiction: (a) for criminal cases? (b) for other than criminal cases? There may be a general rule in some states according to which a party is required to pay a court tax or fee to start a proceeding at a court of general jurisdiction. Court taxes or fees do not concern lawyers' fees. If this general rule has exceptions, please indicate them. For the purposes of this question, courts of general jurisdiction are those courts which deal with civil law and criminal law cases. A portion of the budget of courts can be financed by an income resulting from the payment by the parties of such court taxes or fees. As regard the method for calculating the court fees, in certain countries this can be a set sum whereas in others it can consist of a percentage of the contested amount or of an amount determined by the nature of the proceedings.  

Additional Information: * replace with a type of court that your project is supporting. Please specify additional disaggregation if needed, i.e. within civil cases, you could disaggregated by sub-categories such as property, family, etc. and within criminal cases, you could disaggregated SGBV cases and others.

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Please use this indicator only to measure the general situation of the legal aid system in the country, rather than the outputs of the EU-funded project (which is monitored at output level). Please add additional criteria of disaggregation if other factors represent a disadvantage in the local context (i.e. ethnic origin, religion). Public data (statistics) on access to justice for vulnerable/marginalized groups may not be collected by the government/courts so the project should be strongly encouraged from the inception phase to report on available data and plans for filling any gaps.

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators (48): Whether, according to public survey respondents, victims of crime have to pay an official or unofficial fee to have their complaints proceed to court Question: “How often do victims of crime have to pay an official or unofficial fee to have their complaints proceed to court?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: never (1); rarely (2); often (3); very often (4). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Please specify the [x] in the indicator, as well as the basic services a “fully functioning court” needs to provide.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Note that the SDG indicator 16.3.1 is a Tier II indicator (i.e. Indicator conceptually clear, established methodology and standards available but data are not regularly produced by countries) Possible custodian agency: UNODC Alternative:  This indicator can be expanded to legal aid with respect to civil proceedings (both legal advice and legal representation for people without financial means, particularly women)  

Additional Information: Please specify the relevant period (in terms of the number of months) that is relevant (expected, or stipulated in policies) in your local context.

Additional Information: Measurement: Review of documents to determine whether prosecution services have performance guidelines and a performance monitoring system that holds prosecutors accountable for unnecessary delays in proceedings, case backlog, or absenteeism. Rating: Very good performance guidelines and monitoring system (4); good performance guidelines and monitoring system (3); poor performance guidelines and monitoring system (2); very poor performance guidelines and monitoring system (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time  

Additional Information: This indicator captures the extent to which the executive and public employees can be held to account by the electorate, legislative and judiciary. It consists of two sub-indicators: 1. Public sector accountability and transparency (AfDB) 2. Public sector accountability and transparency (WB) – IDA Resource Allocation Index *NOTE: Only African countries covered. Could use Public sector accountability and transparency score, an sub indicator for the IDA resource allocation index for IDA eligible countries.      Unit number can be between 1-100  

Additional Information: “Sanctions” refers to disciplinary action (not criminal charges).

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators (42): Public perception of how respectful judges and prosecutors are of the rights of defendants and victims Question: “To what extent do you agree that judges and prosecutors are generally respectful of the rights of defendants and victims?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators (43): Whether the courts are perceived by the population to be treating people fairly and impartially regardless of their income, race, national or social origin, gender or religion Question: “To what extent do you agree that courts treat people fairly regardless of their income, race, national or social origin, gender or religion?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Whether the population believes that judges are able to make decisions free from direct or indirect interference by Government or politicians Question: “Do you think that judges are able to make decisions without direct or indirect interference by Government or politicians?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: always able (4); sometimes able (3); rarely able (2); never able (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Whether the public believe that prosecution decisions are made in a fair, efficient and effective manner Question: “Do you agree that the public believes that prosecution decisions are made in a fair, efficient and effective manner?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: The project will need to conduct at least two surveys in order to obtain data for this indicator. The survey may combine direct questions (i.e. “How do you perceive the overall quality of justice dispensed by the court in your city/village/community?”) with proxy questions (i.e. “If you were wrongly accused of a crime, would you expect to be treated justly by the courts?”, or similar). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Please be specific in the target: what type of body is sought, should it be independent or appointed, to do what or with what membership? 

