Task Force on Justice, Justice for All

Justice

for All

The Task Force

on Justice

Final Report

www.justice.sdg16.plus

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by/4.0/. Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work,

including for commercial purposes, as long as attribution is given and any changes made are indicated.

Please cite this work as: Task Force on Justice, Justice for All – Final Report. (New York: Center on International Cooperation, 2019),

available at https://www.justice.sdg16.plus/

Photos by: Bart Hoogveld

Justice for All

The Task Force on Justice

Contents

The Task Force on Justice ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................................11

Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................................................................................12

Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................13

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................ 14

Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 16

Part 1: Why We Need Justice for All ..................................................................................... 26

Chapter 1: The Justice Gap ...............................................................................................................................................28

Justice for All? ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29

Collecting People-Centered Justice Data ...........................................................................................................................................30

A Justice Gap with Three Dimensions ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

People living in extreme conditions of injustice • People who cannot resolve their justice problems •

People who are excluded from the opportunities the law provides

Barriers to Justice for All ....................................................................................................................................................................................39

Chapter 2: The Case for Action ......................................................................................................................................42

Investing in Justice for All .................................................................................................................................................................................43

The Cost of Injustice ..............................................................................................................................................................................................44

Injustice is costly for people and communities • The costs weigh on societies and economies

The Benefits of Investing in Justice ........................................................................................................................................................... 48

Reduced risk of conflict and instability • Increased capacity to prevent and solve everyday justice

problems • Release the economic potential of more just societies

Financing Justice for All ....................................................................................................................................................................................52

The cost of justice for all • Is justice for all affordable? • What strategies can increase affordability?

Spotlight 1: Reaching the furthest behind first .............................................................................................................................58

Part 2: Building Just Societies ...............................................................................................60

Chapter 3: Solving Justice Problems .........................................................................................................................62

Transforming Justice ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 63

Understanding Justice Problems ..............................................................................................................................................................64

The most common justice problems ...................................................................................................................................................... 66

Better Justice Journeys ......................................................................................................................................................................................67

Empower people and communities • Access to people-centered justice services • Fair outcomes

Chapter 4: Preventing Injustice ...................................................................................................................................76

The Shift to Prevention ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 77

Why Prevention? ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78

What Kind of Prevention? ................................................................................................................................................................................79

Preventing and de-escalating disputes • Preventing violence • Preventing conflict and instability •

Promoting inclusion and protecting rights

Making the Shift to Prevention ...................................................................................................................................................................87

Promote trust in justice systems • Tackle the root causes of injustice • Use the law to reduce risk

Spotlight 2: Responding to mass human rights abuses ....................................................................................................... 90

Part 3: Pathfinders for Justice ................................................................................................ 92

Chapter 5: Leading the Change ....................................................................................................................................94

Towards Justice for All.........................................................................................................................................................................................95

The Path to Justice for All .................................................................................................................................................................................96

Models of change • Obstacles and opportunities for reform • Global momentum for justice

Levers of Justice Reform ...................................................................................................................................................................................101

Use data and evidence to steer reform • Unlock the transformative power of innovation • Implement

strategies for smarter justice financing • Build more coherent and inclusive justice systems

Chapter 6: Agenda for Action ..................................................................................................................................... 106

A New Vision of Justice for All ....................................................................................................................................................................107

An Agenda for National Action ................................................................................................................................................................. 108

Resolve the justice problems that matter most to people • Prevent justice problems and create

opportunities for people to participate fully in their societies and economies • Invest in justice systems

and institutions that work for people and that are equipped to respond to their need for justice

An Agenda for International Action .......................................................................................................................................................109

Call to Action ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 110

Spotlight 3: The people who provide justice ..................................................................................................................................112

Appendix 1: Methodology ..............................................................................................................................................114

Endnotes ...................................................................................................................................................................................118

Argentina

Centers for access to justice 73, 96

Open justice data 101

Justicia 2020 101

Australia

Reduce reoffending and

drug use

Community legal centers 73

Understanding people’s

justice problems

Bahamas

Swift justice 97

Canada

Justice development goals 96

Ecuador

Legal aid and domestic

violence

Georgia

Glass police stations 86

India

Mediation in Kolkata’s family

courts

Indonesia

National recognition of

paralegals

Guatemala

International Commission

against Impunity

Mali

Collaboration in the criminal

justice chain

105

Mexico

Legal support to prisoners 71

Private sector response to

violence

Kenya, Rwanda,

Uganda

Online information platform

for traders

Lebanon

Community-oriented

policing

Kenya

Constitutional reform and

vetting

Liberia

Mediation in peace huts 55, 84

Paralegals on motorbikes 71

Bangladesh

Access to village courts 50

Brazil

Tax simplification for

entrepreneurs

Burundi

Centre for survivors of

gender-based violence

What Works Around the World .................................................................................................... ..............

Mozambique

Funding of paralegals by

health sector

104

The Netherlands

Collaboration for crime

prevention

105

Pakistan

Biometric identity system 87

Peru

Mediation by the

ombudsman

Philippines

Extractive Industries

Transparency Initiative

Rwanda

Community based mediation 73

Gender-responsive land

registration

87, 97

Women’s legal empowerment 73

Sierra Leone

Local police partnerships

boards

Tanzania

Land rights for women 51

South Africa

Community advice officers 50

Visual contract for fruit pickers 80

Firearm control act 83

UAE

Small claims procedures 97

Innovation in the Ministry of

Justice

102

USA

Legal aid to avoid eviction 50

Bail based on reoffending risk 75

Interagency collaboration for

legal aid

105

Tunisia

Judicial reform 105

United Kingdom

Citizen advice services 50

Legal services act 97

Ukraine

Integrated prevention

strategies

The Task Force on Justice

The Task Force on Justice is an initiative of the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies – a

multi-stakeholder partnership that brings together UN member states, international organizations, civil

society, and the private sector to accelerate delivery of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets

for peace, justice and inclusion.

Co-Chairs

Germán Carlos Garavano,

Minister of Justice and

Human Rights, Argentina

Sigrid Kaag, Minister

for Foreign Trade and

Development Cooperation,

the Netherlands

Priscilla Schwartz, Attorney-

General and Minister of

Justice, Sierra Leone

Hina Jilani, an Elder

Members

Alejandro Alvarez, Director,

Rule of Law Unit, Executive

Office of the Secretary-

General, United Nations

Donny Ardyanto,

Program Advisor of Legal

Empowerment and Access

to Justice, TIFA Foundation,

Indonesia

James Goldston, Executive

Director, Open Society

Justice Initiative

Pablo de Greiff, Senior

Fellow and Adjunct Professor

of Law, NYU, and former

Special Rapporteur on the

promotion of truth, justice,

reparation and guarantees of

non-recurrence, OHCHR

Sara Hossain, Lawyer,

Supreme Court of

Bangladesh

Kalthoum Kennou, Judge

at the Court of Cassation of

Tunisia

Vivek Maru, Chief Executive

Officer, Namati

Allyson Maynard-Gibson

QC, Barrister, former

Attorney-General and

Minister for Legal Affairs of

The Bahamas

Athaliah Molokomme,

Ambassador and Permanent

Representative of Botswana

to the UN Office in Geneva,

former Attorney-General,

Botswana

Owen Pell, Partner,

White & Case LLP

Marta Santos Pais, Former

Special Representative of

the Secretary-General on

Violence against Children

Sherpas for the Co-Chairs

María Fernanda Rodríguez,

Vice Minister of Justice,

Ministry of Justice and

Human Rights, Argentina

Jelte van Wieren, Director

of the Stabilisation

and Humanitarian

Aid Department, the

Netherlands

Shahid Korjie, Acting

Justice Sector Coordinator,

Ministry of Justice,

Sierra Leone

Justice Partners

Secretariat to the Task Force on Justice

New York University’s Center on International Cooperation (CIC) served as

the secretariat to the Task Force on Justice. CIC co-founded and hosts the

Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies.

David Steven, Senior Fellow and Associate Director; Maaike de Langen,

Head of Research for the Task Force on Justice; Karina Gerlach, Senior

Program Adviser; Alisa Jimenez, Program Assistant.

Mark Weston, writer and consultant; Jane Frewer, editorial and program

management; and Lewis Broadway, design.

Senior Advisors to the Task Force

Sam Muller, Chief Executive Officer, Hague Institute for Innovation of Law

(HiiL); Anthony Triolo, Senior External Relations Officer, University of South

Carolina Rule of Law Collaborative.

Task Force Workstreams

Justice Gap Working Group led by the World Justice Project, with the

Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL), the Ministry of Justice and

Human Rights of Argentina, New York University’s Center on International

Cooperation (CIC), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD), the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP), University College London, the

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), UNODC-INEGI Center

of Excellence, White & Case LLP, and the World Bank.

Case for Investment included research by the Overseas Development

Institute, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, the Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the World Bank.

High-Level Group on Justice for Women convened by UN Women,

International Development Law Organization (IDLO), and the World

Bank Group, with Abubacarr Marie Tambedou, Minister of Justice, the

Gambia; Catherine Harrington, Campaign Manager, Global Campaign for

Equal Nationality Rights; Dubravka Simonovic, UN Special Rapporteur on

Violence against Women, its causes and consequences; Frida Angelica

Gomez Perez, Director-General, Noticias Tiemposmodernos, and National

Councilor for the Evaluation and Monitoring of Public Policies on Youth,

Mexican Youth Institute; Hilary Gbedemah, Chair, The Convention on

the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

Committee; María Fernanda Rodríguez, Vice Minister of Justice, Ministry of

Justice and Human Rights, Argentina; Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah, Director

of Information, Communications and Media, The Association for Women’s

Rights in Development (AWID); Nathalie G. Drouin, Deputy Minister of

Justice and Deputy Attorney-General, Canada; Nursyahbani Katjasungkana,

Head, Association of Indonesian Women for Justice, Indonesia; Patricia

Scotland, Commonwealth Secretary General; and Rangita de Silva de Alwis,

Associate Dean, University of Pennsylvania.

Innovation Working Group led by Sam Muller, Chief Executive Officer, HiiL,

with Abdulla Al-Majid, Court Innovation, Chief Innovation Officer, Ministry

of Justice, UAE; Allyson Maynard-Gibson QC, Barrister and former Attorney-

General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Bahamas; Eddie Hartman, co-founder,

LegalZoom; Gerald Abila, founder, Barefoot Law & mSME Garage; Gillian

Hadfield, University of Toronto; Mark Beer OBE, President, The International

Association for Court Administration; Michelle Arevalo-Carpenter, co-

founder, IMPAQTO; Michiel Scheltema, Special Adviser on Justice to the

government, The Netherlands; Luis Franceschi, Dean, Strathmore Law

School; Robert Kraybill, Managing Director, Impact Investment Exchange;

Sandra Elena, Head, Open Justice Programme, Ministry of Justice,

Argentina; Janet McIntyre, Deputy Director General, Intergovernmental and

External Relations Division, Ministry of Justice, Canada.

Transitional Justice Working Group led by the International Center for

Transitional Justice (ICTJ), with Ministry of Justice, Argentina; Asia Justice

and Rights; Dejusticia; Ministry of Justice, the Gambia; Federal Foreign

Office, Germany; Impunity Watch; International Bar Association; Institute

for Integrated Transitions; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands; Office

of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Office of the UN Special

Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees

of non-recurrence; Open Society Justice Initiative; Redress; International

Development Cooperation Agency, Sweden; Federal Department of Foreign

Affairs, Switzerland; Swisspeace; Court of Cassation, Tunisia; United Nations

Development Programme; United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office;

and UN Women.

Justice for Children Technical Working Group led by CELCIS-Inspiring

Children’s Futures at the University of Strathclyde, with the Office of the

Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against

Children, and the Child Justice Advocacy Group, coordinated by Terre des

hommes and Defence for Children International.

Consultation Events

16+ Showcase, Freetown, 7-10 October 2018

The Big Think on Justice, The Hague, 15 November 2018

Innovating Justice Forum, The Hague, 5-6 February 2019

Justice Partners Forum, The Hague, 7 February 2019

Think Justice, online consultation, September-December 2018

Commissioned Reports

World Justice Project, “Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs

Around the World” (Task Force on Justice, background paper, April 2019)

Marcus Manuel, Clare Manuel and Harsh Desai, Universal access to basic justice: costing SDG 16.3 ODI

Working Paper 554. (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2019). Paper prepared for the Task Force

on Justice

Trevor Farrow and Lisa Moore, “Costing the Justice Gap, Return on Investment for Justice Services

Provided by Civil Society Organizations,” (Task Force on Justice, background paper, 2019)

High-level Group on Justice for Women, Justice for Women - High-level Group Report. (New York: UN

Women, IDLO, World Bank and Task Force on Justice, 2019)

Innovation Working Group, “Innovating justice: needed and possible,” (Task Force on Justice, background

paper, January 2019)

Transitional Justice Working Group, “Report on Transitional Justice and SDG16+,” (Task Force on Justice,

background paper, March 2019)

Stephen Golub, “Civil Society’s Contributions to Justice: Vital, Effective and Under-valued, The Seeds of

Change: Local Actions Contribute to Legal and Policy Reforms,” and “Grassroots Justice: The Roles and

Impact of Paralegals,” (Task Force on Justice, working papers, 2019)

Center on International Cooperation, Challenge paper: Justice as Prevention. (Task Force on Justice,

background paper, December 2018)

Justice for Children Technical Working Group, “Challenge Paper on Justice for Children,” (Task Force on

Justice, background paper, forthcoming)

White & Case LLP, “NSO Governance for Better Justice Data,” (memo prepared for the Task Force on

Justice, along with a range of discrete research inputs and memos)

Other Key Inputs

The Elders, Access to Justice – Position Paper. (London: The Elders Foundation, 2019)

HiiL, Understanding Justice Needs - The Elephant in the Courtroom. (The Hague: HiiL, 2018)

Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2018)

OECD, Putting people in the centre: Equal access to justice services for economic and social well-being.

(Paris: OECD, 2019)

OECD and Open Society Justice Initiative, Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice - launch copy.

(Paris and New York: OECD/OSF, 2019)

OECD and World Justice Project, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice - An OECD White Paper

in collaboration with the World Justice Project: Preliminary draft,” 2019

The Task Force on Justice has received generous financial support from the Netherlands’ Ministry

of Foreign Affairs and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation; and in-kind support from Argentina’s

Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, the government of Sierra Leone, the government of Canada,

White & Case LLP, the City of the Hague, and the British High Commission in Sierra Leone. Funding

for the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies is also provided by the Swiss Agency for

Development and Cooperation and the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. All justice partners listed

on page 7 also made substantial in-kind contributions.

Acknowledgements

Support from the New York University’s Center on International Cooperation

The Task Force on Justice was overseen by Sarah Cliffe, Director, NYU Center on International Cooperation. Paige Arthur,

Deputy Director, and Hanny Megally, Senior Fellow, joined the internal review team. Inputs and support were provided

by the rest of the Pathfinders team: Harshani Dharmadasa, Rachel Locke, Soomin Lee, Paul von Chamier, Bojan

Francuz, and Justine Brouillaud; as well as other CIC colleagues, Sarah Groves, Noah Gall, Jonathan Connors, Kayla

Lewis-Hue, Said Sabir, Camilo Lopez Delgado, Céline Monnier, Leah Zamore, Shavon Bell, and Nendirmwa Parradang.

The Task Force on Justice would like to thank the following people

for their contribution to the Task Force’s work

Abdoulaye Mar Dieye, Abigail Moy, Adrian di Giovanni, Adriana De La Espriella (in memoria), Aidan Harris, Alan

George, Alejandro Ponce, Alyson MacLean, Andrew Goudie, Anna Mutaveti, Annette Lyth, Aparna Basynat, Arthur van

Buitenen, Åsa Wallton, Aurelie Roche-Mair, Bader Kaba, Beatrice Duncan, Ben Oppenheim, Benoit Van Keirsbilck,

Betsy Andersen, Betsy Apple, Bonian Golmohammadi, Boroto Ntakobajira, Bridget Osho, Briony Jones, Caitlin Sislin,

Carolina Moreno Diaz, Chantal Joubert, Chloe Lelievre, Christi Sletten, Christina Koulias, Chrysula Winegar, Clare

Manuel, Clifford Msiska, Coco Lammers, Cornelius Williams, David Nussbaum, Debbie Wetzel, Dena Motevalian,

Denise Torres, Diana Isabel Güiza Gómez, Elisabeth Baumgartner, Elizabeth Cousens, Ellen Swedenmark, Emily

Kenney, Enrico Bisogno, Erin Kitchell, Erwin Tuijl, Evelien van Hoeve, Fabián Salvioli, Fahad Saher, Fernando Marani,

Fernando Travesi, Francesca Daverio, Galuh Wandita, Gedeon Behiguim, Georgia Harley, Gustavo Maurino, Habib

Nassar, Harsh Desai, Heather Grady, Hector Chayer, Hibak Muse, Ibrahima Koreissi, Ilaria Bottigliero, Isabel Durán,

Jago Russell, Janet McIntyre, Jean-Jacques Hible, Jeni Klugman, Jennifer Davidson, Jennifer Tsai, Jenny Yates, Joe

Foti, Joe Powell, Joel Samuels, Juan Carlos Botero, Judith van Niekerk, Julia Raue, Justin Haccius, Kady Sylla, Karen

Fisher, Karen Wallace, Karina Carpintero, Kate Orlovsky, Katy Thompson, Kaysie Brown, Kelly Dale, Kirsten di Martino,

Koen Davidse, Kristen Hope, Kristine Allen, Leoni Cuelenaere, Lex Gerts, Lisa Denney, Lisa Ott, Lorenzo Wakefield, Lotta

Teale, Luisa Sanchez, Luke Upchurch, Marcel Ruiter, Marcel Stoessel, Marcia Mersky, Marcus Bonturi, Marcus Lenzen,

Marcus Manuel, Margaret Williams, Mariana Otoya, Mariana Pena, Marianne Peters, Marieke Vreeken, Marieke Wierda,

Marije van Kempen, Mark Freeman, Mark Madden, Marlies Stappers, Marlon Manuel, Martijn Quinn, Martin Boehmer,

Martin Forst, Martin Gramatikov, Martyna Wanat, Mary Okumu, Mary Robinson, Mascha Matthews, Mat Tromme,

Matthew Bannon, Matthew Burnett, Maurits Barendrecht, McKinley Charles, Megan Manion, Megan Price, Messina

Manirakiza, Michael Warren, Michala Mackay, Minh-Thu Pham, Minke van der Sar, Mô Bleeker, Murray Hunt, Nancy

Ward, Nicole Janisiewicz, Olivier Kambala wa Kambala, Pascoe Pleasance, Patricia van Nispen tot Sevenaer, Patrick

Burgess, Paul Prettitore, Pema Doornenbal, Pete Chapman, Pilar Domingo, Rea Chiongson, Rebecca Kourlis, Rhodri

Williams, Rob Schuurmans, Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, Roger Duthie, Ross Maclaren, Rupert Skilbeck, Sabrina Büchler,

Sabrina Mahtani, Salome Flores, Sander Werrie, Sandra Elena, Sandra Pellegrom, Sandra van der Pal, Santa Falasca,

Sarah Long, Saskia Bruines, Sebastiaan Verelst, Serge Rumin, Sharon Johnson, Simon Moss, Stacey Cram, Stephen

Zimmerman, Steven Lanting, Steven Malby, Sumaiya Islam, Susan McDonald, Sylvia Hazenbroek, Tatyana Teplova,

Teresa Jennings, Teresa Mugadza, Tobijn de Grauw, Tom Gordon, Tonu Basu, Tony Reilly, Tymon Kiepe, Ulysses Smith,

Vivek Trivedi, Wilma van Esch, Wim Jansen, Yorokamu Bamwine, Zaza Namoradze.

The Task Force on Justice would like to thank the following organizations for their

contribution to the Task Force’s work

16+Forum, ABA Rule of Law Initiative, British Council, Commonwealth Secretariat, Department for International

Development, European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Fair Trials International,

Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, Global Alliance for Reporting Progress on Peaceful, Just and

Inclusive Societies, Global Citizen, Impunity Watch, LexisNexis, Ministry of Justice of Canada, Ministry of Justice of

the Netherlands, National Alliance for the Development of Community Advice Offices, Paralegal Advisory Service

Institute, Permanent Mission of Argentina to the United Nations, Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to the

United Nations, Permanent Mission of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, Responsive Law, SDG Philanthropy

Platform, The New Now, UN Foundation, UN Global Compact, UNHCR, UNICEF, United Nations Office of Rule of

Law and Security Institutions.

Abbreviations

CALDH Centre for Human Rights Legal Action

CIC

New York University Center on International Cooperation

CRVS Civil Registration and Vital Statistics

ECA region Europe and Central Asia region

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GLEN Global Legal Empowerment Network

GPS Global Positioning System

HiiL The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law

HLPF The United Nations High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

ILO International Labour Organization

IMF International Monetary Fund

JGWG The Justice Gap Working Group

LGBTI+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual and Intersex people

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NSOs National Statistics Offices

NYU New York University

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

ODI Overseas Development Institute

OSF Open Society Foundation

OSJI Open Society Justice Initiative

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

UNODC/INEGI United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Center of Excellence in Statistical

Information on Government, Crime, Victimization and Justice

WHO World Health Organization

WJP World Justice Project

Definitions

2030 Agenda The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, launched in 2015.

Alma-Ata declaration A major milestone of the 20th century in the field of public health, identifying primary healthcare

as the key to the attainment of the goal of Health for All.

Arab Spring A series of anti-government protests, uprisings, and armed rebellions that spread across the Middle

East in late 2010.

Basic justice services Local-level services that address people’s everyday justice needs, through formal and informal

mechanisms by a range of actors.

High-Level Group on

Justice for Women

A group established as part of the workstreams of the Task Force on Justice, to focus on the justice gap

for women, the case for investment, and what works to increase justice for women.

High-level Political

Forum on Sustainable

Development

The main United Nations platform on sustainable development, providing political leadership,

guidance and recommendations. It meets annually in New York under the auspices of the

Economic and Social Council and every four years under the auspices of the General Asssembly. The

forum reviews the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

Justice for All campaign A global campaign to ensure equal access to justice for all by 2030 by advocating for funding and

protections for grassroots justice defenders.

Justice gap The difference between the justice people want and need and the justice they receive. See chapter 1.

Justice systems The legislative, institutional and organizational systems and actors that exist in society to resolve

and prevent people’s justice problems.

#MeToo movement A movement against sexual harassment and sexual assault, formed in 2017 as a hashtag on

social media.

Paralegals Non-lawyers who have received training regarding aspects of the law and who assist others to make

use of the law.

Pro bono Free services provided by lawyers and law students for those who cannot otherwise afford them.

SDG16.3 Sustainable Development Goal 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels

and ensure equal access to justice for all.

SDG16+ SDG16 along with the 36 targets from other Sustainable Development Goals, that directly measure

an aspect of peace, inclusion, or access to justice.

SDGs The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are the United Nations’ blueprint to achieve a better and

more sustainable future for all. They address global challenges, including those related to poverty,

inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity, peace, and justice.

SDG Summit The first UN summit on the SDGs since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda in September 2015.

Presidents and Prime Ministers are asked to attend to “mobilize further actions to accelerate

implementation.” This event will be held in September 2019 as a High-level Political Forum held

under the 74th Session of the General Assembly.

South-South

cooperation

A broad framework for collaboration among countries of the South in the political, economic, social,

cultural, environmental, and technical domains. Involving two or more developing countries, it can

take place on a bilateral, regional, subregional or interregional basis.

Task Force The Task Force on Justice, an initiative of the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies.

Unless stated otherwise, all monetary figures are stated in USD $

Foreword

The 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development is based on a

vision of “a just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive

world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met.”

Through the agenda, all countries have made the commitment

to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies that provide

equal access to justice for all and that are based on respect for

fundamental human rights.

As Martin Luther King told us, “injustice anywhere is a threat to

justice everywhere.” Without justice, we cannot fulfil the promise

of the 2030 Agenda to eradicate poverty in all its forms, tackle

inequality and promote shared prosperity, and protect the planet

from degradation. Justice underpins gender empowerment and

helps us reach the furthest behind first.

This report is the result of a collective effort by the world’s justice

partners to chart a path towards equal access to justice for all.

Through the Task Force on Justice, we have worked together

to gather data on the scale of the justice gap and the evidence

needed to underpin implementation. We are committed

to supporting accelerated action in all countries and to

demonstrating measurable progress as, in 2020, we enter a new

decade for the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals.

We call on all countries and on partners from all sectors to join us

in standing up for justice. We now must work together to prevent

and resolve justice problems, while using justice systems to help

people, communities, and societies fulfil their potential. Let’s

unite to make the promise of justice for all a reality.

Germán Carlos Garavano Sigrid Kaag Priscilla Schwartz

Hina Jilani Alejandro Alvarez Donny Ardyanto

Murray Hunt

Director, Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law

Kees Zevenbergen

Chief Executive Officer, Cordaid

Mary Robinson

Chair, The Elders

Sam Muller

Chief Executive Officer, HiiL

Fernando Travesi

Executive Director, International

Center for Transitional Justice

Irene Khan

Director General, International

Development Law Organization

Agneta Johansson

Executive Director, International Legal

Assistance Consortium

Megan Price

Head of Office, Knowledge Platform

Security & Rule of Law

Patricia van Nispen tot Sevenaer

Director, Microjustice4All

Ridgway White

President and Chief Executive Officer,

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

Sara Pantuliano

Acting Executive Director, Overseas

Development Institute

Elizabeth Andersen

Executive Director, World Justice Project

Sanjay Pradhan

Chief Executive Officer, Open

Government Partnership

Patrick Gaspard

Executive Director, Open

Society Foundations

Joel Samuels

Director, Rule of Law Collaborative,

University of South Carolina

Achim Steiner

Administrator, United Nations

Development Programme

Yury Fedotov

Executive Director, United Nations

Office on Drugs and Crime

Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka

Executive Director, UN Women

James Goldston Pablo de Greiff Sara Hossain

Kalthoum Kennou QC Vivek Maru Allyson Maynard-Gibson

Athaliah Molokomme Owen Pell Marta Santos Pais

The Task Force on Justice

Justice Partners

Overview

from justice for the few

to justice for all

Justice for All

At the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development lies

a vision of a “just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive

world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met.”

Justice is a thread that runs through all 17 Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs). Without increased justice, the world

will not be able to end poverty, reduce inequality, reach the

furthest behind first, create conditions for shared and sustainable

prosperity, or promote peace and inclusion.

SDG16.3 promises to ensure equal access to justice for all by 2030.

Other justice-related targets cover legal identity, injustices such as

corruption and illicit financial flows, and the promotion of rights

and gender equality.

The Task Force on Justice – an initiative of the Pathfinders for

Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies – has explored the delivery of

these targets in a world where billions of people are not yet able to

obtain justice.

Drawing on research by the world’s leading justice organizations

and experts, this report provides a first estimate of the global

justice gap. It makes the case for shifting from a model that

provides justice only for the few, to one that delivers measurable

improvements in justice for all.

In the past, justice reforms have often focused on institutions that

are distant from people and fail to serve their needs. The Task Force

proposes a different approach, putting people at the center of

justice systems and justice at the heart of sustainable development.

A people-centered approach to justice starts with an

understanding of people’s justice needs and designs solutions to

respond to them. It is delivered by a justice system that is open and

inclusive, and that works in collaboration with other sectors such as

health, education, housing, and employment.

Closing the justice gap requires a transformation in ambition – a

sustained effort to provide billions more people with access to justice.

To deliver justice for all, countries must resolve people’s justice

problems, prevent injustices large and small from occurring, and

create opportunities for people to participate fully in their societies

and economies.

The global justice gap

Until recently, a lack of justice data obscured the scale of the failure

to meet people’s justice needs, but more and better data has now

become available. Legal needs, victimization, and specialist surveys

now cover a growing number of countries.

The global justice gap has three dimensions:

 At least 253 million people live in extreme conditions

of injustice

Forty million people are modern slaves, 12 million are stateless,

and over 200 million live in countries or communities where

high levels of insecurity make it impossible for them to seek

justice.

 1.5 billion people have justice problems they cannot resolve

People in this group are victims of unreported violence or

crime. Or they have a civil or administrative justice problem

they cannot resolve, such as a dispute over land or the denial

of a public service. Almost 60 percent of justice problems are

currently unresolved.

 4.5 billion people are excluded from the opportunities the law

provides

Over 1 billion people lack legal identity. More than 2 billion are

employed in the informal sector and the same number lack

proof of housing or land tenure. This makes them vulnerable

to abuse and exploitation and less able to access economic

opportunities and public services.

In total, 5.1 billion people – two-thirds of the world’s population –

lack meaningful access to justice. While people in all countries are

affected, the burden of this injustice is not randomly distributed

among people.

The justice gap is both a reflection of structural inequalities and a

contributor to these inequalities.

Women and children find it hardest to access justice. One billion

children are victims of violence, for example. Half of women

believe it is pointless to report a case of sexual harassment to the

police.

Poor people, people with disabilities, and people from minority

ethnic communities are among the vulnerable groups that find it

hardest to access justice. Their experience of injustice increases the

likelihood that they will continue to be left behind.

The cost of injustice

In 2010, a 26-year old Tunisian fruit vendor named Mohamed

Bouazizi set himself on fire outside a government building in protest

at sustained harassment by the police. His death triggered protests

that spread first through Tunisia and then across the Arab world.

Bouazizi’s case involved justice problems related to documentation

(he did not have a permit for his fruit stand, but it is still unclear

whether he needed one), abusive justice actors, and an inability to air

a grievance. For people like him, injustice leads to lost income and

high levels of stress. People with a justice problem lose an average

of one month’s wages. Many become unemployed. Health impacts

are also serious. Around a third of people with a justice problem are

likely to experience a physical or mental health problem.

For societies, justice is often the missing link in national

development strategies. Economies may perform strongly and

health and education improve. But without justice, people will fail

to reach their full potential and development will be precarious.

By driving exclusion and fueling grievances, injustice also increases

the risk of political instability and – as we saw in the period that

followed the Arab Spring – violent conflict.

This failure to provide justice is costly.

 At a global level, conflict costs the world around $2,000 per

person each year, while countries may lose up to a fifth of their

GDP when levels of non-conflict violence are very high.

 Just three types of impact resulting from justice problems – lost

income, damaged health, and the cost of seeking redress – cost

OECD countries between 0.5 and 3 percent of their annual GDP.

 Everyday justice problems cost more than 2 percent of GDP in

the majority of low income countries for which we have data.

The benefits of investing in justice

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that expenditure on

people-centered justice can deliver a high return on investment.

Increased justice reduces the risk of conflict and instability. Every

dollar invested in justice is likely to return at least $16 in benefits

from reduced conflict risk. In Guatemala, rebuilding the justice

system to combat impunity and tackle corruption led to a 5

percent decline in homicide rates.

