DRAFT YEAR 3 WORK PLAN OCTOBER 1, 2016 SEPTEMBER 30, …

August 23, 2016

TASK ORDER: AID-168-TO-14-00001

Implemented by:

Millennium DPI Partners, LLC

Two Boars Head Place, Suite 130

Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-4678

Project Address:

Grbavicka Street No. 4, 5th floor

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Telephone: 38733-219-678

e-mail: [email protected]

DISCLAIMER

This document was produced for review and approval by the United States Agency for International Development.

It was prepared by Millennium DPI Partners, LLC. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect

the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

DRAFT YEAR 3 WORK PLAN

OCTOBER 1, 2016 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2017

USAID’S JUSTICE ACTIVITY IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Task Order AID-168-TO-14-000001 Millennium DPI Partners

USAID’s Justice Activity in BiH, Draft Year 3 Work Plan August 23, 2016

Proprietary Information: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet Page ii

is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................................ iv

I. OVERVIEW AND PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS....................................................................................................... 1

Highlights of Program Achievements ................................................................................................................. 2

II. WORK PLAN STRUCTURE AND LOCAL COUNTERPART ENGAGEMENT .................................. 5

III. KEY PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES ............................................................................................ 6

USAID Strategic Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 6

JA Program Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 6

IV. KEY FEATURES OF YEAR 3 PROGRAMMING ................................................................................................... 7

Internal Project Coordination ............................................................................................................................... 7

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) ........................................................................................................................ 7

JA Implementation Meetings and Coordinating Activities ........................................................................ 8

Cross-Cutting Activities ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Gender Equity Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 9

Special Activities .......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Public Integrity & Anti-Corruption Events............................................................................................ 10

Discrete Assistance to POs......................................................................................................................... 10

Educational Programs/Training................................................................................................................... 10

V. PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 12

VI. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Component 1: improve the professional status and performance of prosecutors .................... 14

Overview of Prosecutor Partnership Program (PPP) ...................................................................... 14

Component Status and Challenges/Opportunities ............................................................................ 16

Component Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 17

Activity 1.1: Strengthened organizational leadership, planning, and performance of

prosecutors......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Activity 1.2: Prosecutors perform their functions more efficiently through a balanced

allocation of resources that effectively meet organizational needs ........................................... 24

Activity 1.3: Prosecutors uphold the public trust and integrity by giving due attention to prosecution of crimes committed by public officials ........................................................................ 26

Activity 1.4: Prosecutors provide appropriate and accurate information to citizens in

order to strengthen transparency and responsiveness ................................................................... 27



Proprietary Information: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet Page iii


Activity 1.5: Prosecutor status improved through a performance appraisal process,

merit-based career advancement system, and/or incentive opportunities to prosecute

priority criminal cases .................................................................................................................................... 29

Component 2: strengthening justice sector institutions to uphold public integrity/combat

corruption ................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Status and Challenges/Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 31

Component Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 31

Activity 2.1: Prosecutors investigate and prosecute high profile corruption and economic

crime cases free from political or improper influence .................................................................... 33

Activity 2.2: Increased cooperation and coordination among state, entity, and cantonal

law enforcement and justice sector institutions leads to the successful investigation and

prosecution of corrupt cases ...................................................................................................................... 33

Activity 2.3: The ODC is properly resourced to manage complaint procedures and

autonomously review the conduct of judges and prosecutors and recommends

appropriate sanctions for unethical conduct and corruption ....................................................... 34

Activity 2.4: Disciplinary proceedings are processed expeditiously and fairly and

disciplinary decisions are subject to independent and impartial review .................................. 36

Activity 2.5: Public trust and respect for justice sector institutions/actors are increased

with respect to demonstrated ability to act independently and impartially and to be held

accountable ......................................................................................................................................................... 38

Activity 2.6: Prosecutors and judges are trained in identifying elements of corrupt activities and are able to investigate and prosecute corrupt practices and enforce the

law against offenders....................................................................................................................................... 41

ANNEXES

ANNEX A. BIH JUSTICE ACTIVITY YEAR 3 WORK PLAN TIMELINE



Proprietary Information: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet Page iv


ACRONYMS

AEA Association of Expert Associates

APIK Agency for Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina

BoR Book of Rules

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CEELI Central and Eastern European Law Initiative

CMS Case Management System

COP Chief of Party

CSO Civil Society Organization

DA Diagnostic Analysis of the Integrity of the Judicial Sector in BiH and Potential Risks of Corruption or Unethical Conduct in Judiciary

DAD Diagnostic Assessment Document on the Enforcement Regime of Final Civil Claims

in Bosnia and Herzegovina

DSG Disciplinary Sanctioning Guidelines EU European Union

FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

HJPC High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council

ICITAP International Criminal Investigative Training Program JA Justice Activity

JPTC Judicial and Prosecutorial Training Center

LLX Lucid Linx

MDPI Millennium DPI Partners NGO Non-Governmental Organization

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

ODC Office of Disciplinary Counsel

OPDAT Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

PGI Prosecutor-Guided Investigations

PI Performance Indicator

PIO Public Information Officer

PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets PO Prosecutor Office

POAP Prosecutor Office Assistance Plan

POCM Prosecutor Office Capacity Matrix

PPP Prosecutor Partnership Plan RoP High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council Rules of Procedure

RS Republika Srpska

RSSPO Republika Srpska Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime and Corruption

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SPD Special Prosecutor Department TCMS Prosecutor Case Management System

UNDP United Nations Development Program



Proprietary Information: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet Page v


UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USG United States Government USKOK Croatian Bureau for Combating Corruption and Organized Crime



Proprietary Information: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet Page 1


I. OVERVIEW AND PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

This work plan describes in detail the implementation of Year 3 program activities for the United

States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Justice Activity (the “JA” or the “Project”) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The work plan builds upon activities implemented in Years 1 and 2,

to advance the achievement of program goals. In Year 3, JA will continue to leverage the relationships

developed with local institutional counterparts through program results obtained in the first two

years. During that period, the Project established strong working relationships with key institutional counterparts – including, among others, the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC), the Office

of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), the Standing Committee on the Efficiency of Prosecution Offices, and

the Agency for Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption (APIK) .

In Year 3, JA’s Prosecutor Partnership Program (PPP) will include five (5) new partner prosecutor

offices (POs), for a total of 15 partner POs thus far. The PPP continues to strengthen management

practices and line prosecutor performance, especially to investigate and prosecute corruption and financial crimes. To complement these initiatives, the JA is working closely with the Judicial and

Prosecutorial Training Centers (JPTCs) to develop a training curriculum and deliver practice-based

workshops for judges and prosecutors. Working with the JPTCs, the JA will help institutionalize a

certification program that certifies judges and prosecutors specially trained in corruption and financial

crime cases to ensure higher quality prosecution and adjudication of these cases in the courts of BiH.

Strengthening justice sector integrity is central to Year 3 programming. In Year 2, JA helped the HJPC develop Conflict of Interest Guidelines, Guidelines on the Development and Implementation of

Judicial Integrity Plans, and Disciplinary Sanctioning Guidelines, as a set of measures relevant to

preventing and combating unethical and corrupt behavior in the judiciary. These guidelines were

adopted at a session of the HJPC held on July 8, 2016, and were a result of recommendations

contained in the Diagnostic Analysis of the Integrity of the Judicial Sector in BiH and Potential Risks of Corruption or Unethical Conduct in Judiciary (DA). In Year 3, JA will undertake a number of

activities designed to secure the implementation of these Guidelines through training and with an

emphasis on compliance – for example, the development of a system of asset declarations by judges

and prosecutors. Political will and commitment of the HJPC and the ODC to implement the

Guidelines may be lacking; however, JA is prepared to address institutional resistance to the Guidelines through a more incremental approach, such as piloting the Guidelines as a step towards

full implementation.

In Year 3, JA will continue to support the HJPC and the ODC to strengthen professional ethics and

discipline within the judiciary. Ongoing technical assistance will focus on fairness and transparency of

the disciplinary process, as well as increased efficiency of ODC and HJPC disciplinary committee work

through implementation of better defined disciplinary violations and disciplinary measures. Based upon recommendations by technical experts, JA is helping the HJPC address needed changes to the

HJPC organic law aimed at improving the fairness of process (mainly focusing on the independence

of ODC and transparency of proceedings) and the prevention of unnecessary delays in disciplinary

decision-making. JA is also working with the ODC on improving its management practices, including

strategic planning, case management, and public communication.





In Year 3, JA will reinforce ongoing training initiatives through the development of manuals that will

help institutionalize best practices. JA is developing a disciplinary process benchbook and handbook

for use by ODC/HJPC disciplinary committee members, which is contingent upon changes to the HJPC law. Additionally, JA’s curriculum development for corruption and financial crime cases will

provide a basis for training in Year 3, which will inform the development of a benchbook for judges

and prosecutors on adjudication of corruption and financial crimes cases (a parallel activity).

As JA enters its third year of program implementation, the project is making measurable progress

with local counterparts to achieve overall program goals. This work plan builds on qualitative results

achieved in past years and incorporates feedback from local counterparts. Recognizing that the JA is entering the mid-term, the work plan takes into account results from the Monitoring and Evaluation

(M&E) Plan. For instance, the PPP is incrementally strengthening PO management through improved

strategic planning and resource allocation initiatives, as well as developing line-prosecutor capacity to

conduct prosecutor-guided investigations (PGIs) through direct practice-based training. M&E data indicates an increased number of indictments filed and better conviction rates in anti-corruption cases

in partner POs. However, JA survey results also show that around 85 percent of the public has a

perception that the judiciary (including prosecutors) is susceptible to corruption. This data reflects a

gap between positive results in the judiciary’s efforts to fight corruption and public perception about

the judiciary and corruption. JA is addressing this disparity with ongoing public relations assistance to POs to provide information to the public about positive anti-corruption results. Also, JA is capitalizing

on collaboration established with APIK and the HJPC. This collaboration has resulted in increased

cooperation between APIK and justice sector institutions to measure anti-corruption outcomes and

in the HJPC’s initiative to analyze corruption cases with information from the automated case

management system (CMS and TCMS). Notably, in Year 3, JA will intensify assistance to POs to build their M&E capacity and introduce new performance indicators, such as public relations indicators .

These efforts, combined with strategic planning and program budgeting assistance to the POs,

substantially contribute to the overall program goal of making POs and other justice sector

institutions accountable through self-management.

During Year 2, in coordination with USAID, Millennium DPI Partners (MDPI) phased out the previous

Component 2 (Improving Efficiencies in the Enforcement of Judgments), which culminated in the dissemination of a Diagnostic Assessment Document on the Enforcement Regime of Final Civil Claims

in BiH (DAD), a major program deliverable. With the phase out of that component’s activities, former

Component 3 (Strengthening Justice Sector Institutions to Uphold Public Integrity/Combat

Corruption) is now renumbered as Component 2. With the consolidation of programming into two components, the JA enters its third year with a concentrated focus on justice sector accountability,

strengthening PO capacity to prosecute government corruption effectively, and promoting

government responsiveness to citizens through increased transparency and professionalism. Through

these efforts, JA continues to support the process of BiH accession to the European Union (EU).

HIGHLIGHTS OF PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS

An overview of key program achievements to date is set forth below.





Table 1. Justice Project Program Achievements to Date

Component 1 – Improve the Professional Status and Performance of Prosecutors

Established Prosecutor Partnership Program (PPP) and individualized PO Assistance Plans (POAPs) for a

total of 10 partner POs, including five POs in Year 2: (Cantonal POs in Mostar, Sarajevo and Široki Brijeg,

District PO in Trebinje, Republic PO of the Republika Srpska and Federal PO of the Federation of BiH).

Organized and completed a study trip devoted to the topic of anti-corruption for 11 line and chief

prosecutors held at the Central and Eastern European Law Initiative (CEELI) Institute in Prague, the

Czech Republic.

Developed strategic planning frameworks at the level of both Entities, including developing medium-term

strategic priorities and performance targets, and drafted annual plans for individual POs based on these

frameworks.

Delivered an expert assessment report on the system of performance appraisals of prosecutors in BiH,

including an analysis of the HJPC’s procedures and practices for the quantitative and qualitative appraisal

of prosecutor’ performance, and presented the results to members of the HJPC Standing Committee on

the Efficiency of Prosecutors and the wider professional community.

PGI experts on criminal and financial investigations delivered continuous on-the-job training to

prosecutors from partner POs to strengthen PO capacity to manage investigations and trials in

corruption and economic crime cases.

Developed a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators for use by the HJPC for annual monitoring and

measurement of the performance of POs in the area of public relations and transparency.

Conducted specialized training sessions for prosecutors from partner POs, using national, international

and regional experts (the Office for the Prevention of Corruption and Organized Crime in the Republic

of Croatia – USKOK), including a five-day induction training for 15 newly appointed prosecutors assigned

to work on economic crime and corruption cases in the Cantonal PO in Sarajevo.

Developed a methodology, collected data and started drafting three diagnostic assessments on (1) expert

witnesses in POs in corruption and organized crime and economic crime cases, (2) audit reports and

their use in initiating criminal proceedings by POs, and (3) a legal and practical framework for asset

forfeiture in BiH.

Collected over 700 court decisions in corruption and organized crime cases issued by all courts in BiH

from 2013-2015 and developed a methodology (software tools) for processing of quantitative data from

the decisions and for qualitative analysis of selected decisions.

Component 2 – Strengthening Justice Sector Institutions to Uphold Public Integrity

and Combat Corruption

JA facilitated the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation between HJPC, APIK and

USAID, which defines the framework, principles and modalities of their cooperation to enhance the

capacities of judicial institutions to combat corruption, as an area of common interest and a strategy for

BiH accession to the EU.

JA conducted a Diagnostic Analysis of the Integrity of the Judicial Sector in BiH and Potential Risks of

Corruption or Unethical Conduct in Judiciary, a comprehensive analysis that informs JA anticorruption

technical assistance to the BiH and JA partners in both the government and non-government sectors.