Additional Information: Whether the material resources available to the courts are adequate Indicator 75- Question: “With respect to the courts across most of the country (not just the capital), to what extent do you agree that courts have the material resources they need to consult the law, record proceedings, schedule cases, and store and maintain records?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to determine the specific challenged faced by the courts in this regard.  

Additional Information: Whether prosecutors have the material resources necessary to record testimonies, store and maintain evidence, and keep track of pending cases and hearing dates  Indicator 77 - Question: “To what extent do you agree that prosecutors have the means and resources to record testimonies, store and maintain evidence, and keep track of pending cases and hearing dates?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to determine which aspects of this capacity are particularly lacking.  

Additional Information: Question: “How would you rate the courts’ capacity to plan their operations strategically and to budget efficiently?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A document review will also establish whether recent strategic plans and budget forecast documents exist.  

Additional Information: Whether the courts have in place effective administrative systems to support key management functions such as the management of finances, assets, procurement and human resources  Question: “How would you rate the administrative systems on which the courts rely to perform key management functions such as the management of finances, assets, procurement and human resources?” Rating: Average score of relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to identify the main strengths and weaknesses of these systems.  

Additional Information: Whether the prosecutors have in place effective administrative systems to support key management functions such as the management of finances, assets, procurement and human resources. Question: “How would you rate the administrative systems on which prosecutors rely to perform key management functions such as the management of finances, assets, procurement and human resources?” Rating: Average score of relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to identify the main strengths and weaknesses of these systems.  

Additional Information: The public prosecution office’s strategic planning and budgeting capacity Question: “How would you rate the public prosecution office’s capacity to plan its operations strategically and to budget efficiently?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A document review will also establish whether recent strategic plans and budget forecast documents exist.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that entry-level prosecutors’ salaries are sufficient to recruit and retain qualified professionals?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that judges’ salaries are sufficient to attract and retain qualified judges, enabling them to live in a reasonably secure environment without having to resort to other sources of income?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Number of days

Additional Information: Number of days

Additional Information: Ability of the judicial system to hear and conclude criminal cases without undue delays  Question: “How would you rate the ability of the judicial system to hear and conclude criminal cases without undue delays?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: The disposition time refers to the time needed to shift the backlog of pending cases. It estimates the number of days required to close a pending case. A short version of the formula for calculating is: disposition time=  (no.of unresolved cases at the end of a period)/(no.of resolved cases in a period)  x  no.of days in period  Annex 6 to the CEPEJ Study provides more information on calculations.  

Additional Information: The clearance rate is the ratio of the number of resolved cases over the number of incoming cases. It measures whether a court is keeping up with its incoming caseload. When the clearance rate is about 100% or higher, it means the judicial system is able to resolve at least as many cases as come in. When the clearance rate is below 100%, it means that the courts are resolving fewer cases than the number of incoming cases. It shows how the court or judicial system is coping with the inflow of cases. clearance rate (%)=  (resolved cases in a period)/(incoming cases in a period)  x 100 Please define "resolved", e.g. at first instance, at appeals, etc.   

Additional Information: * delete as appropriate depending on the context. You may also want to have two indicators, e.g. on covering referrals and one covering resolution. 