Tackling everyday justice problems also delivers benefits:

 Specialized courts such as drugs courts reduce reoffending,

saving the criminal justice system thousands of dollars per case.

 Restorative justice approaches are highly cost-effective and

result in higher satisfaction for victims and reduced offending.

 In England and Wales, the Citizens Advice service helps more

than two million people each year with their justice problems.

For every dollar invested, the service generates $2.40 in savings for

government and $14.50 of wider social and economic benefits.

Using the law to release people’s economic and social potential

is highly cost-effective. Legal identity improves health outcomes

while allowing governments to tailor services to those who need

them, target cash transfers and other social protection programs

more effectively, collect taxes, root out corruption, and evaluate the

impacts of policies.

Programs that clarify and strengthen land rights prevent conflict

and increase people’s ability to participate in the economy.

Tanzanian women quadruple their earnings when they live in a

community that allows them land rights.

Financing justice for all

How much would it cost to close the justice gap – to meet people’s

everyday justice needs in an accessible and affordable way?

To answer this question, this report presents the first estimate of

the cost of providing universal access to basic justice. Health and

education have long had such benchmarks for investment, and the

methodology used draws from experiences in those sectors.

This estimate includes legal advice, legal empowerment in

communities, formal justice institutions that play a frontline role

in resolving conflicts and disputes, and alternative mechanisms to

resolve these justice problems. Accountability mechanisms are also

included.

In low-income countries, it would cost $20 to provide each person

with access to basic justice services. In middle-income countries, it

would cost $64 per person per year and in high-income countries

$190.

To put these numbers into context, providing universal primary and

secondary education in low-income countries costs $41 per person

per year, while providing universal essential healthcare costs at

least $76.

High-income countries are comfortably able to afford this

expenditure, but middle and low-income countries will find it

more challenging. Overall, two billion people live in countries that

cannot afford even half the cost of providing universal access to

basic justice without threatening expenditure on other sectors.

To increase affordability, countries need better data on current

resource allocation in order to shift expenditure away from

ineffective approaches and target it instead on the most urgent

justice needs.

Existing resources could be redirected towards lower-cost

approaches with potential to deliver justice at scale, with legal

empowerment and non-formal approaches relatively affordable in

all countries.

Funding sources need to be diversified. Donor investment in justice

has declined by 40 percent over the past four years. In fragile and

conflict-affected states, only 1.5 percent of official development

assistance is spent on justice. Philanthropists, impact investors, and

private sector firms could all play a role in making justice for all

more affordable by increasing their investment in people-centered

approaches.

Solving justice problems

Six areas account for most justice problems: violence and crime,

disputes involving land, housing or neighbors, unresolved family

disputes, problems related to money, debt or consumer issues, or

those related to access to public services, and legal needs related

to employment or businesses.

Each of these problems has structural equivalents – for example,

when a community’s land is confiscated without compensation,

where inheritance laws favor sons over daughters or wives, or

where a minority is denied access to public services.

Justice seekers benefit from approaches that are tailored to

each category of problem, but common themes emerge when

they are asked how they want their problems solved. Victims of

violence and people with legal disputes are often less interested in

judgment and punishment than in being listened to and finding a

resolution or remedy that allows them to resume their lives.

By taking justice problems as a starting point, countries can design

a better journey from that problem to a solution. What matters is

both the destination (do people achieve a satisfactory resolution?)

and the journey itself (are people treated fairly along the way?).

A justice journey has three stages:

1. Empower people and communities

People are empowered so that they can act when a legal

need arises. They are helped to understand the law and seek a

solution, with legal aid provided to the most vulnerable.

2. Access to people-centered justice services

People have access to services that are responsive to their needs

and offer alternative and less adversarial pathways to justice.

One-stop shops provide a range of services under one roof, while

specialist services help those with more complex problems.

3. Fair outcomes

People achieve a resolution to their problem that is fair and

meets standards for human rights. Remedies are appropriate

and promote reconciliation. Data is used to judge whether

people receive a satisfactory resolution. Grievance mechanisms

listen and respond to those who feel badly treated.

Preventing injustice

Justice systems must prevent problems as well as working to

resolve those that have already occurred.

Prevention reduces the harm people suffer by focusing on the root

causes of injustice. When there are fewer disputes, lower levels of

violence, and people have proper legal protections, societies are

more likely to be peaceful and to prosper.

Prevention makes sense for four reasons. First, the justice gap is too

wide to be bridged with traditional approaches and tools. Second,

justice is needed for communities and societies, not just for

individuals. Third, justice systems can increase resilience, by helping

people protect their rights or by providing space for peaceful

contestation. Finally, prevention is cost effective – for people, for

society, and for the justice system itself.

Prevention requires justice actors to move from considering

only individual justice problems to influence how a population

experiences injustice and justice.

Because it is forward-looking, prevention requires a transformation

in justice systems. It requires the justice system to collaborate

with other sectors to address the root causes of disputes and avert

violence, conflict, and human rights abuses.

Effective prevention strategies:

 Promote trust in justice systems

They provide people with a reasonable expectation that their

rights will be protected, their disputes managed peacefully, and

that they will be safeguarded from abuses of power.

 Tackle the root causes of injustice

They provide legal identity and other documentation and

empower communities and marginalized groups to realize their

rights and overcome unfairness.

 Use the law to reduce risk

They strengthen legislative frameworks for violence prevention

and implement laws and regulations that make it less likely that

disputes will arise or escalate.

The path to Justice for All

There is no single recipe for delivering justice for all. All countries

must increase access to justice based on their own context

and priorities, in line with human rights standards and their

commitment to delivering the 2030 Agenda.

But people across the world have many shared aspirations as they

seek justice. Countries grapple with the same challenges as they

work to meet these aspirations.

Justice reform can be challenging. Elites benefit from the status

quo and justice professionals may feel threatened if systems are

opened up to new ideas, approaches, and providers. Ministers of

Justice often struggle to compete for resources with other more

powerful sectors.

Closing the justice gap requires a transformation in ambition –

a sustained effort to provide justice to billions more people. It

requires confronting political obstacles to change and building

confidence among justice leaders so that, with the right policies

and investment, they can deliver substantial increases in justice.

But there is growing momentum that helps leaders build support

for change. Justice systems from around the world are exploring

new ways to put people and their needs first. Awareness is

growing of the benefits of investing in justice, while local and

global movements campaign for justice for all. Lawyers, judges,

and activists are often powerful advocates for reform, while the

private sector has incentives to mobilize for an improvement in

the legal environment.

Four levers can help national reformers as they work towards

justice for all.

 Data and evidence create awareness of the scale of the

problem, while demonstrating how solutions can be cost

effective.

 Innovation brings new players into the justice sector and

develops approaches that can deliver justice at scale.

 Smarter financing strategies redirect resources away from

ineffective approaches and towards what works. They also

attract finance from other sectors and from non-traditional

investors.

 New governance models and shared standards increase

coherence in a justice system, enabling a greater diversity of

partners to work together towards a shared result.

Agenda for action

At a national level, the Task Force on Justice makes three sets of

recommendations:

 Resolve the justice problems that matter most to people

understand justice problems through regular surveys •

recognize, finance, and protect justice defenders • provide

access to people-centered justice services • use cost-effective

alternatives to help people resolve disputes and gain redress.

 Prevent justice problems and create opportunities for people

to participate fully in their societies and economies

implement multi-sectoral prevention strategies • increase

independence, combat corruption, and ensure independent

oversight • tackle structural injustices, provide universal access

to legal documents, and help people make better agreements

• strengthen laws and regulations that reduce the risks of

violence and the number of disputes.

 Invest in justice systems and institutions that work for people

and that are equipped to respond to their need for justice

provide open access to justice data • create a supportive

regulatory environment for innovation • develop a national

roadmap for financing justice for all • increase representation in

the justice system and implement new governance models.

The 2030 Agenda’s commitment to justice for all requires

intensified international cooperation and revitalized partnerships

for justice. Recommendations for international action include:

 Support national implementation

Convene pathfinder countries, register voluntary commitments

to implement SDG16.3, and help governments develop

credible, realistic, and funded strategies to implement these

commitments.

 Increase justice leadership

Hold a biennial meeting of Ministers of Justice, Attorneys

General, and other justice leaders as a platform for countries to

share experiences, explore recommendations, and strengthen

cooperation for justice.

 Measure progress

Agree a new SDG16.3 indicator to measure progress on civil

justice, supplementing existing criminal justice indicators, with

voluntary national piloting ahead of its integration into the

global indicator framework.

 Intensify cooperation

Form an alliance of international and regional justice partners to

provide more coherent support for justice for all, and a funders

collaborative to increase the proportion of international finance

that flows to the justice sector.

 Build the movement

Amplify demand for change through global, national, and local

movements that campaign for justice for all.

Call to action

To accelerate progress, the Task Force calls on all partners to come

together in a global and sustained effort to deliver justice for all by

2030.

 Governments should develop strategies, allocate resources, and

the partnerships needed to deliver justice for all.

 Justice professionals should work closely with governments in

leading a shift towards people-centered justice.

 Other sectors must play an increased role in the delivery of

justice.

 Civil society can do more to empower justice seekers and help

reach the furthest behind first, if given space to operate.

 The private sector can help develop new ways of meeting

people’s justice needs at low cost.

 International and regional organizations should provide more

coherent support and increased financing for implementation

of the SDG targets for justice.

 Foundations and philanthropists should support people-

centered approaches and priorities such as the role of justice

in prevention.

Finally, the Task Force’s call to action is addressed to people

themselves, as justice seekers, volunteers, and supporters of justice

systems. They must be empowered to play a central role in the

creation of a more just world.

Why We Need

Justice for All

Put people at the center

To deliver the SDG targets that promise justice for all,

we must understand the size of the justice gap and

build a case for the investment needed to close it.

Chapter 1

The Justice Gap

To provide justice for all, we must understand the

reality of justice in people’s lives.

How many people are confronted by justice

problems? What do they need and want when they

seek justice? And what kind of justice do they receive?

We estimate that a quarter of a billion people live

in extreme conditions of injustice, deprived of any

meaningful legal protections.

At any one time, 1.5 billion people have justice

problems they cannot solve.

4.5 billion people are excluded from the social,

economic, and political opportunities the law

provides.

Many people suffer from overlapping justice problems.

In total, more than 5 billion people are deprived of

justice. We call this the global justice gap.

At the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development lies

a vision of a “just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive

world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met.”

Justice is a thread that runs through all 17 Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs). Without increased justice, world

leaders will be unable to end poverty and reduce inequality. Nor

will they be able to reach the furthest behind, create conditions for

shared and sustainable prosperity, or promote peace and inclusion.

SDG16.3 aims to ensure equal access to justice for all by 2030.

Other SDG targets address the denial of legal identity, major forms

of injustice such as corruption and illicit financial flows, and the

promotion of human rights and gender empowerment.

These targets provide a unique opportunity to accelerate progress

towards justice for all.

But to make progress, we first need to understand the scale of the

task ahead.

Justice

for All?

Collecting People-Centered

Justice Data

Until recently, a lack of data has obscured the scale of the world’s

failure to provide justice for all.

Many countries have collated information about the performance

of their justice institutions, including the number of crimes

reported to the police, the number of cases in court, or how long it

takes to reach a judgement. But these statistics tell us little about

people’s experience of justice. Most victims of violence and crime

do not report it to the authorities. Few legal disputes are taken

to court. Many people face such daunting barriers to justice that

they are invisible to any formal justice institution. Even when they

actively seek help, moreover, large numbers of people may find

that their legal needs remain unmet due to the poor quality of

justice services or due to structural barriers and institutional failures

that make it impossible for them to protect their rights.

People-centered justice data is not new. In 1933, the Association of

American Law Schools decided to review the state of justice in the

nation. They were interested in the “welfare of lawyers,” but they

also wanted to know whether people were receiving “adequate

and competent legal services that were relevant to a modern

society.”

They designed a survey that asked lower and middle-

income members of the public as well as the owners of small

businesses whether they were able to solve their justice problems.

Justice Gap Working Group

The analysis was conducted by

the World Justice Project, in

collaboration with:

 Hague Institute for

Innovation of Law

 Ministry of Justice and

Human Rights of Argentina

 NYU Center on

International Cooperation

 Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and

Development

 Open Society Justice

Initiative

 United Nations

Development Programme

 University College London

 United Nations Office on

Drugs and Crime

 UNODC-INEGI Center of

Excellence

 White & Case LLP

 World Bank

“We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non

discrimination; of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity... A just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world

in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met.”

Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Rule of law and access to

justice (16.3)

Equal access to

education (4.5)

Education on human rights

and gender equality (4.7)

Equal opportunity laws,

policies and practices (10.3)

Equal pay for work of

equal value (8.5)

Policies for greater

equality (10.4)

Non-discriminatory

laws and policies (16.b)

Corruption and bribery (16.5)

Discrimination against

women and girls (5.1)

Illicit financial flows, stolen

assets, organized crime (16.4)

Policies and legislation

for gender equality (5.c)

Legal identity (16.9)

Labor rights (8.8)

Just

Societies

After examining the results, the Association concluded that the

system was failing. Most people with problems did not seek

legal advice, while lawyers who catered for ordinary people were

struggling to make a living. “The public has undone legal business,”

the report concluded. “The lawyers have free time.”

It took many years to build on these groundbreaking insights, as

countries continued to rely on data about systems and institutions,

rather than about people. Only after four decades did data begin

to focus more consistently on people’s justice needs:

 In the 1970s, victimization surveys began to ask people about

their experience of crime, about how safe they felt in their

communities, and about their experiences with the police and

other criminal justice agencies.

 From the 1990s onwards, legal needs surveys have explored a

broader range of justice problems, asking people about actions

they take to resolve these problems and whether they are

satisfied with how they are treated and the results they achieve.

 There is also a growing number of specialist surveys that provide

insights into the justice needs of women, children, and other

vulnerable groups.

Surveys/data Countries

National

legal needs

Violence

against women

WJP and HiiL

legal needs

100

Victimization

Violence

against children

Legal needs, victimization, and

specialist surveys have become

much more widely available and

now cover many countries.

People-centered justice data is now available for a growing number

of countries. The Task Force on Justice has worked with the

world’s leading justice data organizations to compile all available

surveys and integrate them with other types of data that help

us understand how the burden of injustice falls on the different

groups in a society. For some countries, we have data from national

statistics offices (see box at end of chapter) and other official

sources. For others, we have drawn information from cross-national

or independent surveys. But in all cases, the data reflects what a

representative sample of people report about their experiences, not

opinions from experts or reports from justice institutions.

Much of this data is new, and it has never been drawn together

before. Thanks to the efforts of our Justice Gap Working Group, we

are able for the first time to present a global synthesis of the scale

and nature of the justice gap (see appendix 1).

A Justice Gap with Three Dimensions

“Let there be justice for all. Let there be peace for all. Let there be

work, bread, water and salt for all.”

These were the words of Nelson

Mandela as he was inaugurated as the first democratically-elected

President of South Africa.

For Mandela, justice was as fundamental to society as peace or the

economic necessities of life. He was imprisoned for 27 years by a

legal system which not only failed to provide equality before the

law, but which he denounced for allowing “the unjust to prosecute

and demand vengeance against the just.”

Before he was incarcerated, Mandela’s struggle against apartheid

was shaped by his experiences as a lawyer. After discovering that

black South Africans were commonly charged more for legal

advice than the white elite, he formed a law firm with Oliver

Tambo. Mandela and Tambo were overwhelmed by clients who

had nowhere else to turn. “For Africans, we were the firm of first

choice and last resort,” he recalled. “Every day we heard and saw

the thousands of humiliations that ordinary Africans confronted

every day of their lives.”

When finally freed from prison, Mandela ran for election on a

platform that saw a reformed justice system as a foundation for

a democratic South Africa.

Accessible, affordable, and legitimate

justice institutions were needed to prevent violence and insecurity,

empower people as citizens, and create the conditions for

defeating poverty and promoting prosperity. Justice would also play

a role in the country’s transition, helping South Africans “deal with

the abuse and damage which engulfed most of our communities.”

In our assessment of the scale of the global justice gap, the Task

Force has highlighted three dimensions that align with Mandela’s

experience.

First, we have estimated the numbers of people who live in the most

extreme conditions of injustice. They live in countries where the

justice system is incapable of protecting basic rights and freedoms

or, as in South Africa’s apartheid years, are actively denied justice.

Second, we have examined data showing us how many people try

and fail to solve problems that have a legal dimension. As Mandela

realized, we can only strengthen the justice system if we start

from an understanding of how people experience injustice in their

everyday lives.

Third, we have estimated the number of people who lack the legal

protections that allow them to claim their rights, fulfil their potential,

and participate in shaping the future of their countries. This

highlights the importance of justice as a foundation for peaceful and

inclusive societies, and as an enabler of sustainable development.

The figures we provide are intentionally conservative, but the

overall picture is alarming. In total, 5.1 billion people fall into at

least one of these three groups. Many suffer from multiple forms of

injustice. A significant majority of the world’s 7.7 billion people, in

other words, is denied meaningful access to justice.

More than five billion

people experience

at least one form of

injustice (and many

suffer from multiple

forms). A significant

majority of the

world’s population is

denied meaningful

access to justice.

4.5 billion

are excluded from the social,

economic, and political opportunities

that the law provides

253 million

live in extreme conditions of injustice,

without any meaningful legal protections

Live in countries with no rule of law

Live in modern slavery

Are stateless

The

Global

Justice

Ga p

5.1 billion people

deprived of justice

Lack legal identity

Lack proof of housing or land tenure

Employed in the informal economy

Justice too slow,

expensive, or unfair

Don’t know where

to seek justice or

don’t receive help

Justice problem not resolved

1.5 billion

have a criminal, civil, or

administrative justice problem

they cannot solve

People living in extreme conditions of injustice

At least 253 million people live in extreme conditions of injustice.

We compare this concept to extreme or absolute poverty, which

was defined at the 1995 World Summit for Social Development as

“a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human

needs.”

In the same way, those who experience extreme injustice

are denied their most basic human rights and lack any meaningful

opportunity to fulfil their potential.

The 2030 Agenda identifies the eradication of poverty in all its

forms and dimensions as the “greatest global challenge”, and

promises to “eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere”

by 2030.

Severe deprivation of justice is a dimension of extreme

poverty. Providing all people with at least a minimum level of

security and justice must be a priority for any poverty eradication

strategy.

At least 203 million people live in countries where there is no

rule of law and where levels of insecurity are extremely high. They

face the highest risks of violence and other deprivations of their

rights, but do not have any meaningful access to functioning

justice institutions. Instead of receiving protection, they are

often subjected to violence at the hands of state actors. Their

governments have limited control over their territory and are

unable (or unwilling) to fulfil their basic duty to maintain the rule

of law.

In many such countries, non-state actors – violent extremists,

gangs or other armed groups – have stepped into the vacuum

and provide a form of “shadow governance.”

In some countries,

governments – which are themselves parties to conflict – have set

up alternative court systems that operate with no oversight or

accountability, and which act in violation of international law.

Stateless people, who are denied the protection under law that

is provided by nationality, are also included in this category.

Approximately 12 million people worldwide are stateless, although

the majority of these cannot be included in official statistics due to

a failure by governments to acknowledge their existence.

The Open Society Justice Initiative has documented a

“contemporary crisis of statelessness” that has three dimensions:

“the denial of access to citizenship, the arbitrary deprivation of

citizenship… and situations of state succession that have effectively

excluded ethnic groups, rendering them stateless.”

Lacking formal

status, stateless people are highly vulnerable to abuses of their

human rights, often at the hands of the authorities in the countries

they live in, and they are severely constrained in their ability to seek

in countries

where there

is no rule

of law

203

million

in slavery

million

are stateless

12 million

At least 253 million people are living

in extreme conditions of injustice.

legal protection. Stateless people are often unable legally to work,

own property, marry, obtain an education, or register the births of

their children.

Slavery is another abuse that deprives people of any possibility

of accessing justice. Worldwide, more than 40 million people

are living in modern slavery.

Of these, 25 million are engaged in

forced labor and 15 million have been forced into marriage against

their will. Many are enslaved for decades, their fundamental rights

violated daily. More than two in every three modern slaves are

women, and two in five are children. Some of those in slavery are in

forced sexual exploitation, and some are forced into labor by state

authorities. Others are vulnerable due to the weakness of justice

systems that should protect them.

Recent research, meanwhile,

has revealed higher levels of modern slavery in developed countries

than previously thought, demonstrating that pockets of extreme

injustice persist in all parts of the world.

In this initial estimate of people living in extreme conditions of

injustice, we have included only people from countries where the

justice system has completely broken down or who belong to a

group that is experiencing an absolute deprivation of their rights to

freedom and equality before the law.

Future research might cast the net wider, looking, for example,

at countries where the justice system is barely functioning or

where the rule of law is absent from large parts of the territory.

Other groups might be included beyond the stateless or those

living in slavery, such as refugees and stateless persons who are

in unsafe locations, women facing the most severe forms of legal

discrimination, those living under systems akin to apartheid, or

those deprived of their liberty in contravention of human rights

standards. In this way, we can continue to focus on the furthest

behind – those for whom justice is completely out of reach.

People who cannot resolve their justice problems

At any one time, there are 1.5 billion people who cannot resolve

their justice problems.

They may be victims of unreported violence or crime. They may

have a civil or administrative justice problem they cannot resolve.

They might be involved in a legal dispute – over land, for example,

or with an employer or landlord – that they are unable to bring to a

satisfactory conclusion. Or they might be unable to gain satisfactory

access to the public services that should be provided to them.

People in this group do not always realize they have a justice

problem.

Our analysis therefore relies on evidence collected by

surveys that use everyday language to help people recall incidents

People with

unresolved justice

problems are victims

of unreported violence

or crime or they have a

civil or administrative

dispute that they

are unable to bring

to a satisfactory

conclusion.

that have a legal aspect or dimension.

It includes only justice

problems that have a significant impact on people’s lives. Trivial or

minor problems have been screened out.

The surveys we have examined ask people about the different ways

they have tried to solve justice problems; they do not assume that

a greater provision of legal services is the only – or best – answer.

Unresolved problems include both those where no solution has

been found and those where the justice seeker found the process

intolerably lengthy, costly, or simply unfair.

The Task Force estimates that, on average, almost 60 percent of

people cannot solve their justice problems.

Many people are reluctant to take action to resolve their problems.

Most crimes, for example, go unreported:

 Across 30 countries, average reporting rates for five non-violent

property crimes were below 50 percent. In seven cities in

developing countries, they were below 20 percent.

 Violent crime is even less visible to the criminal justice system. In

the same group of countries, only around one-third of assaults

and one in ten sexual assaults were reported.

 Vulnerable groups have the least protection from violence. A

study in nine post-conflict countries found that just 10 percent

of girls and 5 percent of boys seek services of any kind after

being victims of sexual violence.

There are many reasons for a victim not to report a crime. Victims

may not know the behavior was unlawful or feel that they have

suffered sufficient harm. Social pressure or stigma prevents many

from seeking justice.

But surveys also demonstrate that many victims are disempowered

by their lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. In the

UK, half of people do not report a crime because they believe the

police are not interested, will not be able to help them, or because

they have had a bad experience with the police in the past.

When

women in an international survey were asked why they had not

reported their experience of sexual harassment, half said it would

be pointless to make a report to the police, and a quarter said they

didn’t think the legal system would be understanding enough.

When incidents of injustice are reported, the response is often

inadequate. A range of data shows high levels of impunity for

violence and crime. In the US, for example, almost 40 percent of

homicides fail to lead to the arrest or identification of a suspect.

In Mexico, only 5 percent of homicide cases are resolved.

Conviction rates for some crimes are barely above zero. We

estimate that worldwide, less than 1 percent of women who are

raped receive justice.

victims of

violence and

crime who do

not report their

victimization

people

with unmet

civil and

administrative

justice needs

victims of

lethal violence560,000

1.4

billion

1.5 billion people have justice

problems they cannot solve.

A similar picture emerges when we look at civil and administrative

justice needs. Disputes between people, between people and

governments, and between people and businesses are common in

everyday life. While the prevalence of violence may be understated

by surveys, people are around nine times more likely to have a

civil or administrative justice problem than to need help from the

criminal justice system.

Many of the problems people face in their lives have a legal

dimension. They are also interconnected. A divorce can trigger

disputes over land and property. Unsolved civil and administrative

justice problems can lead to violence. The boundaries between

these different forms of injustice often mean little in everyday life.

Such everyday justice problems share several common features:

 Many people take no action when they have a civil or

administrative justice problem.

They either do not realize that

the law should be able to help them, do not know where to

look for assistance, or do not have confidence that they will get

a fair resolution. Cost is a problem, but other obstacles loom

large before people decide whether they can afford to seek

justice.

 Disputes are largely resolved outside the formal justice system.

In most countries, the “first responders” are not lawyers and

the courts.

Instead, people turn to people they trust in

their families and communities. Or they look to an array of

organizations and resources – state and non-state, formal and

informal, specializing in justice or from other sectors – for advice

and help.

 People who need justice the most are the least likely to get

it. Their problems are more complex and interconnected. In

Australia, for example, 9 percent of people experience more

than 60 percent of all justice problems.

They are most likely to

face active discrimination from the justice system. And they are

often confronted by insurmountable imbalances in power, as

they face others who have the resources to use the law to their

advantage.

People who are excluded from the opportunities the

law provides

Justice is not only about responding to problems and disputes.

It should also make a positive contribution to sustainable

development and act as a portal to other rights.

We have therefore calculated the number of people who lack

access to the basic “legal infrastructure” that underpins inclusive

growth, poverty reduction, and social inclusion.

The Task Force’s

analysis builds on the groundbreaking work of the Commission on

Legal Empowerment of the Poor, which in 2008 found that four

billion people were “unable to better their lives and climb out of

poverty” because they lacked access to basic documentation and

other legal protections.

We estimate that today at least 4.5 billion people are excluded

from the opportunities the law provides. This estimate has three

components:

 People who lack legal identity.

 People who lack proof of housing or land tenure.

 People who are employed in the informal economy.

Worldwide, 1.1 billion people lack legal identity. For one in three

children below the age of five, this is a result of their birth not

being registered.

Many never manage to rectify this, even as

adults.

A lack of legal identity makes it difficult for people to

access rights such as publicly provided healthcare and education,

to get married, or to buy property, get a job or set up a business. It

also impedes access to institutions that are meant to protect and

enforce rights, such as courts and the police. The poorest people

and countries are least likely to benefit from birth registration,

while women are less likely to be registered than men – in low-

income countries, 45 percent of the poorest quintile lack legal

identity, but so do 45 percent of women from all income groups.

There has been some progress in this area in recent years. The

number of unregistered people has fallen by a quarter since 2016.

While some of this difference may be due to better data, it also

reflects the rapid rollout of legal identity programs in countries

such as India.

An estimated 2.3 billion people lack proof of housing or land

tenure. The absence of documents pertaining to property

or land increases people’s insecurity and makes it harder for

them to access loans or to realize the full resale value of their

possessions.

Communities, too, need recognition of their land

rights, to prevent land grabbing, protect their livelihoods, and fight

environmental degradation. Women are especially at risk of having

insecure property rights, as are indigenous peoples and other

disadvantaged communities.

Population growth, demographic change, and economic growth

will continue to increase pressures in countries and communities

with weak land and property rights. With an additional 1.1 billion

people expected to live in towns and cities by 2030, urbanization

could lead to an increase in disputes as people fight over scarce

property and land.

4.5 billion people are excluded from

the opportunities the law provides.

lack legal

identity

lack proof of

housing or

land tenure

employed in

the informal

economy

There is also a pronounced justice gap in the workplace. Around

the world, 2.1 billion people are employed in the informal sector.

Most of these workers lack formal contracts and therefore operate

outside the purview of labor laws.

This limits their ability to stand

up against exploitation and abuse. Many of those employed in

the informal sector work excessively long hours for low pay and

in unsafe or uncomfortable conditions. Self-employed informal

sector workers, meanwhile, face difficulties accessing finance and

enforcing contracts, and they may also face threats to their physical

security, including at the hands of the authorities. In developing

countries, women are more likely than men to be informally

employed. Only 5 percent of women workers in South Asia are

formally employed, and only 11 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Barriers to Justice for All

The Task Force’s analysis gives the justice gap a human face. We

have shone a spotlight on people who are excluded from any

access to justice. We have highlighted the difficulties faced by

people who are unable to resolve disputes or gain justice when

they are victims of violence and crime. And we have shown how

large numbers of people are denied the opportunities the law

should provide.

But while it is important to start with people and their experiences,

it is clear that many of the justice problems we have discussed are

collective as well as individual.

If large numbers of women and

children are victims of violence, this reflects a broader failure to

defend their rights. If a community cannot protect its land or if the

poorest members of a society can be evicted from their homes

without legal recourse, it reflects a broader failure of the justice

system to respond to imbalances of power.

Injustice and inequality go hand in hand. The most vulnerable

members of a society are most likely to experience injustice, and

they suffer the greatest impacts when it occurs (see spotlight

1). They are the least likely, however, to have access to justice

systems that meet their needs. The poorest communities are also

most liable to be subjected to structural injustices such as land

appropriation, environmental destruction, or rights violations by

state institutions or by corporations. These communities, too, often

find it extremely difficult to obtain redress through justice systems.

As some groups suffer disproportionately from structural injustice,

others benefit from it. Elites are often able to use the justice system

to protect their interests and entrench their privilege. Impunity

Injustice and

inequality go hand

in hand. The most

vulnerable members

of a society are most

likely to experience

injustice, while elites

are often able to use

the justice system to

protect their interests

and entrench their

privilege.

allows many perpetrators of injustice to escape responsibility for

their crimes. Such unequal treatment undermines justice systems,

leading to further violence, corruption, and insecurity.

People seeking a resolution to their justice problems are

confronted by many barriers. There is a mismatch between what

people need and what justice systems provide.

 Justice is frequently too slow and time-consuming, too

expensive, and unnecessarily stressful for those who need help.

For many people, justice institutions are physically inaccessible,

or they are rendered unapproachable or inefficient by linguistic

or cultural barriers. The delays this causes allow justice problems

to become more serious, imposing still greater costs and stress

on users and on justice institutions themselves.

 The justice system can escalate disputes or add to the trauma

of victims through its adversarial nature. Procedures are not

designed to de-escalate conflict or to encourage people to solve

problems constructively. In most cases, the justice sector is not

set up to learn from individual cases, and to use this evidence to

prevent justice problems from occurring or to limit their severity

and impact.