HJPC adopted Guidelines on the Development and Implementation of Judicial Integrity Plans drafted with

JA technical assistance.

HJPC adopted Conflict of Interest Guidelines drafted with JA technical assistance.

With JA technical assistance, ODC developed its first communications strategy and implemented a

number of activities aimed at improved internal and external communication, such as a mini public-

information campaign, improvements to its website, and internal teambuilding.

With JA technical assistance, ODC conducted the first opinion survey with judges and prosecutors to





determine the perception of the fairness and impartiality of disciplinary action.

JA developed digests of all disciplinary decisions as a practical educational and research tool for use by

ODC and HJPC disciplinary panels.

JA conducted an analysis of a selected type of disciplinary complaints and decisions and disciplinary

complaints in support of an on-going process of drafting required amendments to the HJPC Law and the

future development of a Judicial Discipline Benchbook and Handbook.

HJPC adopted Disciplinary Sanctioning Guidelines drafted by a JA expert.

JA has been supporting the work of HJPC Standing Legislative Committee on the drafting of amendments

to the HJPC Law aiming at achieving greater fairness and efficiency of judicial discipline proceedings,

through comparative analysis of regional and international solutions;

With JA technical assistance, the Association of Expert Associates and Advisors in Courts and

Prosecutor’s Office of BiH developed an analysis of the legal and institutional framework governing ethics

and discipline of expert associates and advisors, as basis for a future model code of ethics for court and

PO personnel;

HJPC endorsed JA proposed software and organizational changes required to improve the content of

judicial statistical information on corruption, organized and economic crime cases, as well as the manner

in which the statistical data will be extracted, transformed, presented and exchanged with law

enforcement agencies and other end-users (ministries of justice, parliament, media, NGO, public at large).

APIK adopted its internal Book of Rules on How to Process Reports Indicating Corrupt Conduct (BoR),

drafted with JA technical assistance, with the aim of improving the quality of APIK reports provided to

POs documenting possible corruption activity.

Based upon a training needs assessment, JA developed a two-year long specialized training program for

judges and prosecutors on corruption, organized and economic crime cases. In cooperation with the

Swiss funded HJPC project supporting enhanced prosecutorial capacity, JA successfully advocated for the

introduction of this training program in the 2016 and 2017 annual training programs of entity JPTCS. The

training will include the certification of approximately 40 trainees in 2017, representing the first group of

trainees to attend this training program.

JA delivered two specialized two-day training events separately for judges and for prosecutors, as well as

drafted a chapter of the benchbook on how to prosecute and adjudicate financial crimes.

Former Component 2 – Improving Efficiencies in the Enforcement of Judgments

(Discontinued in Year 2)

In February and May 2015, the project organized two regional roundtables in Sarajevo and Banja Luka

dedicated to the identification of issues, obstacles, and solutions related to the enforcement of civil

judgments in BiH (relevant for Activities 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4).

During May - July 2015 the team of five experts (three international and two national experts) created

the Diagnostic Assessment on System of Enforcement of Final Civil Claims in Bosnia and Herzegovina

(DAD). This comprehensive document contains key findings and recommendations related to the overall

system of enforcement both in the area of necessary legislative actions, and recommendations for

improvements in practices of courts and other participants in the enforcement proceedings. The DAD

has been printed and distributed to the counterparts during the close out event for the former

Component 2 held on March 30, 2016, in Sarajevo.

Along with the Diagnostic Assessment, the expert team developed two independent documents relevant

to this activity: The Pilot Court Program and Standards and Training Resource Materials. The Pilot Court

Program and Standards was aimed to test and validate new or improved practices, address operational

shortcomings affecting efficiency and success rates in the application of enforcement procedures, and

select the courts for participation in the pilot program. The Training Resource Materials proposes

interventions to develop the professional capacity of current justice sector actors involved in the

enforcement of judgments, specifically judges, legal associates, and court bailiffs.





II. WORK PLAN STRUCTURE AND LOCAL

COUNTERPART ENGAGEMENT

The Year 3 Work Plan activities are organized under two components:

Component 1 – Improve the Professional Status and Performance of Prosecutors

Component 2 – Strengthening Justice Sector Institutions to Uphold Public Integrity and to

Combat Corruption.

In Year 2, in coordination with USAID, MDPI phased out program activities for Improving Efficiencies in the Enforcement of Judgments (formerly Component 2). With the phase out of that component’s

activities, the program activities for Strengthening Justice Sector Institutions to Uphold Public

Integrity/Combat Corruption (formerly Component 3) are now renumbered under Component 2.

The Work Plan corresponds to the USAID task order’s scope of work. Year 3 activities are logically

sequenced and support overall project objectives and expected results. Project staff, are supported

by international and local experts to implement activities and achieve results. The Project strives to implement these activities in accordance with projected timelines; however, implementation is sub ject

to the cooperation of local counterparts. As in Years 1 and 2, MDPI will report regularly on JA

progress toward work plan goals and any challenges or obstacles encountered.

In Year 3, JA continues to build upon activities in Years 1 and 2, complementing other donor

assistance, with support for the HJPC, which has established performance standards for POs and

implements specialized projects funded by other donors. In Years 1 and 2, JA successfully established effective working relationships with local counterparts under each component, including the HJPC,

the ODC, 10 partner POs that have participated in the PPP, APIK, and the courts. The Project has

delivered ongoing technical assistance to these local counterparts, including the support of U.S.,

European, regional, and local experts. Technical assistance and collaboration in Years 1 and 2 included

the design and implementation of the PPP to strengthen PO capacity and performance, conducting diagnostic assessments on the system for enforcing judgments and corruption in the justice sector

chain, and practice-based training related to PGIs in corruption and complex financial crime cases.

The Project utilized technical assistance to assess ODC workflow operations, assess disciplinary

procedures (disciplinary sanctions), and evaluate the adequacy of ethics standards (such as conflict of interest). JA is utilizing experts from BiH, Croatia, Romania, and Serbia to foster regional cooperation

on anti-corruption matters and, through substantial use of BiH experts, is building local technical

capacity in the areas of PGI practices and financial crime analysis.

As in Years 1 and 2, key local counterparts and stakeholders will be involved in the implementation

of component activities in Year 3. The implementation of activities and the achievement of expected

results will involve active engagement of government and non-government actors, including civil

society organizations (CSOs), academia, and professional organizations.

During Year 1, the Project developed and finalized its M&E Plan in coordination with USAID’s Measure Project. In Year 2, the Project captured baseline data and also collected data in relation to

performance indicators, which has informed Year 3 work planning. Additionally, the JA has utilized its

M&E Specialist to train partner POs on M&E best practices. More information on the status of JA’s

M&E is contained in Section VI below.





III. KEY PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

USAID STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

Implementation of the Year 3 Work Plan, together with measuring results through the M&E Plan,

supports USAID’s broader democracy and governance goals and intermediate results, as well as key

outcomes anticipated under the task order scope of work.

Specifically, implementation of Year 3 activities will further the following objectives and intermediate

results expressed in USAID’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS):

Development Objective 1: More functional and accountable institutions that meet BiH citizen

needs

Intermediate Result 1.1.1: Government more responsive to citizens by strengthening the

capabilities of justice sector actors

Project Objective 2: Governing justly and democratically

Project Area 2.1: Rule of law and human rights

Project Area 2.2: Good governance.

The Year 3 Work Plan includes cross-references to the M&E Plan so that the proposed activities can be monitored for results and these results can be analyzed within the broader context of USAID’s

strategic objectives and goals for BiH country programming.

JA PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Implementation of Year 3 Work Plan activities will create the basis for effective collaboration with

counterparts to achieve the following key program objectives:

Preserving the independence of justice sector institutions through greater self-accountability (and

external accountability mechanisms such as through collaboration with APIK)

Moving key justice sector institutions from the planning and standards development stage to actual

improved performance based upon results analysis

Strengthening HJPC and PO management practices and decision-making so that resources are

allocated strategically to fight corruption and other serious crime

Supporting on-site knowledge and skills application by front-line prosecutors for the handling of

corruption cases, including working as a team and networking across jurisdictions

Building consensus for key reforms within the justice sector and standardizing cross-jurisdiction

cooperation between state, entity, and local level actors

Using diagnostic assessments to inform major policy solutions that improve system-wide

performance and lead to strategies that will effectively fight corruption

Increasing public confidence in the justice sector through professional regulation, accountability,

and transparency.





IV. KEY FEATURES OF YEAR 3 PROGRAMMING

INTERNAL PROJECT COORDINATION

The Year 3 Work Plan builds upon program activities and results achieved during Years 1 and 2. In

Year 3, JA is intensifying project assistance to build local capacity to prosecute corruption and financial

crime cases to improve justice sector institutional integrity. These two areas of focus are reinforcing,

and Project staff under both components of the Project are working in tandem and collaborating on

cross-cutting reform initiatives, as described in more detail under the Program Activities section. To continue to ensure maximum project collaboration, the Project anticipates organizing up to two off-

site project coordination sessions and retreats to focus on the organizational transition and team-

building. These sessions will enable staff to strategically plan and coordinate Project efforts and

allocate resources so that technical assistance under the components is well coordinated and reinforces both PO capacity building and anti-corruption initiatives. As JA programming deepens and

widens in Year 3 with intensification of local counterpart engagement, it will be important for JA staff

to dedicate time to internal project coordination strategies. Such sessions and retreats will also enable

Project staff to further review M&E results, evaluate program progress, and identify course

corrections, as needed.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)

The JA implements a comprehensive M&E system that serves as multi-purpose tool. A first level of

application is using M&E as a JA self-assessment mechanism to monitor program progress and to

enable performance-based decision-making. A second level of application is to document achievements and measure progress towards achieving overall program goals and deliverables. A third

level of application involves JA sharing M&E results and findings with the HJPC, Standing Committee,

partner POs, and other stakeholders with the aim of embedding M&E best practices within local

counterpart stakeholders. JA’s M&E system tracks inputs and outcomes, using performance indicators as a measure of program success. The M&E process enables the Project to engage in continuous

learning that informs decision-making.

In Year 1, JA developed its M&E Plan, which was modified in Year 2, taking into account the phase

out of activities under the Enforcement of Judgments Component. The gathering of baseline data

occurred in Years 1 and 2 and informed the annual targets set for M&E indicators. The selection of

indicators involved a consultative process between JA and the MEASURE Project. All indicators are supported by fully developed performance indicator reference sheets (PIRS). Finalization of the M&E

Plan and the baseline gathering process entailed numerous meetings with local counterparts. The

M&E Plan describes critical assumptions and risks relevant to the successful implementation of

component activities and the achievement of expected results. The evaluation of critical assumptions

and risks is an ongoing process. (See also Section VII for a discussion of program assumptions.)

Baseline data collection was conducted each year (due to the addition of more POs) to assist the Project in developing performance indicators for each JA component activity area, including setting

annual targets. Baseline data was also a key tool used in the selection of PPP partner POs each year

and in setting specific performance targets for them. A baseline survey for a third group of POs will

be conducted in Year 3, in addition to gathering performance data for the first and second groups of

POs to measure results. It is important to highlight that JA obtained relevant historical data for JA performance indicators related to PO performance for the period 2012–2015, which enables more





comprehensive monitoring of performance over time, the identification of trends, and forecasting of

future challenges and needs.

During the first two years, the M&E Director has overseen baseline capture, data gathering, and

internal reporting. With the baseline established, data collection will be continuous during the life of the Project. Depending upon the indicator, data is being collected and reported on a semi-annual or

annual basis. Regular data collection will continue to inform project management, as well as any need

to revise the M&E Plan indicators based upon changes in programming or implementation strategies.

The collection and analysis of performance data has already guided the Project with regard to program

planning, management, and implementation, as described in this Year 3 Work Plan. In Year 2, the JA M&E Director began delivering M&E training to local counterparts, which will continue in Year 3 with

the aim of embedding some HJPC and JA performance indicators in the POs’ M&E systems. Through

direct M&E training, JA will further build capacity within POs to strengthen office management and

accountability practices, consistent with the Project’s goal of making justice sector institutions more

self-accountable.

JA IMPLEMENTATION MEETINGS AND COORDINATING ACTIVITIES

In Years 1 and 2, JA effectively established local stakeholder interest in and support for the implementation of program activities, including support of the PPP by the HJPC Standing Committee

and the participating POs and the agreed-upon collaboration between the HJPC and the ODC on

ethics and disciplinary process reform, and APIK on corruption issues. The Year 3 Work Plan

activities build upon past coordination with these key institutional actors and take into consideration that the Project will directly assist other important stakeholders, such as POs and the courts. In

Year 3 the Project will continue to hold implementation meetings and coordinating sessions involving

senior representatives from key local stakeholders. JA will hold these implementation meetings and

develop effective coordination channels with key stakeholders on a periodic basis to facilitate work

plan implementation and to discuss progress, results, and challenges. Coordination efforts will continue to include close consultations with other donor agencies to achieve key goals of reforms as

required in the EU integration processes. These activities are led by the Chief of Party (COP) with

support from key staff.

CROSS-CUTTING ACTIVITIES

For each of the two main components, the Year 3 Work Plan includes a reference to cross-cutting

activities or linkages to other reform initiatives. Under the direction of the COP, JA staff will

coordinate efforts for cross-cutting activities between Components 1 and 2. Project staff will continue

to work together so that efforts to strengthen the status and performance of prosecutors

(Component 1) and initiatives to combat corruption and uphold public integrity (Component 2) reinforce one another and both engage stakeholders. For example, the annual conference on anti-

corruption will continue to involve presentations by prosecutors and will feature prosecutorial efforts

directed at combating government corruption. This will also help draw attention to the reforms that

strengthen the performance of prosecutors. Additionally, the strengthening of PGI practices through PPP assistance under Component 1 is being reinforced by and incorporated into the development of

a training handbook for judges and prosecutors on corruption and financial crime cases (under

Component 2). Furthermore, under Component 2, the development of business intelligence

information within the HJPC based upon CMS and TCMS data supplied by the courts and POs will be





provided to chief prosecutors as a tool for strengthening management decision-making in the partner

POs under Component 1.