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Number of cases

Additional Information: Please specify type of specialised chambers/courts/departments

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Whether the public perceives that the courts complete criminal proceedings without unnecessary delays  Question: “To what extent do you agree that the courts complete criminal proceedings without any unnecessary delay?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Measurement: Field data gathered from a sample of court records to determine whether they contain complete information on the date the case was transferred to the court, the charge(s) involved and the date of the next hearing or other action. Rating: The indicator is rated using a four-point scale corresponding to the following four categories: 100% of files contain the relevant information (very good = 4); 75-99% of files contain the relevant information (good = 3); 50-74% of files contain the relevant information (poor = 2); less than 50% of files contain the relevant information (very poor = 1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in percentage over time.  

Additional Information: Please specify relevant group in the indicator.

Additional Information: Whether prosecutors’ offices maintain apparently complete records on: (a) all cases accepted for prosecution; (b) cases dismissed; and (c) charges for each case  Measurement: Field data gathered from a sample of active prosecution files to determine whether they contain complete information on: (a) when the case was accepted for prosecution; (b) the action taken in the case; (c) the nature of the charges for each case; and (d) the date of the next appearance. Rating: The indicator is rated using a four-point scale corresponding to the following four categories: 100% of files contain the relevant information (very good = 4); 75-99% of files contain the relevant information (good = 3); 50-74% of files contain the relevant information (poor = 2); less than 50% of files contain the relevant information (very poor = 1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in percentage over time.  

Additional Information: Please specify the number of days or years in the indicator.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Please define the "established time guidelines" suitable for the local context.

Additional Information: Please define "small financial value" that is suitable for the local context Number of days

Additional Information: The total backlog refers to cases remaining unresolved at the end of the period, defined as difference between the total number of pending cases at the beginning of the period, and the cases resolved within the same period. Example: If there were 1,000 cases pending at the beginning of the calendar year, and the court terminated 750 cases during the calendar year, at the end of the calendar period there would be 250 cases that are calculated as total backlog

Additional Information: Whether judges experience delays in receiving their salaries Question: “How frequently do judges experience delays in receiving their salaries?" Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very rarely (4); sometimes (3); often (2); very often (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Whether prosecutors experience delays in receiving their salaries Question: “How frequently do prosecutors experience delays in receiving their salaries?" Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very rarely (4); sometimes (3); often (2); very often (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “How frequently do publicly funded defence counsels experience delays in receiving their salaries or professional fees?" Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very rarely (4); sometimes (3); often (2); very often (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: This indicator captures the independence of the judiciary from the influence of external actors; whether the judiciary has the ability and autonomy to interpret and review existing laws, legislation and policy; and the integrity of the process of appointing and removing national-level judges. It consists of three sub-indicators: 1. Independent Judiciary (BS) – Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) (source: Bertelsmann Stiftung) 2. Judicial Autonomy (WEF) – Global Competitiveness Report (source: World Economic Forum) 3. Judicial Independence (GI) – IIAG calculation * NOTE: Only African countries covered. Could use Judicial independence index from the WEF for non-African countries. Score go from 1 to 100

Additional Information: This indicator captures the extent to which the legal process is free from interference, and the existence of formal judicial reasoning. It consists of two sub-indicators: 1. Strength and fairness of the judicial system (EIU) – Economist Intelligence Unit Dataset 2. Judicial Decisions (GI) – Africa Integrity Indicators * NOTE: Only African countries covered. Score numbers go from 1 to 100

Additional Information: Qualitative information meaning Yes or No

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Euros Please ensure that the same source for population data is used for the inception and final calculations. If any calculations are made (i.e. to estimate population increase over a number of years), they should be explained in project reports.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: This indicator helps measure the security of tenure for judges.

Additional Information: Judiciary Councils exist in some civil law countries (though in common law countries, we may also see a technical body with members from the judiciary, which plays a similar role in ensuring fair and merit-based criteria for the appointment of judges). This Council is in charge of appointment procedures for judges, transfer, discipline, career management, etc.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Based on agreement with the statement  "The government does not overturn judicial decisions" (Likert-scale: agree/neutral/disagree)

Additional Information: Reports on budget execution may be delayed so data availability should be checked during the Inception Phase.