 Corruption within the justice system and the lack of

independence of justice actors is a further barrier. In many

countries, the police and judiciary are among the least trusted

institutions. Many ordinary people expect to have to pay bribes

when they seek justice. Even more know that they will not enjoy

a level playing field when faced by an opponent who has more

resources and better connections.

These barriers reflect the lack of cooperation between justice

institutions. The justice gap cannot be bridged by a single

organization or ministry. Justice systems must be centered on

people and their needs, allowing institutions to work together to

respond to society’s hunger for justice. This is the foundation for

the analysis and recommendations presented in our report.

The 2030 Agenda promises equal access to justice for all by

2030, but we live in a world where justice systems only deliver

justice for the few. Closing the justice gap requires a fresh vision, a

transformation in ambition, and strategies that take seriously the

scale of the problem.

Other sectors – inspired in part by the Millennium Development

Goals – have begun to make this shift. Education was once limited

to a privileged minority, but all countries are now committed to

Towards better justice data: the role of National Statistics Offices

The picture we have of the justice gap is a partial one, but it provides a starting point for building

a more strategic approach to delivering the SDG targets for justice for all and for building justice

systems that put people at the center.

Measuring and reporting on progress on the current indicators for SDG16.3 creates significant

challenges for countries and their National Statistics Offices. The demand for better justice data is

likely to increase further if a global indicator to measure access to civil and administrative justice is

agreed upon.

National Statistics Offices (NSOs) will need greater independence and transparency of systems if

they are to collect robust and comprehensive people-centered data that can be used to assess

national progress towards SDG16.3. Strengthened governance standards will help ensure that

justice-related data can be collected free from government and outside influence, reducing the

potential for bias, increasing the credibility of the data, and promoting sharing with government

and non-government partners.

The Eurostat Code of Practice provides a framework for each European NSO to develop its own

approach to guaranteeing independence, accountability, and transparency. In the future, new regional

or global standards on the governance of NSOs could strengthen national capacity for independent

collecting of justice data. This will have benefits not only for justice data and reporting, but for

reporting on all parts of the 2030 Agenda.

This box is drawn from NSO Governance for Better Justice Data,

a memo prepared for the Task Force on Justice by White & Case LLP

educating every child to at least secondary level and states are

required to make higher education accessible to all.

Half of the

world’s population still lacks access to proper healthcare, but

recent years have seen a growing movement for universal health

coverage in all countries, rich and poor.

We must now make an equally powerful case for justice. Providing

billions more people with access to justice is not only the right

thing to do; it will also deliver substantial benefits to people,

communities, and societies. By putting people at the center of

justice systems, we can help unblock the path towards more

sustainable patterns of development.

Chapter 2

The Case for Action

The costs of a lack of access to justice are high.

For individuals, injustice leads to lost income and to

mental and physical health problems.

For societies, it entrenches poverty, damages

economies, and increases the risks of instability,

violence, and conflict.

Investment in justice can reap large rewards. It

transforms lives, strengthens communities, and

boosts economies, delivering substantial returns on

investment.

In the poorest countries, it would cost $20 per person

per year to provide a basic level of access to justice.

In middle-income countries it would cost $64 and in

high-income countries $190.

Basic justice services are affordable with smarter

financing, increased international assistance for poorer

countries, and greater use of low-cost, high value for

money solutions.

Access to justice is a fundamental human right.

It also helps

people to realize other rights and to gain redress when these

rights are violated. Through the 2030 Agenda, the world’s leaders

recognized this link. As part of their vision of a world of universal

respect for human rights and human dignity, they promised to

build societies that provide justice for all.

But alongside this moral case, there are pragmatic reasons for

investing in justice for all. Injustice is costly. People, communities,

and societies suffer significant harm when justice systems fail to

protect them from violence or to help them resolve disputes or

fulfil their economic potential.

The benefits of investing in justice are clear. Substantially increased

justice financing is needed. Existing resources must also be shifted

away from ineffective approaches and towards strategies, policies,

and programs that are proven to work. Delivering justice can be

afforded, but it will require innovative financing mechanisms and

an expansion in the number of stakeholders involved in financing

the sector.

Investing in

Justice for All

The Cost of Injustice

On December 17, 2010, a 26-year old Tunisian fruit vendor named

Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire outside a government

building in his hometown of Sidi Bouzid.

Bouazizi had been earning less than $10 a day selling fruit from

his cart. He was his family’s main breadwinner. That morning, the

town’s police confiscated his scales because he didn’t have a permit

to carry out his work. This was the latest in a series of incidents

that had seen the authorities overturning his cart, confiscating

his produce, or demanding bribes in return for leaving him alone.

When a policewoman slapped him in the face, he had had enough.

Mohamed Bouazizi went to the provincial governor’s office to

complain about how he had been treated. When the governor

refused to let him enter the building, he bought a can of gasoline

from a nearby petrol station and set himself alight in the street. He

died from his injuries two weeks later.

Bouazizi’s death triggered protests that spread first across Tunisia

– resulting in the downfall of the country’s longstanding dictator,

Zine el Abedine Ben Ali – and then across the Arab world. While

Tunisia made a largely peaceful transition, the violence unleashed

by the Arab Spring became one of the major drivers of the increase

in lethal conflict across the world in the ensuing years.

Bouazizi struggled to support himself and his family. It was not

poverty, however, that drove him to despair, but injustice.

From an economist’s perspective, Tunisia was a success. Per capita

incomes in Tunisia had almost doubled in the decade prior to

2010. The poverty rate had fallen by one-fifth.

The country was

responding to the broader aspirations of its people as well. That

year’s Human Development Report, published just a month before

Bouazizi died, hailed Tunisia as a “success story” for its remarkable

progress up the Human Development Index.

But it also warned

of a democratic deficit, lagging political freedom, and a failure to

protect democracy and the rule of law.

Bouazizi lived in a country whose justice system was widely

regarded as corrupt and unfair, favoring the rich and allowing

for abuse of the poor. Even today, most justice problems go

unresolved and few Tunisians are satisfied with the performance of

justice institutions.

Bouazizi’s case involved problems of unclear

documentation (it is disputed whether he needed a permit or not),

abusive justice actors, and an inability to air a grievance, much less

have that grievance investigated or acted upon.

It was not poverty

that drove Mohamed

Bouazizi to despair,

but injustice.

As Bouazizi’s mother said a few weeks later: “We are poor people in

Sidi Bouzid. We don’t have money, but we have our dignity, and his

dignity was taken away with that slap.”

The case is a vivid demonstration of how injustice can be the

missing link in national development strategies. Economies may

perform well, and health and education may improve. But without

justice, development will be precarious, and the social, economic,

and political impacts of injustice will imperil progress made in

other areas.

Injustice is costly for people and communities

The costs of injustice fall first on individuals and the communities

they live in. We are only beginning to quantify their scale, but

evidence is growing that these costs are much greater than has

previously been realized. Much of this evidence comes from rich

countries – but since justice problems are more serious in lower-

income countries, the costs the latter face are almost certainly

higher.

The immediate costs of injustice fall on the individuals involved.

People may suffer a direct loss through damaged or stolen (or

confiscated) property, through the expense of paying lawyers or

court fees, travelling a long distance to court, or missing work

to attend court. The OECD estimates that people with a legal

problem lose an average of one month’s wages.

Canadian

households spend almost as much solving a legal problem as their

annual expenditure on food.

Cost of legal

problems

The OECD conservatively

estimates that legal problems

cost its member states from 0.5

percent to 3 percent of GDP.

Other costs for individuals are less direct. Justice problems

involving violence and conflict have lifelong impacts that go

beyond death and injuries.

Victims of violence are at greater risk

of mental health problems, suicide, and substance abuse, and

are more likely to suffer from chronic diseases such as cancer and

heart disease. Child victims of violence experience “lasting damage

at the basic levels of nervous, endocrine, and immune systems,”

and are less likely than their peers to be employed once they reach

adulthood.

Women who have been victims of intimate partner

violence have twice the risk of other women of experiencing

depression.

They also face negative economic impacts. Tanzanian

women who were exposed to severe abuse at the hands of

intimate partners saw their earnings decline by 60 percent.

Civil and administrative justice problems also cause enduring

damage. Disputes over property and land reduce household

income, with disproportionate impacts on women and the poor.

Complex bureaucratic procedures or requirements frustrate

people’s entrepreneurship. Employment disputes reduce a

worker’s income, while the loss or denial of public services has

negative effects on welfare. Thirteen percent of Kenyans who had

faced a justice problem in the previous four years reported having

lost their job as a result.

Health impacts can be serious and sustained. Problems related

to debt have been found to exacerbate mental illness.

Conflict

within families can cause lifelong harm to the physical and mental

well-being of both adults and children.

Two in five Canadians

consulted a healthcare provider because of the stress or emotional

harm caused by a legal problem.

Almost one in three Nigerians

suffered a stress-related illness as a result of their legal struggles.

Injustice also undermines and isolates communities. It reduces

civic trust, damages local economies, and erodes resilience. The

damage is exacerbated when people are unable to turn to justice

institutions for help. When the justice system fails or is abusive, it

magnifies perceptions of injustice that arise from other causes.

This can turn communities against each other or against the

authorities.

The costs weigh on societies and economies

Given the size of the justice gap, it is unsurprising that localized

impacts can damage entire societies.

By driving exclusion and fueling grievances, injustice increases

the risk of political instability and, as in the Arab Spring, violent

conflict.

Crises of this kind have a dramatic impact on a country’s

long-term prospects, reversing social and economic development

and increasing the risk of further instability. Countries with a recent

history characterized by human rights abuses are much more likely

to experience violent conflict.

Those that have one civil war are

more likely to experience a second.

In countries where women

face high levels of exclusion,

insecurity and injustice,

human development is

impeded, per capita incomes

are lower, and national

competitiveness is weaker.

Violence deters investment and growth.

After expanding in each

of the previous five years, Tunisia’s economy shrank in the two years

following Mohamed Bouazizi’s death.

Mexico loses one-fifth of

its GDP to violence, with costs likely to be comparable in other

countries with similar levels of violence.

At a global level, the

Institute for Economics & Peace estimates that conflict costs the

world 12.4 percent of its annual GDP, or $1,988 per person

per year.

The widespread injustices faced by women and children have

broader impacts. In countries where women face high levels of

exclusion, insecurity and injustice, human development is impeded,

per capita incomes are lower, and national competitiveness is

weaker.

Where women’s land rights are not protected, their livelihoods

and those of their families are damaged.

Child marriage costs the

global economy billions of dollars per year through its effects on

population growth alone.

Injustice faced by women and children

also leads to worse outcomes from education and other public

investments in human capital.

Other rights abuses are also costly.

Modern slavery – identified as a dimension of extreme injustice in

chapter 1 – costs the global economy $4.4-5.7 billion annually.

We have some evidence to quantify the aggregate cost of everyday

justice problems. In Canada, civil and administrative problems

cost the state an additional $74 million in healthcare expenditures,

$248 million in social assistance provision, and $450 million in

additional employment assistance.

In five of seven low-income countries surveyed by the World Justice

Project, the total cost of justice problems amounts to at least 2

percent of GDP, with lost jobs and income the main contributing

causes. OECD, drawing on data from legal needs surveys, focuses

on those who report that they had spent money on solving a

justice problem, had suffered damage to their health, or had had

to miss or lose work.

It calculates that the average cost of these

three categories of impact exceeds 1 percent of GDP in the 17

OECD countries studied.

Other injustices also have negative impacts on a country’s

potential. When poor people do not have access to property, labor

or business rights, it is impossible for them to work their way out

of poverty.

Where they must pay high fees or bribe officials to

acquire identity and other documents, poverty is deepened.

Poverty rates among those working in the informal sector are

higher than among formal sector workers.

Countries where it

is more difficult to make and enforce agreements have weaker

economies, less developed credit markets, and fewer small firms.

When poor people

do not have access

to property, labor or

business rights, it is

impossible for them

to work their way out

of poverty.

The Benefits of Investing in Justice

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that expenditure on

people-centered justice can deliver a high return on investment.

Investing in justice delivers a range of benefits, including reduced

risk of conflict and instability, increased capacity to prevent and

solve everyday justice problems, and greater opportunities for

growth and prosperity.

A further dividend derives from re-directing ineffective justice

expenditure towards interventions that are grounded in evidence

of what works.

Reduced risk of conflict and instability

Fair and effective justice systems play a vital role in reducing the

risk of violent conflict.

The flagship United Nations and World Bank Pathways for Peace

report emphasized the importance of preventing conflict as “a

rational and cost-effective strategy for countries at risk of violence,

and for the international community.”

An effective system for

preventing violent conflict

would save the global

economy as much as $70

billion a year.

It is not possible to separately quantify the impact of justice on

reduced conflict risk (and given the need for integrated conflict

prevention strategies, such disaggregation would not be useful).

But we would expect that increasing a country’s capacity to deliver

core justice functions and provide increased access to justice

would reap returns similar to those for prevention as a whole.

Under the Pathways to Peace report’s conservative scenario, this

amounts to a return of $16 for every dollar invested.

We can also measure impacts in terms of saving lives. The

International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala was set

up to combat the impunity of illegal security forces and clandestine

security organizations. It has also helped to tackle corruption

and rebuild the capacity of the justice system. The International

Crisis Group estimates that the Commission’s work led to a 5

percent decline in homicides, compared with a control group of

neighboring countries, saving almost 5,000 lives in ten years.

100

Institutional reforms, improved investigative techniques, stronger

partnerships between security and justice actors, and increased

trust in the system all contributed to this increase in safety.

It is not only governments that would benefit from investing in

justice systems. Given the globally-connected nature of modern

supply chains, there is a case for investment by the private sector,

especially when they are at risk of becoming party to the abuse

of human rights. Many multinational corporations have suffered

serious reputational damage when it has been discovered that

modern slaves were involved in their supply chains, for example.

101

Others have lost customers and seen their share price fall following

revelations over their failure to look after workers or their exploitation

of natural resources in countries with weak rule of law.

102

There are broader benefits beyond these averted risks. According

to a recent review, businesses that invest in social and labor rights

“tend to be more successful and have greater levels of productivity

and innovation, more predictable supply of goods and services,

better retention and motivation, and more robust due diligence

and monitoring systems.”

103

Increased capacity to prevent and solve everyday

justice problems

Tackling everyday justice problems also delivers benefits.

A first step is to divert investments away from ineffective or

counterproductive policies. Many popular approaches that purport

to be “tough on crime” have proved instead to fuel increases in

crime. “Scared straight” programs, for example, which expose

at-risk young people to prisons, have been shown to increase

offending rates.

104

Approaches that have led to an explosion in

imprisonment have also proved to do more harm than good. More

than ten million people are held in prison globally, with nearly 30

percent of these awaiting trial.

105

Yet there is little evidence that

long prison sentences have a deterrent effect.

106

Such policies hit

the young hardest. According to some studies, over one million

children are deprived of liberty.

107

For many, this causes irreversible

damage.

108

This is not to say that all “traditional” criminal justice expenditure

is ineffective. A comparative analysis across 26 Brazilian states

suggests that a 1 percent increase in expenditure on the police

would lead to a 0.4 percent drop in homicides.

109

But the same

research shows that additional resources are most likely to increase

safety if they are accompanied by measures to increase efficiency

and accountability, and if they are directed towards targeted

prevention strategies “based on scientific evidence of impact –

preferably cost-benefit – instead of intuition.”

110

In the United States,

there are more than half a million people in prison who could

be released with little harm to public safety. This would save the

country $20 billion per year.

111

sentenced

awaiting trial

The global prison population has

risen to ten million – absorbing a

growing share of justice budgets.

Meanwhile, proactive prevention efforts that target “high risk

places, people, and behaviors” are proven to reduce crime.

112

Specialized courts, such as drugs courts, reduce reoffending and

save criminal justice systems thousands of dollars per case.

113

Restorative justice approaches result in higher satisfaction among

victims, reduce repeat offending, and are cost-effective when

the broad range of benefits delivered to victims and society are

taken into account.

114

Justice reinvestment programs – where

savings from reduced expenditure on imprisonment are spent

in partnership with local communities – can help restore trust

between justice actors and communities, with positive effects on

crime prevention.

115

More civil and administrative problems can be solved if resources

are directed away from unnecessarily adversarial procedures

to approaches that solve problems at scale. Alternative dispute

resolution models, such as mediation, are faster and more cost-

effective than litigation. The average cost per successfully resolved

case of a community-based mediation program in Nepal was 28

percent lower than cases resolved by the formal justice sector.

116

Canada and the US, civil mediated cases take five months less to

be resolved and cost $16,000 less per case.

117

Taking justice closer to the people is cost-effective, allowing for

earlier intervention and more effective prevention or de-escalation

of disputes. A study of a program that expanded access to village

courts in Bangladesh found a benefit-cost ratio of between 16:1

and 18:1, depending on the discount rate applied.

118

In 2017, the

Citizens Advice service in England and Wales helped more than

two million people with their justice problems, via face-to-face or

online support.

119

Seventy percent of users solved their problem

and 80 percent said the advice improved their lives. For every US

dollar invested, the organization generates $2.40 in savings for

government and $14.50 of wider social and economic benefits.

The biggest impacts of investment in people-centered justice

are on the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society.

Community advice officers working in historically marginalized

communities in South Africa deliver a return of $6 for every dollar

invested.

120

Providing legal counsel for people with low incomes

who risk losing the roof over their head saves the city of New York

$320 million a year.

121

In Australia, community legal centers, which

provide legal advice and services to disadvantaged groups, deliver

a benefit-cost ratio of 18:1.

122

The biggest impacts

of investment in

people-centered

justice are on the

poorest and most

disadvantaged

members of society.

Release the economic potential of more just societies

Our analysis of the justice gap highlighted the lost human

potential from a lack of legal identity, inadequate documentation,

or the absence of other legal protections.

A well-functioning civil registration system records births, deaths,

marriages and other vital statistics.

123

Birth registration is a

foundational component of legal identity, but identity can be

established for adults whose births were not registered.

124

Having

the right documentation has been shown by itself to improve

people’s health outcomes.

125

It also allows governments to tailor

services to those who need them, target cash transfers and other

social protection programs more effectively, collect taxes, root out

corruption, and evaluate the impacts of policies.

126

$150-

$600

$5 Developing countries

Rich countries

Cost of legal identity per person.

127

Strengthening and clarifying land rights is vital for preventing

conflict, but it also unlocks people’s economic potential. Land

titling gives people security in their homes or in their place of work,

and it helps them to raise loans and to establish or grow businesses.

A large body of research has demonstrated the positive impacts

of strengthened property rights on economic growth.

128

Innovative

methods, such as the use of mobile and GPS technologies to map

boundaries and agree ownership with communities, are rapidly

reducing the costs of recording land rights.

129

A review of 13 land titling projects in Europe and Central Asia funded

by the World Bank found a return on investment of 122 percent.

130

It estimated that the “short-term and long-term benefit to the

economy of a single registration is US$16. In other words, registering

one million properties in the region leads to an estimated economic

benefit of just over US$16 million in the target country.” In Tanzania,

meanwhile, women earned in excess of four times more when they

lived in an area that provided them with land rights.

131

Initiatives to encourage informal businesses to formalize have

had mixed results. For firms, the benefits of formalization include

access to finance, formalization of commercial contracts, limiting

liability, improved physical security, and access to government

subsidies and training programs. For governments, the benefits

include an increase in taxation revenues, reduced policing costs,

increased information for economic policy, and the ability to

measure more accurately the performance of the economy. A

study in Vietnam found that firms that moved into the formal

sector experienced a significant increase in profits.

132

A Brazilian

government program to encourage formalization via reduced and

simplified taxes both increased the number of firms that registered

and greatly increased those firms’ profits.

133

However, efforts in many countries to pressurize businesses

to make the leap to formality rely on coercion. These efforts

often have an adverse impact, particularly on poor people. An

incremental approach may be more effective, where informal

businesses take small steps towards full formalization in return for

incentives at each stage – beginning with obtaining licenses and

permits, for example, and moving as the company grows towards

paying sales taxes, registration and ultimately paying income

tax.

134

Policymakers need to be responsive to the context, tracking

whether a new approach is delivering outcomes in terms of

increased opportunities and increased justice.

Financing Justice for All

This chapter has demonstrated a strong case for investment

in justice, in terms of reduced costs of injustice and increased

benefits from delivering justice for all.

But how much would it cost to close the justice gap – to meet

people’s everyday justice needs in an accessible and affordable way?

The cost of justice for all

To answer this question, the Task Force on Justice commissioned

the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) to develop the first

estimate of the finance that is needed to provide a basic level of

access to justice.

135

The analysis draws on methodologies used to calculate the cost

of providing basic frontline health and education services during

the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) era. As ODI argues

in the report it prepared for the Task Force, “if SDG16.3 is to be

achieved, the justice sector now urgently needs to catch up with

other service delivery sectors in terms of ambition, scale, and

approach.”

136

This is the first estimate of what it would cost to deliver SDG16.3.

Estimates for financing needs for education and health have been

strengthened over time. In the same way, these initial figures for

justice should be built upon as further research and analysis are

conducted. ODI include the following components of basic front-

line justice provision:

 Legal advice, assistance and empowerment, provided in

communities by paralegals, lawyers, legal advice centers, unions

or advocacy groups.

 Formal justice institutions that play a frontline role in resolving

conflicts, disputes and grievances, including lower-tier courts,

community police, and the criminal justice chain.

 Alternative mechanisms to resolve legal problems, conflicts,

disputes and grievances, such as community mediation,

traditional courts, and ombudsmen.

 Mechanisms that improve the accountability of the justice

system for the services they provide to people and communities,

and that tackle corruption and abuse.

We estimate that in low-income countries, it would cost $20 per

year to provide each person with access to basic justice services.

In middle-income countries it would cost $64 and in high-income

countries $190.

To put these numbers into context, providing universal primary and

secondary education in low-income countries costs $41 per person

per year, while providing universal essential healthcare costs at

least $76 per person annually.

137

Formal justice institutions account for most of these costs. This

underlines the importance of providing value for money in the

formal system, through increased efficiency, reduced corruption,

and shifting resources to evidence-based approaches.

Legal empowerment and non-formal approaches are less

expensive. While there is a need for further research in this area,

they would seem to account for less than 10 percent of total

costs in countries of all income levels. In low-income settings,

we estimate that it would cost just $1 per person to scale these

approaches up to the minimum level needed. This is consistent

with a central message of this report – that, given the size of the

justice gap, countries need to invest in alternative approaches that

can provide cost-effective access to justice at scale.

Improving accountability in the justice sector is difficult. But where

there is the political will to do so, mechanisms for promoting

accountability also offer good value for money. They are estimated

to cost $1.50 in low and middle-income countries and only slightly

more in rich countries. Such mechanisms encourage the formal

sector to provide better value for money. They can also help to

improve standards and ensure consistency when alternative

approaches are used, providing a bridge between the formal and

informal justice systems.

Low-income

countries

Middle-income

countries

High-income

countries

Cost of universal

access to basic justice

(per person, per year).

Cost per person per year

(low income setting).

143

Healthcare

Education

Justice

The analysis also factors in what people spend from their own

pockets when they seek justice, drawing on HiiL surveys. In low

income countries, out of pocket expenses currently paid by

individuals on the top five legal needs is $5, in middle income

$10 and in high-income settings $20, per person per year. These

expenses account for a quarter of the financing of justice in low-

income settings (and around 10 percent in high-income settings).

138

Where public finance is scarce, legal aid and other services must

be tightly targeted to help those who are least able to afford

justice.

139

Robust accountability mechanisms will be needed to

ensure ordinary people get value for the money they spend.

Is justice for all affordable?

It is difficult to make firm statements about the affordability of

justice due to a scarcity of data and the differences in the way

that justice budgets are calculated. There is no single source of

information that details total justice budgets across countries.

While we know that expenditure on security typically comprises a

large share of national budgets, it is difficult to disaggregate from

this the relatively small amount spent on the people-centered

approaches to justice that are recommended in this report.

140

Consolidated international data is available for expenditure on

the criminal justice system, but it is two decades old. In 1997, the

world spent the equivalent of $570 billion on the criminal justice

system in today’s prices.

141

Sixty-two percent of this was on policing,

18 percent on courts, 17 percent on prisons, and 3 percent on

prosecutions. At the turn of the century, UNODC estimates that

governments were spending 1 percent of their GDP on the police,

but some countries were spending four times that.

142

A recent review by the Inter-American Development Bank provides

insights into expenditure patterns in Latin America. Countries in

the region spend an average of 5.4 percent of government budgets

on security and justice.

144

Per capita expenditure in 2015 ranged

from $32 to $583. Expenditure increased by a third between

2008 and 2015, doubling in some countries. This increase largely

resulted from political pressure for more punitive approaches, with

governments adopting highly visible tactics to show that they are

“tough on crime.” For those who believe there are smarter ways to

spend on justice, an important challenge will be to make this type

of spending more politically attractive.

The Council of Europe’s Commission for the Efficiency of Justice

tracks the expenditure of its members on the justice system, which

include judicial expenditure (courts, prosecutions, and legal aid) as

well as other components, such as prisons and probation services,

notaries, forensic institutes, and specialized services for juveniles

or refugees and asylum seekers.

145

Justice system figures are not

readily comparable, with many variations between what countries

include in their budgets.

The Commission finds expenditures ranging from 0.3 percent to

4.3 percent of GDP. This translates to expenditures varying from

below $15 to nearly $900 per capita depending on the country. On

average, 2.1 percent of public expenditure is spent on the justice

system in the countries included in the analysis.

For low-income countries, little data on justice expenditure is

available, but we know from UN-World Bank reviews of a handful

of countries that expenditure can be very low.

Somalia, for example, has an annual budget of $10.5 million for

the justice system, or $1.50 per capita.

146

These figures are dwarfed

by the $44 million it spends on security and the $1.5 billion the

international community spends on peacekeeping in the country.

Individuals carry a heavy burden for funding justice – in the Somali

region that includes Mogadishu, a typical land dispute case costs

the plaintiff $150 to file.

In Liberia, there is a similar mismatch of resources. $1.5 million

has been invested in Peace Huts, a cost-effective program where

women mediate local disputes, compared to a national budget of

$95 million for the justice sector and $10 billion for peacekeeping

and foreign aid.

147

Analysis carried out for the Task Force by ODI supports the

contention that many poorer countries will run into questions

of affordability. This also draws on World Bank and International

Monetary Fund (IMF) research that estimates the maximum

resources that countries can be expected to raise from taxation. It

uses 4 percent of total public expenditure for the justice system as

a benchmark, based on historical patterns in OECD countries.

Based on these benchmarks, high-income countries are

comfortably able to cover the suggested expenditure of $190 per

person for basic justice, since this is equivalent to only 2 percent of

current revenues. On average, these countries currently allocate 4.6

percent of these revenues to the overall justice system (which also

includes higher level courts and other aspects that are not taken

into account in ODI’s costing of access to basic justice). Middle-

income countries would find it much more challenging, however.

They would have to allocate 6.2 percent of their taxes just for basic

justice provision, well above the 4 percent benchmark.

Low-income countries, on the other hand, would need to spend

20 percent of current total government revenues. Even if they

Two billion people

live in countries

that cannot afford

even half the cost of

basic services. This

includes all low-

income countries

and 40 percent

of lower-middle-

income countries.

maximized the amount of tax that IMF and World Bank research

suggest they raise, the costs would still be 17 percent of their

revenues.

Such a level of expenditure is not feasible, as it would squeeze out

spending on other legitimate national priorities such as health

and education. ODI concludes that two billion people live in

countries that cannot afford even half the cost of basic services,

if expenditure is to be kept below the 4 percent benchmark. This

includes all low-income countries and 40 percent of lower-middle-

income countries.

Legal identity is an area where we have a relatively good

understanding of costs. The World Bank has estimated that it will

cost $3.8 billion to scale up Civil Registration and Vital Statistics

(CRVS) systems in 73 developing countries.

148

This was found to be

unaffordable from domestic taxation, with an additional annual

financing of $199 million needed from international sources.

However, the costs of legal identity are falling due to the availability

of digital technology, increasing affordability. The unit cost of a

legal identity in developing countries is just $5, far below the cost

of similar schemes in rich countries.

149

What strategies can increase affordability?

Increasing the affordability of basic justice services relies on three

key strategies.

First, countries need better data on current resource allocation in

order to target expenditure on the most urgent justice needs and

to the people least able to access justice.

150

A recent UN-World Bank guide demonstrates how public

expenditure reviews for security and justice can be used to

direct the allocation of resources towards financing “effective,

professional, modern, and accountable institutions that provide

security and justice institutions for citizens.”

151

A second strategy is to direct existing resources towards lower-cost

approaches with potential to deliver justice at scale. This chapter

has highlighted a range of alternative models – implemented

by the state or by civil society – that are more cost effective than

traditional, lawyer-led approaches. Innovation can also help reduce

costs, as in the example of digital technology pushing down the

cost of acquiring legal identity in lower-income settings. We return

to the question of smarter financing models in chapter 5.

A third strategy for overcoming the challenge of affordability is to

diversify sources of funding. For poorer countries, aid is important.

But international support for investing in justice is weak and fell

by 40 percent from 2014 to 2018.

152

In fragile and conflict-affected

states, only 1.5 percent of official development assistance is spent

on justice.

153

Justice reformers must continue to build the case for investment,

and to make the argument that strengthening justice systems

yields benefits for poverty reduction, for tackling conflict and

insecurity, and for sustainable development.

Philanthropists, impact investors, and private sector firms should

also be encouraged to increase their investment in justice. While

a few foundations have helped the justice sector, they do not

spend on the scale seen in education and health. Nor is justice

one of the top ten sectors for impact investment.

154

Private sector

investment is largely focused on innovations for large law firms

and major corporations, rather than on services for the public and

small businesses. These funders are often put off by regulatory

restrictions or by political impediments. We return to the need for

justice systems to be more open to new partnerships in chapter 5.

Reaching the furthest behind first

Justice for women, for children, and for excluded groups

The 2030 Agenda promises to include all people, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race,

ethnicity, origin, religion, wealth or other status. Justice problems are not randomly

distributed. In all countries, some groups are more likely to suffer injustice than others or

to have distinctive needs when they seek justice.

By empowering those that are at a disadvantage and by finding new ways to solve the

most difficult justice problems, countries will be able to reach the furthest behind first.

Justice for women

The High-level Group on Justice for Women worked with the Task Force to explore the

justice needs of women and better understand what is required to make justice systems

gender-responsive. It found that “for too many women, gaps persist between the promise

of justice and realities on the ground, in the workplace, in communities and at home.”

155

Surveys show that women have roughly the same number of unmet justice needs

as men, but the nature of these needs reflects women’s experience of violence,

discrimination, disadvantage, and exclusion. The poorest women face the highest barriers

to justice, as do those living in countries where the situation of women is worse overall.