As in Years 1 and 2, cross-cutting activities with linkages to other stakeholders or donor efforts will

involve key input from those stakeholders or donors. The JA is working closely with the Standing Committee on standards for POs as well as adopting and implementing sanctioning guidelines in

disciplinary matters that promote transparency in the sanctioning process. JA programming continues

to have linkages to the Swiss-funded projects within the HJPC, particularly in relation to follow-on

assistance from the DA and capacity building/training in the partner POs. Also, in Year 3, the Project

will continue to develop management capacity in POs, involving the application of performance

measurement standards developed by a previous USAID project.

Under the section on Program Activities, each activity area includes an initial summary text box

referencing cross-cutting activities.

GENDER EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS

Project activities and the M&E Plan take into account gender equity and mainstreaming issues. The M&E Plan contains several gender-specific indicators such as the number of women trained/mentored,

the number of women prosecutors conducting investigations, and the number of women trained in

public information strategies and techniques.

The following are some examples of opportunities where gender would be taken into account and

integrated into project activities.

Prosecutor Partnership Program (PPP): where possible, JA will continue to support gender

parity when providing on-the-job training of prosecutors and providing direct technical assistance

for the investigation and prosecution of corruption and other crimes.

Prosecutor training on enhanced investigation and prosecution techniques: JA will

continue to ensure equal opportunity for men and women and promote equal gender participation in training activities where possible.

Reforms for HJPC recruitment, appointment, and promotion of prosecutors (and

judges): procedures will take into account gender considerations to ensure that women receive

the same treatment and opportunities as men.

Anti-corruption training of judges and prosecutors: JA will continue to promote the same

opportunities for women as for men for training and providing input, including training of trainer programs that develop local training capacity. Efforts to ensure equal gender participation will be

made by the Project at all times.

Disaggregation: surveys conducted to measure justice sector institutional performance will be

disaggregated by gender, where relevant.

Public information: women will receive the same opportunities to be trained on public

information strategies and techniques; public information content will be gender-sensitive.

SPECIAL ACTIVITIES

JA will continue, in Year 3, to remain flexible and be prepared to respond to emerging special activities

that will offer windows of opportunity to maximize program impact. These activities would be

supported by the JA special activities fund. As working relationships with local counterparts continue





to grow and provide more in-depth feedback on local institutional priorities and needs, JA anticipates

assisting local counterparts on priority activities. Some possible activities include the following.

Public Integrity & Anti-Corruption Events

JA will build support within the justice sector to prioritize integrity of public institutions and fighting

corruption with events that combine public integrity and anti-corruption themes. The organization of

these events will be determined and planned based upon consultations with local stakeholders. For example, JA may utilize prosecutors who have prosecuted government corruption cases to deliver

informal training or participate in roundtable sessions on prosecuting government corruption,

drawing on local, regional (Croatian), European, and/or other international prosecutors who have

substantial experience in prosecuting corruption in their own countries. These events would involve

presentations by these special prosecutors to increase awareness and support within the justice sector to fight corruption effectively, and will engage the bar, judges, prosecutor associations, and

local stakeholders to build consensus. JA is prepared to support workshops, roundtables, and/or

other priority activities or areas for collaboration between the institutions.

Assistance to POs In Year 3, JA will assess a new group of POs, gathering data on their capacity

and performance to target assistance. In Years 1 and 2, JA assessments revealed unique needs for project assistance and in Year 2, the JA provided

local experts, particularly financial analysts, on corruption and financial crime cases for partner POs in Sarajevo and Tuzla . This specialized

assistance may well be needed in certain partner POs or other offices, such

as the Republika Srpska Special PO (RSSPO) or the yet-to-be-established Special Prosecutor Department (SPD) of the Federal PO of the Federation

of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH). JA will continue to monitor and support the establishment of the SPD and a Special Department of the Supreme

Court of the FBiH that would handle appellate corruption and financial cases. Most POs continue to face case backlog issues, which may be

addressed through enhanced technical assistance or through the use of young lawyers or law students as paid interns on ad hoc basis. For critical

needs, JA will work directly with the PO to help that office function more

effectively in the short term, and these efforts may include collaborating with other donors to meet those specific needs. In Year 2, JA conducted a

technical/IT needs assessment of all POs in BiH. In Year 3 JA will address these needs. It is planned that approximately 115,000.00 USD will be spent

on these procurements. The Project will work directly with the POs in providing assistance to help that POs function more effectively in the short

term.

Educational Programs/Training

In Year 3, the Project is prepared to support educational training programs that focus on specific institutional capacity building, policy-making, and performance needs. JA anticipates repeating the

successful training program for prosecutors at the Central and Eastern European Law Initiative

(CEELI) Institute in Prague. JA also recommends conducting study visits for the Standing Committee





to similar European counterparts to learn more about performance standards and effective

management techniques. Also, JA anticipates completing a study trip for the ODC and HJPC

disciplinary committees focused on procedural, substantive, and transparency issues for the disciplinary system. Although this work plan anticipates numerous training opportunities, JA will

remain flexible to address needs that warrant special attention.





V. PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS

Achieving the expected impact and results is dependent on continued collaboration of justice sector

actors, government bodies, and the non-governmental sector. The success of program implementation rests upon critical assumptions for each objective, which remain basically the same

as previous years and are discussed below.

For Component 1, strengthening the professional status and performance of prosecutors depends

upon the commitment of HJPC leadership and chief prosecutors to manage resources and change

policies. Collaboration by law enforcement and prosecutors across jurisdictions is also a critical

element. Current laws and differing interpretations may impede appointment and career advancement based on merit and will require legislative changes. These legislative changes will require significant

consensus-building by various justice sector and governmental actors to promote reform. Policy

reforms identified in the diagnostic assessments need to be implemented. These assumptions also

apply to Component 2 activities to uphold public integrity and combat corruption. For example, the ODC and the HJPC disciplinary committees must commit to sanctioning guidelines that require a

commitment to transparency in disciplinary proceedings.

Successful data collection and evaluation of programmatic impact requires the cooperation of

counterparts. While courts and POs have automated case management systems, they do not capture

the same data detailed in the JA M&E Plan. For example, there is no system to track the number of

successful prosecutions of corruption/public-office-related crime cases that involve collaboration among state, entity, and cantonal/district jurisdictions. Therefore, JA must work to persuade relevant

institutions to track such data and is currently working with the HJPC to capture case data from the

CMS and TCMS. This will be an ongoing effort in Year 3, but the challenges remain significant for

gathering data across relevant organizations.

Implementation of the Year 3 Work Plan entails the following risks:

Lack of will to implement anti-corruption reforms and resistance from authorities to an increased

level of independence, transparency, accountability, and effectiveness within the judiciary

Overlapping donor assistance that competes with local counterparts’ buy -in for Project assistance

and reforms

Resistance to change by partners at the operational level

Reluctance to implementing PGI best practices to case investigations, which requires enhanced

cooperation with police investigators

Lack of capacity of some partners due to continuing human resources and budgetary shortages

Occasional lack of coordination between the executive and legislative branches regarding the

adoption of new policies and legislation

Delay in the implementation of the recently adopted FBiH Law on Combating Corruption and

Organized Crime

Possible further deterioration of the political situation in the country.





Implementation of the Year 3 Work Plan entails the following assumptions:

Organizational

Continued support for JA goals from the US Government (USG) and through the EU

integration processes

Operational

Increased partnership with other USG offices (the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial

Development Assistance and Training [OPDAT], the International Criminal Investigative

Training Program [ICITAP]) and USAID projects (MEASURE Project), as well as other donor

organizations

Active cooperation of local counterparts and interested stakeholders in the justice sector

Participation of local counterparts in the PPP and pilot projects, including commitment from

the HJPC Standing Committee and professional and administrative staff in POs and pilot

courts

Political

State, entity, and local institutional cooperation to implement anti-corruption efforts,

especially the participation of law enforcement agencies in forming joint investigative teams in POs

Political stability and reactivation of EU processes after the October 2014 elections

Continuation of successful cooperation with key high-level actors in the justice sector and

other institutions.





VI. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

COMPONENT 1: IMPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL STATUS AND PERFORMANCE OF PROSECUTORS

Overview of Prosecutor Partnership Program (PPP )

The PPP is a critical component of JA activities. In Year 2, the PPP was implemented successfully in six new POs (Cantonal POs in Mostar, Sarajevo, and Široki Brijeg, District PO in Trebinje, Republic

PO of the Republika Srpska, and Federal PO of the FBiH) while maintaining partnerships with the four

POs from Year 1. Through the PPP, JA is providing intensive management and direct skill-building

assistance for corruption and financial crime cases in the partner POs. The PPP has a dual technical

assistance approach designed to:

1. Collaborate with individual POs to improve performance based on individual strategic plans and performance standards with an emphasis on management, effective prosecution of

corruption/abuse of public office/financial crime cases, and public outreach.

2. Collaborate with the HJPC Standing Committee on implementing policy-level solutions that will

help POs better manage cases and perform (the Standing Committee can issue policies that are

informed by best practices developed in the individual POs participating in the PPP).

The PPP links direct project assistance in the POs with policy-level reform determined by the HJPC

Standing Committee. Full implementation of the PPP is a multi-year effort. In Year 1, the Project

coordinated with the Standing Committee to design the PPP and established the first partnerships

with selected POs, as well as provided discrete assistance to those POs as defined in individual PO

assistance plans (POAPs).

The PPP recognizes several common challenges for all POs in BiH, such as: 1) lack of effective strategic management, 2) limited results of PGIs to collect relevant prosecution evidence, 3) ineffective

organizational management and work processes, 4) lack of institutionalized cooperation between POs

and law enforcement agencies, 5) insufficient human and technical resources, 6) inadequate

performance appraisal system, 7) lack of public trust, and 8) lack of transparency. The PPP is designed

to address these challenges by:

1. Improving management practices, including, but not limited to, assistance to core management of POs in defining, communicating, and advocating for budget/resource needs to the HJPC, assistance

in improving performance management based on the TCMS statistical data, and properly

evaluating the work performance of individual prosecutors.

2. Improving prosecution of cases of corruption, abuse of public office, and economic/organized crimes, including but not limited to assessing PO gaps and providing short-term experts to build

skills and techniques, assistance to develop joint investigations led by the prosecutor, and

organizing specialized training based on best practices for investigation and prosecution.

3. Improving the transparency of POs and enhancing public relations including but not limited to

assessing the resources available in POs, assisting in developing proactive approaches to raise awareness of PO efforts to prosecute corruption and financial crime cases, and improving the

system of monitoring and evaluating public relations within POs.





In Year 3, the PPP will increasingly identify and share best practices developed in the POs over the

previous two years, to develop system-wide reforms. These reforms will be developed through the

PPP, focusing on the three areas of assistance described above, by identifying best practices at the

operational and/or policy level that require HJPC Standing Committee action.

The POAPs provide for coordination and delivery of technical assistance to individual partner POs

and are developed with input from the staff of each partner PO. The POAPs have been customized

to address individual office needs and challenges. The POAPs detail and sequence JA assistance for

capacity-building focusing on: 1) organizational management and performance, 2) prosecuting

corruption and serious crime cases, and 3) office transparency and public information/outreach. The types of assistance and the sequencing has evolved over the past two years to maximize assistance

and impact. In general, JA is working with the POs in the following areas:

Organizational Management/Performance

Strategic/budget planning and advocating for budget proposals

Solutions workshops – e.g., performance monitoring based on strategic goals and mid-term

targets

M&E – applying performance-based results analysis

Streamlining process – business process engineering and workflow analysis

Prosecuting Crime

Training and mentorship – best practices for prosecuting corruption and study visits for

specialized training on investigating and prosecuting corruption

Workshops – topics determined in consultation with front-line prosecutors

Office Transparency & Public Information/Outreach

Formulation and implementation of uniform polices for informing the public of prosecution office work/activities

Formulating and promoting uniform indicators for tracking public relations activities and

transparency in POs

Media/press releases, public roundtables, and disseminating information on corruption/serious

crime cases.

JA will continue support to previous partner POs while expanding to a new group of POs in Year 3.

Each year, JA is adding partner POs with the goal of providing technical assistance to all 19 POs in

BiH over the life of the Project. In the implementation of the PPP, JA will use opportunities for outreach and coordination with key stakeholders, such as the HJPC Standing Committee and

individual POs. The Project will organize coordination meetings to develop strategic plans for all

19 POs and support an annual conference on corruption/criminal justice to present the results of

PPP/POAP implementation. Project staff will confer with all POs to develop an agenda for the annual

meeting that reflects their key concerns and challenges. Representatives from these POs will be invited to attend, as well as representatives of the HJPC, the Standing Committee, and, if appropriate,

other key justice sector actors. A strategic goal of the annual meeting is to generate PO interest in

and support of the PPP, as well as to build consensus for policy reforms with the HJPC and other

criminal justice sector actors. The technical support to POs is described below, particularly under

Activity 1.1, which has linkages to other activities in the work plan.





Component Status and Challenges/Opportunities

Program Status

In Year 2, Component 1 signed and implemented the PPP in six new POs: three cantonal POs in the

FBiH, one district PO in the RS and two entity POs. Based on consultations with these POs, individual

POAPs were developed to address their specific needs. JA provided targeted technical and expert

support designed to strengthening capacity to prosecute complex corruption and economic crime cases. Examples of targeted assistance included expert advice and mentoring to improve investigative

techniques, including the unresolved investigations of privatization fraud. This support supplemented

the lack of experts within the POs and led to feedback requesting further mentoring from criminal

and financial investigations experts. In Year 2, PPP assistance expanded to include induction training

for newly appointed prosecutors assigned to economic crime and corruption cases .