Additional Information: Question: “How adequate are the facilities used to detain children?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very adequate (4); mostly adequate (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to determine the main issues with respect to the conditions of detention of children.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that prisons have adequate resources to transport inmates to court hearings?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to help determine what the main issues are in this respect.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that an efficient mechanism is in place for regular prison inspections and for following up on the issues identified during such inspections?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that those who committed gross human rights abuses and other serious crimes are identified and prevented from serving as prison officers?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the four response categories: fully agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “How adequate are the facilities used to detain women and girls?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: completely adequate (4); mostly adequate (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to determine the main issues with respect to the conditions of detention of women.  

Additional Information: Question: “How would you rate the prison service’s resources and capacity to properly train new recruits?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.

Additional Information: Question: “How adequate is the human rights training received by prison staff?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: completely adequate (4); mostly adequate (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to determine how such training should be improved.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that prison officers generally have the necessary skills and training to respond to various prison situations without excessive use of force?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “How would you rate the administrative systems on which the prison service relies to perform key management functions such as the management of finances, assets, procurement and human resources?” Rating: Average score of relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to identify the main strengths and weaknesses of these systems.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that prisons are managed in compliance with human rights standards?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note 1: A supplementary question is asked to determine which aspects of prison management are particularly problematic from the point of view of human rights and children’s rights. Note 2: A second supplementary question is asked to determine whether experts believe that there is a difference with respect to compliance with children’s rights.  

Additional Information: Question: “How would you rate the prison service’s capacity to plan its operations strategically and to budget efficiently?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A document review will also establish whether recent strategic plans and budget forecast documents exist  

Additional Information: Question: “How would you rate the prison service’s record keeping and information management capacity?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: Field data will also be collected on the quality of the information contained in a sample of prison files.  

Additional Information: Question: “How adequate are entry-level salaries for prison officers in terms of recruiting and retaining qualified professionals?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very adequate (4); barely adequate (3); inadequate (2); grossly inadequate (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “How serious is the problem of overcrowding in the country’s prisons?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: not a problem (4); a minor problem (3); a serious problem (2); a very serious problem (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note 1: A supplementary question is asked to provide more information on where (region, type of institution) the problem is most severe. Note 2: Supplementary information is collected and reported, if possible, on the percentage of inmates housed in “overcrowded prisons” based on review of administrative data, when available, on prison capacity and prison population.  

Additional Information: Question: “How frequently do prison staff experience delays in receiving their salary? Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very rarely (4); sometimes (3); often (2); very often (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that there exist adequate mechanisms for hearing complaints registered by prisoners about their treatment in prison?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: Supplementary questions are asked to determine whether adequate complaint mechanisms also exist in juvenile detention facilities and how they could be improved.  

Additional Information: Question: “How would you rate the ability and determination of prison leaders/managers to improve the performance of the prison service?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that prisoners of all faiths and denominations are permitted to freely practise their religion in prison?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Question: “Do you agree that families of prisoners are generally allowed to visit their imprisoned relatives without any kind of official or unofficial fee?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note 1: A supplementary question is asked to help determine whether this is also true of family visits in the case of children in detention. Note 2: Where administrative data exist, the percentage of children in detention who have been visited by, or visited, a parent, guardian, or family member in the last three months will be calculated and reported.  

Additional Information: Question: “How adequate is the professional health care generally available to prisoners?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very adequate (4); adequate (3); inadequate (2); very inadequate (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: A supplementary question is asked to help determine whether the same is true for women prisoners.  

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that prisons generally provide prisoners with food of sufficient nutritional value to remain healthy and strong?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: Supplementary information is collected and reported, if available (based where possible on field data), on the average percentage of minimum recommended daily calories received by prisoners in selected prisons.  