The High-Level Group’s report identified five promising approaches for increasing justice

for women:

156

 Eliminate legal discrimination against women by repealing discriminatory laws which

limit justice for women, and adopting laws that empower women and signal that

certain types of behavior are unacceptable.

 Prevent and respond to intimate partner violence by adopting legal reforms and

providing tailored support from the justice system as part of a broader multi-sectoral

response.

 Overcome disadvantage for poor and marginalized women by providing access to legal

aid and paralegal services, promoting legal literacy, and overcoming poverty barriers.

 Empower women, economically and as rights-holders by enabling legal identity,

strengthening women’s land rights, and using collective action as a catalyst for change.

 Include women as decision makers by ensuring equal representation of women in

decision making at all levels in the justice sector.

Justice for children

Children and young people are heavily reliant on justice systems to protect and promote

their rights. Legal needs and victimization surveys are not designed to capture their justice

needs, but other evidence suggests they face an even wider justice gap than adults.

Spotlight 1

Half of the world’s children are victims of violence each year.

157

When left unprotected, children

are highly vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and neglect. Two in every five modern slaves

are children.

158

Justice systems fail children when they are victims of injustice. They are often

unable to access justice institutions or lack the support to participate in proceedings. They also

fail them when they come into conflict with the law. Young people are more vulnerable to the

negative psychological impacts of harsh punitive measures.

159

They often have less knowledge

and confidence than adults to claim their rights and seek redress.

The Task Force’s Justice for Children working group argues that justice systems need to create

specialized, child-friendly approaches if children are to realize their rights and fulfil their

potential. Its call to action highlights three priorities to strengthen justice for children:

 Promote justice as an enabler of children’s development by delivering equal access and

support to all children who require the services of justice systems, preventing unnecessary

contact with the justice system including via informal approaches, and ensuring the right to

legal identity for all children.

 Accelerate action through implementation channels that prevent all forms of violence

against children, safeguard the rights of children used by armed or other criminal groups,

and restrict the deprivation of children’s liberty to exceptional circumstances.

 Establish and sustain the foundations for change by adopting a multi-sectoral approach to

child protection, promoting the participation of children in decisions that affect their lives,

securing sustained political commitment to high quality justice for children, and ensuring

responses are based on international standards and evidence-based policies.

Justice for all

Other groups left behind by justice systems include:

 People with disabilities, who face discrimination in the workplace, at the hands of the

authorities, in their communities, and in their homes. Surveys in Australia, for instance,

have found that those with disabilities have the greatest justice needs compared to other

disadvantaged groups.

160

 People from ethnic minorities, who face systemic injustices in all countries, including at the

hands of justice institutions. The UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism

has found persistent and pervasive use of ethnic and racial profiling by justice institutions

in countries across the world, harming “already tenuous relationships between law

enforcement agencies and minority communities.”

161

 Migrants, refugees, and stateless people, who face discriminatory laws and often have

little meaningful access to justice services, despite having urgent and complex justice

needs. Many refugees are denied fair treatment with regard to housing and employment.

Obtaining legal documentation is often a major challenge.

162

 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual and Intersex (LGBTI+) people face

disproportionate levels of injustice. In some countries, they are at such high risk of violence

at the hands of families, communities, and the authorities that researching their justice

needs is impossible.

Building Just

Societies

To build just societies, we must resolve justice

problems, prevent injustices from occurring, and use

justice systems to create opportunities for people.

Chapter 3

Solving Justice

Problems

In the past, justice reform has focused primarily

on buildings, processes and institutions, but this

has failed to close the justice gap for billions of

people.

A people-centered approach to justice

reform starts with people’s needs and aims

to solve the justice problems that matter

most to them.

People-centered justice empowers

people to seek solutions and provides

them with quality services throughout

their justice journey.

We can help more people reach a

destination where they believe their

problems have been fairly resolved.

To be effective and credible, a justice system must help people

solve their justice problems. The Task Force has shown that today’s

justice systems are not fulfilling this task.

That 1.5 billion people have unresolved justice problems should

spur us into action. When a large proportion of children are out of

school or do not learn even the basics when they go to school, the

world’s education leaders rightly call for action to tackle a “global

learning crisis.”

163

As the prevalence of a disease such as diabetes

quadruples, health leaders work to build a consensus around the

interventions most likely to reverse the trend.

We need a similar commitment to transformative change in the

justice sector. At present, most justice problems go unsolved. How

can we begin to solve a much greater proportion of the problems

that matter most to people?

Transforming

Justice

Understanding Justice Problems

Notwithstanding the differences between countries and the

diversity of legal systems, surveys tell us that people across the

world experience many of the same types of justice problems.

This is not surprising. The need for justice reflects people’s

relationships with their families and communities. It is shaped

by the behavior of businesses and their governments. And it is

influenced by disparities of opportunities, wealth, and power.

Analysis of survey data from across the globe tells us that six areas

account for most justice problems:

164

1. Around one in five people have problems related to

violence and crime.

165

Those who are victims of violence and serious crime have the

most urgent need for justice. Violence ranges from highly visible

abuses – for example, when organized crime hits a community

– to largely hidden violence, such as domestic and child abuse.

Often violence goes unreported, so this figure is likely to be an

underestimate.

2. Nearly a quarter of people are involved in disputes

over housing, land or neighbors.

In many countries, disputes over boundaries or land use

comprise the bulk of these problems. In others, conflicts

with neighbors over noise, litter, parking spots or livestock

predominate. Landlord-tenant disputes, meanwhile, often occur

even in countries where contract law is well established.

3. Almost a third of people have legal problems

related to money and debt, or as consumers.

They have difficulties paying money owed or recovering money

lent. They sell a product or service but don’t receive payment

for it. They struggle with disruptions to their electricity or water

supply, or with their phone connection. Or they seek remedy

due to poor or faulty provision of services or consumer goods.

4. One in five people have problems related to access

to public services.

Many are denied healthcare, education, water, sanitation,

electricity, and benefit payments. Many, too, cannot obtain birth

certificates for their children, identity cards for themselves, or

other documentation needed to prove citizenship, residency or

immigration status, and to access the services they need.

5. Almost one in 11 people are involved in

family disputes.

Their legal problems relate to divorce and separation, child

support payments, conflicts over wills, and domestic violence.

Some of these disputes remain within a household; others

extend to different branches of families. Women and children

suffer disproportionately from these problems, and their

disempowerment can make it harder for them to recover from

their effects.

6. One in 12 people have legal needs related to

employment or their businesses.

They are denied wages or benefits, are unfairly dismissed, or are

harassed – sexually or otherwise – or exposed to health and safety

risks in the workplace. Others face harassment or are bribed

by the authorities, or face difficulties obtaining work permits or

problems related to working in the informal sector.

The relative importance of these problems differs between

countries, of course. When the crime rate is high, people urgently

need protection from violence. The nature and frequency of family

disputes differ from culture to culture. They are heavily influenced

by gender norms and by the empowerment of women and of

children. Many disputes are shaped by the nature of the economy.

When many people are farmers, for instance, there are more

disputes over land.

166

As countries become wealthier, disputes

related to consumer issues become more prevalent.

The burden of injustice also varies greatly within countries. Mexico

City has more than 2,000 municipalities, but a quarter of all crimes

happen in just four of them.

167

In Bogotá, Colombia, 99 percent of

homicides occur in just 1 percent of its streets.

168

In Minneapolis in

the US, half of calls for help to the police come from just 3 percent

of neighborhoods.

169

In solving justice problems, countries draw on different legal

traditions. As we saw in the first part of this report, poorer countries

have significant resource constraints, while countries affected by

conflict must begin to reconstruct their capacity to deliver basic

justice services.

Context, in other words, matters a great deal. But by starting with

the most prevalent types of problem, we can trace the journeys that

justice seekers currently take and develop strategies to improve

them. We can also identify what is shared across countries and

across different types of justice problem, and highlight where

tailored solutions are needed.

Individual Structural

Violence and crime, in the public

sphere, at work, and at home

Violent conflict, insecurity,

and organized crime

A mother sees her son’s killer on the street

every day, yet he goes unpunished.

People don’t dare leave their homes at night

because gangs control their neighborhood.

Disputes over housing or land, or

conflicts with neighbors

Land grabs and disputes over the

exploitation of natural resources

A family is evicted from their home and

has nowhere else to go.

Children are sick due to a local factory

polluting a river.

Family disputes, for example around

divorce and inheritance

Discrimination against women or

against vulnerable groups

A couple’s divorce ends in a bitter fight with

their children caught in the middle.

A woman cannot register her business because

the law requires her husband’s permission.

Problems at work, whether as an

employee or business owner

Unsafe or abusive

working conditions

A young woman is not promoted after she

turns down a “romantic” proposal from her boss.

A factory that violates building codes

collapses, killing and injuring many workers.

Problems with money and debt, or

consumer problems

Abuses by corporations and failures

of market regulation

An elderly man is harassed by debt collectors

for a contract that he doesn’t remember signing.

A company is distributing fake medicines

through local clinics.

Difficulties related to access and

quality of public services

Discrimination in the provision of

public services

A family cannot get connected to the

electricity grid without paying a bribe.

A brother and sister are not registered for

school because they belong to a minority group.

The most common justice problems

Better Justice Journeys

When people are asked how they want these justice problems

solved, common themes emerge.

Victims of violence and crime want to be listened to when they

make a report, and to have their cases dealt with sensitively.

170

They

want a proper investigation and to be kept informed throughout

the process.

171

Most of all, they want a resolution and – in many

cases – a reconciliation that allows them to get on with their lives

and feel safe in their communities.

172

Victims of violence and crime

are not necessarily interested in punitive approaches. The evidence

suggests that many would prefer to see greater investment in

prevention of crime and rehabilitation of offenders than increased

spending on prisons.

173

Victims of conflict, mass atrocities, and other large-scale human

rights abuses express similar wishes.

174

A study in Nepal among

families of people who had disappeared during the country’s

conflict found that approximately two-thirds of families placed

importance on knowing the truth of what had happened to

their relative.

175

A similar proportion wanted economic support

or other forms of assistance to resume their lives. Fewer than a

third of respondents identified punishing the perpetrator of the

disappearance as a priority. In Cambodia, while some victims of the

Khmer Rouge regime wanted punishment, many others wanted to

tell their stories, be acknowledged, receive reparations, be part of a

process of reconciliation, and to tell the world what had happened

(see spotlight 2).

176

For those with civil or administrative disputes, legal needs surveys

suggest people are generally less interested in a judgement

that allocates blame than in finding cooperative solutions.

177

In a

dispute over public services, for example, they want to gain access

to the healthcare that has been denied to them or an apology for

things that have gone wrong. When a dispute arises between a

local community and a mining company, they want a fair solution

and to be able to exercise their rights over land in the future.

178

Even in an adversarial divorce, it is usually in people’s best interests

– and certainly in the best interests of any children – to help all

parties work together to “create their own laws of fairness.”

179

People also want to be fairly treated while they are seeking justice,

through a process that is affordable, understandable, accessible,

and as seamless as possible.

180

Justice seekers benefit from approaches that are tailored to the

main categories of problem that we discussed in the previous

section.

For an index of all the

examples cited in this report,

see "What Works Around the

World".

Support for survivors of sexual violence, for example, can help

build a “criminal justice service fit for victims.”

181

Kolkata’s family

courts have allowed women to “resolve marriage disputes through

mediation rather than being alienated by legalese as they stand

off to the side.”

182

Child-friendly justice services can help meet the

needs of children both as justice seekers and when they are in

conflict with the law.

183

Small claims procedures protect consumers

by allowing for rapid and inexpensive dispute resolution with

businesses.

184

Informal justice systems are often able to promote

consensus in land disputes, suggest restorative solutions, and

promote reconciliation.

185

When we take people’s justice problems as a starting point, we are

encouraged to think about how to design a better journey from

that problem to a resolution. What matters is both the destination

(does the justice seeker achieve a satisfactory resolution?) and the

journey itself (is the justice seeker treated fairly along the way?).

The idea of a justice journey encourages us to rethink our

understanding of the justice system. Taking current institutions

as our starting point limits the range of actors that can help solve

justice problems and narrows the scope of available solutions.

Justice journeys can take many paths. A justice seeker may rely on

help from outside the justice sector. Civil society organizations may

be better placed than publicly-provided justice services to meet

people’s needs. The most appropriate solutions may come not

from courts but from informal or alternative justice providers.

If more partners play a role in providing justice, more problems will

be solved. Inspirational leadership, clear standards and regulation,

and effective mechanisms for accountability can allow a more

diverse justice system to perform to its full potential.

To better understand justice journeys, we break them down into

three stages:

1. People and communities are empowered so that they can act

when a legal need arises.

2. They have access to people-centered justice services that are

responsive to their needs.

3. They achieve a fair resolution to their problems, which results in

meaningful and measurable increases in justice.

Empower people

and communities

Help people understand the law

Support people to seek solutions

Invest in legal aid for the

most vulnerable

Increase participation in justice

Access to people-centered

justice services

Accelerate and simplify processes

Support alternative pathways to justice

Provide one-stop services

Tailor services to justice needs

Fair outcomes

Meet standards for human rights

Offer the right remedy

Collect and disseminate data on outcomes

Establish effective grievance mechanisms

By taking people’s justice problems as a starting point,

countries can design better justice journeys that help

more people reach a destination where they believe

their problems have been fairly resolved.

Empower people and communities

The justice journey begins by empowering people so that they can

resolve their justice problems for themselves, their families, and

their communities.

Legal empowerment helps people understand and use the law.

186

It enables them to recognize legal problems when they arise and

equips them with the skills and confidence to take action.

187

Accessible information and good advice are important, but

empowerment is about more than correcting a deficit in

knowledge about the law. Those in need of justice are often under

great stress and grappling with urgent and overlapping needs.

Vulnerable people need substantial help and support if they are to

protect their rights.

A more dynamic model of legal empowerment invests in

organizations that are rooted in communities and that are close

enough to people to understand their legal needs and the context

in which they arise. It challenges justice institutions to become

more open and responsive to citizens and communities as they

seek justice. And it actively promotes the inclusion of groups who

have historically had the least access to justice.

188

The Task Force has identified four priorities for increasing

empowerment:

1. Help people understand the law

2. Support people to seek solutions

3. Invest in legal aid for the most vulnerable

4. Increase participation in justice

Help people understand the law

People are empowered when they know their

rights and feel able to act on them. Independent

advice may be provided by a variety of actors,

including those working outside the formal

justice sector. Paralegals operate within

communities and offer assistance that is highly

cost-effective.

189

Citizens’ advice services and

helplines can use algorithms and other “choice

tools” to provide consistent advice to more

people. Trade unions help prevent workplace

disputes reaching court. Specialist services have

the expertise to support vulnerable groups to

make effective decisions.

190

Motorbike-riding paralegals in rural Liberia have provided

outreach support in 160 villages. They conduct community

education sessions and assist villagers to resolve disputes.

191

Support people to seek solutions

While many disputes can be resolved without

third-party support, people with more

complicated problems need navigators to guide

them on their journey. This is the traditional

role of lawyers, but lawyers’ advice is too

expensive for most.

192

Alternative navigators

include paralegals,

193

victim and witness support

services,

194

and services that guide unrepresented

litigants through a court case.

195

Mentoring

programs can support people from at-risk

groups who are in conflict with the law, not only

during a legal process but also in prisons and

during their re-entry to society.

196

In Nuevo León, Mexico, Ciudadanos en Apoyo a los Derechos

Humanos provides legal support to prisoners and their families,

assisting with court cases and educating inmates on relevant

laws and procedures. The organization also undertakes

monitoring of human rights within prisons, and works with

families and inmates to identify and address violations.

197

Invest in legal aid for the most

vulnerable

Vulnerable litigants with serious legal needs will

usually need financial support.

198

Legal aid is

essential for those facing criminal prosecution

who cannot afford their own defense. The

poorest litigants also need legal aid for serious

civil cases, especially those involving children or

women who are at risk of harm. Well-designed

legal aid programs provide incentives to address

the underlying problem. They can recoup their

costs through benefits that include reduced time

in court or prison and the improved quality of life

outcomes that result from prompter resolution

of cases.

199

Legal aid clinics were established in Ecuador to provide

assistance to low-income women and children. Their work

reduced domestic violence by 17 percent after a divorce and

increased by 10 percent the probability that female clients

would receive child support.

200

Increase participation in justice

People are more likely to feel empowered

when the justice system is representative and

diverse. Broad participation increases people’s

expectations that they will be treated fairly and

can build support for the rule of law among

communities.

201

Inclusive employment policies

are needed to increase diversity within justice

institutions, but there are other roles that give

people a stake in the provision of justice – as

activists and paralegals, community mediators,

volunteer jurors or magistrates, and so on.

Engaged citizens can also play an important

oversight role, monitoring progress towards

delivering justice for all.

Community-based volunteers of the NGO RENEW in Bhutan

work with local elders and the police to respond to domestic

violence reports. Survivors often feel more comfortable

reporting to community volunteers than to the authorities.

These volunteers are trained to be “gender-informed”

facilitative problem solvers. They use a consensus-building

approach to help parties come to an agreement.

202

Access to people-centered

justice services

Justice is an essential public service, but it has not traditionally

been designed to meet people’s needs in a user-friendly way.

Justice institutions are often expensive, physically inaccessible,

or psychologically and culturally intimidating. Some combine all

these blights. This prevents even legally-empowered citizens from

accessing the services they require.

A more responsive justice system would deliver services that are

based on people’s expressed needs. It would be open, accessible,

and welcoming to all groups, including the most vulnerable. It

would ensure that people were informed about their options

at each stage of the justice journey, and would use triage and

signposting to point them to the most appropriate part of the

system at each stage. And it would make use of technology to

reach more people and smooth the justice process.

Governments should support an increased diversity of provision.

This may demand the breaking up of monopolies, and the opening

up of service delivery to paralegals or other low-cost mediators,

or to a new generation of digital legal services. New mechanisms

will often be needed to finance and support those non-traditional

providers who can significantly increase access.

Four steps are fundamental to improving access to appropriate

services:

1. Accelerate and simplify processes

2. Support alternative pathways to justice

3. Provide one-stop services

4. Tailor services to justice needs

Accelerate and simplify processes

Early intervention to resolve a problem can

result in large savings in time and costs.

Simpler processes and plain language make

justice processes more comprehensible, while

supporting better decisions throughout the

justice journey. Data is needed to track the flow

of cases through the justice system, identifying

bottlenecks and drivers of unnecessary

complexity.

203

Alternatives are needed to provide

swifter justice for the three million people who

are in prison awaiting trial.

204

Governments must

also confront the perverse financial incentives

that reward lengthy and opaque processes.

Rwanda’s community-based abunzi system draws on trained

local volunteers to mediate disputes, most of which relate

to land. Only one-quarter of the disputes it adjudicates

subsequently proceed to the formal justice system.

205

Support alternative pathways to justice

Adversarial approaches to justice can escalate

rather than resolve disputes, while increasing the

stress experienced by those involved. Alternative

methods of resolving disputes provide more

people with justice at a lower cost, while saving

the courts for the most serious cases. They also

improve levels of satisfaction.

206

Restorative

justice schemes, for example, have positive

effects in curbing reoffending rates, giving

victims a sense of satisfaction and fairness, and

reducing post-traumatic stress symptoms.

207

Diversionary sentencing can also reduce

reoffending, as well as drug use and other

harmful behaviors.

208

The police, meanwhile,

can play an important de-escalation role within

communities if they have the right skills.

209

In Australia, a diversionary sentencing program to encourage

defendants with drug problems to undergo treatment before

their trial (with successful completion of treatment taken into

account in sentencing) has reduced both drug use and rates

of reoffending.

210

Provide one-stop services

Community justice centers provide a range

of justice services under one roof. They often

also provide other types of support, advising

vulnerable women on government benefits, for

example, or helping them deal with trauma.

Providing a range of services in one venue

empowers people to begin their justice journey,

and makes it more likely they will find a solution

because these services address their underlying

problems. Multidisciplinary centers can be

independently situated or housed within a court

or other existing institution such as a hospital

or health clinic. In-person services can be

supplemented by telephone or online advice.

Argentina’s 90 Centros de Acceso a la Justicia (Access

to Justice Centers) provide comprehensive legal and

community services to local populations. Each center

has a team of lawyers, psychologists, social workers, and

community mediators offering a holistic response to justice-

related problems by providing additional services.

211

Tailor services to justice needs

Specialized services provide a better fit for

people’s justice problems and are more likely

to meet their needs. They can be tailored to the

main types of justice problem – employment

or land, for example – or they can provide a

higher quality and more sensitive service for

target groups (such as children, or women who

have suffered domestic abuse). Since cases

share common features, providers will get a

better sense of structural issues as well as the

psychological patterns related to the specific

need. Specialist services can develop evidence-

based protocols and guidelines for providers,

making processes more consistent and effective,

while making it clear to justice seekers what they

should expect.

212

Burundi’s Humura Centre for Gender-Based Violence provides

survivors with medical care, psychosocial support, and police

and legal advice. It processes cases on average five times

faster than cases handled elsewhere in the justice system.

213

Fair outcomes

Ultimately justice systems must be judged on whether they deliver

meaningful progress towards justice for all.

For individuals, this means a satisfactory resolution to a problem.

People on a justice journey place a high value on the quality

of their treatment.

214

They will often accept a judgement going

against them if they feel they have been listened to, understood,

and treated fairly.

215

Understanding individuals’ expectations,

experiences and emotions, designing services around people’s

lives, and then tracking whether positive outcomes are achieved is

vital to improving justice systems.

216

Fairer outcomes for individuals will translate into broader social

and economic benefits for communities and societies, while

contributing to greater inclusion and reduced inequality. If fair

outcomes can be achieved, this will lead to a reduction in violence

and to more peaceful communities.

It is essential to measure progress towards achieving fair outcomes.

Justice systems need a new sense of accountability to the people

they are designed to serve. An evidence-based approach that asks

participants in judicial processes about their perceptions of fairness

and their experience of the justice process is needed to hold

providers to account and to give them feedback on the service

they provide.

The Task Force recommends four measures for increasing fairness.

1. Meet standards for human rights

2. Offer the right remedy

3. Collect and disseminate data on outcomes

4. Establish effective grievance mechanisms

Meet standards for human rights

Ensuring that they meet international standards

for fundamental human rights during the

justice journey is critical for justice providers.

All countries must strengthen rights to liberty

and security, and to a fair trial based on the

presumption of innocence and standards

that underpin the presentation of a defense.

217

Ensuring that law enforcement is consistent

with human rights is a further important

priority. Human rights organizations and other

civil society justice defenders can play a role in

pressing for fair outcomes where decisions do

not comply with international rights standards.

By connecting formal and informal justice

providers, moreover, human rights can be given

meaning at the local level, and their reach and

impact increased.

Amnesty International has developed a list of ten basic

human rights standards that should be followed by law

enforcement officials.

218

Offer the right remedy

Sentencing decisions should be grounded in

evidence of the effect of sentences in reducing

reoffending rates, deterring crime, and

recognizing the harm done to victims. There is

plentiful evidence to suggest that alternatives

to incarceration are more effective in many

cases, and that these are supported or even

preferred by victims.

219

These include fines,

home detention, community-based sentences,

restoration between criminal and victim, and

rehabilitation schemes.

220

In civil cases, people

are less interested in apportioning blame than

in reaching an agreement that allows them to

go about their normal lives.

221

The best remedies

rebuild relationships and restore harmony within

a community.

A 2016 survey of crime victims in the US found that even

among victims of violent crimes, large majorities favored

criminals being held accountable through “different options

beyond just prison”.

222

Collect and disseminate data

on outcomes

To create the right incentives for justice systems

to provide fair outcomes, data on judicial

effectiveness should be gathered and made

available to the public. Proof that fairness is

increasing may lie in reductions in reoffending

(since resentment at unfair treatment can be a

significant driver of crime), in reduced incidence

of unmet legal needs, or in diminished stress

levels and improved mental health among

complainants and defendants. Data on public

perceptions is also important in assessing whether

a justice system is providing fair outcomes.

223

Cost-

benefit analysis, meanwhile, can help determine

whether societies as a whole are receiving a fair

return from their investments in justice.

224

In Ohio, a shift in the awarding of bail to take account of

the risks posed by detainees, rather than their ability to pay

the bond, has almost doubled the number of defendants

released pre-trial without bail, and halved the number re-

arrested after release.

225

Establish effective grievance

mechanisms

Contrary to popular belief, people can be

satisfied about the outcome of a case, and

see an outcome as fair, even if they have lost.

Key elements in determining their satisfaction

include the perceived independence of justice

institutions and the degree to which their

cases were taken seriously. Justice providers

must set and meet basic standards related to

the quality of the process, based on people’s

feedback. In addition to appeal procedures

for legal decisions, effective and independent

grievance mechanisms are needed to deal

with complaints. Improving the transparency of

decision making – for example, by videotaping

court proceedings or publishing “route to verdict”

documents – will facilitate grievance processes.

Standards such as those laid out in the International

Framework for Court Excellence can help national justice

systems to improve fairness and other aspects of performance,

and to benchmark progress against other jurisdictions.

226

Chapter 4

Preventing

Injustice

Given the size of the justice gap, we must prevent

justice problems as well as working to resolve those

that have already occurred.

Prevention reduces the harm people suffer and is

highly cost effective.

A shift towards prevention requires a transformation

in justice systems, as justice collaborates with other

sectors to address the root causes of disputes and

avert violence, conflict, and human rights abuses.

Prevention strategies should aim to create

trustworthy justice systems, tackle structural

injustices, and use the law to reduce the risks

of injustice.

The justice gap is so large that it cannot be closed only by resolving

problems after they have arisen. We must also act to prevent

justice problems from occurring.

Prevention reduces the number of people who suffer harm, and it

allows scarce resources to be dedicated to responding to the most

serious and intractable justice problems.

It encourages a renewed focus on the root causes of injustice –

“the disparities of opportunity, wealth, and power” that the

2030 Agenda highlights as obstacles to its vision for sustainable

development.

227

But prevention is about more than harm reduction. By providing

fair treatment for all, an effective justice system provides the

conditions for a society to develop sustainably.

Societies that are peaceful and safe are more likely to flourish.

When there are fewer disputes, people can interact with each

other in more positive ways. And when all members of a society

have proper legal protections, they are better equipped to fulfil

their potential and to participate fully in building a better future.

The Shift to

Prevention

Why Prevention?

An old fable asks why, when people keep falling off a dangerous

cliff, we spend money not to put up a fence along the cliff edge

but to station an ambulance in the valley.

The world’s justice systems traditionally play the role of ambulance.

The police react to reports of crime. Lawyers wait for clients to seek

their assistance – who are often in distress by the time they turn to

them. Courts pass judgement on the cases that appear before them.

In the field of public health, it has long been acknowledged that

this approach is the wrong one. The World Health Organization’s

1948 constitution defined health as “a state of complete physical,

mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of

disease or infirmity.”

228

Promoting health is regarded as more

effective than treating sickness as a means of improving well-being.

The justice sector needs to think in the same way, learning how

to build fences and find other ways to make the cliff top safe. This

is a shift from reacting to negative events to adopting a positive

approach, with the justice system actively promoting fairness,

peace, social cohesion, and prosperity.

Prevention makes sense for four overlapping reasons.

First, the justice gap cannot be bridged with traditional

approaches and tools. Even if countries invest in all the approaches

recommended in the previous chapter, they will struggle to

respond to the scale of unmet demand for justice. Preventing

justice problems makes an essential contribution to any viable

pathway from justice for the few to justice for all.

Second, justice is needed for communities and societies, not just

for individuals. By analyzing the most common cases that appear

before them, justice providers can spot patterns as certain types

of dispute recur. Perhaps people are being repeatedly evicted

because their tenancy rights are insecure, for example. Or weak

regulation is leaving them vulnerable to predatory lending. Or

perhaps the health of an entire community is suffering due to an

abusive mining operation. Prevention, which addresses the root

causes of injustice, is the best way to tackle structural and systemic

factors that underpin the common justice problems identified in

the previous chapter.

Third, the justice system plays a role in prevention when it acts

as a platform for people to seize opportunities and participate

fully in their societies. As shown in chapter 1, legal identity, basic

documentation, and other legal protections act as a gateway for

social and economic development. More broadly, justice systems

and institutions can help increase people’s resilience against a range

Prevention is cost

effective. The

justice gap cannot

be bridged with

traditional approaches

and tools, while

justice is needed for

communities and

societies, not just

individuals.

of risks, tackling exclusion, responding to grievances, and delivering

“positive change that results from peaceful contestation.”

229

Finally, prevention is cost-effective. Fewer justice problems mean

fewer costs for people, for society, and for the justice system itself. As

we discussed in chapter 2, moreover, investments in justice can reap

large benefits in terms of improved health and well-being, more

peaceful societies, better economic outcomes for individuals and

communities, and improved returns on government investment.

What Kind of Prevention?

This chapter draws on a background paper prepared for the Task

Force by New York University’s Center on International Cooperation.

The paper observed that “prevention runs against the grain for justice

systems that are ‘wired’ to respond to problems” and that while

reactive approaches are highly visible to politicians and the public,

“the outcomes from prevention can be diffuse and hard to track.”

230

This research also found innovative approaches to prevention

flourishing in justice systems across the world. There is growing

evidence of what works in preventing justice problems, and an

increasing appetite to understand and address root causes, tackle

systemic injustices, and build justice institutions that can play a

strategic role in prevention.

These efforts focus on four areas:

1. Preventing and de-escalating disputes in a world where 1.5

billion people have unsolved justice problems.

2. Preventing criminal, organized, and interpersonal violence,

especially violence against women, children, and other

vulnerable groups.

3. Using justice systems to help build more peaceful societies, by

preventing conflict and instability.

4. Promoting inclusion and advancing human rights, at a time of

high levels of exclusion and distrust.

Preventing and de-escalating disputes

Justice providers can work proactively with people to preempt and

prevent disputes, or to stop them from becoming more serious.

231

Preventive approaches are increasingly used by businesses, because

averting disputes – over a major contract, for example – delivers

substantial cost savings when compared to cost of legal action.

Dispute prevention has similar benefits for individuals.

232

Online

platforms are emerging that aim to “democratize the law” by giving

people the tools they need to make legally-binding agreements.

233

These tools reduce the risk that disputes will arise in the future.

234

Grassroots empowerment also works in this area. Many people,

a South African paralegal reports, “do not enter into formal

agreements, and relations go sour.”

235

Paralegals have addressed

this problem by assisting communities to make formal agreements

that protect their rights.

236

Related approaches increase the availability and accessibility of legal

documentation. Do-it-yourself services make it easier for people to

make wills, reducing the risk of inheritance disputes. This is especially

important for protecting the rights of women and children. Services

that make it easier and cheaper to register a business assist

disadvantaged groups to set up firms, thereby boosting economies.