The exchange of best practices between partner POs and regional prosecutorial bodies continued in Year 2 with training on PGIs. The long-term cooperation with prosecutors from the Croatian Bureau

for Combating Corruption and Organized Crime (USKOK) established in Year 1 successfully

continued in Year 2, with these prosecutors providing specialized training on investigating and

prosecuting corruption and financial crime cases.

In Year 2, JA also provided technical assistance to improve PO budget planning and advocacy and to

create better communication channels between the POs, the HJPC, other executive branch agencies,

and the public. JA provided training to strengthen the role of spokespersons and public information

officers (PIOs).

Some Component 1 activities were successfully completed in Year 2 and are no longer part of JA

activities. JA supported, in collaboration with the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

(SDC) project, an analysis of the use of resources by POs to work outside of their seat. This resulted

in recommendations to address the current prosecutorial structure and the costs associated with

traveling and working outside of the seat of POs. Reforms will require legislative changes and will be led by the HJPC. Therefore, JA is not planning further intervention in this area. Also, in accordance

with amendments to the task order, JA will not be providing direct support or training to law

enforcement agencies, nor assist in forming joint investigative teams of prosecutors and the police.

These activities are being completed by OPDAT and ICITAP. However, JA will continue to train and mentor line prosecutors on PGI practices and coordinate with counterparts, where relevant, to

enhance the prosecution process.

Challenges and Opportunities

The activities planned for Year 3 take into account challenges and opportunities that emerged during

Year 2 and build on progress achieved. The sustainability of efforts achieved by the PPP remains a challenge, especially the question of how to address the strategic and policy issues that could resolve

common PO issues, such as the lack of expert support staff and difficulties in engaging quality expert

witnesses. In Year 3, JA will work to build a better analytical understanding of and consensus on key

strategic and policy issues for prosecuting corruption, with resolutions to be implemented in Years 4 and 5. This effort will include analyzing procedures for asset forfeiture/seizure, engaging expert

witnesses in criminal proceedings, and initiating criminal investigations based on negative audit

reports. Policy-directed activities will address issues obstructing the work of POs, which were

identified during the first two years of JA implementation. JA will focus on identifying the reasons





prosecutors cannot prove certain elements of corruption and economic/financial crimes. This support

will help prosecutors improve their efficiency and achieve higher conviction rates.

In Year 3, JA will continue to support the HJPC and POs in addressing the low level of public trust.

Efforts will focus on changing attitudes within the POs to increase understanding of the benefits of transparency. By being proactive, the POs can develop better public relations and build confidence in

the justice sector. JA will introduce merit-based appointment and advancement systems to overcome

deeply embedded practices, which have used the ethnic quota requirements as an excuse for not

revising this system.

Based on opportunities that have emerged, JA will expand relationships with partner POs and the

HJPC, in particular the HJPC Standing Committee. JA will continue to coordinate with other donors such as the SDC program to institutionalize change within the POs and ensure the sustainability of

JA interventions. JA worked with the SDC to introduce system-wide strategic planning and

performance-based management and will continue to build on the success of this collaboration.

Component Objectives

Over the life of the Project, Component 1 activities will improve the performance of all 19 POs in

BiH. The establishment of the PPP in Year 1 laid a solid foundation to improve prosecutorial

performance over the life of the Project. POs in BiH face many challenges, including a lack of ability

to implement strategic plans and to collect and analyze performance criteria. The low conviction rate

in corruption and serious crime cases is due in part to the lack of prosecutor-led investigations and cross-jurisdictional cooperation. Under Component 1, JA is focusing on justice sector self-

accountability and capacity-building assistance for the POs. The JA anticipates providing assistance to

the Special Department for the Prevention of Corruption, Organized, and Inter-Cantonal Crime

within the Federal PO of the FBiH, although the Special Department is still in an early stage of

formation.

Impact and Outcomes for the remainder of the project are detailed below:

Component I Objective

Strengthening Prosecution Status/Performance Illustrative Programmatic Impact

Impact Outcome

1.1 POs strengthen their organizational

leadership, planning, and performance

19 POs implement PPP; POs managed strategically, target

crime threats, and incentivize performance

1.2 Prosecutors perform functions more

efficiently through balanced allocation of

resources

PO management allocates resources to fight corruption

& serious crime – streamlined practices and program

budgeting

1.3 Prosecutors uphold public trust and

integrity through prosecution of corruption or

other serious crime

Prosecution teams for corruption cases formed; pros. and

police conduct joint investigations; best practices manual

promotes uniformity

1.4 Prosecutors provide appropriate and

accurate information to citizens in order to

strengthen transparency and responsiveness

PO public info guidelines are upgraded/implemented; POs

track public info requests, issue annual reports

1.5 Prosecutor status improved through

performance appraisal, merit-based career

advancement or incentives to prosecute cases

Pursuant to the governing laws, HJPC adopts policies for

appointment & career advancement based upon merit;

HJPC/POs create incentives for prosecutors





Activity 1.1: Strengthened organizational leadership, planning, and

performance of prosecutors

PERSONNEL: Component 1 Staff; Prosecution Management Performance Expert(s); Prosecution Criminal Investigation Expert; Prosecution Financial Investigation Expert; Workflow/Business

Process Engineering Expert; Public Information Expert, and Performance Appraisal expert; M&E

Director.

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Endorsement of the PPPs and subsequent POAPs will be

required from individual POs. PPP/POAP implementation will be coordinated with the HJPC

Standing Committee on the Efficiency of POs. Cooperation of the HJPC and other relevant bodies

will also be required for the implementation of this Activity.

CROSS-CUTTING: PPP initiatives support Component 2 objectives to uphold Public integrity/combat corruption. Activities under Components 1 and 2 have linkages to the Anti-

Corruption Agency and will support implementation of 2.2.1.

Activity 1.1.1 – Establishing the Prosecutor Partnership Program (PPP) with Year 3 Partner

POs

In Year 1 of the Project, the PPP was developed as a model of cooperation and a framework for

providing support to POs in BiH. Both the HJPC, through its Strategic Body , and Entity Chief

Prosecutors were consulted during this process to identify the type and number of POs to participate

each year and to receive assistance from JA. During this process, specific evaluation criteria were developed for selecting partner POs for each year of project implementation, with the goal of

eventually including all 19 POs. These criteria include:

Trends in caseloads relating to corruption and economic crime cases

Results in prosecuting cases of corruption and economic crime cases (number and rat io of

indictments and number and ratio of convictions)

Effectiveness of management and organization

Equal representation between entity jurisdictions

Geographical distribution of POs to streamline the delivery of project assistance and achieve its

maximum effectiveness.

Based on these criteria, the Project signed PPPs with four POs in Year 1 and six POs in Year 2. In

Year 1, the Project partnered with the District POs in Doboj and East Sarajevo and the Cantonal POs

in Tuzla and Zenica. In Year 2, PPPs were signed with the District PO in Trebinje, Cantonal POs in Mostar, Široki Brijeg, and Sarajevo, Federal PO of the FBiH, and the Republic PO of the Republika

Srpska (RS).

In Year 3, the Project plans to establish partnerships with five new POs based on the above criteria,

including the District PO in Banja Luka, District PO in Bijeljina, Cantonal PO in Odžak, the PO of

Brčko District, and the Special Department for Organized Crime and Corruption of the Republic PO

of the RS. JA staff will meet with each PO to discuss participation in the PPP and gather additional information on PO activities. JA will inform the Standing Committee and Entity Chief Prosecutors of

the new PPPs. In coordination with the selected POs, the JA will develop a PPP agreement for each

office and conduct a signing ceremony once finalized. Members of the Standing Committee will be

invited to attend the signing ceremony.





The RS Special PO for Organized Crime and Corruption (RSSPO), functions as a Department within

the Republic PO of the RS, which was a Year 2 partner. Given the existing PPP with this PO, JA will

develop an annex to be signed that will include this department for Year 3 . (Quarter 1)

Activity 1.1.2 – Develop PO Assistance Plans (POAPs) with Year 3 Partner POs

In Years 1 and 2, the JA conducted individual PO needs assessments to develop the POAPs. These

assessments defined needs for organizational management and performance, prosecuting crime, office

transparency, and public information/outreach. JA developed customized POAPs, with input and

agreement from the PO, that detail the assistance to be provided.

In Year 3, the JA team will build on this experience to assess new POs and develop customized POAPs. Based on the assessment, the JA will develop POAPs that will be submitted to the partner

POs for comments and final agreement. Depending on the needs of the partner PO, the Project will

engage experts in the areas of criminal investigation, financial investigation, workflow/business process

engineering, public information, and performance appraisal. The POAP will form the basis for Year 3

support and will incorporate many of the activities described under this Component. (Quarter 2)

Activity 1.1.3 – Implementation of POAPs in Year 3 Partner POs

JA will provide continuous support to implement the POAPs, including direct staff assistance and

experts. JA will provide international, regional, and BiH experts on criminal and financial investigations,

strengthen capacity of PO management and line prosecution, and enhance skills to investigate and prosecute corruption and serious crime cases. JA staff will make regular support visits to coordinate

assistance, document POAP implementation progress, and identify obstacles. This ongoing

coordination will streamline technical assistance, facilitate collaboration between experts and peers,

and develop management and practice-based skills. (Quarters 2 – 4)

Activity 1.1.4 – Strengthening PO Capacity through Special Analyses in Selected Areas

Based on experience to date, JA has identified several systemic issues that impede progress in the

prosecution of high profile corruption cases and that require more extensive analysis. These issues

include: a) the use of expert witnesses in criminal cases including corruption, b) the quality and the

use of audit reports as a basis for initiating criminal proceedings, and c) utilizing asset forfeiture in criminal proceedings to combat corruption and economic crime. The DA tool identified these same

issues as integrity risks in the judiciary and during criminal proceedings in particular. Addressing these

concerns may require policy reforms by the HJPC or strategic management reforms. Therefore, JA

began work in these areas during Year 2 and will continue the process of producing specialized analysis

with recommendations to improve practices and/or introduce system-wide changes. The analysis will be an inclusive one designed to engage the judicial community, ensure credibility, and develop local

ownership of solutions. All findings and recommendations will be shared with the HJPC and the

Strategic Body for the Efficiency of POs. This effort is a cross-cutting activity with Component 2,

which is now implemented through Component 1 work. (Quarters 1-3)

a) Specialized Analysis of the System of Engaging Expert Witnesses in POs/Courts in Cases of Organized and Economic Crime and Corruption

In Year 2, JA began examining the system of engaging expert witnesses in cases of organized and

economic crime and corruption. As per the Year 2 Work Plan, this activity will be continued and

finalized in Year 3.





In Year 1, JA revealed a problem with the quality of financial experts engaged by prosecutors. The

efficient and successful prosecution of these cases requires independent expert witnesses who can

track financial activity and identify criminal behavior. However, few are qualified to serve as expert witnesses in criminal cases, lack professional integrity, and are too expensive for the POs. The scarcity

of competent financial experts means that reports are often late and incomplete, merely repeating

the contents of the criminal reports prepared by law enforcement agencies and not using the correct

legal terminology.

Based on these findings, the Project initiated a Specialized Analysis of independent experts, particularly

financial experts, and the system of engaging and utilizing them in criminal cases. The JA analysis identified potential solutions based on comparative research. In Year 3, these preliminary findings and

recommendations will be shared with the HJPC, justice sector stakeholders, and professional

associations to begin the discussion on how to overcome these issues. JA will hold consultative

sessions with members of the justice sector community during Quarters 1 and 2. Based on the results of those sessions, JA will finalize the Specialized Analysis by the end of Quarter 3. JA will engage a

national expert to support the analysis and review the results for relevance to the local context.

(Quarter 1 – 3)

b) Analysis of Audit Reports

In Year 2, JA began examining the nature and quality of audit reports as a tool for criminal investigations. This activity (former Activity 1.3.1.a) will be continued and finalized in Year 3. In Year

1, the Project identified many unresolved audit reports, the majority of which did not contain sufficient

probable cause to conduct an investigation. However, when these cases are dismissed without a

transparent justification, the public perceives this as corruption. This situation was the impetus for

analyzing whether the reports were sufficient to warrant prosecution and to determine the actions taken by the POs. In Year 2, the JA engaged a forensic financial expert to analyze the audit reports

received by the POs. The analysis also examines whether a legal obligation exists to submit negative

audit reports to POs as opposed to the police. The current practice has adversely impacted

prosecution of corruption cases and has unfavorably skewed public perception of the POs’ work. This activity was conducted in collaboration with the partner POs, and a first draft of the report was

produced at the end of Year 2.

In Year 3, the draft report and recommendations will be presented to the justice sector, especially

focusing on prosecutors who utilize these audit reports. JA anticipated utilizing consultative sessions

with relevant stakeholders during Quarter 1 and working closely with partner POs to finalize the

report, by the end of Quarter 2, with recommendations and practices that are most relevant to their work. This process should enhance the handling of audit reports as well as improving public

perception of prosecutors. The findings will also be shared with the Standing Committee to identify

common approaches to the audit reports that can stimulate system-wide changes. (Quarter 1 – 2)

c) Analysis of Asset Forfeiture

In Year 2, the Project began examining the legal and practical framework of asset forfeiture as a method for combatting corruption and economic crime. Corruption often brings financial gain to a

perpetrator at the expense of the public. Since criminals should not be allowed to benefit from their

crimes, it is important to recover ill-gotten gains and, if possible, return them to the damaged party

as restitution. This review included an analysis at the BiH, Entities, and Brčko District levels to give a comparative analysis and determine the procedural steps required for asset seizure and forfeiture.