Additional Information: Question: "How would you rate the prisons' supply of clean water and sanitation installations?" Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators ( indicator 73): Question: “Would you agree that detention is used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time in all cases involving children as defendants?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: strongly agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. Note: When national juvenile justice sentencing data exist, the percentage of sentenced children receiving a custodial sentence in a given year will be calculated and reported together with the main findings in order to help quantify the justice system’s reliance on detention as a response to youth crime.  

Additional Information: *such as prisoner's nutrition, clean water and sanitation, separate detention of male and female prisoners as well as children, family visits,  quality of health care services etc.) Use if information is available at the overall level. If comprehensive data is not available, please use the more specific indicators below.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Measurement: Percentage of children in detention not wholly separated from adults, divided by the total number of children in detention, multiplied by 100.

Additional Information: Measurement: Number of children in pre-sentence detention per 100,000 child population. Rating: Not rated. Dynamic: Direction and level of change in the number over time.  

Additional Information: Measurement: Number of children in pre-sentence detention per 100,000 child population. Rating: Not rated. Dynamic: Direction and level of change in the number over time.  

Additional Information: Measurement: number of recommendations Qualitative aspects to be analysed: •    To what extent have recommendations been implemented? •    Which recommendations have been implemented and which ones are delayed and why?

Additional Information: Measurement: Number of non-violent deaths of prisoners within the last 12 months divided by the prison population (e.g., average monthly count), multiplied by 1,000. Dynamic: Changes in the number of non-violent deaths over time. Note: When possible, data disaggregated by gender and by age will be used. This makes it possible to determine how many children, if any, died a non-violent death while in prison.  

Additional Information: Measurement: The number of prisoners divided by the number of prison officers on a representative, specified day of the year. Dynamic: Changes in the ratio over time. Note: Wherever possible, administrative data on the number of children in detention will also be obtained and reported.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Measurement: Percentage of prison detainees on a given date who have been held in detention for more than 12 months while awaiting sentencing or another final disposition of their case (excluding appeals). Rating: Not rated. Dynamic: Direction and level of change in the percentage over time. Note: Data on child detainees should also be collected and reported when available.  

Additional Information: Measurement: Percentage of prison detainees on a given date who have been held in detention for more than 12 months while awaiting sentencing or another final disposition of their case (excluding appeals). Rating: Not rated. Dynamic: Direction and level of change in the percentage over time. Note: Data on child detainees should also be collected and reported when available.  

Additional Information: Measurement: Percentage of children in detention not wholly separated from adults, divided by the total number of children in detention, multiplied by 100.

Additional Information: Women detained separately from male prisoners – Whether and to what extent female prisoners are kept separate from male prisoners Measurement: Percentage of female prisoners who are held completely separately from male prisoners. Dynamic: Changes in the percentage over time.  

Additional Information:

Additional Information: This is a general outcome, about the situation overall. If the project is directly providing vocational education and training, or medical care, please move this indicator to output level.

Additional Information: Measurement: The percentage of prisoners admitted to prison during a year who were examined by a qualified medical professional at the time of their admission. Dynamic: Changes in the percentage over time.  

Additional Information: Please specify the reporting period (i.e. last 12 months, the calendar year, or another).

Additional Information: Question: “To what extent do you agree that discrimination against certain groups of prisoners is a problem in the country’s prisons?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information: Please specify the reporting period (i.e. last 12 months, the calendar year, or another).

Additional Information: SDG Tier I indicator 16.3.2 (i.e. Indicator conceptually clear, established methodology and standards available and data regularly produced by countries) Possible custodian agency: UNODC  

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators (46): Whether the rights of victims and defendants are sufficiently protected during criminal court proceedings stion: “To what extent do you agree that the rights of victims and defendants are sufficiently protected during criminal court proceedings?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time  

Additional Information: Please define group X, e.g. indigent/ethnic minorities/ another appropriate marginalised group if necessary. Public data (statistics) on this issue may not be collected by the government/courts so the project should be strongly encouraged from the inception phase to report on available data and plans for filling any gaps.