Online portals allow traders to comply more easily with licensing

and other regulatory requirements, protecting them from abuse by

the authorities. Intermediaries such as trade unions, co-operative

societies, and other community associations play a key role in

helping people use the law to strengthen their resilience.

Visual contracting can make

agreements more accessible.

“Comic contracts” were first

used in South Africa for

employment contracts for

fruit pickers.

237

Governments can identify areas that generate large numbers of

disputes and make preventive use of laws and regulations.

239

Better

regulation of markets and strengthened protections for citizens

will help reduce the number and seriousness of consumer debt,

housing, and employment disputes. A strengthened commitment

to fairness in the provision of public services, combined with

enhanced opportunities for citizen participation, will reduce the

number of disputes between citizens and government. Laws that

protect the rights of women and children can lead to lower levels

of conflict and to more just outcomes when relationships break

down. In the US, for example, a switch away from fault-based

divorces led to a measurable decrease in female suicide and

domestic violence.

240

Governments can also avert “downstream” damage to the justice

system through better design of laws, regulations, and policies.

241

Changes in social security and employment law, for example, or

in the protection provided for tenants, have predictable impacts

on the number of justice problems and on subsequent demand

for justice services.

242

Some countries now undertake justice

The Sauti platform allows

cross-border traders in East

Africa to access market and

other official trade-related

information using their mobile

phones. This up to date

information helps protect

them from harassment and

extortion by border officials.

238

impact assessments to quantify and cost the effects of new

policy proposals on the civil and criminal justice system.

243

These

assessments “help policy-makers across government find the best

way of achieving their policy aims whilst minimizing the impact on

the justice system.”

244

In a similar way, legal empowerment approaches can prevent

disputes through a shift from dealing with individual cases to

tackling the root causes of collective injustices. Justice defenders

can help communities use the law to challenge powerful business

and state interests, by tackling abuses by mining, agricultural or

logging companies, for example, or by corrupt officials.

245

Resolving

a dispute of this kind benefits all members of the community, but

it also empowers a community to “know, use, and shape the law” in

a way that protects it against future exploitation.

246

Campaigning and advocacy also have a role to play. Ombudsmen,

consumer organizations, and other complaints mechanisms can

turn insights from individual cases into structural improvements.

247

In the UK, the Citizens Advice service identifies trends by analyzing

data on the millions of people it helps. The service uses this

“unparalleled evidence from the people we help to try and fix the

underlying causes of people’s problems.”

248

When it identifies a

common problem – for example, when payday loan companies were

providing unfair terms for customers – the organization uses the

evidence to campaign for policy reform.

These approaches to prevention are inevitably multi-sectoral.

Ministries of Justice must work with other government

departments, highlighting how justice can help achieve objectives

in health, education, jobs, housing, and other areas, while

minimizing any negative impacts of government decisions on

the justice system. Justice providers can only play a full preventive

role by working in partnership with those providing community,

health, and other services. Canada’s National Action Committee

on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters has emphasized

the importance of a “front end” of the justice system, which helps

people develop “a preventive set of knowledge, skills and attitudes,

before specific legal problems are encountered.”

249

Such a system

draws on a wide range of intermediaries, including women’s and

community groups, schools and youth organizations, faith groups,

helplines, and libraries.

Preventing violence

In the late 18

century, the English jurist Sir William Blackstone

argued that “preventive justice is upon every principle, of reason,

of humanity, and of sound policy, preferable in all respects to

punishing justice.”

250

We use unparalleled

evidence from the

people we help

to try and fix the

underlying causes of

people’s problems.

Two hundred and fifty years later, we have powerful evidence to

demonstrate the wisdom of this statement.

The traditional route to preventing violence has been through

tough approaches to deterrence, “the idea that if state-imposed

sanction costs are sufficiently severe, criminal activity will be

discouraged, at least for some.”

251

However, a robust body of

evidence suggests that long prison sentences have a limited

deterrent effect.

252

Punitive approaches have often proved counter-

productive. Tough-on-crime strategies have been widely used in

Latin America. In the case study of El Salvador, it led to increases

rather than decreases in violent crime, to a strengthening of the

gangs that perpetrate it, and to a crisis for overburdened prison

systems.

253

While we now know what doesn’t work to prevent criminal

violence, we have a very robust evidence base – made up of more

than 100 systematic reviews – to show what does.

254

The police are – or should be – on the frontline of preventing

violence and crime. In recent years there has been a marked

global shift away from reactive policing towards problem solving

models that aim to target risks in the communities the police serve.

Rather than reacting to crime after it has been reported, data and

evidence are used to target police resources to where they are

needed most.

255

While long prison sentences are a poor deterrent,

the knowledge that one is likely to be caught renders people much

less likely to commit crimes or perpetrate violence.

256

More effective

and visible policing can help deter would-be troublemakers and

make societies safer. Training police to respond to people’s behavior

and take account of their emotions helps them to manage conflicts

on the spot and reduce the risk of violence.

257

To play a full preventive role, the police must work in close

partnership with local communities, especially those that

are subjected to the highest levels of violence.

258

Improving

relationships between communities, social services, police, and

prosecutors focuses deterrence on those perpetrating the worst

violence while bolstering communities’ own ability to prevent

violence.

259

This can lead to a dramatic decline in the worst forms

of violence, while providing space for a community to move

towards more resilient patterns of development.

In Ukraine, the patrol police

work with Citizens Advisory

Groups to develop integrated

prevention strategies.

260

Other parts of the justice system can play a similarly important

preventive role. Problem solving courts “put judges at the center of

rehabilitation,” addressing addiction, mental illness, and other drivers

of re-offending.

262

Restorative justice programs provide offenders with

the opportunity to repair the damage they have caused. They can

improve outcomes for victims and reduce levels of violent crime.

263

Victims of domestic violence, meanwhile, can be protected from

In Lebanon, the municipal

police are shifting “from a

law enforcement model

towards community-oriented

policing.”

261

future harm through restraining orders, support programs, and

programs that challenge the behavior of their partners.

264

For children, early intervention approaches support those at

greatest risk of violence, neglect, deprivation or other adverse

experiences such as witnessing violence.

265

This reduces risks of

victimization and offending and interrupts inter-generational

patterns of abuse, but only if justice actors work in partnership with

education, health, and social protection services.

266

Children who

are in contact with the law – as offenders, victims or witnesses – will

also benefit from early intervention and specialized care, which

can assist with reintegration into society and avert trauma that

might have long-term consequences.

The justice sector can make an important contribution to multi-

sectoral prevention strategies by strengthening the legislative

framework to deter violence. This should include implementing

special protections for women, children, and other vulnerable

groups.

267

Laws to ban all forms of violence against women

and children underline that these forms of violence are

unacceptable.

268

Such laws are far from widespread, however.

While 80 percent of countries have a “legislative framework for

violence prevention” in place, only 57 percent say these laws are

fully implemented and enforced.

269

Targeted legislative changes are proven to be effective. Laws and

regulation that reduce the availability of weapons and the harmful

use of alcohol are part of the six “best buy” strategies for violence

prevention identified by the World Health Organization.

270

The

introduction of South Africa’s Firearm Control Act was followed by

a 14 percent annual reduction in firearm-related homicides in five

cities (other homicides fell much more slowly). A review of the act’s

effectiveness estimates that 4,585 lives were saved over five years.

271

When enforced effectively, such laws have significant impacts on

levels of violence.

272

As in the area of civil justice discussed above, improved legal

protections against violence are most effective when they go hand-

in-hand with advocacy that challenges the norms that underpin

violent behavior.

273

Laws are often passed as a result of advocacy.

Their implementation can act as a focus for further campaigns,

creating a virtuous cycle between activism and legal protections.

The rise of new movements with a major online presence, such as

the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment and rape, has

the potential to add further impetus to such cycles.

While we now know

what doesn’t work

to prevent criminal

violence, we have a very

robust evidence base –

made up of more than

100 systematic reviews –

to show what does.

Preventing conflict and instability

Justice plays an indispensable role in protecting societies from

insecurity and conflict.

According to Pathways for Peace, the United Nations and World

Bank report on prevention, a justice system “can settle disputes in a

peaceful manner, ensure accountability of power, promote respect

for human rights, combat corruption… and ensure checks and

balances.”

274

However, the report also warns that, “A breakdown of justice

systems and the rule of law generally can inflame the grievances

that may be mobilized for conflict and create incentives for violent

behavior.”

275

Effective prevention is clearly important for countries affected by

conflict, and especially for people living in extreme conditions of

injustice. But with the need for access to justice increasing at a

time of rapid social change, even seemingly stable societies can

find themselves vulnerable if their justice systems fail to respond to

their citizens’ aspirations.

For justice systems to play their preventive role, they must meet

fundamental criteria of independence and due process, both

on paper and in reality. Judges need to decide cases free from

any outside interference. The independence of prosecutors is

also crucial.

276

Due process and respect for procedural rights are

preconditions for fair trials. If justice systems are not perceived as

fair, they will be unable to fulfil their core function of promoting

the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflicts.

In states where there has been a complete breakdown of

institutions, core justice functions need to be built.

277

This provides

countries with an opportunity – rather than mimicking the failed

systems of old, they can construct new, more responsive systems

that have people’s justice needs at their heart.

Sierra Leone’s Local Police

Partnership Boards have

police and civilian members.

As well as playing an

immediate role in prevention

when a local conflict threatens

to trigger large-scale violence,

they also shape long-term

prevention strategies by

identifying crime hotspots for

greater police attention.

278

Reconstruction and reform of justice systems should start from

an understanding of what people are already doing to solve

their justice problems.

279

Even the most isolated, disadvantaged

communities have strategies to reduce the risk of conflict. In

situations where state systems are absent, people are forced to

fend for themselves and to turn to old, new or reinvented social

mechanisms to manage conflicts. These can be successful or

problematic, but their existence should not be ignored when

reconstructing state justice systems.

Justice systems can directly address risks in contested areas

such as land, natural resources, service delivery, and access to

a society’s levers of power. Laws covering land use, for example,

Liberia’s Peace Huts,

established as a forum for

women to discuss their

experiences of the civil war,

have evolved to promote

socioeconomic development

among members and to

conduct advocacy campaigns

which, among other

successes, have resulted in the

removal of corrupt politicians

from their jobs.

280

provide a framework for reducing grievances and promoting

peaceful relations between communities, but only if they are

agreed through an inclusive process. Community dispute

resolution mechanisms can then help to reduce tensions between

groups that compete to use land, or to protect the rights of the

community in the face of powerful commercial interests. Human

rights standards have an important role to play. The principle of

free, prior, and informed consent has helped protect the rights of

indigenous people to land and natural resources.

281

International

partnerships can support national efforts to strengthen legal

protections. In the Philippines, for example, the Extractive

Industries Transparency Initiative has supported machine-readable

and searchable contracting in the natural resources sector.

282

Peru’s Office of the

Ombudsman is a mediating

institution that has managed

natural resource conflicts and

empowered citizens to press

for broader reforms.

283

Given the lack of capacity in many conflict-affected settings,

reform is likely to be most sustainable if it is incremental. As the

2011 World Development Report noted, “When trust is low, people

do not believe grand plans for reform will work.”

284

The report

recommended that justice reforms should begin by strengthening

basic functions, but that they should do so in ways that “go

beyond paper reforms and reach into local communities.”

285

incremental approach should not try to advance on all fronts

at the same time, but should ensure that over time all relevant

factors are covered.

286

Priorities should be established based on an

understanding of the legal needs of different groups of people.

A first step can be to guarantee minimum service standards, an

approach used in the health and education sectors. These define

what users can expect, and they help build trust and support

by demonstrating a growing ability to meet people’s needs. In

Afghanistan, a minimum service standards package has been

developed to provide the basic level of social services that people

need to participate in the economy.

287

A “citizen’s charter” approach

within the justice sector would focus on frontline service providers

such as the police and lower-level courts. It can help to promote

consistent standards across formal and informal justice provision.

As in the areas of civil justice and violence prevention, advocacy plays

an important role. Empirical studies find a robust correlation between

“strong and autonomous civil society and positive human rights

indicators.”

288

Non-violent campaigns, such as those for which Martin

Luther King was famous, are particularly effective in addressing the

root causes of conflict.

289

They have been found to be more than twice

as likely to succeed as violent resistance.

290

The justice system can

protect space for civil society by promoting rights to assembly and

free speech.

291

Political leaders – including those within the justice

system – have a responsibility to moderate their rhetoric, avoiding use

of speech that could entice violence and encouraging actions that

are affirmative measures of tolerance and inclusion.

Grassroots advocacy

organizations such as the

Madres de la Plaza de Mayo

in Argentina, the Vicaria de

la Solidaridad in Chile, and

the Centre for Human Rights

Legal Action in Guatemala

have actively campaigned for

peace in their societies.

292

Promoting inclusion and protecting rights

Promoting rights and inclusion are a core message of this report.

Access to justice is itself a human right, but justice is also essential

to protecting other rights. A rights-based approach to justice puts

people and their justice problems and aspirations at the center of

efforts to reform.

These messages are underlined when we think about the role of

justice in prevention. Prevention that aims to protect rights and

promote inclusion can focus on the needs of those with multiple

justice problems, in order to break the cycle where one problem

leads to many more. It can rebuild the relationship between

the police and other justice actors and communities, especially

those most affected by violence. And it can promote inclusive

approaches to conflict prevention, recognizing and bringing on

board those who have hitherto been excluded, and addressing the

grievances that derive from this exclusion.

In many cases, unfortunately, justice institutions entrench exclusion

and deny rights, in effect reversing prevention. Abuses by security

and justice actors are associated with increased risk of conflict,

increased severity of conflict, or both. Abuses also fuel violent

extremism, with communities in some areas “more afraid of state

security forces than extremist groups.”

293

Protecting rights requires providing justice institutions with new

skills, tools, and approaches. For example, audio or video recording

of investigations is proven to reduce the incidence of torture, as

are rules and procedures to safeguard detainees immediately

after they are taken into custody.

294

Training police in investigative

interviewing skills rather than relying on confessions to secure

evidence also makes torture less likely to happen.

295

Similarly, strengthening judicial independence and impartiality

can build or rebuild credibility.

296

Vetting of justice actors helps

rebuild trust in institutions, promoting their legitimacy and their

ability to combat future abuses. Reforms in Kenya under the

country’s 2010 constitution, for example, involved clear criteria for

selecting members of the Judicial Service Commission, public

hearings during the selection process, and stipulations for fair

representation of women and of all Kenya’s ethnic groups.

297

Mechanisms for accountability and transparency can also help

justice systems to prevent rather than aggravate human rights

abuses. Giving victims, community bodies, and interested civil

society parties access to data on the outputs of justice systems

allows them to monitor enforcement and expose abuses.

298

Enhanced parliamentary oversight increases the accountability of

security and justice actors, while raising awareness that can lead

In Georgia following the Rose

Revolution, a new Patrol

Police was recruited, leading

to dramatic improvements in

public trust and an increased

willingness of citizens to

report corrupt behavior.

301

The

country also built “glass police

stations” – which act as both

a symbol of transparency and

as a practical approach to

removing the dark corners in

which abuse can occur.

302

to improvements in the legislative framework for the prevention

of human rights abuses.

299

Opening up systems to independent

scrutiny and allowing for the publication of the results of such

scrutiny reduces the likelihood that justice systems themselves

become a source of injustice.

300

Finally, as discussed in chapter 1, promoting people’s gateway

rights can be transformative for those who have been excluded

from participating fully in society, politics and the economy.

Although the numbers who need support are large, change in this

area can happen rapidly.

Where there is political will, and with the assistance of civil society

organizations and the deployment of affordable new technologies,

countries can build systems that offer people legal identity, land

rights, better access to contracts, and other documentation

that allows them to play their full part in society.

303

Pakistan, for

example, launched a biometric identity system and registered

90 million people in little over a decade.

304

The system was then

used as the basis for a targeted social protection system that only

releases resources directly to the beneficiary (most beneficiaries

are poor mothers).

305

Rwanda rapidly registered ten million parcels

of land into a new land registry, with more than seven million

landowners – a majority of them women – collecting their titles

over the next five years.

Making the Shift to Prevention

A shift towards preventing injustice is akin to the change of

focus from medicine to public health – from treating sickness to

promoting health and well-being.

306

A realignment towards prevention requires an adjustment in

the mission, strategy, and operation of a justice system, and of

the institutions within that system. Rather than considering only

individual justice problems, justice actors must seek to influence

how a population experiences justice and injustice, learning

how to “strategize beyond an immediate firefighting approach

to individual cases.”

307

Prevention seeks to understand how laws,

regulations, and policies can tackle structural injustices, promote

inclusion, reduce risk, and increase resilience.

The next step is to identify the desired results for communities,

societies, and for the justice system itself. For communities,

prevention outcomes include fewer or less serious disputes, a lower

risk of violence, and a reduced risk of suffering rights abuses. For

societies, outcomes include a decreased risk of violent conflict, the

more peaceful management of disputes, reduced transaction costs

within an economy, and higher levels of trust in governments and

institutions. And for the justice system, outcomes include improved

confidence that the system is fair, more productive cooperation

with other sectors, and an increased capacity to devote scarce

resources to responding to the most serious risks and abuses.

Effective prevention strategies start with a desired outcome and

“wind the tape backwards” to find ways of addressing a cluster of

problems.

308

They use data to set priorities and target resources,

combined with a rigorous testing of interventions to understand

what does and does not work. And they monitor outputs and

evaluate outcomes to understand whether results are being

achieved. A review of the evidence on prevention points to the

need to adopt three overarching strategies.

Promote trust in justice systems

Justice systems are most likely to be able to play a preventive role

when people have a reasonable expectation that their rights will

be protected, their problems effectively resolved, that disputes will

be managed peacefully, and that they will be safeguarded from

abuses of power.

309

When the justice system offers both certainty

and equity, it provides a framework for positive interaction between

people, and between people and businesses and the state.

310

This report emphasizes the need to invest in justice systems that

work for people and that enable them to resolve their justice

problems. Increasing trust in justice systems requires developing

clear and transparent procedures, supporting the independence

of judges and prosecutors, tackling corruption, and reaching out to

groups who are excluded from the justice system.

Inclusive justice systems require strengthened co-operation

between frontline justice actors and communities, with the aim

of giving communities themselves the tools to prevent injustice.

Civil society organizations have a vital role to play in helping build

trust in justice systems, by bringing justice closer to the people and

ensuring that people’s needs remain at the forefront of reforms.

Tackle the root causes of injustice

As this chapter has shown, justice systems have untapped

potential to address systemic and structural injustices in ways that

reduce the number of justice problems.

By offering access to a range of “gateway rights” such as universal

legal identity and access to documentation, governments enable

full participation in societies, politics, and the economy, while

protecting marginalized groups from abuses of their rights. Better

Prevention

strategies move

beyond firefighting

and individual

justice problems.

They use data

to set priorities,

rigorously test

interventions, and

evaluate whether

justice has been

increased for a

target population.

use of technology can make it easier for people to form and record

agreements, protecting them from future disputes.

311

Effective prevention also requires justice institutions to tighten

their focus on vulnerable populations, breaking cycles of violence

and other forms of injustice. This chapter has underlined the

multi-sectoral nature of prevention, with justice actors working

with other sectors to intervene earlier and in ways that address

causes rather than symptoms. It has also highlighted the potential

for grassroots justice defenders to tackle structural injustices,

empowering vulnerable communities to make strategic use of

the law.

Use the law to reduce risk

Finally, the law can be used in a targeted way to address risks for

communities and societies.

Strengthened legislative frameworks form an essential part of

a multi-sectoral approach to violence prevention. Legislation

directly protects people from violence, but it can also have broader

impacts. For example, a study of more than 80 countries found

that adolescent boys are 69 percent less likely to fight in schools if

they live in a country that bans physical punishment.

312

This chapter

has also highlighted the positive preventive impacts of laws and

regulation that reduce the availability of weapons and the harmful

use of alcohol.

Laws and regulations can also be used to make it less likely that

disputes will arise, or to address grievances that might provoke

conflict. If people face regular eviction, for example, the solution is –

in part – in the hands of the justice system. The same is true if there

are growing tensions around the use of a natural resource. And

when incarceration, fines, and other punishments increase risk,

rather than protecting societies from harm, this points to the need

for justice systems themselves to change their policies.

Responding to mass human rights abuses

Transitional justice and justice transitions

Transitional justice refers to how societies respond to serious and massive

violations of human rights.

313

It is used both to redress mass violations and to

identify ways of addressing the root causes and structural drivers of violence

and repression.

The Task Force’s Working Group on Transitional Justice brought together

experts and organizations working in the field of transitional justice to analyze

how transitional justice helps build peaceful, just and inclusive societies.

While transitional justice includes criminal accountability, both locally and

via institutions such as the International Criminal Court, it is underpinned

by a broader understanding of justice of the needs of victims and societies.

Transitional justice mechanisms include truth-seeking initiatives, community

reconciliation, reparations programs, institutional and legal reforms, and

criminal prosecutions.

These processes have been used in countries as diverse as Argentina, Bosnia

and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Timor-Leste, and

Tunisia. By giving victims the sense that they have been treated fairly, and by

sensitizing perpetrators to the damage they have caused, transitional justice

has helped cement peace in societies where conflicts have broken out or

simmered for decades.

Human rights violations are not just a result of violent conflict and repression

– they can also increase the likelihood of the onset or recurrence of violence

and repression. Preventing recurrence is therefore a central objective of any

transitional justice process.

Transitional justice contributes to the prevention of other forms of injustice

and helps deliver access to justice for all. It increases trust in government

and society, decreases the willingness of government institutions to use

human rights abuses as a political tool, reduces grievances, tackles structural

exclusion and discrimination, and breaks cycles of violence and injustice.

Studies have connected transitional justice mechanisms with the reduction

of human rights violations, repression, criminal violence, and the likelihood of

recurrence of civil war.

314

Tackling the root causes of human rights abuses also provides a platform for

economic and social development, reducing inequality and discrimination,

tackling corruption, and dismantling the structural drivers of violence within

a society.

315

Tackling violations against women, for example, can be part of a

wider effort to eliminate gender-inequitable attitudes and behaviors. Efforts

to reach the most vulnerable can engage them not only in the justice process

but in overall development efforts.

Spotlight 2

If transitional justice is to contribute to sustainable development, it must be context-

specific. Victims, affected communities, human rights and justice advocates, youth,

and civil society – including religious, educational, women’s, and cultural groups – need

political space and technical support to meaningfully advocate for, shape, and participate

in transitional justice processes.

Lessons for justice sector reform

Much can be learned from transitional justice. The key lessons are:

1. Transitional justice is people-centered.

It has victims, not providers, at its heart. Victims’ needs determine how the search for

truth is carried out, how and by whom perpetrators are brought to justice, the type and

size of reparations, and how measures can be developed to prevent future violations.

The needs of society’s most vulnerable groups are given priority, beginning with those

of women, who often suffer the worst abuses in conflicts. Civil society organizations

and the media are enlisted to help represent citizens’ opinions in the reform process

and to construct and disseminate a narrative of change.

2. Transitional justice has prevention at its heart.

There are not enough judges, courts or prisons to bring huge numbers of perpetrators

to justice, as is often necessary following mass human rights violations. Instead,

transitional justice makes efficient use of resources by reserving punitive approaches

for the worst offenders. It finds alternative reparation mechanisms for the majority

of those involved. Asking victims what reparations they want is central to such an

approach. Often, victims, who must continue to live with those who committed

abuses, prefer reconciliation to harsh punishment. Reconciliation helps victims achieve

closure and perpetrators reintegrate into their communities, strengthening stability

and reducing the risk of recurrence.

3. Transitional justice must be multidisciplinary to be successful.

316

Programs aim to transform the police and military into organs that serve rather than

repress citizens. They reintegrate former combatants into society, and help victims to

rebuild their lives socially and economically. They reform laws and judicial institutions

in line with international human rights standards.

317

And they engage with informal,

community justice systems that are often closer and more relevant to citizens than

formal justice institutions.

Pathfinders for

Justice

The Task Force has developed an agenda for action

that will help deliver the SDG targets that promise

justice for all.

Chapter 5

Leading the

Change

A shift to justice for all requires a new focus on

delivering tangible results for people.

Reformers around the world are beginning to

transform their justice systems, providing lessons

for others to learn from.

While there are a number of obstacles to change,

there are also many opportunities. Global

momentum is growing for justice reform. Justice

leaders do not need to go it alone.

Four levers build momentum for reform:

grounding reforms in data and evidence,

encouraging innovation, developing smarter

financing strategies, and increasing the diversity

of justice systems.

The vision of the Task Force on Justice is of a shift from justice for

the few to justice for all.

Such a vision demands a major transformation in how justice

systems work. Our goal is to change expectations of what can be

achieved – and to build a new consensus that societies can and

should deliver justice for all.

To achieve this goal, countries must develop and implement

strategies that bring justice services closer to the people who need

them most.

They must identify and overcome the barriers that prevent justice

systems from performing to their full potential, rectifying policies

that actively increase injustice.

Delivering justice for all will require confronting political obstacles

to change, and building confidence among justice leaders that,

with the right policies and investment, they can deliver substantial

increases in justice.

Towards

Justice for All

The Path to Justice for All

As part of its World Development Report in 2017, the World Bank

asked the political scientist Francis Fukuyama what countries had

done to build justice systems that allowed them to realize their full

social and economic potential.

His answer was that “a surprisingly small amount of systematic work

has been done on transitions to a modern rule of law.”

318

The report

also cited a quip from the former British Prime Minister, Gordon

Brown: “In establishing the rule of law, the first five centuries are

always the hardest.” Historical evidence supports this, showing that

it can take many decades to build effective justice institutions.

319

But the tone of the World Development Report was pragmatic,

suggesting that what was important was not institutions in the

abstract, but how institutions can steadily improve their capacity to

produce “life-improving outcomes.”

320

This is in line with a key message of this report – that justice reform

should aim to deliver tangible results for people. It also fits with

the data we have presented on the justice gap. Building effective

justice systems is not a linear process where countries move from

bad to good. All countries have work to do to respond to the

unmet need for justice.

Models of change

Across the world, justice systems are exploring new ways to put

people and their needs first. Their efforts provide models for

reformers elsewhere.

Argentina’s Access to Justice Centers are meeting the justice needs

of the communities that need them most.

321

Reaching almost

half a million people a year, their approach is multidisciplinary,

with lawyers, social workers, and psychologists working under one

roof. “Often people will come to us with a legal problem,” the Task

Force was told by a young professional who works at one of the

centers, “but when we talk to them it becomes apparent that they

also have other problems, for example problems related to not

having the right personal documents, or social problems related

to housing or money, or psychological issues that result from or

aggravate other difficulties.”

322

In Canada, an action committee used data from a legal needs

survey to develop a vision for a family and civil justice system that

would put the public first.

323

It created a set of Justice Development

Goals to increase the capacity of the system to address and

prevent everyday legal problems, to stimulate cooperation, and to

make justice institutions more representative of Canadian society.

Australia’s Law Council also grounded its review of the country’s

justice system in data.

324

The Council called for resources to be

directed away from coercive policies and towards “making the

justice system just.”

We need to

build a common

understanding

of what access

to justice looks

like within our

communities, and

of our society as a

just society.

Law Council of Australia

325

Empowerment is becoming an important focus of many countries’

justice systems. Indonesia’s national strategy on access to justice

provided official recognition to paralegals for the first time.

326

The

country has up to 6,000 grassroots justice defenders that help to

empower local communities. They are effective because of their

networks with other local organizations such as trade unions and

universities, and because they can enlist the support of lawyers

when necessary. Their success reflects the willingness of paralegals

to “pursue remedies everywhere,” looking beyond courts to

“administrative agencies, local governments, accountability bodies

like ombudsmen and human rights commissions, parliaments,

customary justice institutions, and others.”

327

Bottom-up empowerment can be supported from the top.

The 2017 World Development Report highlighted the growing

independence of judges in Latin America. It noted how courts have

been transformed from “weak, dependent, ineffective institutions”

to independent actors helping citizens use the constitution to

protect their rights.

328

In India, too, the Supreme Court has held the

government to account over issues such as the right to education,

environmental pollution, non-discrimination, and child and

bonded labor.

329

Countries are also opening up their justice systems to innovation.

Reforms in the Bahamas made greater use of technology to

streamline processes, increasing the resolution of serious criminal

cases by 39 percent.

330

In Dubai, a new small claims procedure has

provided faster and cheaper access to justice for less serious cases,

resolving most within four weeks and freeing up the main courts to

focus on the most difficult cases.

331

The UK is a leader in regulatory

innovation, with the Legal Services Act creating space for alternative

service providers. Statutory bodies now represent the interests of

people and small businesses as they access legal services.

332

Finally, countries have strengthened legal frameworks to directly

increase justice for their population. In 1979, only Sweden had

banned the physical punishment of children.

333

Now more than

50 countries have a comprehensive ban.

334

There has been a

similar growth in the prohibition of violence against women.

144 countries now possess laws against domestic violence.

335

discussed previously, the number of people with legal identity has

increased rapidly in recent years, while countries like Rwanda have

made swift progress in providing men and women with land titles,

contributing to women’s legal empowerment.

336

We can also draw lessons from other sectors. Education was once

the preserve of elites, but countries now aim to provide quality

schooling for all and to offer opportunities for lifelong learning.

Healthcare has undergone a similar transformation. In 1978, the

Alma-Ata declaration called for healthcare to be brought “as close

as possible to where people live and work.”

337

In the ensuing years,

life expectancy has risen steeply in all world regions.

The long struggle for gender equality and the empowerment of

women and girls provides valuable lessons, demonstrating the

importance of establishing new norms and challenging patterns

of discrimination. The women’s movement has campaigned for

rights, but it has also convincingly demonstrated the economic

and social benefits that result from providing women with equal

access to opportunities.

338

The case for justice combines similar

normative and practical elements.

Obstacles and opportunities for reform

In charting a path to justice, an understanding of political obstacles

and opportunities contributes to better strategies for reform.

The law and justice systems help determine who wins and who

loses when it comes to political, social, and economic power. Elites

benefit from their disproportionate access to courts and lawyers

and this weakens their motivation to support reform. They may be

reluctant to tackle injustices that benefit them, such as corruption,

impunity, or the denial of the rights of those who are less

privileged. This translates into a lack of trust in the system. Business

leaders in more than 100 countries say that the justice system in

their country is not independent of the influence of government,

powerful individuals, or businesses.

339

Resistance to change may also come from within the justice

system. Legal practitioners often benefit from the status quo. They

can feel threatened by reforms that open the justice system to new

players or by strategies that redirect investment to more effective

approaches.

340

Corruption erodes public support for increased

funding of justice institutions. Globally, a third of people believe

that the police in their country are corrupt and 30 percent think

that judges and magistrates are corrupt.