The analysis revealed complex and varied legal solutions at different levels, sometimes with opposing





practices that violate the rule of law. BiH is developing asset forfeiture systems to confiscate illicit

financial and other types of material gain. The RS has more advanced implementation of asset seizure

and forfeiture reforms due to specialized laws passed in 2010. The FBiH adopted specialized legislation in 2015, but effective instruments for asset forfeiture are not yet in place. At the state level, where

the most serious cases of corruption and organized crime are processed, there is no specialized

legislation or State Agency to manage seized assets. A specialized law is currently being adopted in

Brčko District. Better implementation of asset forfeiture laws will have the potential to bring significant funding to state budgets. Asset forfeiture is high on the Reform Agenda agreed upon

between the EU and BiH and is a precondition for EU accession, and therefore it is critical to update

the legislative framework and ensure better implementation. Asset forfeiture is the subject of a

separate project being implemented with the funding of the UK Government, by the Criminal

Research and Policy Center - CRPC. CRPC works exclusively in the FBiH, and provides initial training to prosecutors, police, and other relevant personnel involved in the asset forfeiture cycle on the

newly adopted specialized legislation on asset forfeiture in FBiH. JA focuses on the entire

prosecutorial system at all levels (BH, BD, RS and FBiH) and particularly on increasing prosecutorial

capacity.

Therefore, in Year 3, the JA will further analyze the data collected in Year 2 to identify operational

and legislative barriers to asset seizure and forfeiture procedures at all prosecutorial offices in BiH. JA will present the analysis to the HJPC and legal community to develop system-wide reforms. Based

on the findings, the Project will provide capacity building for participating POs and other relevant

institutions involved in asset forfeiture. Effective asset forfeiture systems will not only serve as

mechanisms to counter corruption, fraud, and other crimes, but will also increase public trust in the

BiH judiciary. JA will engage a national expert to finalize the analysis and report.

JA will organize one or two consultative sessions/roundtables to share the findings of the analysis and discuss best practices for asset seizure and forfeiture. The sessions/roundtable will be a collaborative

learning and planning process utilizing the shared experiences of participants. Topics may include

financial investigation, identification of assets, procedural actions necessary for asset seizure and

forfeiture, obstacles to seizing assets, efficient exchange of relevant asset information, the separation

of comingled assets, defining benefits derived from proceeds of crime, and locating and seizing property transferred to third persons. JA will engage an international or regional expert to facilitate

these workshops.

This activity is a cross-cutting activity with Component 2 (Activity 2.5.1) since asset forfeiture

proceedings were identified as problematic and a threat to justice sector integrity in the DA. Also,

the analysis findings will inform the chapter on asset forfeitures in the Universal Benchbook, prepared

by Component 2.

JA will coordinate this activity with the UK funded project implemented by CRPC so as to ensure

consistency and effectiveness of all activities of both projects.

JA anticipates that this will be an ongoing activity with POs and will include developing asset forfeiture

tools to be introduced in training program in subsequent years.

(Quarters 1 – 3)





Activity 1.1.5 – Coordination with the HJPC Standing Committee on the Efficiency of POs

and Working Bodies for Legislation

In Year 1, JA established policy-level coordination with the HJPC Standing Committee, which continued in Year 2. As part of this coordination, JA conducted consultative working sessions with

the Standing Committee to present results and coordinate future activities. The two main purposes

of the policy-level coordination are: 1) to discuss PPP/POAP implementation, presenting progress and

addressing obstacles that affect implementation, and 2) to support system-wide standards and reforms

for the management of POs and the prosecution of corruption, organized, and economic crime cases.

In Year 3, JA will continue this effective coordination for implementing POAPs, coordinating donor support, enhancing management policy, building organizational and casework capacity of POs, and

building counterpart consensus and understanding. Based on implementation of the POAPs, JA will

convey best practices to the Standing Committee to develop system-wide standards and procedures

that improve management, performance, prosecution techniques, and public relations. JA will continue to work with the Standing Committee on strategic planning, providing regular information

to ensure that JA activities are well targeted, responsive to PO concerns, and complement other

donor assistance. (Quarters 1 – 4)

Activity 1.1.6 – Continue POAP Implementation with Year 1 and Year 2 Partner POs

In Year 3, JA will continue ongoing progress with Year 1 and 2 partner POs to promote cross-jurisdictional collaboration and develop best practices in management, prosecution techniques, and

public relations. Integrating the work of partner POs and building on success is important to ensuring

greater cooperation and promoting policy changes through the Standing Committee. Whenever

possible, JA will include partner POs from previous years in the POAP implementation activities of

Year 3 partner POs. Representatives of the Year 1 and 2 partner POs may be invited to attend workshops, consultations, and trainings organized by JA and to participate in developing tools,

instruments, and guidelines for improving the management, organizational, and casework capacity of

the POs. These activities may also be used to promote an exchange of good practices , with those

POs that have shown advanced performance assisting in training or building capacity in lower performing partner POs. Partner POs from previous years may also be invited to participate in

specialized PGI trainings. In the case of a specific request from Year 1 and 2 partner POs, JA may

provide STTA experts for criminal and financial investigations to provide advice and on-the-job

mentoring. Year 1 and 2 partner POs will also be involved, along with the SDC project and Chief

Entity Prosecutors, in implementing strategic management activities. These POs will also be included in the introduction of PR indicators (by the HJPC with assistance of JA) and public relations activities.

Finally, representatives of Year 1 and 2 partner POs may be invited to participate in a study tour on

anti-corruption investigation and prosecution (potentially organized in the CEELI Institute in Prague

during Year 3). (Quarters 1 – 4)

Activity 1.1.7 – Analysis of Court Verdicts in Cases of Corruption and Economic Crime

In Year 2, JA initiated a comprehensive analysis of court verdicts in BiH corruption and organized

crime cases from 2013–2015. This activity will continue in Year 3, with the analysis finalized by year

end. The analysis includes the type and complexity of cases, conviction rates, evidentiary information,

usage of experts, sentencing policies, and extenuating and aggravating circumstances. This analysis will identify gaps where prosecutors need specialization to properly investigate and prosecute cases of

corruption, economic, and organized crime. It will also help identify strategies that promote more





consistent handing of such cases by the court or propose changes to the criminal legislation

framework. The analysis will include both quantitative and qualitative aspects.

The quantitative analysis will use the empirical statistical data from court decisions to identify

trends and draw conclusions. It will show the number, types, and structure of verdicts; present

certain trends about the success of prosecutions and identify challenges in legal proof: determine the ratio of convictions and acquittals compared to total numbers of verdicts, as well as the

complexity of cases which are commonly being prosecuted; examine the sanctioning policy of

courts and measures for confiscating property illegally obtained through criminal offenses; and

present data about the use of financial expert witnesses in these cases.

The qualitative aspect of the analysis will review decisions based on selected criteria, examine

judicial standards of proof for certain elements of corruption crimes, and provide insight into the

developing case law. The criteria for the selection of verdicts for the qualitative analysis should ensure that there is proportionate representation of different levels of jurisdiction (BiH, RS, FBiH,

Brčko District), as well as a sufficient sample of specific criminal offenses, according to their

prevalence in the case law. JA will select a sufficient sample of cases of high level government

corruption, including perpetrators in positions of power performing public functions, to compare

these cases with others and identify characteristics. A number of high level corruption cases resulting in acquittals will be analyzed to identify weaknesses in collecting and presenting evidence,

varying approaches to standards of proof, and any potential legal loopholes which may be an

obstacle to proving elements of the crime. The goal of this part of the analysis is to identify

practical evidentiary issues in proving guilt.

JA will finalize the report in collaboration with one or more experts who will assist Project staff in

the analysis process and in verifying the findings and recommendations. JA will present the findings to the Standing Committee, HJPC leadership, and other stakeholders to inform future reforms and policy

solutions. (Quarter 1 – 4)

Cross-Reference to M&E Plan Performance Indicators (PIs)

PI 1.1: Score on PO Capacity Matrix (POCM) in POs that implement PPPs

PI 1.1.1: Ratio of convictions to indictments (Prosecutions) for corruption related crime in POs

that implement PPPs

Timeline

Activity 1.1. Strengthened organizational leadership, planning and

performance of prosecutors

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1.1.1 Establishing the Prosecutor Partnership Program (PPP) with Year 3 Partner POs

1.1.2 Develop POAPs with Year 3 Partner POs

1.1.3 Implementation of POAPs in Year 3 Partner POs

1.1.4 Strengthening PO Capacity through Diagnostic Assessments and Analyses in

Selected Areas POs

1.1.5 Coordination with the HJPC Standing Committee on the Efficiency of

POs and Working Bodies for Legislation





1.1.6 Continue POAP Implementation with Year 1 and 2 Partner POs

1.1.7 Analysis of Court Verdicts in Cases of Corruption and Economic Crime

Activity 1.2: Prosecutors perform their functions more efficiently through a

balanced allocation of resources that effectively meet organizational needs

PERSONNEL: COP; Component 1 Staff; Workflow Business Engineering Expert(s); Prosecution

Management Expert; Strategic & Financial Planning Expert(s); M&E Expert

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Strategic and financial planning assistance and workflow

analysis in POs will require approval and cooperation of PO Chief Prosecutors.

CROSS-CUTTING: Strengthening PO management and planning supports Component 2 objectives to uphold public integrity/combat corruption.

Activity 1.2.1 – Strengthening Strategic, Organizational Performance, and Financial Management Practices in POs

An assessment conducted in partner POs in Years 1 and 2 indicated that although the partner POs

developed and adopted individual medium-term strategic plans, their usage as strategic and

performance management tools was limited. There were very weak institutional links between the

strategic plans and budgets, and operational planning and management, and cross-institutional management cooperation was limited, despite the fact that individual PO strategic plans were largely

similar. In Year 2, JA addressed these issues by utilizing POAP implementation to assist partner POs

in strengthening their internal strategic, organizational performance, and financial management

capacity. JA also worked in close cooperation with the SDC project to develop Entity Strategic Planning Frameworks and standard strategic performance standards for all POs within the individual

FBiH and RS prosecutorial systems. This intervention was successfully implemented under the policy

and strategic guidance of the HJPC Standing Committee throughout Year 2.

JA supported three collegiums of Chief Prosecutors in FBiH, as well as three collegiums of all Chief

Prosecutors in the RS, resulting in the development of two Entity Strategic Framework Plans for

2016–2018 (for the RS and FBiH). The Collegiums developed modalities for measuring the results of these plans and for periodic reporting, established a process for annual planning/updating of the

Strategic Frameworks, and defined the role of the regular Entity Chief Prosecutors Collegiums. Based

on the newly adopted Entity Strategic Framework Plans, JA assisted partner POs in revising their

Annual Plans to align them with the Entity Plans, which is a pilot effort to be continued in Year 3. In

Year 3, JA will continue to facilitate the entity level collegiums to revise the Strategic Framework Plans on annual basis. At least two collegiums for each entity will be organized in Year 3, in

coordination with the SDC project and HJPC.

JA will also continue to provide support for partner POs to develop or revise their individual annual

plans in line with the entity strategic frameworks, as well as developing M&E capacities and systems

within the POs to track progress against the agreed targets. To the extent possible, JA will assist in

implementing the standard performance indicators from the strategic frameworks. The JA M&E Specialist will organize workshops for this purpose. JA will also assist partner POs in preparing

reports, and analyzing trends as needed, in line with the indicators and strategic priorities, including

budget reporting to achieve the strategic goals. JA will work to develop more unified plans with annual





performance targets for each PO that are in line with the entity strategic targets. JA will cooperate

with the SDC Project to standardize the process and formats for strategic and operational planning

and reporting. These formats and processes will be submitted to the Standing Committee for approval

of 2016 performance targets.

In Quarters 1 and 2 of Year 3, JA will support the SDC Working Group to develop amendments to

the HJPC Instruction on the Application of the Book of Rules (BoR) on Orientation Criteria for the

Work of POs. As agreed during the Collegiums of Chief Prosecutors, the amendments will formally

institutionalize the Strategic Planning process in both Entities and define new formats for annual

prosecutorial plans. In addition, JA will continue to support the HJPC and partner POs to link strategic and operational frameworks and performance standards with annual budget plans and strengthen

their advocacy for the adoption of budgets with executive and legislative bodies. JA will collaborate

with senior management to develop budget proposals that match legislative timeframes. In Year 2, JA

supported two budget meetings with relevant stakeholders and will continue that process in Year 3 to institutionalize strong budgetary systems. To improve budget advocacy, JA will convene structured

meetings between the management of the partner POs, the Ministries of Justice and Finance, and the

HJPC budget department. These meetings will facilitate discussions about budget requirements to

improve organizational capacity and provide the needed resources for pursuing economic crime and

corruption cases. The timeframe for these meetings will correspond with key steps in the budgetary

calendar.

For the implementation of Activity 1.2.1, JA will may engage a strategic/budget planning expert and a prosecutor management expert or experts who will be supported by the Project Component 1 Team

Leader and the M&E Specialist. (Quarters 1 – 4)

Cross-Reference to Performance Indicators

PI 1.2.1: Number of unresolved criminal reports for corruption and economic crime in POs that

implement PPPs

PI 1.2.2: Percentage of resolved criminal reports for corruption and economic crime versus total

number of cases in POs that implement PPPs

Timeline

Activity 1.2. Prosecutors perform their functions more efficiently

through a balanced allocation of resources that effectively meet

organizational needs

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1.2.1 Strengthening Strategic, Organizational Performance, and Financial

Management Practices in POs





Activity 1.3: Prosecutors uphold the public trust and integrity by giving due

attention to prosecution of crimes committed by public officials

PERSONNEL: COP; Component 1 Staff; PGI Expert(s); Prosecution Forensic Investigation

Expert(s); Prosecution Criminal Investigation Expert(s); Asset Forfeiture Expert

COUNTERPART APPROVALS: Training prosecutors on PGI practice is an element of the PPP/POAP. Implementation, enhancement, and updating a training manual for prosecutors will

require the endorsement of individual POs and coordination with the HJPC Standing Committee.

CROSS-CUTTING: Strengthening PO management and planning supports Component 2

objectives to uphold public integrity/combat corruption. Strengthening the capacity of prosecutors

to conduct PGIs supports Component 2 objectives to uphold public integrity/combat corruption.

Activity 1.3.1 – Prosecutor-Guided Investigation Activities

In Year 2, JA continued to provide on-the-job mentoring through forensic financial investigation

experts for the Cantonal POs in Sarajevo, Široki Brijeg, and Mostar and the District PO in Trebinje, as well as the Federal PO of the FBiH. This support strengthened the capacity of line prosecutors to

conduct PGIs. In addition, JA organized initial training for 15 newly appointed prosecutors in the

Cantonal PO in Sarajevo to improve the capacity of the Department of Economic Crime and

Corruption. JA also co-organized, with the SDC Project, two 2-day training programs for prosecutors

working on corruption cases and economic and organized crime cases. In Year 2, JA co-organized the Annual Conference of Prosecutors with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE), EMRA, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the Association of Prosecutors

of the FBiH. JA moderated one of four panels, with national and regional experts focusing on

prosecuting corruption and organized crime. To further encourage the use of PGIs, JA supported a second study tour to Prague for 11 national prosecutors to complete the program on “Investigating

and Prosecuting Official Corruption.” The training, delivered by the CEELI Institute, was a five-day

interactive program that provided the participants with an opportunity to study in an international

setting, along with prosecutors and investigators from five other countries.

In Year 3, JA will continue to provide experts on criminal and financial investigations who will mentor

prosecutors, build capacity in investigative techniques, and develop useful tools such as templates and guidelines that meet local needs. This expert assistance will focus on Year 3 partner POs, but may

also be offered to meet specific needs and requests from Year 1 and 2 partner POs, particularly at its

inception during Quarters 1 and 2. Based on the needs of Year 3 partner POs, specialized induction

trainings for new prosecutors who will work on economic crimes and corruption will be organized

utilizing the model implemented with the Sarajevo Cantonal PO in Year 2.

JA will continue to co-organize, with the SDC Project and JPTCs, and implement the two-year

Specialized Training for Prosecutors that began in 2016. JA will be responsible for training two of the three groups of prosecutors: 1) the Group on Corruption and 2) the Group on Economic and

Organized Crime. This training promotes a proactive role for prosecutors in discovering and

investigating cases of economic crime and corruption. Based on prior collaboration, JA will engage

Croatia’s USKOK, and other regional and international organizations to participate in the training and exchange best practices and experience. This is a cross-cutting activity with 2.5.1 (Development of

the Universal Benchbook). Materials, discussions and conclusions from the specialized trainings will

be used to inform and provide useful input for the Universal Benchbook developed under

Component 2.





In Year 3, JA will continue to support, with other donors, the Association of Prosecutors of the FBiH

in organizing their annual conference. JA will organize and sponsor one of four panels, which will focus

on the topic of Investigating and Prosecuting Corruption and Financial Crimes. At this event, JA will present activities from the previous two years and obtain input from prosecutors for the development

of the special analyses described under Activity 1.1.4 and the Universal Benchbook (see Activity 2.5.1).

JA anticipates completing another anti-corruption training at the CEELI Institute in Prague for partner

POs, depending on timing of the program. (Quarters 1 – 4)


PI 1.3.1: Percentage of investigations for corruption and economic crime completed within one

calendar year in POs that implement PPPs

Timeline

Activity 1.3: Prosecutors uphold the public trust and integrity by giving

due attention to prosecution of crimes committed by public officials Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1.3.1 Prosecutor-Guided Investigation Activities

Activity 1.4: Prosecutors provide appropriate and accurate information to

citizens in order to strengthen transparency and respo nsiveness

PERSONNEL: COP; Component 1 Staff; Public Information/Services Expert(s); M&E Expert(s)

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Strengthening the capacity of POs to disseminate

information to the public and process freedom of information act (FOIA) requests is an element of

the PPP. Adoption and implementation of new policies/guidelines may require the endorsement of

the HJPC Standing Committee and approval from Chief Prosecutors.

CROSS-CUTTING: Strengthening the public information/outreach capacities of POs will result

in more transparency and better information on efforts of the POs to combat corruption, which contributes to Component 2 objectives to uphold public integrity/combat corruption. Improving

accurate internal tracking and reporting of corruption cases within POs is linked to developing PO

guidelines for providing information to the public on corruption cases under Activity 1.4.

Activity 1.4.1 – Strengthening of PO Capacity in Public Information

In Year 2, JA continued to support the Association of Spokespersons in POs in BiH, which JA helped

organize in Year 1. JA has planned a two-day event for spokespersons/PR officers in all POs in BiH

(September 2016) that combines 1) strategic planning workshops to strengthen the role of the Association, and 2) a targeted training in one of the topics from the long-term training plan for

Spokespersons of POs in BiH (developed in 2016 by the HJPC and SDC). The training plan focuses

on enhancing practical skills of spokespersons and other public relations/outreach staff, dealing with

crisis situations, improving internal communications, and processing FOIA requests.

In Year 3, JA will deliver at least one training for spokespersons, in coordination with the Association

and based on the Training Plan. JA will collaborate with the SDC Project plans to organize other





activities. Additionally, JA will continue to strengthen the capacity of the Association by developing

tools and mechanisms (i.e., guidelines, templates, FOIA request tools, etc.) for building public relations

in POs.

Utilizing the POAP framework, JA will provide assistance to the partner POs to develop pro-active public relations with a particular focus on high interest cases such as corruption and organized crime.

JA may pilot a proactive public information campaign in one of the partner POs, depending on need

and the willingness of Chief Prosecutors. The campaign could include news bulletins, regular website

updates, and other applicable social media activities to illustrate success in fighting corruption, the

negative impact of corruption, and how to prevent it. Publicity campaigns are an important tool for raising awareness and building public trust in the work of POs. For this activity, JA will engage a public

relations expert to provide technical support for campaigns and to build institutional capacity. JA will

also support efforts to ensure consistent and harmonized application of the FOIA among all POs.

In Year 3, JA will continue to cooperate with the Standing Committee to develop and implement

uniform policies and procedures for disseminating information, such as guidelines about what

information can be released and guidelines on conducting cross-agency press conferences. These

guidelines will be subject to HJPC approval. (Quarters 2 – 4)

Activity 1.4.2 – Assistance in Applying and Monitoring HJPC Public Relations Indicators

In Year 2, the JA M&E expert worked in cooperation with the partner POs to monitor FOIA

responses and public information. The JA M&E Director utilized relevant input from workshops with

PO spokespersons to develop a comprehensive plan with a set of qualitative and quantitative public relations indicators. The Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Relations in POs in BiH was designed

for use by the HJPC in annual monitoring of PO performance and is awaiting approval by the HJPC.

Once the indicators are adopted, the SDC Project will issue guidelines for their application. In Year

2, JA helped integrate a similar set of indicators into the Entity Strategic Framework Plans for POs in

the RS and FBiH to ensure better monitoring and reporting of public relations.

In Year 3, JA will assist partner POs in applying the PR indicators integrated into the Entity Strategic Framework Plans (see Activity 1.2.1) and improve their capacities for monitoring and evaluating

transparency and public relations. If the HJPC PR indicators are adopted during this year, JA will

support the POs in their application. (Quarters 1 – 4)


PI 1.4.1: Number of POs (POs) that regularly disseminate information to the public through

their websites including appropriate information on corruption and economic cases in prosecuting

offices that implement PPPs

PI 1.4.2: Number of press releases (or other types of communication channels) issued to the

public including information on investigation and prosecution for corruption, economic crime

cases in POs that implement PPPs

Timeline

Activity 1.4: Prosecutors provide appropriate and accurate information

to citizens in order to strengthen transparency and responsiveness Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1.4.1 Strengthening of PPP PO Capacity in Public Information





1.4.2 Assistance in Applying and Monitoring HJPC Public Relations Indicators

Activity 1.5: Prosecutor status improved through a performance appraisal

process, merit -based career advancement system, and/or incentive opportunities to prosecute priority criminal cases

PERSONNEL: COP; Component 1 Staff; Prosecutor Performance Appraisal Expert(s)

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Technical assistance for the appointment, appraisal, and career advancement process will require the approval of the HJPC. Proposed changes to the HJPC

Law will require action by Parliament. Changes to internal procedural practices regulating the

appointment, appraisal, and career advancement of prosecutors will require HJPC approval.

Incentivizing prosecutor performance in POs will require approval of the HJPC Standing

Committee.

CROSS-CUTTING: The aim of incentivizing prosecutor performance in POs is to stimulate successful prosecution of corruption and other serious crime cases, which is cross-cutting with the

PPP under Activity 1.1 and with Component 2 objectives to uphold public integrity/combat

corruption. Evaluating prosecutor performance for purposes of career advancement is cross -

cutting with PO organizational performance assistance under Activity 1.2.

Activity 1.5.1 – Strengthening of Performance Evaluation in POs

In Year 1, the Project examined performance evaluation procedures and practices in partner POs.

The expert assessed current practices for the evaluation of prosecutor performance in complex cases of economic crimes and corruption and found that POs rarely apply a provision of the HJPC BoR that

allows the Chief Prosecutor to assign a greater value or weight to complex cases. This practice

discourages prosecutors from taking on more serious and difficult cases because performance is being

measured predominantly by the number of cases a prosecutor completes. During Year 2, JA

continued to assess performance evaluation procedures and practices for a group of new partner POs. JA also monitored the development of revisions by the SC to the BoR, which were adopted by

the HJPC in July 2016.

In Year 3, JA will review the newly adopted BoR to determine which criteria can be monitored in

partner POs. The review will focus on: 1) whether the qualitative criteria introduced may be

effectively implemented in the process of evaluating prosecutors; 2) if significant similarities or

differences exist in the performance evaluation processes applied to Chief Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, and the Prosecutor; 3) what the exact procedures for performance evaluation are and

who the competent individuals/bodies in the process of evaluation are, and 4) whether the process

provides effective measures for appeal if the individual is not satisfied with the final appraisal. The

review will further evaluate to what extent the recommendations of JA’s International Expert were

included in the BoR. This review will also be utilized by JA in implementation of Activity 1.5.2, Strengthening the HJPC Appointment and Career Advancement System. JA will engage an expert to

assist with the review.

JA will also provide assistance to partner POs in applying selected provisions of the BoR. Development

of guidelines for chief prosecutors with additional qualitative criteria for appraising individual

prosecutor performance might also be considered. If the HJPC organizes roundtable discussions or a





workshop to introduce the BoR, JA will offer support for these events, including engagement of an

international expert. (Quarters 1 – 3)

Activity 1.5.2 – Strengthening the HJPC Appointment and Career Advancement System

In Year 1, JA initiated comparative research on European standards and procedures for merit-based

appointment and career advancement in the justice sector. JA also conducted an assessment of the

legal framework for appointment and advancement of prosecutors within the HJPC-led system. This

process included an analysis of quantitative and qualitative performance appraisals. During Year 2, findings and recommendations from the assessments were presented to Chief Prosecutors and the

HJPC Standing Committee, to identify how the JA can support improvements within the HJPC

appointment and career advancement system. JA continued to monitor how the provisions of the

HJPC BoR will change the performance evaluation process for prosecutors. In Year 3, JA will review

the new BoR and provide substantive feedback to the HJPC on how the qualitative performance criteria and the evaluation process will impact the career advancement system, which is closely

connected to the appraisal process.

This activity is cross-cutting with Component 2 (Activity 2.2.1) which focuses on strengthening the

integrity of judges and prosecutors. JA will ensure that the new system takes into consideration

disciplinary sanctions imposed on judges and prosecutors when making appointments and

promotions. JA will work with HJPC to emphasize the importance of fairly applying the criteria from the HJPC Law and Rules of Procedure (RoP). JA may assist the HJPC to find practical solutions,

including IT assistance, to apply the criteria to all judges and prosecutors and collect all information,

including disciplinary infractions, in one system. If warranted, JA will work with the HJPC’s bodies to

make necessary amendments to relevant articles of the HJPC’s RoP to clarify meaning and application.

JA will also identify interested stakeholders who can advocate for the consideration of past disciplinary

sanctions during the appointment and promotion process.

Subject to agreement with the HJPC, JA will conduct a survey of judges and prosecutors to assess

the opinion of the professional community on the HJPC appointment and career advancement system.

The results of the survey will be presented to the HJPC Presidency and utilized for developing

recommendations for follow-on assistance by JA. This Activity was originally planned during Year 2

however there were intervening factors that required it to be put off to Y3. First, JA conducted the Diagnostic Study to Determine the Sources of Corruption in the Justice Chain, which included a

comprehensive survey of the professional community which included in-depth questions relating to

the appointment process. Additionally, in the last two quarters of Year 2, the HJPC was in the process

of adopting a new BoR which was passed only in July 2016. In Y2, JA determined that conducting a separate survey prior to the changes taking effect was premature ans so the activity was moved to

the first quarter of Year 3. (Quarter 1-2)


PI 1.5.1: Number of PPP POs with score 4 or 5 on JA POCM for appraisal process dimension

Timeline

Activity 1.5: Prosecutor status improved through a performance

appraisal process, merit-based career advancement system, and/or

incentive opportunities to prosecute priority criminal cases.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1.5.1 Strengthening of Performance Evaluation in POs





1.5.2 Strengthening the HJPC Appointment and Career Advancement System

COMPONENT 2: STRENGTHENING JUSTICE SECTOR INSTITUTIONS TO UPHOLD PUBLIC INTEGRITY/COMBAT

CORRUPTION

Status and Challenges/Opportunities

Program Status

In Year 2, JA collaborated with experts, HJPC working groups (TCMS Working Group, Working

Group on Integrity Plans, Working Group on Conflict of Interest), and other stakeholders (Standing Legislative Committee, APIK, and entity JPTCs) to achieve a number of goals. Highlights include: 1)

the adoption of Conflict of Interest Guidelines and Guidelines on the Development and

Implementation of Judicial Integrity Plans and Disciplinary Sanctioning Guidelines to prevent and

combat unethical and corrupt behavior in the judiciary; 2) the adoption of APIK internal BoR on How

to Process Reports Indicating Corrupt Conduct to improve the quality of these reports and increase chances for successful prosecution; 3) the adoption of software and organizational changes relevant

to improving judicial statistics on corruption, organized crime, and economic crime cases; and 4) the

adoption of the two-year specialized training program for prosecutors on how to prosecute

corruption, organized and economic crime cases. JA also supported: 1) the strategic management of ODC; 2) the development of practical tools such as the Judicial Discipline Benchbook & ODC

Handbook, and the Benchbook on how to prosecute and adjudicate corruption, organized crime and

economic crime cases; 3) the judicial reform agenda, with a presentation of findings of the DA to

stakeholders in the government and non-government sector; and 4) the delivery of specialized training

to 60 judges and prosecutors on Financial Crimes: Investigation and Proof.