341

Another obstacle lies in the fragmentation of justice institutions.

The justice gap cannot be bridged by a single organization or

ministry, with many of the solutions to injustice found outside the

formal justice system. But this creates a problem of who will lead

reform. Ministers of Justice, Attorneys General, Public Defenders,

and other justice leaders may have limited power to insist on a new

direction. They are also often faced by more powerful ministerial

colleagues when arguing for an increased budget allocation.

Working in complex

environments with

many stakeholders,

numerous vested

interests, and a lot of

time pressure, there

is always criticism

and opposition.

Many Ministers of Justice

feel lonely in their jobs.

342

As well as obstacles, there are opportunities for change. When

economies are growing fast, many governments understand that

strengthened justice systems are essential to support the next

stage of their development.

343

Others understand the risks to

political stability posed by injustice and see the justice system as

a way of addressing grievances. Governments are also becoming

increasingly aware of the benefits of investing in justice, through

initiatives such as the OECD’s new business case for justice.

344

Even when a government has little appetite for ambitious justice

reforms, there will always be individuals within the system

who champion change.

345

Judiciaries have historically played a

transformational role in many societies. Lawyers too are powerful

drivers of social change, especially when working with grassroots

justice defenders and other civil society groups. Civil society plays

a campaigning role, creating pressure for governments to act.

But it also provides practical leadership – pioneering new models

and approaches that demonstrate how people can participate in

closing the justice gap.

In Colombia, Bogotá’s

Chamber of Commerce is

working to build a more

peaceful society. It is

helping re-integrate former

combatants and working

jointly with the National Police

to pilot new tools such as

police mediation. It also trains

businesses to take an active

role in the peace process.

346

The private sector in many countries has incentives to mobilize

for improvements in the legal environment. Businesses are

reliant on the rule of law and responsive justice institutions.

Larger corporations may be interested in the justice needs of

their employees and customers, recognizing the need to build

trust within the marketplace and the potential for greater

legal inclusion to create new business opportunities. Individual

businesses have little incentive to tackle systemic injustices on their

own, but Chambers of Commerce and other representative bodies

may challenge corruption and impunity where they threaten

markets or create unacceptable risks of political instability.

Private sector organizations can also respond directly to violence. In

the city of Ciudad Juárez in Mexico, rising levels of violence caused

thousands of businesses to close.

347

In response, a non-profit

organization was formed with finance from a voluntary surtax of

5 percent on the corporate income tax of over 38,000 business

owners from across the state. It has worked to strengthen crime

prevention, security, and justice through citizen engagement. The

participation of the private sector helped drive violence down,

while creating pressure on both the government and local justice

institutions to act.

Global momentum for justice

The 2030 Agenda is creating new momentum for justice that helps

national reformers. The SDGs are a platform for countries to share

experiences of justice reform and to explore the innovative models

discussed throughout this report.

100

International human rights frameworks also support reform

efforts.

348

A rights-based approach encourages governments

to get the basics right, such as by strengthening constitutional

guarantees that protect the independence of the judiciary.

349

can also help the most vulnerable. For example, the Universal

Periodic Review can be used to monitor whether justice systems

are protecting children’s rights, thereby improving standards for

children who are in conflict with the law.

350

Justice leaders are increasingly meeting internationally. In 2019, 22

ministers and their deputies signed the Hague Declaration, making

a commitment “to take concrete steps to promote access to justice

and to convince others to do the same.”

351

As we have seen from other

sectors such as health, ministers can be empowered at home when

they begin to work closely with their peers from other countries.

Global and regional partnerships are supporting justice reform. The

Open Government Partnership provides an example of a platform

for accelerating efforts to strengthen justice provision. It calls

on government and civil society in its 79 participating countries

to make and live up to commitments on justice.

352

Professional

networks play an increasingly influential role across borders,

sharing lessons on evidence-based policing, for example.

Perhaps most important is the growing demand for change

from people across the world. “Justice” was the Merriam-Webster

online dictionary’s word of the year in 2018, as visitors flocked

to its website to look up the word.

353

Many societies are facing

protest movements or political instability and conflict rooted in

exclusion and injustice. The #MeToo, NiUnaMenos, and SheDecides

movements are some campaigns that reflect growing anger

at the high levels of impunity for sexual violence.

354

Corruption

has motivated campaigners to take to the streets in a growing

number of countries, including most recently in Sudan and

Algeria.

355

Campaigners such as those involved in the Arab Spring

have targeted abuses by the police and security forces.

356

well as rooting out injustice, these movements help create an

environment that supports reform.

On February 7, 2019, ministers

and high-level representatives

from countries and

international organizations

signed The Hague Declaration

on Equal Access to Justice

for All by 2030, highlighting

opportunities to strengthen

support and commitment for

justice ahead of the High-level

Political Forum and the SDG

Summit in 2019.

101

Levers of Justice Reform

Four levers can help national reformers as they work towards

justice for all.

Use data and evidence to steer reform

Throughout this report, the Task Force has emphasized the

importance of using data and evidence to motivate and guide reform.

Increased awareness of the justice gap in each country and of the

case for investment in justice creates incentives for action. It can

help bring new stakeholders on board, persuading a minister with

responsibilities for land or housing, for example, that justice can help

deliver results in her sector. Finance and planning ministers will be

influenced by proposals to allocate resources to more cost-effective

and evidence-based approaches. Providing open access to justice

data facilitates cooperation between sectors and between state and

non-state actors.

357

The Open Government Partnership encompasses

open data and particpatory policymaking in the justice sector. It is

becoming a tool to promote judicial reform based on the principles

of transparency, participation or accountability.

358

Open and

independent data is a tool for accountability and allows citizens to

demand change.

Policymakers should consider undertaking regular surveys that

ask people about their justice needs, either as a standalone or as a

module in an existing survey. The OECD and Open Society Justice

Initiative has developed guidance for legal needs surveys.

359

A manual

on victimization surveys is available from UNODC and the United

Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

360

Evidence of what works is most effectively generated through

cooperation between countries. The Campbell Collaboration

runs an international network publishing systematic reviews of

the best criminal justice research. Data showing the benefits of

evidence-based policing has also been shared internationally.

361

similar repository of evidence could be created for civil justice.

The SDGs provide a new impetus for international cooperation on

justice data. They should help stimulate increased standardization

across countries, for example on legal needs surveys. A separate

indicator for access to civil justice, currently being developed

by a group of countries and organizations, will enable accurate

reporting on SDG16.3.

Argentina’s open justice portal

makes justice data publicly

available. Its Justicia 2020

program is an online platform

where citizens can participate

in developing, implementing,

and monitoring justice policies.

Unlock the transformative power of innovation

Innovation acts as a lever for reform by bringing new players into

the justice sector.

102

In its report, the Task Force’s Innovation Group highlights

promising technologies and approaches to service delivery that

can provide justice at scale.

362

These include services that facilitate

the resolution of disputes, new technologies that support user-

friendly contracts, and alternative private sector legal providers

that aim to help large numbers of individuals and small businesses

make good use of the law.

If countries are to benefit from justice innovation, they need

to make space for it to happen. The best innovations draw on

the ideas and perspectives of psychologists, social scientists,

data analysts, designers, neurologists, social workers, public and

business administrators, a wide range of private sector actors, and

– critically – the users of justice systems. Public and private sector

innovators need space to collaborate and support for innovation

through all stages of the process, from researching needs and

developing a response, to monitoring impact.

International networks can support innovation at a national level.

The HiiL Justice Accelerator helps policymakers work with the

world’s leading justice innovators to address a country’s most

pressing justice problems.

363

The new UNDP Accelerator Labs could

be asked to include justice as part of their mission to find new ways

of taking the SDGs to scale.

364

National institutions also provide

structural support for innovators. Many governments have cross-

cutting innovation labs that might be prepared to take on justice

challenges.

365

The United Arab Emirates has a Chief Innovation

Officer in the Ministry of Justice, with the rank of assistant minister,

providing a model for governments who want to take innovation

into the mainstream of their justice systems.

366

Innovation requires a supportive regulatory environment. This may

mean changing the rules about who can provide legal advice,

allowing civil society and private sector innovators to play a greater

role. Ministries of Justice could also set criteria for measuring the

effectiveness of innovations, supported by empirical research and

independent assessment of whether these criteria are met.

The Prime Minister’s Office

of the United Arab Emirates

requires each ministry to

allocate 1 percent of its budget

to innovation. This may grow

to 5 percent in the future.

Implement strategies for smarter justice financing

In a sector where investment decisions have traditionally been

“based on word of mouth rather than formal analysis,” smarter

finance creates incentives for reform.

367

Reforms, moreover, will only

be sustainable if countries gather evidence to show that increased

expenditure is leading to measurable results.

The first step is to build on the case for investment set out in

chapter 2 of this report. The World Bank will be working with

partners to further explore how increased financing of justice

for all contributes to poverty reduction, shared prosperity, and

103

Levers of Justice Reform

Use data and evidence to steer reform

Data and evidence create awareness of the scale of the

problem, while demonstrating how solutions can be cost-effective.

Unlock the transformative power of innovation

Innovation brings new players into the justice sector and develops

approaches that can deliver justice at scale.

Implement strategies for smarter justice financing

Smarter financing strategies redirect resources away from ineffective

approaches and towards what works. They also attract finance from other

sectors and from non-traditional investors.

Build more coherent and inclusive justice systems

New governance models and shared standards increase coherence in a justice system,

enabling a greater diversity of partners to work together towards a shared result.

the prevention of violence, instability, and conflict. The OECD

will continue to disseminate its business case to its members

and partners. A priority is to take this analysis to national level,

helping policymakers understand costs and benefits in countries

with varying justice needs and different financial and capacity

constraints. Further elaboration of the ODI costing of basic justice

services – presented in chapter 2 of this report – will also inform

national roadmaps for financing justice for all.

104

National reformers should explore new financing models. An

important priority is to increase the resources available for lower-

cost models able to respond to unmet justice needs at scale.

Grassroots organizations will often be best placed to play this

role, but independent oversight of funding channels is needed

to ensure that such support does not compromise their ability to

operate free of political influence.

368

Governments might allocate a

proportion of national justice budgets to financing high and low-

tech innovations and they could explore blended finance models

where their funds are used to leverage other investment.

369

Justice

reinvestment programs can recycle savings from early intervention

and prevention, redeploying money that has been saved by efforts

to reduce the prison population.

370

Justice reformers must also nurture new sources of funding.

Partnerships with other sectors such as health, housing, education,

and the environment can expand the funding pool for justice as

well as ensuring policy complementarity.

371

Private investment

and philanthropy will be needed if innovations are to receive the

support they need and are well placed to fund at grassroots level.

International donors should also step up their support for justice,

targeting finance at the countries, communities, and people most

likely to be left behind.

372

Investment is not only about money. Pro

bono services can provide access to lawyers and law students for

those who cannot afford them, with impact at scale when there is

a regulatory requirement for such services. Volunteers from outside

the legal profession also play a substantial role in providing access to

justice, but organizations need funding for supervision, training, and

for providing access to paid services to assist with more serious cases.

The Mozambique Ministry

of Health funds paralegals

from Namati to work in

partnership with local health

workers to increase the quality,

access, and use of services for

those with HIV.

373

Over 3000

violations have been resolved,

improving healthcare for

180,000 people.

Build more coherent and inclusive justice systems

In all countries, the justice system is diverse. From customary

justice mechanisms to religious courts to citizens’ advice services,

paralegals and ombudsmen, much dispute resolution happens

outside formal court systems. In addition, this report has highlighted

the role played by organizations from outside the justice sector:

from unions to libraries, social workers to community elders.

However, these providers are seldom thought of or treated as

part of a system that works cohesively to strengthen justice. State

justice actors often work independently of each other and are

sometimes prohibited from collaborating.

374

It is little wonder,

therefore, that justice journeys are often fragmented or prevention

strategies notable by their absence.

We are not calling for partnership for partnership’s sake, but for

bringing partners together to prevent and resolve justice problems

and to create opportunities for people and societies.

105

The other levers identified in this chapter – data and evidence,

innovation, and smart finance – create an infrastructure for

productive partnerships, but there are three missing ingredients.

First, countries need to realize the potential of all those who work

to provide justice for all, protecting justice defenders from harm,

training professionals to deliver people-centered justice, and

making justice institutions more representative of the communities

they serve (see spotlight 3).

Second, new governance models are needed at all levels to bring

partners together and to help them identify and tackle strategic

priorities. In the US, the White House Legal Aid Interagency

Roundtable brings together departments and agencies to

“collaborate, share best practices, and consider the impact of legal

services on the success of their program.”

375

Formal and informal

justice actors in Mali meet monthly to discuss strategies.

376

The

Netherlands has built a policy-driven “criminal justice chain that

proactively involves other public organizations to combat crimes.”

377

Third, shared standards help promote cohesion and quality.

Constitutional protections can enshrine fundamental rights

and help define the roles of the police, military, and intelligence

services in ways that promote people-friendly justice.

378

Formal

and informal justice systems can be linked, allowing for referrals,

appeals, and measures that protect the rights of women and

children.

379

Chapter 4 underlined the importance of independent

watchdogs to maintain standards and handle complaints.

Ultimately, standards must become part of the culture of a justice

system. In Tunisia, for example, judges came together to rethink

what independence really means, not as an abstract principle, but

as part of the way they serve the public.

380

Justice actors in Mali meet

monthly in regional “cadres

de concertation” (consultation

forums). The forums are

attended by police officers,

court administrators, civil

society, prosecutors, religious

leaders, correction officers,

and other stakeholders. They

discuss justice strategies and

actions needed to resolve

justice problems.

381

106

Chapter 6

Agenda for

Action

Implementation should place people at the

center of justice systems and justice at the

heart of sustainable development.

The Task Force makes three sets of

recommendations for national action to

accelerate progress towards justice for all:

Resolve the justice problems that matter most

to people.

Prevent justice problems and create

opportunities for people to participate fully in

their societies and economies.

Invest in justice systems and institutions that

work for people and that are equipped to

respond to their need for justice.

National implementation should be supported

by intensified international cooperation and

revitalized partnerships for justice.

107

The Task Force on Justice has set out a new vision for providing

equal access to justice for all, in line with the 2030 Agenda

commitment to confronting injustice and building just societies.

This vision is grounded in the right to justice and other

fundamental rights – and the pledge to reach the furthest behind

first – with data and evidence guiding implementation.

Closing the justice gap requires a transformation in ambition – a

sustained effort to provide billions more people with access to justice.

To deliver SDG16.3 and related targets for justice, countries should

resolve people’s justice problems, prevent injustices large and

small from occurring, and create opportunities for people to

participate fully in their societies and economies.

According to the 2030 Agenda, each country has primary

responsibility for developing strategies to deliver the SDGs, but an

intensified global engagement can support national implementation.

The Task Force calls on governments, justice professionals, civil

society, the private sector, international and regional organizations,

foundations and philanthropists – and people themselves – to work

together to deliver justice for all.

A New Vision

of Justice for All

108

An Agenda for National Action

National implementation should place people at the center of

justice systems and justice at the heart of sustainable development.

1. Resolve the justice problems that matter most

to people

 Understand justice problems through regular surveys that

draw on international standards and guidelines, and improve

the availability and quality of data on the needs of women,

children, and vulnerable groups.

 Empower people and communities to seek justice,

recognizing grassroots justice defenders, financing them in

ways that respect their independence, and protecting them

from violence and coercion.

 Provide access to people-centered justice services that draw

on the best evidence of what works, while making justice

providers accountable for delivering fair outcomes that help

close the justice gap.

 Use cost-effective alternatives to help people resolve

disputes and gain redress when they are victims of violence

and crime, reserving punitive measures and formal court

proceedings for the most serious cases.

2. Prevent justice problems and create opportunities

for people to participate fully in their societies and

economies

 Make the shift to prevention through strategies that increase

justice for communities and societies, and are implemented

in partnership between the justice system and other sectors.

 Promote trust in justice systems by increasing independence,

impartiality, and integrity, implementing strategies to

combat corruption and abuse, and ensuring independent

oversight.

 Tackle the root causes of injustice, using data from individual

cases to address structural injustices, providing universal

access to identity and legal documents, and helping people

create and register legal agreements.

 Use the law to reduce risk, by strengthening the legislative

framework for violence prevention and non-discrimination,

and through laws and regulations that address grievances or

make it less likely disputes will arise.

109

3. Invest in justice systems and institutions that work

for people and that are equipped to respond to

their need for justice

 Use data and evidence to steer justice reform, increasing

awareness of unmet need, providing open access to data as a

platform for partnerships and accountability, and informing

policies and programs with evidence of what works.

 Unlock the transformative power of innovation, opening

justice systems up to new actors and ideas, creating a

supportive regulatory environment, and assessing the impact

of innovation in closing the justice gap.

 Implement strategies for smarter justice financing, taking the

case for investment in justice to national levels, developing a

national roadmap for financing justice for all, and accessing

new sources of funding.

 Build more coherent and inclusive justice systems, by

supporting the people who provide justice, increasing

diversity and the representation of women at all levels, and

exploring new governance models, and promoting shared

standards for all parts of the system.

An Agenda for International Action

The 2030 Agenda’s commitment to justice for all requires

intensified international cooperation and revitalized partnerships

for justice.

 Within the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies,

convene a group of countries committed to leading on justice

for all.

 Encourage countries and partners from all sectors to register

voluntary commitments to implement SDG16.3.

 Support governments to develop credible, realistic, and funded

strategies to implement these commitments.

 Hold a biennial meeting of Ministers of Justice, Attorneys

General, and other justice leaders as a platform for countries to

share experiences, explore recommendations, and strengthen

cooperation for justice.

 Agree a new SDG16.3 indicator to measure progress on civil justice,

complementing existing indicators on pre-trial detention and the

reporting of violent crime, with voluntary national piloting ahead

of its integration into the global indicator framework.

 Form an alliance of international and regional justice partners to

increase collaboration and coherence.

110

 Develop a shared research agenda for justice to increase the

availability of data to measure progress, strengthen evidence of

what works, tailor this evidence to different country contexts,

and to communicate data and evidence to policymakers.

 Form a funders’ collaborative to strengthen the case for

investment in justice for all and advocate for an increase in the

proportion of international finance that flows to the justice sector.

 Amplify demand for change through global, national, and local

movements that campaign for justice for all.

Call to Action

To accelerate the progress made, the Task Force calls on

governments, justice professionals, civil society, and international

organizations to come together in a global and sustained effort to

deliver justice for all by 2030.

Governments should make justice a political priority and give

justice ministers the mandate and resources to solve the problems

that matter most to people. We ask Ministers of Justice, Attorneys

General, and other justice leaders across government to develop

strategies and nurture the partnerships that can deliver justice for all.

Justice professionals should work closely with governments in

leading the movement for justice for all. Judges, prosecutors,

lawyers, paralegals, the police, and prison and probation officers,

and other professionals have a role to play in reform.

Other sectors, such as health, education, social protection, jobs,

and education, are essential partners for the delivery of people-

centered justice. Increased justice is essential for delivering the

2030 Agenda aspirations for people, planet, prosperity, and peace.

Civil society empowers people to solve their justice problems and

help communities address structural injustices. It reaches sections

of society that are most at risk of injustice and holds governments

to account for the implementation of reforms. To be effective,

justice defenders need independent funding and protection.

The private sector can support the movement for justice for all

in partnership with governments and civil society. Law firms can

shape more people-centered approaches to justice through their

pro bono work and their advocacy. As innovators and impact

investors, the private sector can develop new ways of meeting

people’s justice needs at low cost. Chambers of Commerce can

advocate for the rule of law and for greater access to justice.

111

International and regional organizations must provide more

coherent support for national implementation of the SDG targets

for justice. They should allocate more finance to justice and help

attract impact and private sector investment. International and

regional platforms are needed to facilitate knowledge sharing and

build consensus around solutions and strategies.

Foundations and philanthropists play a vital role in promoting

justice for all. They can influence an increased focus on people-

centered justice and promote emerging priorities such as the role

of justice in prevention. Given the scale of unmet need for justice

need, support is required from a greater diversity of foundations.

Finally, the Task Force’s call to action is addressed to people

themselves, as justice seekers, volunteers, and supporters of justice

systems. They must be empowered to play a central role in the

creation of a more just world.

112

The people who provide justice

Realizing the potential of the justice workforce

Putting people at the center of justice means thinking about the people who provide

justice, as well as those who seek it.

This report has emphasized the importance of a diverse and inclusive justice

system that draws on the strengths of a professional, informal, and voluntary justice

“workforce” – from the traditional justice sector and beyond.

 Justice leaders – Ministers of Justice and all those who help shape the justice system.

 Justice professionals – judges, prosecutors, lawyers, bar associations, police officers,

and prison staff, who operate the formal justice system.

 Other formal service providers – including advice and information services, helplines,

oversight bodies, and ombudsman institutes and others who handle complaints.

 Informal or volunteer justice actors – including non-professional magistrates,

community paralegals, debt or other counselors, religious leaders, traditional chiefs,

community elders, trade unions, and other mediators.

 Other sectors – people who work in health, education, housing, immigration, and

environmental protection who play a role in promoting and providing justice.

 Justice innovators – including social entrepreneurs, social impact investors, and

tech startup innovators from the private sector.

 Justice defenders – grassroots activists who empower people and communities,

provide justice services, and amplify demand for change through advocacy and

movement-building.

Spotlight 3

Defending the Justice Defenders

Those working in the justice system face threats both to their ability to perform their jobs and to their safety.

Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers are targeted by those who want to influence their decisions or prevent them

from doing their work.

382

Many are killed, although deaths are not tracked globally as they are for journalists.

383

Grassroots justice defenders face the greatest risks. Front Line Defenders, an advocacy group, received reports

of 312 deaths in 2017.

384

Two-thirds of those killed were defending land, environmental, and indigenous people’s

rights. 84 percent of them had already been threatened but had not received protection from the police.

Members of the Global Legal Empowerment Network also report regular harassment, with 68 percent saying they

or their organization have been threatened for carrying out legal empowerment work.

385

The Escazu agreement is an example, it established protections for the rights of access to information, public

participation, and access to justice in environmental matters.

386

We must be vigilant in the face of these threats, and the Task Force supports the demand of the Justice for All

campaign that “those entrusted with serving communities’ justice needs must be able to work in an environment

free of coercion and bodily harm.”

387

113

In carrying out their day-to-day work, some actors must operate separately from others

to respect checks and balances, and guarantee the independence required by the law.

But justice leaders can promote collaboration across the justice system by:

1. Nurturing a culture of data, evidence, and learning

All justice providers need the skills to understand and learn from data about justice

problems and evidence about what works, while eliciting and responding to

feedback from users and being accountable for the quality of procedures and the

fairness of justice outcomes.

2. Taking a strategic approach

A central message of this report is that justice providers need to move from

firefighting to a model where they develop strategies to achieve long-term goals.

This requires leadership from the top and space for people from justice institutions

to think and plan collaboratively.

388

3. Increasing diversity

Justice systems will be more effective if they “look like” the communities they serve.

Greater representation of women is especially important.

389

Measures are needed to

increase transparency of recruitment and promotion, target marginalized groups,

and provide mentoring and training for people who have historically been excluded

from working in the justice system.

4. Adopting new training methods

People-centered justice requires a shift from training that focuses solely on legal

knowledge to training that emphasizes problem solving. Important skills include

active listening, conflict management, and negotiation, as well as customer care

and data gathering.

5. Developing professional networks

International and national networks help professionals learn from each other and

accelerate the dissemination of new ideas and approaches. Police officers can

explore how to use evidence-based approaches, for example, or judges can examine

techniques for reducing incarceration.

390

Networks can also bring together a range

of local providers to address the most urgent justice problems.

6. Building relationships with people and communities

Justice for all depends on close relationships between justice providers and the

communities in which they work and live. Many justice institutions will need a new

culture of collaboration, of openness, and of responsiveness to people and their

needs. All those who promote and defend justice need safe and secure working

environments (see box).

114

Appendix 1

Methodology

The Task Force on Justice

The Task Force on Justice held three meetings to guide the research and deliberate

the findings, in February 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina; in October 2018 in

Freetown, Sierra Leone; and in February 2019, in The Hague, the Netherlands.

The research was conducted in three workstreams organized around the key

questions the Task Force seeks to answer on: the size of the justice gap; the case for

investment; and what works to increase justice for all. Major contributions to the work

were made by justice partners. The people and organizations that contributed are

acknowledged at the beginning of the report.

The Task Force on Justice presents the first global synthesis of the scale and nature

of the justice gap, the most common justice problems that people face globally, and

the first estimate of the costs to provide universal access to basic justice services.

The global justice gap

To estimate the global justice gap, the Justice Gap Working Group developed a

conceptual framework that is people-centered and comprehensive. This framework

relies on people, not institutions, as the lens for understanding justice needs, how

they are currently being met, and the exclusions that people face.

The group operationalized this framework to identify categories of unmet justice

needs and corresponding measurement questions that have people as the unit of

analysis and that are tied to the SDG framework, either conceptually or as part of the

official indicators endorsed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators

(IAEG-SDGs).

The World Justice Project led an audit of more than 600 potential data sources

suggested by Working Group members, including global and national-level datasets

and administrative, survey-based, and qualitative sources of data.

Data sources were ultimately chosen based on three considerations:

1. Country coverage. Using as many global data sources as possible, providing

they had adequate country-level coverage, ensured comparable data collection

methodologies and justice gap figures across countries.

2. Official recognition. Using official data sources, such as those produced by

UNODC, the ILO, and the World Bank, garnered broader acceptance of selected

data sources and ensured consistency with methodologies for justice gap

indicators that are already incorporated into the official SDG indicator framework.

115

3. Public data and measurement methodology. To produce assessments at the

country level, impute estimates for countries with missing data, and characterize

the distribution of injustice for vulnerable populations, the justice gap assessment

relied almost exclusively on publicly available data.

The WJP populated country-level figures for each measurement question and

corresponding data source, and determined methods for extrapolating estimates

to countries not covered by each data source. For countries where estimates were

not available in a given dataset, they imputed estimates based on the average

values for regional and income peer countries. The WJP used the UN’s geographic

classifications and the World Bank’s income classifications to establish regional and

income peer groupings on which to base these extrapolations.

The WJP devoted particular attention to developing measures for estimating the

number of people with unmet civil and administrative justice needs, and victims

of violent and non-violent crime who have not reported their victimization to

a competent authority. For civil and administrative justice needs, the measure

developed is multidimensional and survey-based. It assesses the legal capability,

access to appropriate assistance, resolution process, and outcome for people who

have experienced a justiciable civil or administrative legal problem. For violent and

non-violent crime, the WJP used victimization survey data collected by national

statistical offices in more than 60 countries to produce estimates based on the

methodology for SDG indicator 16.3.1. For countries where only administrative data

were available, the WJP developed a method for adjusting crime victimization rates

and calculating the dark figure (i.e. unreported or undiscovered crime).

The resulting global justice gap estimates were adjusted to take into account the

double counting of people who fall into multiple dimensions of the justice gap (e.g.

victims of violence who also lack legal identity, or people who cannot obtain justice

for both criminal and civil justice problems). Double counting was addressed in part

by removing the populations of countries with high levels of insecurity and no rule

of law from the other dimensions of the justice gap. For other overlapping issues, the

WJP used proxy measures from its 2018 General Population Poll (GPP) to estimate

the degree of overlap between people with unmet civil or administrative justice

needs, unreported victims of violent and non-violent crime, and people who lack

legal identity, formal work arrangements, and land or housing tenure. This allowed

the WJP to adjust for double counting across the entire justice gap framework and

within categories of unmet justice need.

To determine the most common justice problems that people face, data were used

from 78 different surveys, namely 63 national crime victimization surveys, the WJP’s

global legal needs survey, and 14 national legal needs surveys by HiiL.

116

For additional detail on the methodology followed to produce the justice gap

estimates discussed in this report, please refer to: World Justice Project, Measuring

the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the

World. (Task Force on Justice, background paper, April 2019)

Costing SDG16.3

The Task Force on Justice commissioned the independent, global think tank,

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) to produce the first initial estimate of what it

would cost to deliver SDG16.3; the costs of providing universal access to basic justice

services in countries around the world. This rapid research report also estimates

the financing gap faced by countries delivering SDG16.3. The intention is that this

exercise will be further developed through a larger and longer scale exercise. As one

of the purposes of this costing exercise was to assess the financing gap, the exercise

particularly focused on low-income countries where affordability is likely to be most

challenging.

After initial discussion with a wide range of stakeholders, ODI took a people-centered

approach, focused on what is needed to address people’s “everyday” justice problems

in their communities. The costing is based on the idea that to deliver on SDG16.3,

basic justice services should be universally available. As universal basic justice is not

yet a defined term, ODI developed the following working definition: a system that

addresses people’s everyday justice needs, that is delivered through formal and less

formal mechanisms which are often in need of transformation, and that is universally

available – i.e. is accessible and affordable for all.

The analysis covers 201 countries and assesses the costs of the basic justice system

at the local level, both relatively informal mechanisms (traditional, religious, and civil

society), and front-line formal organizations such as the police and local courts. The

analysis also factors in what people spend from their own pockets when they seek

justice.

More specifically, the following components of basic justice provision are included in

ODI’s analysis:

 Legal advice, assistance, and empowerment, provided in communities by

paralegals, lawyers, legal advice centers, unions or advocacy groups.

 Formal justice institutions that play a frontline role in resolving conflicts, disputes,

and grievances, including lower-tier courts, community police, and the criminal

justice chain.

 Alternative mechanisms to resolve legal problems, conflicts, disputes, and

grievances, such as community mediation, traditional courts, and ombudsmen.

 Mechanisms that improve the accountability of the justice system for the services

they provide to people and communities, and that tackle corruption and abuse.

117

As the focus was on basic justice for people’s everyday needs, certain aspects of

standard provision were not included e.g. higher level/appellate courts. Context

specific needs such as transitional justice were also not included as these were

already being specifically covered by a dedicated working group of the Task Force.

ODI’s approach drew on methodologies that have been developed over many years

for costing the delivery of the education and health SDGs, by the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Health

Organization (WHO), and the World Bank. As for these sectors, the justice costings are

made for a basic level of service provision and they are based on standard delivery

models, while acknowledging that improved systems can be more efficient.

Key data sources were the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC);

World Prison Brief; global survey evidence from the Hague Institute for Innovation

of Law (HiiL) on out of pocket expenses and earlier costings on legal assistance the

authors had developed for The Law & Development Partnership (LDP), funded by

Canada’s IDRC and Open Society Foundations. Basic macroeconomic and population

data were taken from World Bank Development Indicators and UN respectively. Key

assumptions on the major cost drivers – frontline staff – were based on UN agreed

targets (where available) and were cross checked against a limited sample of low

income and OECD countries’ national budgets that it was possible to do within the

scope of this rapid research assignment.

For additional detail on the methodology followed to estimate the cost of delivering

justice for all discussed in this report, please refer to: Marcus Manuel, Clare Manuel

and Harsh Desai, Universal access to basic justice: costing SDG 16.3 ODI Working

Paper 554. (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2019). Paper prepared for the

Task Force on Justice. A full dataset is available on request from the authors.

118

1 United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (New York: United Nations, 2015). [1]

2 Charles E Clark and Emma Corstvet, “The Lawyer and the Public: An A.A.L.S. Survey,” Yale Law Journal, Volume 47, Issue 8,

Article 2, 1938. [1674]

3 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Manual on Victimizations

Surveys. (Geneva: United Nations, 2010). [358]

4 Pascoe Pleasence and Nigel J. Balmer, “Justice & the Capability to Function in Society,” Daedalus, 148 (1), Winter 2019. [1629]

5 OECD and Open Society Justice Initiative, Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice - launch copy. (Paris and New York:

OECD/OSF, 2018). [1492]; Open Society Justice Initiative, Strengthening access to civil justice with legal needs surveys. Briefing

paper. (New York: Open Society Foundations, 2018). [1476]; OECD and Open Society Justice Initiative, Legal Needs Surveys and

Access to Justice - launch copy. (Paris and New York: OECD/OSF, 2018). [1492]; World Health Organization, London School of

Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and South African Medical Research Council, Global and regional estimates of violence against

women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and nonpartner sexual violence. (Geneva: WHO, 2013).

[105]; Susan Hillis, James Mercy, Adaugo Amobi, and Howard Kress, “Global Prevalence of Past year Violence Against Children:

A Systematic Review and Minimum Estimates,” Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20154079; accessed December 20, 2018, http://

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/137/3/e20154079.full.pdf [102]

6 Nelson Mandela, “Statement of the President of the African National Congress Nelson Rolihalhla Mandela at His Inauguration

as President of the Democratic Republic of South Africa,” (1994), footnote 697 in Jabulani C. Buthelezi, Rolihlahla Dalibhunga

Nelson Mandela: An Ecological Study. (Victoria, Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2002).

7 See: United Nations, “Nelson Mandela International Day 18 July,” accessed March 20, 2019, http://www.un.org/en/events/

mandeladay/court_statement_1962.shtml

8 Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. (London: Little Brown, 1994), pp139-140.

9 The Reconstruction and Development Programme, The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) - A Policy

Framework. (Marshalltown: The Reconstruction and Development Programme, 1994); accessed March 20, 2019, https://www.

sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/the_reconstruction_and_development_programm_1994.pdf [1757]

10 United Nations Department of Public Information, Nelson Mandela In His Words - Excerpts from Speeches 1961 – 2008. (New

York: United Nations, 2018); accessed March 20, 2019, http://www.un.org/en/events/mandeladay/assets/pdf/mandela100-

booklet.pdf [1758]

11 United Nations, Report of the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 6-12 March 1995), UN Doc A/CONF.166/9

(April 19, 1995); accessed December 20, 2018, https://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf166/aconf166-9.htm [1552]

12 United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (New York: United Nations, 2015). [1]

13 OECD, States of Fragility 2018. (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2018). [1222]

14 Ashley Jackson, Life under the Taliban shadow government. (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2018). [1553]

15 Mikael Ekman (ed), ILAC Rule of Law Assessment Report: Syria 2017. (Solna: International Legal Assistance Consortium, 2017).

[1759]

16 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Convention relating to the status of stateless persons. (Geneva: UNHCR, 2014).

[1550]

17 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “UNHCR Global Trends 2014: World at War,” June 18, 2015; accessed March 26,

2019,https://www.refworld.org/docid/558292924.html

18 Open Society Justice Initiative, “Human Rights and Legal Identity: Approaches to Combating Statelessness and

Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality” (Thematic Conference Paper, May 2006); accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.

opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/identity_20060501.pdf

19 International Labour Office (ILO), Global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage. (Geneva: ILO and

Walk Free Foundation, 2017). [1477]

20 Walk Free Foundation, The Global Slavery Index 2018. (Broadway Nedlands: Walk Free Foundation, 2018), chapter 3: Global

Findings. [1683]

21 Walk Free Foundation, The Global Slavery Index 2018. (Broadway Nedlands: Walk Free Foundation, 2018), chapter 3: Global

Findings. [1683]

22 Rebecca L Sandefur, “Access to What?” Daedalus, 148 (1), Winter 2019. [1616]

Endnotes

Numbers in square brackets refer to documents in the Task Force’s electronic library. Access to researchers is

available on request.

119

23 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Manual on Victimizations

Surveys. (Geneva: United Nations, 2010). [358]. OECD and Open Society Justice Initiative, Legal Needs Surveys and Access to

Justice - launch copy. (Paris and New York: OECD/OSF, 2018). [1492]

24 Rebecca L Sandefur, “Access to What?” Daedalus, 148 (1), Winter 2019. [1616]

25 World Justice Project, “Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World”

(Task Force on Justice, background paper, April 2019).

26 Jan van Dijk, John van Kesteren and Paul Smit, Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key findings from the

2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS. (Den Haag: Wetenschappelijk Onderzoeken Documentatiecentrum, 2007). [1685]

27 Tanzania: United Nations Children’s Fund, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Muhimbili University of

Health and Allied Sciences, Violence Against Children in Tanzania - Findings from a National Survey 2009. (Dar es Salaam:

United Republic of Tanzania, 2011), p59 [1760]; Kenya: United Nations Children’s Fund, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, and Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Violence against Children in Kenya: Findings from a 2010 National Survey.

Summary Report on the Prevalence of Sexual, Physical and Emotional Violence, Context of Sexual Violence, and Health and

Behavioral Consequences of Violence Experienced in Childhood. (Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Children’s Fund Kenya

Country Office, Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, U.S. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, and the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2012), p61 [1761]; Haiti: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, Interuniversity Institute for Research and Development, and Comité de Coordination, Violence against Children

in Haiti: Findings from a National Survey, 2012. (Port-au-Prince, Haiti: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014), p77

[1762]; Laos: National Commission for Mothers and Children, Lao Statistics Bureau and UNICEF Lao PDR, National Violence

against Children Survey in Lao PDR. Preliminary Report. (Lao PDR: National Commission for Mothers and Children, 2016), p69

[1763]; Uganda: Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, Uganda Violence Against Children Survey – Findings from

a National Survey 2015. (Kampala: Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, 2015), p22 [1324]; Zambia: Ministry of

Youth, Sport and Child Development, Ministry of Community Development and Social Services, University of Zambia, United

Nations Children’s Fund, Save the Children International, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Violence

against Children in Zambia: Findings from a national survey, 2014. (Lusaka: Ministry of Youth, Sport and Child Development,

2018), p25 [1764]; Cambodia: Ministry of Women’s Affairs, UNICEF Cambodia, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

Findings from Cambodia’s Violence Against Children Survey 2013. (Cambodia: Ministry of Women’s Affairs, 2014), p89 [1765];

Malawi: Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare of the Republic of Malawi, United Nations Children’s Fund,

The Center for Social Research at the University of Malawi, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Violence

against Children and Young Women in Malawi: Findings from a National Survey, 2013. (Liliongwe, Malawi: Government of

Malawi, 2014), p78 [1766]; Nigeria: National Population Commission of Nigeria, UNICEF Nigeria, and the US Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, Violence Against Children in Nigeria: Findings from a National Survey, 2014. (Abuja, Nigeria: UNICEF,

2016), p32 [1767]; Eswatini, Swaziland: UNICEF Swaziland, A National Study on Violence Against Children and Young Women in

Swaziland. (Eswatini: UNICEF, 2007), p20 [1768]

28 Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics, “Reasons for not reporting incidents

of crime to the police, year ending March 2017,” (Excel spreadsheet from CSEW, 2017); accessed

March 20, 2019, https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/

adhocs/007750reasonsfornotreportingcrimetothepolice2016to2017crimesurveyforenglandandwales/

reasonsfornotreportingtothepolice201617csew.xls [1687]

29 Action Aid, “Women say reporting sexual harassment is ‘pointless’,” March 8, 2018; accessed March 20, 2019, https://www.

actionaid.org.uk/latest-news/women-say-reporting-sexual-harassment-is-pointless

30 FBI, “2017 Crime in the United States – Clearances,” accessed November 12, 2018, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-

in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances

31 Matar en México, “Esclarecer un Homicidio en México es una excepcíon y no la regla: tomaría 124 años resolver los casos

impunes,” accessed March 20, 2019, https://www.animalpolitico.com/muertos-mexico-homicidios-impunidad/homicidios-

impunes-mexico.php

32 Only 10 percent of sexual assaults are recorded. Studies demonstrate conviction rates of below 10 percent for rape in the

following countries: UK (https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/vawg-2017-2018-tables.xlsx); South

Africa (https://africacheck.org/factsheets/south-africas-crime-statistics-201617/); Australia (Karen Gelb, “The attrition of sexual

assaults through the criminal justice system, Australia, 2005 7,” accessed November 12, 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/

figure/The-attrition-of-sexual-assaults-through-the-criminal-justice-system-Australia-2005-7_fig2_252406192).

33 World Justice Project, “Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World”

(Task Force on Justice, background paper, April 2019).

34 World Justice Project, “Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World”

(Task Force on Justice, background paper, April 2019).

35 HiiL, Understanding Justice Needs - The Elephant in the Courtroom. (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1562]

36 HiiL, Understanding Justice Needs - The Elephant in the Courtroom. (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1562]

37 Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, Prevention, Triage and Referral Working Group - Final

Report: Responding Early, Responding Well: Access to Justice through the Early Resolution Services Sector. (Ottawa: Action

Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2013). [1313]

38 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project Final Report - Overarching Themes. (Canberra: Law Council of Australia, 2018).

[1496]

39 Gillian Hadfield, Rules for a Flat World. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016).

120

40 Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor and United Nations Development Programme, Making the Law Work

for Everyone - Volume 1: Report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor. (New York: Commission on Legal

Empowerment of the Poor and United Nations Development Programme, 2008). [66]

41 United Nations Children’s Fund, Every Child’s Birth Right: Inequities and trends in birth registration. (New York: UNICEF, 2013).

[127]

42 David E Phillips, Carla AbouZahr, Alan D Lopez, Lene Mikkelsen, Don de Savigny, Rafael Lozano, John Wilmoth and Philip

W Setel, “Are well functioning civil registration and vital statistics systems associated with better health outcomes?”, The

Lancet,Vol. 386,No. 10001,pp1386–1394; accessed December 12, 2018, http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-

6736(15)60172-6.pdf [77]

43 Vyjayanti T Desai, “The global identification challenge: Who are the 1 billion people without proof of identity?” Voices

Perspective on Development, April 25, 2018; accessed March 20, 2019, https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/global-identification-

challenge-who-are-1-billion-people-without-proof-identity

44 Vyjayanti T Desai, Matthias Witt, Kamya Chandra, and Jonathan Marskell “Counting the uncounted: 1.1 billion people without

IDs,” World Bank, June 6, 2017; accessed March 20, 2019, http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/counting-invisible-11-billion-people-

without-proof-legal-id

45 The World Bank, “Why Secure Land Rights Matter,” March 24, 2017; accessed December 20, 2018, http://www.worldbank.org/

en/news/feature/2017/03/24/why-secure-land-rights-matter

46 High-level Group on Justice for Women, Justice for Women - High-level Group Report. (New York: UN Women, IDLO, World

Bank and Task Force on Justice, 2019).[1814]; The World Bank, “Why Secure Land Rights Matter,” March 24, 2017; accessed

December 20, 2018, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/03/24/why-secure-land-rights-matter

47 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018

Revision,” custom data acquired via website, March 20, 2019; and Yongyang Cai, Harris Selod, and Jevgenijs Steinbuks,

Urbanization and property rights (English). Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 7486. (Washington DC: World Bank Group,

2015); accessed March 20, 2019, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/827371467999377785/Urbanization-and-property-

rights

48 International Labour Office, Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture. (Geneva: ILO, 2018). [1483]

49 International Labour Office, Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture. (Geneva: ILO, 2018). [1483]

50 Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2018), chapter 2. [1230]

51 Juan Antonio Le Clercq Ortega and Gerardo Rodriguez Sanchez Lara, Global Impunity Dimensions - GII-2017 Global Impunity

Index. (Puebla: Fundación Universidad de las Américas, 2017). [1660]

52 See: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “Convention on the rights of the child,” accessed April 7,

2019, https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

53 See: World Health Organization, “Universal health coverage,” accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-

sheets/detail/universal-health-coverage-(uhc)

54 United Nations General Assembly, “Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the

National and International Levels,” UN Doc: A/RES/67/1, 2012. [766]

55 United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington DC:

World Bank, 2018), p20. [1255]

56 See World Bank, “Data – Tunisia,” accessed March 27, 2019, https://data.worldbank.org/country/tunisia

57 UNDP, Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. (New York: United

Nations Development Programme, 2010). [1802]; United Nations, “‘There Is a Straight Line from the Human Development

Report to the Millennium Development Goals,’ Says Secretary-General at Launch of 2010 Report,” November 4, 2010; accessed

April 7, 2019, https://www.un.org/press/en/2010/sgsm13229.doc.htm

58 HiiL, “HiiL Launches Justice Data Report on Tunisia,” May 11, 2017; accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.hiil.org/news/hiil-

launches-justice-data-report-on-tunisia/

59 Peter Beaumont, “Mohammed Bouazizi: the dutiful son whose death changed Tunisia’s fate,” The Guardian, January 20, 2011;

accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/20/tunisian-fruit-seller-mohammed-bouazizi

60 OECD, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice,” OECD White Paper Preliminary draft, 2018. [1501]

61 OECD, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice,” OECD White Paper Preliminary draft, 2018. [1501]

62 OECD, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice,” OECD White Paper Preliminary draft, 2018. [1501]

63 Trevor C W Farrow, Ab Currie, Nicole Aylwin, Les Jacobs, David Northrup and Lisa Moore, Everyday Legal Problems and the

Cost of Justice in Canada: Overview report. (Toronto: Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, 2016). [506]

64 OECD, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice,” OECD White Paper Preliminary draft, 2018. [1501]

65 World Health Organization, Global Status Report On Violence Prevention 2014. (Geneva: WHO, 2014). [55]

66 Susan Hillis, James Mercy, Adaugo Amobi, and Howard Kress, “Global Prevalence of Past year Violence Against Children: A

Systematic Review and Minimum Estimates,” Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20154079. [102]

67 Know Violence in Childhood, Ending Violence in Childhood. Global Report 2017. (New Delhi: Know Violence in Childhood,

2017). [1352]

68 World Health Organization, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and South African Medical Research Council,

Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and

nonpartner sexual violence. (Geneva: WHO, 2013). [105]

121

69 Seema Vyas, Estimating the Association between Women’s Earnings and Partner Violence: Evidence from the 2008–2009

Tanzania National Panel Survey (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2013).

70 Klaus Deininger and Raffaella Castagnini, “Incidence and impact of land conflict in Uganda,” World Bank Policy Research

Working Paper 3248, March 2004; accessed December 21, 2018, http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01066/WEB/

IMAGES/109509-2.PDF [1564]

71 HiiL, Justice Needs and Satisfaction in Nigeria 2018: Legal problems in daily life. (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1481]

72 Citizens Advice, A Debt Effect? How is unmanageable debt related to other problems in people’s lives? (London: Citizens

Advice, 2016). [1563]

73 Lester Coleman and Fiona Glenn, When couples part: Understanding the consequences for adults and children. (London: One

Plus One, undated). [1330]; Center on International Cooperation, “Challenge paper: Justice as Prevention,” (Background paper

for the Task Force on Justice, Discussion Draft, December 14, 2018).

74 Trevor C W Farrow, Ab Currie, Nicole Aylwin, Les Jacobs, David Northrup and Lisa Moore, Everyday Legal Problems and the Cost

of Justice in Canada: Overview report. (Toronto: Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, 2016), p18. [506]

75 HiiL, Justice Needs and Satisfaction in Nigeria 2018: Legal problems in daily life. (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1481]

76 United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington DC:

World Bank, 2018), p168. [1255]

77 United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington DC:

World Bank, 2018). [1255]

78 World Bank, World Development Report 2011 - Conflict, Security and Development. (Washington DC: World Bank, 2011), pp82-

83. [58]

79 Paul Collier, “The Market for Civil War,” Foreign Policy, November 2, 2009; accessed March 27, 2019, https://foreignpolicy.

com/2009/11/02/the-market-for-civil-war/

80 High-Level Group on Justice for Women, “Justice for Women – High Level Group Report,” (High-Level Group on Justice for

Women, 2019).

81 Paulo R. A. Loureiro and Emilson Caputo Delfino Silva, “Does Violence Deter Investment and Hinder Economic Growth?”

Brazilian Review of Econometrics, v. 30, no 1, pp53–67 May 2010; accessed December 31, 2018, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/

fd24/efb5b26e198e389db548c7dc6186f208332e.pdf [1605]

82 CEIC, “Tunisia Real GDP Growth,” accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/tunisia/real-gdp-growth

83 Institute for Economics & Peace, Mexico Peace Index 2018 - Mapping the Evolution of Peace and its Drivers. (Sydney: Institute

for Economics & Peace, 2018). [1795]

84 Institute for Economics & Peace, Global Peace Index 2018 - Measuring Peace in a Complex World. (Sydney: Institute for

Economics and Peace, 2018). [1607]

85 High-Level Group on Justice for Women, “Justice for Women – High Level Group Report,” (High-Level Group on Justice for

Women, 2018, in draft)

86 Vanya Slavchevska et al. “Beyond Ownership: Tracking Progress on Women’s Land Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa” (FAO Working

Paper No. 15. Rome, 2016); accessed March 27, 2019, http://gsars.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WP-14.12.2016-Beyond-

Ownership.pdf; Annamaria Milazzo and Markus Goldstein, “Governance and Women’s Economic and Political Participation:

Power Inequalities, Formal Constraints and Norms,” (Background paper for the 2017 World Development Report on

Governance and the Law, June 13, 2017). [1794]

87 Q Wodon, C Male, A Nayihouba, A Onagoruwa, A Savadogo, A Yedan, J Edmeades, A Kes, N John, L Murithi, M Steinhaus, and

S Petroni, Economic Impacts of Child Marriage: Global Synthesis Brief. (Washington DC: The World Bank and International

Center for Research on Women, 2017). [1787]

88 L Sherr, I S Hensels, S Skeen, M Tomlinson, K J Roberts and A Macedo, “Exposure to violence predicts poor educational

outcomes in young children in South Africa and Malawi,” Int Health 2016; 8: 36–43, doi:10.1093/inthealth/ihv070, Advance

Access, publication December 17, 2015; accessed December 31, 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4716801/

pdf/ihv070.pdf [1604]; and Lester Coleman and Fiona Glenn, When couples part: Understanding the consequences for adults

and children. (London: One Plus One, undated). [1330]; Q Wodon, C Male, A Nayihouba, A Onagoruwa, A Savadogo, A Yedan, J

Edmeades, A Kes, N John, L Murithi, M Steinhaus, and S Petroni, Economic Impacts of Child Marriage: Global Synthesis Brief.

(Washington DC: The World Bank and International Center for Research on Women, 2017). [1787]

89 Sasha Reed, Stephen Roe, James Grimshaw and Rhys Oliver, The economic and social costs of modern slavery. Research

Report 100 (London: The Home Office, 2018). [1771]

90 Trevor C W Farrow, Ab Currie, Nicole Aylwin, Les Jacobs, David Northrup and Lisa Moore, Everyday Legal Problems and the Cost

of Justice in Canada: Overview report. (Toronto: Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, 2016). [506]

91 OECD and World Justice Project, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice - An OECD White Paper in collaboration with

the World Justice Project: Preliminary draft,” 2018. [1755]

92 OECD and World Justice Project, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice - An OECD White Paper in collaboration with

the World Justice Project: Preliminary draft,” 2018. [1755]

93 Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor and United Nations Development Programme, Making the Law Work

for Everyone - Volume 1: Report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor. (New York: Commission on Legal

Empowerment of the Poor and United Nations Development Programme, 2008).[66]

94 Anne L. Buffardi and Kwan Men Yon, Realising the right to legal identity - A case study as part of an evaluation of the Australia

Indonesia Partnership for Justice. (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2016). [1769]; World Bank Group, The State of

Identification Systems in Africa - A Synthesis of Country Assessments. (Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development / The World Bank, 2017). [1770]

122

95 International Labour Organization, “More than 60 per cent of the world’s employed population are in the informal economy,”

April 30, 2018; accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_627189/lang--en/

index.htm

96 See: The World Bank, “Doing Business – Enforcing Contracts: Why it Matters,” accessed December 31, 2018, http://www.

doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/enforcing-contracts/why-matters

97 United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington DC:

World Bank, 2018), p2. [1255]

98 United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington DC:

World Bank, 2018). [1255]

99 United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington DC:

World Bank, 2018). [1255]

100 United Nations and State of Guatemala, Agreement between the United Nations and State of Guatemala on the

establishment of an International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG); accessed October 29, 2018, http://www.

cicig.org/uploads/documents/mandato/cicig_acuerdo_en.pdf [1252]

101 Kelly-Ann Tsai, “The business case for addressing modern slavery in supply chains,” Transparency-One, October 18, 2019;

accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.transparency-one.com/business-case-addressing-modern-slavery/

102 Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, The EITI Standard 2016. (Oslo: The EITI International Secretariat, 2016).

103 Ethical Trading Initiative and Ergon Associates, Managing Risks Associated with Modern Slavery - A Good Practice Note for the

Private Sector, (London: Ethical Trading Initiative and Ergon Associates, undated). [1813]

104 Anthony Petrosino, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, Meghan E. Hollis-Peel, and Julia G. Lavenberg, “Scared Straight and Other

Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews

2013:5, DOI: 10.4073/csr.2013.5. [1774]

105 Thailand Institute of Justice and Penal Reform International, Global Prison Trends 2018 – Special Focus Pull-Out section:

the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders in the era of sustainable development. (London/Bangkok: Penal Reform

International/Thailand Institute of Justice, 2018); accessed March 27, 2019, https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/

uploads/2018/04/PRI_Global-Prison-Trends-2018_EN_WEB.pdf

106 David Roodman, “The impacts of incarceration on crime,” September 2017; accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.

openphilanthropy.org/files/Focus_Areas/Criminal_Justice_Reform/The_impacts_of_incarceration_on_crime_10.pdf

107 UNICEF, Progress for Children - A Report Card on Child Protection, Number 8, September 2009. (New York: United Nations

Children’s Fund, 2009). [1601]

108 Centre for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, Protecting Children Against Torture in Detention: Global Solutions for a Global

Problem. (Washington DC: Washington College of Law, American University, 2017). [1788]

109 Alejandro Izquierdo, Carola Pessino, and Guillermo Vuletin (eds), Better Spending for Better Lives - How Latin America and the

Caribbean Can Do More with Less. (Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2018). [1775]

110 Alejandro Izquierdo, Carola Pessino, and Guillermo Vuletin (eds), Better Spending for Better Lives - How Latin America and the

Caribbean Can Do More with Less. (Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2018), p217. [1775]

111 Dr. James Austin and Lauren-Brooke Eisen with James Cullen and Jonathan Frank, How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily

Incarcerated? (New York: Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law, 2016). [1602]

112 OECD and World Justice Project, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice - An OECD White Paper in collaboration with

the World Justice Project: Preliminary draft,” 2018. [1755]

113 Aubrey Fox and Robert V. Wolf, The Future of Drug Courts - How States are Mainstreaming the Drug Court Model. (New York:

Centre for Court Innovation, 2004). [1796]; see, NYCourts.gov, “Drug Treatment Courts,” accessed January 28, 2019, http://www.

nycourts.gov/courts/problem_solving/drugcourts/index.shtml

114 Heather Strang, Lawrence W Sherman, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel Woods, and Barak Ariel, “Restorative Justice Conferencing

(RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A

Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:12, DOI: 10.4073/csr.2013.12. [1356]

115 Lawrence W Sherman, The Rise of Evidence-Based Policing: Targeting, Testing, and Tracking. (Chicago IL: University of Chicago,

2013); accessed October 29, 2018, https://cebcp.org/wp-content/evidence-based-policing/Sherman-TripleT.pdf, p7. [1274]; Rob

Allen and Vivien Stern (eds), Justice Reinvestment – A New Approach to Crime and Justice. (London: International Centre for

Prison Studies, 2007). [1780]

116 Stephen Golub, “Grassroots Justice: The Roles and Impacts of Paralegals,” forthcoming

117 A Lawrence, J Nugent and C Scarfone , The Effectiveness of Using Mediation in Selected Civil Law Disputes: A Meta-Analysis.

(Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2007). [1579]

118 Shanawez Hossain and Nabila Zaman,

Cost-Benefit Study on Implementingm [sic] Village Courts in Union Parishads of

Bangladesh. (Copenhagen: Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2016). [644]

119 Citizens Advice, How we make a difference: Our impact in 2017/18. (London: Citizens Advice, 2018). [1460]

120 Trevor C W Farrow, Ab Currie, Nicole Aylwin, Les Jacobs, David Northrup, and Lisa Moore, Everyday Legal Problems and the

Cost of Justice in Canada: Overview report. (Toronto: Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, 2016). [506]

121 Stout Risius Ross Inc, “The Financial Cost and Benefits of Establishing a Right to Counsel in Eviction Proceedings Under Intro

214-A,” (Paper Presented for: Pro Bono and Legal Services Committee of the New York City Bar Association, March 16, 2016).

[1502]

122 J Stubbs and Associates, “Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Community Legal Centres,” (paper prepared by the National

Association of Community Legal Centres Inc, 2012).

123

123 Carla AbouZahr, Don de Savigny, Lene Mikkelsen, Philip W Setel, Rafael Lozano, Erin Nichols, Francis Notzon and Alan D Lopez,

“Civil registration and vital statistics: progress in the data revolution for counting and accountability,” The Lancet,Vol. 386,No.

10001, pp1373–1385; accessed March 27, 2019, http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60173-8.pdf

124 ID4D, “Identification for Development - Strategic Framework,” 2016; accessed April 7, 2019, http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/

en/21571460567481655/April-2016-ID4D-Strategic-RoadmapID4D.pdf [516]

125 David E Phillips, Carla AbouZahr, Alan D Lopez, Lene Mikkelsen, Don de Savigny, Rafael Lozano, John Wilmoth and Philip

W Setel, “Are well functioning civil registration and vital statistics systems associated with better health outcomes?” The

Lancet,Vol. 386,No. 10001,pp1386–139. [77]

126 World Bank Group and WHO, “Global Civil Registration and Vital Statistics - Scaling up Investment Plan 2015-2024,” accessed

March 27, 2019, http://www.who.int/healthinfo/civil_registration/WB-WHO_ScalingUp_InvestmentPlan_2015_2024.pdf?ua=1

127 Alan Gelb and Julia Clark, “Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution,” Working Paper 315, January 2015

(Washington DC: Center for Global Development, 2015) accessed March 27, 2019, http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/

files/1426862_file_Biometric_ID_for_Development.pdf; BBC, “Q&A: Identity cards,” BBC News Online, July 2, 2009; accessed

April 7, 2019, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3127696.stm

128 C R Williamson, “Praise for property,” Journal of Private Enterprise, 32(4), 83–94, 2017; D Acemoglu and S Johnson, “Unbundling

Institutions,” Journal of Political Economy, 113(5), 949– 995, 2005.

129 Linus Pott, “Securing land tenure with smartphones,” The World Bank, November 14, 2018; accessed March 27, 2019, https://

blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/securing-land-tenure-smartphones

130 Mika-Petteri Törhönen, Aanchal Anand and Gavin Adlington, “Economic Impact of 20 Years of ECA Land Registration Projects”

(Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, The World Bank - Washington

DC, March 24-27, 2014); accessed March 27, 2019, http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/448801496163447316/Economic-Impact-of-

20-Years-of-ECA-land-registration-projects-FINAL.pdf [1781]

131 High-Level Group on Justice for Women, “Justice for Women – High Level Group Report,” (High-Level Group on Justice for

Women, 2018, in draft).

132 John Rand and Nina Torm, “The Benefits of Formalization: Evidence from Vietnamese Manufacturing SMEs,” World

Development, Volume 40, Issue 5, May 2012, pp 983-998; accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/

article/pii/S0305750X11002269

133 Melanie Khamis, “Formalization of jobs and firms in emerging market economies through registration reform,” IZA World of

Labor 2014: 67 doi: 10.15185/izawol.67

134 Amolo Ng’weno and David Porteous, “Let’s Be Real: The Informal Sector and the Gig Economy are the Future, and

the Present, of Work in Africa,” Center for Global Development, October 15, 2018; accessed March 27, 2019, https://

www.cgdev.org/publication/lets-be-real-informal-sector-and-gig-economy-are-future-and-present-work-africa; Najy

Benhassine, David McKenzie, Victor Pouliquen and Massimiliano Santini, “Finding a Path to Formalization in Benin -

Early Results after the Introduction of the Entreprenant Legal Status,” Policy Research Working Paper 7510. (Washington

DC: World Bank, 2015); accessed March 27, 2019, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/23472/

Finding0a0path0prenant0legal0status.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y [1782]

135 Marcus Manuel, Clare Manuel and Harsh Desai, Universal access to basic justice: costing SDG 16.3. (London: Overseas

Development Institute, 2019). Paper prepared for the Task Force on Justice.

136 Marcus Manuel, Clare Manuel and Harsh Desai, Universal access to basic justice: costing SDG 16.3. (London: Overseas

Development Institute, 2019). Paper prepared for the Task Force on Justice.

137 Marcus Manuel, Clare Manuel and Harsh Desai, Universal access to basic justice: costing SDG 16.3. (London: Overseas

Development Institute, 2019). Paper prepared for the Task Force on Justice.

138 For further details see: Marcus Manuel, Clare Manuel and Harsh Desai, Universal access to basic justice: costing SDG 16.3.

(London: Overseas Development Institute, 2019), Annex C. Paper prepared for the Task Force on Justice.

139 UNODC/UNDP, Global Study on Legal Aid - Global Report. (New York/Vienna: UNDP/UNODC, 2016). [722]

140 Bernard Harborne, William Dorotinsky, and Paul M Bisca (eds), Securing Development: Public Finance and the Security Sector.