Challenges and Opportunities

Year 3 activities build on progress in Years 1 and 2 and take into account the challenges and

opportunities that have emerged during Year 2. In Year 2, the Project encountered challenges in

implementing program activities, including: 1) a management change at ODC, 2) resistance to reform that threatens the power and status of officials, such as the adoption of conflict of interest rules, and

3) limited institutional capacity at the HJPC and APIK to implement reforms. Opportunities also

emerged during Year 2 that have informed Year 3 program activities, including: 1) the prioritization

of anti-corruption efforts by the HJPC and the judiciary as part of the BiH Reform Agenda 2015-2018

and based on EU mandates, 2) the leadership of a number of HJPC members and the commitment of the HJPC Secretariat to support the reforms, and 3) media and NGO reporting to highlight

corruption.

Component Objectives

In Year 3, this component will continue to work with various institutions that are charged with fighting

corruption and securing judicial integrity, including the HJPC, the ODC, courts, and POs, as well as

professional associations, such as the Association of Expert Associates and Advisors and the

Association of Prosecutors. Program interventions with the ODC will improve their status, increase

transparency, and ensure effective application of the Code of Conduct. Program interventions with prosecutors will largely be implemented through the PPP and will support prosecutorial capacity to





investigate high profile cases of corruption and serious crime, which have cross-cutting value for this

component. Component 2 activities also have linkages to APIK, which is an ally in strengthening justice

sector capacity to uphold public integrity and fight corruption. Finally, forums will be created to bring judges and prosecutors together to create a specialization in corruption and other complex criminal

cases. Outcomes for Year 3 and beyond are listed in the table below.

Component 2 Objective

Strengthening Justice Sector Institutions to Uphold Public Integrity/Combat Corruption

Illustrative Programmatic Impact

Impact Outcome

2.1: Prosecutors investigate and prosecute

high profile corruption and economic crime

cases free from political or improper influence

This activity is executed through the PPP (see Activities 1.1

through 1.3).

2.2: Increased cooperation and coordination

among state, entity, and cantonal law

enforcement and justice sector institutions

leads to successful investigation and

prosecution of corrupt cases

JA and its partners base their activity on scientific study

rather than anecdotal data

Improved judicial statistics on corruption cases and their

exchange with law enforcement agencies

2.3: The ODC is properly resourced to

manage complaint procedures and

autonomously review the conduct of judges

and prosecutors and recommends

appropriate sanctions for unethical conduct

and corruption

ODC empowered and its institutional positioning

improved through strategic planning, program budgeting,

staffing and workload analysis

ODC and disciplinary committees better equipped for their

functions through support to the adoption of the guidelines

for disciplinary sanctions and related training

Improved public perception of the judiciary through strategic

communication of the ODC

2.4: Disciplinary proceedings are processed

expeditiously and fairly and disciplinary

decisions are subject to independent and

impartial review

HJPC and ODC better informed on the fairness of the

disciplinary proceedings through a study of disciplinary case

precedent

Judicial Discipline Benchbook and Handbook helps disciplinary

committees and ODC staff, respectively, to conduct

proceedings more expeditiously and with greater consistency

(fairness)

2.5: Public trust and respect for justice

sector institutions/actors are increased with

respect to their demonstrated ability to act

independently and impartially and to be held

accountable

Improved self-accountability of judicial branch through

enhanced implementation of ethics and professional conduct

standards for judges/prosecutors and other stakeholders

Established mechanisms of cooperation between APIK and

POs

The judicial annual conference on anticorruption introduced as

a mechanism to discuss experiences, identify priorities and

agree strategies to prevent and punish corruption





Component 2 Objective

Strengthening Justice Sector Institutions to Uphold Public Integrity/Combat Corruption

Illustrative Programmatic Impact

Impact Outcome

2.6: Prosecutors and courts are trained in

identifying elements of corrupt activities and

are able to investigate and prosecute

corrupt practices and prosecute corrupt

practices and enforce the law against

offenders

Prosecutors and judges better equipped to prosecute and

adjudicate cases of corruption through a long-term training

program and Benchbook & Handbook

Activity 2.1: Prosecutors investigate and prosecute high profile corruption

and economic crime cases free from political or improper influence

This activity is executed through the PPP (see Activities 1.1 through 1.3).

Activity 2.2: Increased cooperation and coordination among state, entity, and cantonal law enforcement and justice sector institutions leads to the successful investigation and prosecution of corrupt cases

PERSONNEL: COP, Monitoring and Evaluation Director, Component 2 Staff, LLX

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Agreement of the HJPC Secretariat and partner POs to

actively participate in the piloting of the new statistical matrix.

CROSS-CUTTING: This activity will support the Activity 1.2.1 by providing training on the use of statistical data among other things for better use of office resources in support of strategic goals

of POs.

Activity 2.2.1 – Monitor the Implementation of Recommendations of the Diagnostic Analysis

of the Integrity of the Judicial Sector in BiH and Potential Risks of Corruption or Unethical

Conduct in Judiciary (DA)

In Year 1, JA, in partnership with HJPC and APIK, completed a diagnostic analysis to identify

governance gaps and integrity or corruption risks in: 1) vertical processes of the justice sector — appointment, promotion, performance evaluation, and mechanisms of accountability — and

2) horizontal processes in criminal proceedings (including the investigation phase that precedes it) —

case detection, case selection, case assignment and management, as well as prosecutorial decision -

making. In Year 2, JA focused its efforts on: a) the promotion of the findings and recommendations of the DA and advocacy thereof (e.g., the improvement of judicial statistics on corruption cases, the

adoption of conflict of interest guidelines, and the institutionalization of specialized training for judges

and prosecutors on corruption) and b) the study of specific aspects of criminal proceedings (asset

forfeiture and the use of expert witnesses carried out by Component 1).

In Year 3, JA will continue to advocate for and support the implementation of a selected number of

recommendations from the DA (see below Activities 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.6.1). Additionally ,

JA, in collaboration with the HJPC, APIK and the USAID MEASURE Project, will develop and implement an instrument to monitor the implementation and impact of DA recommendations. Given





the comprehensive nature of the DA findings and recommendations, the follow-on challenge is to

prioritize the implementation of recommendations in consultation with local actors. This monitoring

will also determine what impact the DA had on the overall reform agenda and donor collaboration by reviewing the extent to which the objectives and goals of BiH institutions and their donor partners

match the needs and problems identified in the DA. (Quarters 1 – 4)

Activity 2.2.2 – Improve Judicial Statistics on Corruption Cases and Their Exchange with Law

Enforcement Agencies

In Years 1 and 2, JA advocated for and supported the HJPC to make software and organizational

changes that improved statistical information on corruption and organized and economic crime cases.

These improvements included the way statistical data is extracted and utilized, including the exchange

of information with law enforcement agencies and other end-users (the Ministry of Justice, Parliament,

media, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], and the public). Changes related to: 1) the type of information collected (especially related to victim and offender characteristics); 2) counting rules

(relevant to the evaluation of the efficiency of court and PO work); 3) objective validation of statistical

information; 4) analysis of statistics for purposes of policy decision-making; and 5) the sharing of

analytical reports for enhanced inter-agency cooperation.

In Year 3, JA will provide on-the-job training to court presidents, chief prosecutors, and other staff

on the new, improved statistical framework. JA support will include: 1) presentation of the new statistical framework to the management of courts and POs, 2) the development of a manual on the

use of new statistical framework for purposes of management, policy making and inter-agency

cooperation, and 3) the testing of the manual in pilot POs to achieve better use of office resources

in support of their strategic goals. (Quarters 1, 2, and 3)

Cross-Reference to Performance Indicator

PI 2.2.1: Number of collaborative mechanisms established among law enforcement and justice

sector institutions

Timeline

2.2: Increased cooperation and coordination among state, entity, and

cantonal law enforcement and justice sector institutions leads to the

successful investigation and prosecution of corrupt cases

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2.2.1 Monitor the Implementation of Recommendations of the Diagnostic Analysis

of the Integrity of the Judicial Sector in BiH and Potential Risks of Corruption or

Unethical Conduct in Judiciary

Activity 2.2.2 – Improve Judicial Statistics on Corruption Cases and Their

Exchange with Law Enforcement Agencies

Activity 2.3: The ODC is properly resourced to manage complaint procedures and autonomously review the conduct of judges and prosecutors

and recommends appropriate sanctions for unethical conduct and corruption

PERSONNEL: COP, DCOP, Component 2 Staff, Judicial Discipline Expert(s), LLX

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Agreement of the ODC to provide access to information on





its case management and actively participate in the design and implementation of feasible improvements (2.3.1); Agreement of the ODC and disciplinary committees to participate in the

piloting of new HJPC Disciplinary Sanctioning Guidelines and related training (2.3.2); Agreement of

the ODC to participate in public information activities.

CROSS-CUTTING: None.

Activity 2.3.1 – Support the Implementation of Improvements for ODC Better Institutional Positioning and Empowerment

In Years 1 and 2, JA supported the ODC through: 1) engagement with the HJPC Standing Legislative

Committee on required legislative changes (see also Activity 2.4.1 below), and 2) assistance to the

strategic management of the ODC. This support included strategic planning, program budgeting, the development of an M&E plan, staffing and workload analysis, and a training needs assessment. JA

conducted an office operations assessment of the ODC and a comparative analysis of similar offices

in the region, EU member states, and the U.S. Both of these analyses provided specific

recommendations for improving the ODC’s status and performance. The HJPC adopted the majority

of these recommendations at their annual conference in December 2015.

In Year 3, as appropriate, JA will continue to support the HJPC Standing Legislative Committee to

draft amendments that will enhance the ODC’s authority and performance. Also, the Project will review and support improvements for the disciplinary case management system (DCMS) to ensure

better usage, management, sharing, and protection of information. This assistance will also improve

archiving practices of the ODC, in compliance with relevant BiH laws. JA will also provide on-the-job

training to ODC staff based on results of the training needs assessment that will be completed at the end of Year 2 (in September 2016). JA anticipates conducting a study tour to a county with a functional

disciplinary system (preferably a European country) to learn about the work of similar bodies, how

they maintain independence, and their disciplinary processes (see also Activity 2.4.1 below). The trip

would result in action planning and the commitment of the ODC and HJPC to make measureable

reforms. The timing of this support is dependent upon the appointment of the new chief disciplinary

prosecutor and the amendments to the HJPC Law. (Quarters 1 – 4)

Activity 2.3.2 – Support the Implementation of Guidelines for Disciplinary Sanctions through

Monitoring and Education

In Years 1 and 2, JA drafted Disciplinary Sanctions Guidelines (DSG), which were peer reviewed by the HJPC through its Standing Legislative Committee. The aim of the DSG is to secure a more clear

and consistent HJPC disciplinary sanctioning policy. In July 2016, HJPC adopted almost all provisions

of the DSG, except for the requirement that disciplinary action that deviates from the guidelines must

be explained.

In Year 3, with the assistance of a U.S. judicial discipline expert who developed the DSG, JA will

provide training for the HJPC disciplinary committees on the implementation of guidelines. JA will also monitor the implementation of the DSG through the work of one or more pilot disciplinary

committees to inform training design and measure impact. The judicial discipline expert will develop

a monitoring process to measure the impact, taking into account the absence of the requirement to

provide reasoning for disciplinary determinations that deviated from the guidelines. (Quarters 2 – 4)





Activity 2.3.3 – Support the Implementation of the Public Communications Strategy and

Communication Procedures for the ODC

In Years 1 and 2, JA provided support for the ODC to draft and implement a communications strategy, which included a mini-public information campaign, improved website, and teambuilding efforts. In

Year 3, JA will continue to support the implementation of the ODC communications strategy through

activities such as: 1) the development of a semi-annual digest in electronic format, reporting on ODC

activities, and 2) the production of articles about emerging trends in judicial misconduct and discipline. To provide better transparency of disciplinary proceedings, JA will also advocate for the publication

of disciplinary decisions without redaction (“anonymization”) in compliance with personal data

protection and security standards. The publication of disciplinary decisions without redaction was a

goal adopted by the HJPC at its conference in December 2015. The study tour under Activity 2.3.1

will, among other things, address issues of transparency in disciplinary proceedings and contribute to these advocacy efforts. JA anticipates that some aspects of this activity will continue in Year 4 due to

the complexity of the issues and a change in ODC management during Year 3. (Quarters 1, 2 and 3)


PI 2.3.1: Number of improvements implemented in ODC performance in disciplinary matters

Timeline

2.3: The ODC is properly resourced to manage complaint procedures and

autonomously review the conduct of judges and prosecutors and

recommends appropriate sanctions for unethical conduct and corruption

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2.3.1 Support the Implementation of Improvements for ODC Better Institutional

Positioning and Empowerment

2.3.2 Support the Implementation of Guidelines for Disciplinary Sanctions through

Monitoring and Education

2.3.3 Support the Implementation of the Public Communications Strategy and

Communication Procedures for the ODC

Activity 2.4: Disciplinary proceedings are processed expeditiously and fairly

and disciplinary decisions are subject to independent and impartial review

PERSONNEL: COP, DCOP, Component 2 Staff, Judicial Discipline Expert(s), LLX

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Agreement of ODC and HJPC disciplinary committees to

contribute to the development of the Judicial Discipline Benchbook and ODC Handbook through

consultations (2.4.1) and to repeat the survey of judges and prosecutors, which determined their

perception on the fairness and impartiality of disciplinary actions (2.4.2).

CROSS-CUTTING: None.

Activity 2.4.1 – Develop a Judicial Discipline Benchbook and Handbook

In Year 1 and 2, JA developed digests of judicial discipline decisions and reviewed these decisions to analyze types of complaints and sanctions. The initial purpose was to inform the development of the

Judicial Discipline Benchbook and ODC Handbook planned for Year 2. However, in compliance with





the Reform Agenda, the Standing Legislative Committee began drafting amendments to provisions of

the HJPC Law on Discipline to improve fairness and enhance the efficiency of disciplinary proceedings.

The HJPC requested assistance to develop a comparative analysis of regional and international solutions. JA responded by expanding the analysis carried out under Activity 2.3.1 to include a

comparative analysis of disciplinary violations, sanctions, and appeals process. The HJPC requested

that the drafting of the Benchbook and Handbook be postponed until the revisions to the HJPC Law

on discipline are complete.

In Year 3, JA will continue to support the work of amending the HJPC Law on Discipline. JA anticipates

this will require further studies about the process and international best practices. The study visit under Activity 2.3.1 will be designed to support this legislative reform effort by including a review of

disciplinary commission and processes. JA will revisit the decision to postpone the drafting of the

Benchbook and Handbook through consultations with the HJPC, the ODC, and the EU. Based on the

outcome of these consultations, JA will consider drafting those portions that are unlikely to be affected by the amendments. Depending on the timing of the amendments, this activity may continue

in subsequent years. (Quarters 2 – 4)

Activity 2.4.2 – Survey of Judges and Prosecutors to Determine Their Perception of the

Fairness and Impartiality of Disciplinary Action

In Year 1, JA supported an ODC survey of judges and prosecutors about their perception of the fairness and impartiality of disciplinary action. The survey was voluntary and participants provided

anonymous responses. Participants included 360 judges (or 33 percent of the total number of judges)

and 110 prosecutors (37 percent of the total number of prosecutors). The survey combined closed-

ended and open-ended questions about the independence and roles of the ODC, ODC

communications, disciplinary violations and sanctions, the fairness and impartiality of disciplinary proceedings, and transparency and accountability. In Year 2, the results of the survey were presented

to the HJPC and a wider professional audience at a number of forums. Almost 50% of respondents

thought that the manner in which the chief disciplinary prosecutor was appointed affected his

autonomy. Almost 70 percent of respondents were of the opinion that the ODC and HJPC disciplinary committees should invest more time and effort in education and the prevention of

disciplinary violations. Periodic visits of the ODC to courts and POs were the preferred channel of

communication for more than 40 percent of respondents. Approximately 60 percent of respondents

thought that disciplinary records should be taken into account in the process of appointment and

promotion of judges and prosecutors.

In Year 3, JA will support ODC in repeating the survey. The survey will be repeated every other year to allow sufficient time to measure: 1) the change in the perception of judges and prosecutors of the

fairness and impartiality of the disciplinary process and 2) the impact of JA Activity 2.3 and 2.4

(e.g., DSG implementation and ODC communication strategy implementation). (Quarters 3 and 4)


PI 2.4.1: Judicial Discipline Benchbook and Handbook that will enable ODC staff and disciplinary

committees, to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and with greater consistency (fairness)

developed

PI 2.4.2: The percentage of judges and prosecutors who strongly agree with the statement that

the disciplinary process is fair and impartial

Timeline





2.4: Disciplinary proceedings are processed expeditiously and fairly

and disciplinary decisions are subject to independent and impartial

review (Most activities are in Years 2 and 3)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2.4.1 Develop a Judicial Discipline Benchbook and ODC Handbook

2.4.2 Survey of judges and prosecutors to determine their perception on the

fairness and impartiality of disciplinary actions

Activity 2.5: Public trust and respect for justice sector institutions/actors are

increased with respect to demonstrated ability to act independently and

impartially and to be held accountable

PERSONNEL: COP, Component 2 Staff, Judicial Ethics and Professional Conduct Expert(s), LLX

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Agreement of HJPC to actively participate in the

implementation of conflict of interest guidelines (e.g. system of asset declaration) (2.5.1), agreement

of entity JPTC to actively participate in the development of training module(s) on ethics and professional conduct (2.5.1), agreement of professional associations to actively contribute to the

development of a model code of conduct for court and PO personnel and awareness raising thereof

(2.5.2), agreement of HJPC to take the lead in the delivery of annual judicial anticorruption

conferences (2.5.3), agreement of HJPC and courts/POs to actively support the implementation of

integrity plans guidelines (e.g. the development of integrity plans in a pilot court and PO, training

for integrity plan coordinators) (2.5.4)

CROSS-CUTTING: The Component 1 efforts to increase transparency of POs is cross-cutting

with 2.5 Activity efforts to increase public trust in judicial institutions to and prosecute corruption

in government and abuse of public office.

Activity 2.5.1 – Support the Implementation of Codes of Ethics and Conduct for Judges and

Prosecutors

In Year 1, JA reviewed the ethics codes for judges and prosecutors and provided recommendations

to improve the code and enhance implementation. In Year 2, JA supported the drafting of Conflict of

Interest Guidelines, which included expert recommendations about the ethics codes for judges and

prosecutors. HJPC adopted the Conflict of Interest Guidelines in July 2016 which focus on: 1) incompatible and accessory activities of judicial office holders, 2) reporting on assets, income,

liabilities, and interests, 3) gifts and other benefits, 4) contact with third parties and misuse of

confidential information, and 5) nepotism. The development of Conflict of Interest Guidelines was an

EU integration requirement identified in the Reform Agenda.

In Year 3, JA will assist the HJPC to draft these regulatory changes on conflict of interest as required

by EU recommendations. To implement the new Guidelines, JA will collaborate with entity JPTCs and HJPC to develop training modules on ethics and professional conduct, as well as to develop a practical

handbook. The handbook will incorporate lessons learned during the training and may not be finalized

until Year 4. The study tour anticipated in Activity 2.1.1 will incorporate the role that bodies, such as

the ODC and ethics committees, play in implementing codes of conduct.





JA will provide technical assistance to the HJPC Secretariat (possibility in cooperation with SIDA) to

develop an electronic system for submission, verification, and management of financial statement/asset

declarations of judges and prosecutors. Technical assistance may include software development, organizational changes, and legislative amendments. The implementation of this activity will carry over

into subsequent years of the Project. (Quarters 1 – 4)

Activity 2.5.2 – Support the Implementation of Codes of Ethics and Conduct for Court and

Prosecutor’s Office Personnel

In Year 2, JA entered into a cooperation agreement with the Association of Expert Associates (AEA)

to conduct a study of ethics regulations for court and PO personnel. The AEA developed the analysis

and carried out stakeholder consultations, the results of which will be presented at a conference in

September 2016. The AEA developed an outline of a model code of ethics that adopts and integrates

the best practices of existing ethics standards and is supplemented with applicable provisions from

the ethics codes for judges and prosecutors.

In Year 3, JA will support the AEA in: 1) drafting the model code of ethical standards for court and

PO personnel, and 2) advocating for endorsement by the HJPC. If political will is lacking to uniformly

regulate expert associates, the model code will at least provide an avenue for the HJPC to insist on

ethical and professional conduct of staff. (Quarters 2 and 3)

Activity 2.5.3 – Support Justice Sector Annual Conference on Anti-corruption and Integrity

In Years 1 and 2, JA supported the annual justice sector conference on anti-corruption and integrity.

The purpose of the conference was to discuss experiences, identify priorities, and agree on strategies

to prevent and punish corruption. The first two conferences focused on the development and

presentation of findings and recommendations from the DA, which led to agreement on a number of

reform activities, including asset reporting, handling of confidential information, and avoiding nepotism. Some of these issues were addressed with the adoption of the Conflict of Interest

Guidelines (see Activity 2.5.1 above). Other conclusions from the conferences, such as increasing the

disciplinary sanctions for judges and prosecutors and the specialization of judges and prosecutors to

deal with corruption and organized and economic crime cases led to cooperation between the HJPC and JA (see Activities 2.3. and 2.6). JA also supported the HJPC to assume a lead role in the

organization and to establish a conference planning committee.

In Year 3, JA will continue to support the HJPC to organize and deliver such conferences. This support

will include defining conference topics, providing speakers, and organizational support. The next

conference is tentatively scheduled for the week of December 9 th and will provide an opportunity to

build consensus for additional anti-corruption measures to be implemented in subsequent years of JA. The conference will address issues such as opportunities and challenges in implementing the

Conflict of Interest Guidelines, Guidelines on the Development and Implementation of Judicial

Integrity Plans and the DSG, the results of efforts to strengthen the capacity of POs to prosecute

corruption, organized and economic crime cases, training, and the development of the Benchbook.

(Quarters 1 and 2)

Activity 2.5.4 – Facilitating Cooperation between the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and the Coordination of the Fight Against Corruption (APIK) and Prosecutor

Offices

In Years 1 and 2, the JA provided technical assistance to the HJPC and APIK to develop and implement integrity plans in the judiciary and exchange information and collaboration when investigating





corruption allegations. As a result of this assistance, Guidelines on the Development of Judicial

Integrity Plans were developed and adopted by the HJPC in July 2016. The Integrity Plan is a

corruption and integrity risk management instrument introduced in public institutions through the BiH Anticorruption Strategy. Implementation involves an institutional self-assessment of these risks

and the definition of measures to prevent the occurrence of corruption and unethical behavior. The

Guidelines regulate the procedures and provide a detailed methodology for the development of

integrity plans by courts and POs. Also, JA supported the drafting of the APIK BoR on the submission and registration of individual reports of suspected corruption. This support improved the quality of

these reports to increase chances for their successful prosecution.

In Year 3, through LLX and in-house expertise, JA will provide technical assistance to the HJPC to

develop integrity plans for individual courts and POs in compliance with the Guidelines. Following

consultations with the HJPC during the first quarter, technical assistance may include one or more of

the following: 1) support to the HJPC committee tasked with developing a list of judicial integrity risks (to include corruption risks), 2) piloting of the development of an integrity plan in a selected

court and PO, and 3) training court and PO integrity plan coordinators on the development of an

integrity plan. JA support may also include a study visit to Serbia’s Anti-corruption Agency and High

Judicial Council, which are currently reviewing and revising their 5 year practice in the development

and implementation of judicial integrity plans. The study visit would also provide an opportunity to learn about the asset declaration system for judges and prosecutors in Serbia, the individual role of

the judicial council and anti-corruption agency, and their mutual cooperation in verifying and using

the information collected through this system. This part of the visit would also support the Activity

2.5.1 above.

In Year 3, JA will support the implementation of the newly adopted APIK BoR by providing technical

assistance to APIK to: 1) present mechanisms of cooperation established by the newly adopted BoR to selected POs under PPPs, and 2) monitor the impact of the new BoR, through the development

of an M&E plan. Results of this monitoring effort will inform ongoing JA support to enhance

cooperation between APIK and POs in this and subsequent years of JA. (Quarters 1 – 4)


PI 2.5.1: The percentage of public that strongly agrees and mostly agrees with the statement that

the judiciary is not vulnerable to corruption

PI 2.5.2: Number of codes of conduct revised for improved standards in judicial conduct

PI 2.2.1: Number of collaborative mechanisms established among law enforcement and justice

sector institutions

Timeline

2.5: Public trust and respect for justice sector institutions/actors are

increased with respect to their demonstrated ability to act independently

and impartially and to be held accountable

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2.5.1 Support the Implementation of Codes of Ethics and Conduct for Judges and

Prosecutors

2.5.2 Support the Implementation of Codes of Ethics and Conduct for Court

and PO Personnel

2.5.3 Support Justice Sector Annual Conference on Anti-corruption and Integrity





2.5.4 Facilitating Cooperation between the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption

and the Coordination of the Fight Against Corruption and POs

Activity 2.6: Prosecutors and judges are trained in identifying elements of

corrupt activities and are able to investigate and prosecute corrupt practices and enforce the law against offenders

PERSONNEL: COP, Component 2 Staff, Corruption and Organized Crime Expert(s)

COUNTERPART AGREEMENT: Agreement of JPTCs to deliver training and participate in the

development of the Benchbook (2.5.1)

CROSS-CUTTING: These initiatives support the Component 1 objective under Activity 1.3 (Prosecutors uphold public trust and integrity through prosecution of corruption or other serious

crime).

Activity 2.6.1 – Support the Development of a Benchbook and Train Judges and Prosecutors

on the Elements of Corruption

In Year 1, JA completed a training needs assessment and developed a two-year specialized training

program for judges and prosecutors on corruption, organized crime, and economic crime cases.

During Year 2, in cooperation with the SDC-funded HJPC project, JA successfully advocated for the introduction of this training program for prosecutors in the 2016 and 2017 annual training programs

of entity JPTCs. At the end of the program in 2017, the training will certify approximately

40 prosecutors as the first group to complete this program. In Year 2, JA supported several of these

specialized trainings on topics such as financial crime, PGIs, witness protection, and the use of expert witnesses. JA is also developing a Benchbook on how to prosecute and adjudicate corruption and

organized and economic crime cases.

In Year 3, JA will continue to support the delivery of specialized trainings as part of both Components.

JA will collaborate with ICITAP, OPDAT, and other donors (including the Swiss) to incorporate police

and investigators, where coordination is required. The draft Benchbook chapter on financial crime

will be finalized by the end of September, with additional chapters developed in Year 3. The

Benchbook activity is expected to be ongoing into subsequent years of the Project. (Quarters 2 – 4)


PI 2.6.1: The percentage of trained judges and prosecutors who report successful transfer of

knowledge and skills gained to their everyday job

Timeline

2.6: Prosecutors and judges are trained in identifying elements of corrupt

activities and are able to investigate and prosecute corrupt practices and

enforce the law against offenders

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2.6.1 Support the Development of a Benchbook and Train Judges and

Prosecutors on the Elements of Corruption

Documents

DRAFT YEAR 3 WORK PLAN OCTOBER 1, 2016 SEPTEMBER 30, …