(Washington DC: World Bank, 2017). [1807]

141 Graham Farrell and Ken Clark, What does the world spend on criminal justice? (Helsinki: European Institute for Crime

Prevention and Control, affiliated with the UN, 2004). [1556]

142 Mark Shaw, Jan van Dijk and Wolfgang Rhomberg, “Determining Trends in Global Crime and Justice: An Overview of Results

From the United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems,” Forum on Crime and Society,

vol. 3, Nos. 1 and 2, December 2003. [1809]

143 Dean T Jamison et al, “Universal health coverage and intersectoral action for health: key messages from Disease Control

Priorities, 3rd edition,” Lancet. 2018 March 17; 391(10125): 1108–1120. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32906-9; accessed March 27, 2019,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996988/pdf/nihms972816.pdf [1783]

144 Alejandro Izquierdo, Carola Pessino, and Guillermo Vuletin (eds), Better Spending for Better Lives - How Latin America and the

Caribbean Can Do More with Less. (Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2018). [1775]

145 Calculated using data from: European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, “European judicial systems - Efficiency and

quality of justice,” CEPEJ Studies No. 26, 2018 Edition (2016 Data) (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2018). [1695]

146 United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia and the World Bank, Federal Republic of Somalia - Somalia Security and Justice

Sector Public Expenditure Review. (Washington DC: World Bank, 2017). [1808]

147 United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington DC:

World Bank, 2018), Box 6.4. [1255]

124

148 World Bank Group and WHO, Global Civil Registration and Vital Statistics - Scaling up Investment Plan 2015-2024.

(Washington DC: World Bank Group, 2014). [453]

149 Alan Gelb and Julia Clark, “Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution,” Working Paper 315, January 2015

(Washington DC: Center for Global Development, 2015) accessed March 27, 2019, http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/

files/1426862_file_Biometric_ID_for_Development.pdf

150 OECD and World Justice Project, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice - An OECD White Paper in collaboration with

the World Justice Project: Preliminary draft,” 2018. [1755]

151 Bernard Harborne, William Dorotinsky, and Paul M Bisca (eds), Securing Development: Public Finance and the Security Sector.

(Washington DC: World Bank, 2017). [1807]

152 Marcus Manuel and Clare Manuel, “Achieving equal access to justice for all by 2030: lessons from global funds,” Working Paper

537. (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2018); accessed December 21, 2018 https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/

resource-documents/12307.pdf [1225]

153 OECD, States of Fragility 2018. (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2018). [1173]

154 Abhilash Mudaliar, Rachel Bass, and Hannah Dithrich, 2018 Annual Impact Investor Survey. (New York: Global Impact Investing

Network, 2018). [1810]

155 High-Level Group on Justice for Women, “Justice for Women – High Level Group Report – Executive Summary,” (High-Level

Group on Justice for Women, 2018, in draft).

156 High-level Group on Justice for Women, Justice for Women - High-level Group Report. (New York: UN Women, IDLO, World

Bank and Task Force on Justice, 2019). [1814]

157 Susan Hillis, James Mercy, Adaugo Amobi, and Howard Kress, “Global Prevalence of Past year Violence Against Children: A

Systematic Review and Minimum Estimates,” Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20154079, accessed November 12, 2018, http://pediatrics.

aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/137/3/e20154079.full.pdf [102]

158 International Labour Office, Global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage. (Geneva: ILO and Walk

Free Foundation, 2017). [1477]

159 Centre for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, Protecting Children Against Torture in Detention: Global Solutions for a Global

Problem. (Washington DC: Washington College of Law, American University, 2017). [1788]

160 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project Final Report. (Sydney: The Law Council of Australia, 2018). [1236]

161 United Nations General Assembly, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination,

xenophobia and related intolerance, Mutuma Ruteere,” UN Doc. A/HRC/29/46 (April 20, 2015); accessed January 28, 2019,

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Racism/A-HRC-29-46.pdf [1663]

162 HiiL, Justice Needs and Satisfaction in Jordan 2017 - Legal problems in daily life. (The Hague: HiiL, 2017). [1486]

163 UNESCO, Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2013-2014 - Teaching and learning: achieving quality for all. (Paris: United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2014).

164 World Justice Project, “Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World”

(Task Force on Justice, background paper, April 2019).

165 National Statistical Office crime victimization survey data published on UNODC-INEGI’s Atlas of Victimization Surveys;

accessed by the World Justice Project January 2019, http://www.cdeunodc.inegi.org.mx/index.php/mapa/

166 Pascoe Pleasence and Nigel J Balmer, “Justice & the Capability to Function in Society,” Daedalus, 148 (1) Winter 2019. [1629]

167 Robert Muggah and Katherine Aguirre Tobón, “Reducing Latin America’s violent hot spots,” Aggression and Violent Behavior,

In press, corrected proof, available online October 5, 2018; accessed March 27, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.09.003

[1776]

168 Robert Muggah and Katherine Aguirre Tobón, “Reducing Latin America’s violent hot spots,” Aggression and Violent Behavior,

In press, corrected proof, available online October 5, 2018; accessed March 27, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.09.003

[1776]

169 Lawrence W Sherman, Patrick R Gartin, and Michael E Buerger, “Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the

Criminology of Place,” Criminology, Volume 27, Issue 1, February 1989, pp27-56; accessed March 27, 2019, https://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb00862.x

170 Alliance for Safety and Justice, Crime survivors speak: the first-ever national survey of victims’ views on safety and justice. (San

Francisco: Alliance for Safety and Justice, 2016). [1472]

171 Lawrence W Sherman, Heather Strang, Caroline Angel, Daniel Woods, Geoffrey C Barnes, Sarah Bennett, and Nova Inkpen,

“Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials,” Journal of Experimental

Criminology (2005) 1: 367–395. [1469]

172 Lawrence W Sherman, Heather Strang, Caroline Angel, Daniel Woods, Geoffrey C Barnes, Sarah Bennett, and Nova Inkpen,

“Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials,” Journal of Experimental

Criminology (2005) 1: 367–395. [1469]

173 Alliance for Safety and Justice, Crime survivors speak: the first-ever national survey of victims’ views on safety and justice. (San

Francisco: Alliance for Safety and Justice, 2016). [1472]

174 United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and

guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff, UN Doc: A/HRC/21/46 (August 9, 2012). [1805]

175 Simon Robins, “Towards Victim-Centred Transitional Justice: Understanding the Needs of Families of the Disappeared in

Postconflict Nepal,” The International Journal of Transitional Justice, Vol. 5, 2011, 75–98, doi:10.1093/ijtj/ijq027. [1804]

176 Impunity Watch, “Victim Participation and Transitional Justice in Cambodia: the case of the Extraordinary Chambers in the

Courts of Cambodia (ECCC),” accessed April 7, 2019, https://www.impunitywatch.org/docs/IW_Report_Victim_Participation_in_

Cambodia_(April_2016).pdf [1122]

125

177 HiiL, Understanding Justice Needs - The Elephant in the Courtroom. (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1562]

178 Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2018), chapter on Sierra Leone. [1230]

179 Lori Anne Shaw, “Divorce Mediation Outcome Research: A Meta-Analysis,” Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Summer

2010. [1358]

180 American Bar Association, Guide to Resolving Legal Disputes: Inside and Outside the Courtroom. (London: Random House

Reference, 2007), Chapter 5. [1812]

181 Keir Starmer, “Britain’s criminal justice system fails the vulnerable. We need a Victims’ Law,” The Guardian, February 3, 2014;

accessed April 7, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/britain-criminal-justice-system-victims-law-

public-prosecutions

182 Srimati Basu, “Judges of Normality: Mediating Marriage in the Family Courts of Kolkata, India,” Signs, Vol. 37, No. 2, Unfinished

Revolutions. A special issue edited by Phillip Rothwell (January 2012), pp469-492; accessed November 23, 2019, https://www.

jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661712 [1357]

183 ACPF and DCI, Achieving Child Friendly Justice in Africa. (Addis Ababa and Geneva: The African Child Policy Forum/Defence

for Children International Secretariat, 2002). [1811]

184 American Bar Association, Guide to Resolving Legal Disputes: Inside and Outside the Courtroom. (London: Random House

Reference, 2007), Chapter 5. [1812]

185 IDLO, Policy and Issue Brief - Navigating Complex Pathways to Justice: Engagement with Customary and Informal Justice

Systems. (Rome: International Law Development Organization, 2019). [1786]

186 See: Vivek Maru, “How to put the power of law in people’s hands,” TEDGlobal 2017; accessed December 12, 2018, https://www.

ted.com/talks/vivek_maru_how_to_put_the_power_of_law_in_people_s_hands?language=en

187 OECD and Open Society Foundations, Leveraging the SDGs for Inclusive Growth: Delivering Access to Justice for All. (Paris and

New York: OECD and Open Society Foundations, 2016). [1063]

188 The World Bank, Inclusion Matters - The Foundation for Shared Prosperity. (Washington DC: The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2013). [704]

189 The Law & Development Partnership, Developing a portfolio of financially sustainable, scalable basic legal service models -

Briefing paper. (London: The Law & Development Partnership, 2016). [168]

190 Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, Supported Decision-Making: Good Practice Guide. (Edinburgh: Mental Welfare

Commission for Scotland, 2016). [1459]

191 Justin Sandefur and Bilal Siddiqui, “Delivering Justice to the Poor: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Liberia,”

March 15, 2015; accessed December 12, 2018, https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/Event/DEC/ABCDE/

ABCDE-2015/191.%20Bilal%20Murtaza%20Siddiqi.pdf [1233]

192 HiiL, “Just Understandings: The Elephant in the Courtroom - draft report,” (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1237]

193 Rebecca L Sandefur and Thomas M Clarke, “Roles beyond Lawyers: Summary, Recommendations, and Research Report of an

Evaluation of the New York City Court Navigators Program and Its Three Pilot Projects,” December 8, 2016; accessed December

12, 2018, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2949038. [1453]; Justin Sandefur and Bilal Siddiqui, “Delivering Justice to the Poor: Theory

and Experimental Evidence from Liberia,” March 15, 2015; accessed December 12, 2018, https://www.worldbank.org/content/

dam/Worldbank/Event/DEC/ABCDE/ABCDE-2015/191.%20Bilal%20Murtaza%20Siddiqi.pdf [1233]

194 Anna Wilczynski, Maria Karras, and Suzie Forell, “The outcomes of community legal education: a systematic review,” Justice

Issues Paper 18. Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, December 2014; accessed December 12, 2018, http://www.

lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/site/articleIDs/18C587ECBD959D50CA257A91001F76F0/$file/JI18_Outcomes_of_CLE_FINAL_web.pdf

[1461]

195 Rebecca L Sandefur and Thomas M Clarke, “Roles beyond Lawyers: Summary, Recommendations, and Research Report of an

Evaluation of the New York City Court Navigators Program and Its Three Pilot Projects,” December 8, 2016; accessed December

12, 2018, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2949038 [1453]

196 Stephanie A Duriez, Carrie Sullivan, Christopher J Sullivan, Sarah M Manchak, and Edward J Latessa, Mentoring Best Practices

Research: Effectiveness of Juvenile Mentoring Programs on Recidivism. (Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2017). [1462]

197 Laura Goodwin and Vivek Maru, What do we know about legal empowerment? Mapping the Evidence. (Washington DC:

Namati, 2014), p26 [139]; and see: CADHAC, “Qué hacemos,” accessed April 7, 2019, http://cadhac.org/que-hacemos/

198 UNODC/UNDP, Global Study on Legal Aid - Global Report. (New York/Vienna: UNDP/UNODC, 2016). [722]

199 USAID and United Nations Peacekeeping, Assessment of Legal Aid in Haiti: Lessons Learned. (Washington DC: USAID, 2017).

[1464]

200 World Bank Group, Women, Business and the Law 2018. (Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development/The World Bank, 2018), p18. [1316]

201 Gillian Hadfield, Rules for a Flat World. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016).

202 High-level Group on Justice for Women, Justice for Women - High-level Group Report. (New York: UN Women, IDLO, World

Bank and Task Force on Justice, 2019), p60 [1814]

203 Richard Zorza, “Some First Key Thoughts on Court Simplification: the key to civil access and justice transformation,” Drake

Law Review, Vol 61, 2013, pp 845-881; accessed December 12, 2018, https://www.srln.org/system/files/attachments/Zorza%20

Simplification%202013.pdf [1466]

204 Olivia Rope and Frances Sheahan, Global Prison Trends 2018. (London: Penal Reform International/Thailand Institute of Justice,

2018). [1433]

126

205 Martha Mutisi, “Local conflict resolution in Rwanda: The case of abunzi mediators,” in Martha Mutisi et al eds., Integrating

Traditional and Modern Conflict Resolution: Experiences from selected cases in Eastern and the Horn of Africa. (Durban:

Accord, 2012).

206 Lorig Charkoudian, Deborah Thompson Eisenberg, and Jamie Walter, “What Difference Does ADR Make? Comparison of

ADR and Trial Outcomes in Small Claims Court,” Conflict Resolution Quarterly. Vol 5, Issue 1. Fall 2017: 7-45 [1467]; Scottish

Civil Justice Council, Access to justice literature review: Alternative dispute resolution in Scotland and other jurisdictions.

(Edinburgh: Scottish Civil Justice Council, 2014). [468]; J Shapland, G Robinson and A Sorsby, Restorative Justice in Practice:

Evaluating What Works for Victims and Offenders. (London and New York: Routledge, 2011); Lawrence W Sherman, Heather

Strang, Caroline Angel, Daniel Woods, Geoffrey C Barnes, Sarah Bennett, and Nova Inkpen, “Effects of face-to-face restorative

justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials,” Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1:367-395, 2005;

accessed December 12, 2018, https://link-springer-com.proxy.library.nyu.edu/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11292-005-8126-y.pdf

[1469]

207 Heather Strang, Lawrence W Sherman, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel Woods, and Barak Ariel, “Restorative Justice Conferencing

(RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A

Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:12. [1356]

208 Mark VA Howard and Kristy A Martire, “Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment: An overview of the MERIT program as at June

2011,” Crime Prevention Issues (Parramatta: NSW Government Crime Prevention Division, 2012). [1448]

209 Duane Wolf, “5 tips from Force Science on de-escalation tactics,” Policeone.com. November 8, 2017; accessed December 4,

2018, https://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/457122006-5-tips-from-Force-Science-on-de-escalation-tactics/; See

also Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Study Tour Report: Visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on violence

against women. (Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012). [1470]; Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang,

Restorative Justice: The Evidence. (London: The Smith Institute, 2007). [1471]

210 Mark VA Howard and Kristy A Martire, “Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment: An overview of the MERIT program as at June

2011,” Crime Prevention Issues (Parramatta: NSW Government Crime Prevention Division, 2012). [1448]

211 Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, “The Argentinians who Bring Justice to the People who Need it Most,”

March 1, 2019; accessed April 7, 2019, https://medium.com/sdg16plus/the-argentinians-who-bring-justice-to-the-people-who-

need-it-most-efee671c0043

212 HiiL, “Just Understandings: The Elephant in the Courtroom - draft report,” (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1237]

213 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Global study on legal aid. Global Report. (Vienna: UNODC, 2016), p25.

[722]

214 Tom R Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990).

215 HiiL, “Just Understandings: The Elephant in the Courtroom - draft report,” (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1237]

216 Katherine Vaughan, Imogen Parker and Laura Bunt, Responsive Justice: How citizens experience the justice system. (London:

Citizens Advice, 2015). [1437]

217 United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” accessed December 12, 2018, http://www.un.org/en/universal-

declaration-human-rights/

218 Amnesty International, 10 Basic Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement Officials. (London: Amnesty International,

1998); accessed December 12, 2018, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol300041998en.pdf

219 Alliance for Safety and Justice, Crime survivors speak: the first-ever national survey of victims’ views on safety and justice. (San

Francisco: Alliance for Safety and Justice, 2016). [1472]

220 Heather Strang, Lawrence W Sherman, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel Woods, and Barak Ariel, “Restorative Justice Conferencing

(RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A

Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:12, DOI: 10.4073/csr.2013.12. [1356]; Mark VA Howard and Kristy A

Martire, “Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment: An overview of the MERIT program as at June 2011,” Crime Prevention Issues

(Parramatta: NSW Government Crime Prevention Division, 2012). [1448]; Nancy Kerry and Susan Pennell, San Diego Homeless

Court Program: a process and impact evaluation. (San Diego: San Diego Association of Governments, 2001). [1473]

221 HiiL, Understanding Justice Needs - The Elephant in the Courtroom. (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1562]

222 Alliance for Safety and Justice, Crime survivors speak: the first-ever national survey of victims’ views on safety and justice. (San

Francisco: Alliance for Safety and Justice, 2016). [1472]

223 Rebecca L Sandefur and Thomas M Clarke, “Roles beyond Lawyers: Summary, Recommendations, and Research Report of an

Evaluation of the New York City Court Navigators Program and Its Three Pilot Projects,” December 8, 2016; accessed December

12, 2018, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2949038 [1453]; Justin Sandefur and Bilal Siddiqui, “Delivering Justice to the Poor: Theory

and Experimental Evidence from Liberia,” March 15, 2015; accessed December 12, 2018, https://www.worldbank.org/content/

dam/Worldbank/Event/DEC/ABCDE/ABCDE-2015/191.%20Bilal%20Murtaza%20Siddiqi.pdf [1233]

224 Jay Wiggan and Colin Talbot, The Benefits of Welfare Rights Advice: A Review of the Literature. (Manchester: National

Association of Welfare Rights Advisors, 2006), pp6-7. [1474]; See: Citizens Advice website: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/;

Citizens Advice, How we make a difference: Our impact in 2017/18. (London: Citizens Advice, 2018).[1460]

225 Stuart Rabner, “Bail Reform in New Jersey,” in Deborah W Smith, Charles F Campbell and Blake P Kavanagh (eds), 2017 Trends

in State Courts - Fines, Fees and Bail Practices: Challenges and Opportunities. (Williamsburg VA: National Center for State

Courts, 2017). [1475]

226 See: International Consortium for Court Excellence, “The International Framework for Court Excellence,” accessed December 12,

2018, http://www.courtexcellence.com/

227 United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (New York: United Nations, 2015). [1]

228 Preamble to the Constitution of WHO as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June - 22 July 1946;

signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (World Health Organization, “Official Records of the World Health

127

Organization No. 2,” accessed March 27, 2019, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85573/Official_record2_eng.

pdf?sequence=1, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. The definition has not been amended since 1948.

229 United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington DC:

World Bank, 2018). [1255]

230 Center on International Cooperation, “Challenge paper: Justice as Prevention,” (Background paper for the Task Force on

Justice, Discussion Draft, December 14, 2018).

231 Thomas D Barton, “Preventive Law for Three-Dimensional Lawyers,” 19 Preventive L. Rep. 29 (2001). [1223]

232 Thomas D Barton, “Preventive Law for Three-Dimensional Lawyers,” 19 Preventive L. Rep. 29 (2001). [1223]; Thomas D Barton,

Preventive Law and Problem Solving: Lawyering for the Future, 2009, p361. [1245]; Melissa Lorenzo-Hervé, “Innovative

Alternative Dispute Prevention and Early Resolution Techniques (Practical Law Company),” International Institute for Conflict

Prevention & Resolution; accessed October 29, 2018, https://www.cpradr.org/news-publications/articles/2012-01-17-innovative-

alternative-dispute-prevention-and-early-resolution-techniques-practical-law-company [1295]

233 Clause Inc, “LegalZoom to Offer Smart Legal Contracts With Clause,” PRNewswire, September 17, 2018; accessed November 23,

2018, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/legalzoom-to-offer-smart-legal-contracts-with-clause-300713717.html

234 HiiL, “Just Understandings – the Elephant in the Courtroom” (paper presented at Task Force on Justice Innovation Working

Group meeting, Ottawa, October 31, 2018), p56. [1237]

235 Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2018). South Africa chapter. [1230]

236 Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2018). South Africa chapter. [1230]

237 Andrew Hutchison, “How contracts drawn up as comic strips are being put to use in South Africa,” The Conversation, August

8, 2018; accessed November 23, 2018, https://theconversation.com/how-contracts-drawn-up-as-comic-strips-are-being-put-to-

use-in-south-africa-100835

238 For more information, see: http://sautiafrica.org/

239 See, for example: HiiL, Understanding Justice Needs - The Elephant in the Courtroom. (The Hague: HiiL, 2018). [1562];

Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, Prevention, Triage and Referral Working Group - Final

Report: Responding Early, Responding Well: Access to Justice through the Early Resolution Services Sector. (Ottawa: Action

Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2013). [1313]; Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project Final

Report. (Sydney: Law Council of Australia, 2018). [1236]

240 Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, “Bargaining in the Shadows of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress,” The

Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2006, President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology. [1315]

241 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project Final Report. (Sydney: Law Council of Australia, 2018). [1236]

242 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project Final Report. (Sydney: Law Council of Australia, 2018). [1236]

243 Ministry of Justice, Justice Impact Test – Guidance. (London: Ministry of Justice, 2018). [1608]

244 Ministry of Justice, Justice Impact Test – Guidance. (London: Ministry of Justice, 2018). [1608]

245 Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2018), Sierra Leone chapter. [1230]

246 Vivek Maru, “Only the Law Can Restrain Trump,” Foreign Policy, March 9, 2017; accessed April 7, 2019, https://foreignpolicy.

com/2017/03/09/only-the-law-can-restrain-trump-legal-aid-barefoot-lawyers/ [1029]

247 See: Matthew Burnett and Tom Walker, “How Small Data Can Improve Access to Justice for the Poor,” May 2, 2018; accessed

April 7, 2019, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/how-small-data-can-improve-access-justice-poor; and Maaike de

Langen, “Strategies to Increase Justice: The Goldmine of Individual Cases,” June 7, 2018; accessed April 7, 2019, https://medium.

com/sdg16plus/strategies-to-increase-justice-the-goldmine-of-individual-cases-756e0e8a8d1c

248 See: Citizens Advice Bureau, “Our campaigns,” accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/our-

campaigns/

249 Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, Prevention, Triage and Referral Working Group - Final

Report: Responding Early, Responding Well: Access to Justice through the Early Resolution Services Sector. (Ottawa: Action

Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2013). [1313]

250 William Blackstone, “Book the Fourth - Chapter the Eighteenth: Of the Means of Preventing Offences” in Commentaries on

the Laws of England. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-1769); accessed October 29, 2018, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/

blackstone_bk4ch18.asp

251 Daniel Nagin, “Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century,” Crime and Justice, Vol. 42, No. 1, Crime and Justice in America 1975–

2025 (August 2013), pp199-263; accessed October 27, 2018, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670398 p.206. [1263]

252 Daniel Nagin, “Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century,” Crime and Justice, Vol. 42, No. 1, Crime and Justice in America 1975–

2025 (August 2013), pp199-263; accessed October 27, 2018, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670398 p206. [1263]

253 Gaëlle Rivard Piché, “La Mano Dura: Lessons from El Salvador’s Security Sector Reform,” Political Violence at a Glance, May

31, 2016; accessed October 29, 2018, http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2016/05/31/la-mano-dura-lessons-from-el-salvadors-

security-sector-reform/ [1267]

254 David Weisburd, David P Farrington Charlotte Gill (eds), What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation - lessons from

systematic reviews. (New York: Springer, 2016), chapter 1. [1248]

255 Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, “Problem-Oriented Policing,” accessed October 29, 2018, https://cebcp.org/evidence-

based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/problem-oriented-policing/

256 National Institute of Justice, Five Things about Deterrence. (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 2016). [1272]

128

257 Natalie Todak and Lois James, “A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics,” Police Quarterly, Vol 21,

Issue 4, 2018; accessed March 27, 2019, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1098611118784007?journalCode=pqxa

258 Simon Mackenzie and Alistair Henry, Community Policing: a Review of the Evidence. (Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social

Research, 2009). [1360]

259 National Network for Safe Communities, “Proven strategies for reducing violence and strengthening communities,” (New York:

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, undated). [1275]

260 “Nationwide EUAM programme results in 385 new Community Policing trainers,” Unian Information Agency, June 24, 2017;

accessed November 23, 2018, https://www.unian.info/society/1993999-nationwide-euam-programme-results-in-385-new-

community-policing-trainers.html

261 “Nationwide EUAM programme results in 385 new Community Policing trainers,” Unian Information Agency, June 24, 2017;

accessed November 23, 2018, https://www.unian.info/society/1993999-nationwide-euam-programme-results-in-385-new-

community-policing-trainers.html

262 Phil Bowen and Stephen Whitehead, Problem-solving courts: An evidence review. (London: Centre for Justice Innovation,

2015). [1784]

263 Heather Strang, Lawrence W Sherman, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel Woods, and Barak Ariel, “Restorative Justice Conferencing

(RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A

Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:12 DOI: 10.4073/csr.2013.12. [1356]

264 British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, Review of Interventions to Identify, Prevent, Reduce and Respond

to Domestic Violence. (London: NICE, 2013). [1289]

265 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, “Evidence-based early years intervention - Eleventh Report of

Session 2017–19,” accessed March 27, 2019, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/506/506.pdf

266 This is drawn from suggestions by the Technical Working Group on Justice for Children

267 WHO, CDC, End Violence Against Children, PAHO, PEPFAR, Together for Girls, UNICEF, UNODC, USAID, and World Bank,

INSPIRE - Seven Strategies for Ending Violence Against Children. (Geneva: WHO, 2016). [478]; Julian Santaella-Tenorio,

Magdalena Cerdá, Andrés Villaveces, and Sandro Galea, “What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm

Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?”, Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol. 38, 2016. [1280]

268 UN Women, A Framework to Underpin Action to Prevent Violence Against Women. (New York: UN Women, 2015). [385]

269 World Health Organization, Global Status Report On Violence Prevention 2014. (Geneva: WHO, 2014), see discussion on p47.

[55]

270 World Health Organization, Global Status Report On Violence Prevention 2014. (Geneva: WHO, 2014). [55]

271 Richard G Matzopoulos, Mary Lou Thompson, and Jonathan E Myers, “Firearm and Nonfirearm Homicide in 5 South African

Cities: A Retrospective Population-Based Study,” American Journal of Public Health, March 2014, Vol 104, No. 3. [1281]

272 WHO, CDC, End Violence Against Children, PAHO, PEPFAR, Together for Girls, UNICEF, UNODC, USAID, and World Bank,

INSPIRE - Seven Strategies for Ending Violence Against Children. (Geneva: WHO, 2016). [478]

273 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017 - Governance and the Law. (Washington DC: The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2017). [848]

274 United Nations; World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington, DC: World

Bank, 2018), p166. [1255]

275 United Nations; World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington, DC: World

Bank, 2018), p166. [1255]

276 Open Society Institute Sofia, Promoting Prosecutorial Accountability, Independence and Effectiveness - Comparative

Research. (Sofia: Open Society Institute Sofia, 2008). [1779]

277 United Nations and World Bank, (Re)Building Core Government Functions in Fragile and Conflict Affected Settings - Joint

Principles for Assessing Key Issues and Priorities. (New York and Washington DC: United Nations/World Bank, 2017). [1754]

278 Peter Albrecht, Olushegu Garber, Ade Gibson, and Sophy Thomas, Community Policing in Sierra Leone – Local Policing

Partnership Boards. (Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, 2014). [1363]

279 United Nations; World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington, DC: World

Bank, 2018), p167. [1255]

280 Lesley Connolly and Laura Powers (eds), Local Networks for Peace: Lessons from Community-Led Peacebuilding. (New York:

International Peace Institute, 2018). [1790]

281 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous

Peoples,” September 2013; accessed December 12, 2018, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ipeoples/

freepriorandinformedconsent.pdf [1510]

282 Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Progress Report 2018. (Oslo: EITI, 2018). [1259]

283 United Nations; World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. (Washington, DC: World

Bank, 2018), Box 54. [1255]; World Bank Institute, “Advocacy by the Office of the Ombudsman: Enabling Water Reforms Based

on Citizens’ Feedback in Peru,” Social Accountability Notes, January 2010; accessed October 29, 2018, http://siteresources.

worldbank.org/INTSOCACCDEMSIDEGOV/Resources/2871813-1200515311988/4577172-1271445400159/notes02_peru.pdf [1258]

284 World Bank, World Development Report 2011 - Conflict, Security and Development. (Washington DC: World Bank, 2011), p248.

[58]

129

285 World Bank, World Development Report 2011 - Conflict, Security and Development. (Washington DC: World Bank, 2011), p257.

[58]

286 United Nations, Promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence - Note by the Secretary-General. UN

Doc A/72/523 (2017). [1242]

287 World Bank, “International Development Association Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant in the amount of SDR

71.8 Million (US$ 100 Million equivalent) and a Proposed Grant from the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund in the amount

of US$ 400 Million to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for a Citizens’ Charter Afghanistan Project (P160567) (Report No:

PAD2019, October 6, 2016). [1693]

288 United Nations, “Promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence - Note by the Secretary-General:

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence,” UN Doc:

A/72/523, 2017. [1242]

289 Martin Luther King,

“

Nonviolence and Racial Justice,” The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project, February 6, 1957; accessed

March 27, 2019, http://okra.stanford.edu/transcription/document_images/Vol04Scans/118_6-Feb-1957_Nonviolence%20and%20

Racial%20Justice.pdf

290 Maria J Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, “Why Civil Resistance Works - The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict,” International

Security, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2008), pp7-44. [1789]

291 See: Civicus, “2018 State of Civil Society Report,” accessed April 7, 2019, https://www.civicus.org/index.php/state-of-civil-society-

report-2018

292 Office of the High Commissioner, United Nations Human Rights, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth,

justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff,” UN Doc: A/HRC/30/42 (September 7, 2015). [482]

293 United Nations Development Programme, Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for

Recruitment. (New York: UNDP, 2017). [1364]

294 Richard Carver and Lisa Handley, Does Torture Prevention Work? (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2016). [399]

295 Association for the Prevention of Torture, “Yes, Torture Prevention Works” - Insights from a global research study on 30 years of

torture prevention. (Geneva: Association for the Prevention of Torture, 2016), p21. [1671]

296 J van Zyl Smit, Judicial Independence in Latin America - The implications of tenure and appointment processes. (London:

Bingham Centre for The Rule of Law, 2016). [1337]

297 Hugh Corder and Jan van Zyl Smit (eds), Securing Judicial Independence: The Role of Commissions in Selecting Judges in the

Commonwealth. (Cape Town: Siber Ink, 2017). [1791]

298 Graeme Simpson, “‘From the Normative to the Transformative’: Defining and Promoting Justice and Human Rights as Part

of Violent Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding,” Journal of Human Rights Practice, 9, 2017, 379–400 doi: 10.1093/jhuman/

hux030, 2017. [1347]

299 DCAF (Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces), The Contribution and Role of SSR in the Prevention of

Violent Conflict. (Geneva: DCAF, 2017), p7. [1361]

300 Open Society Justice Initiative, “Against the Odds: CICIG in Guatemala,” accessed October 29, 2018, https://www.

opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/against-odds-cicig-guatemala-20160321.pdf, p87 [1253]

301 Lili di Puppo, “Police reform in Georgia - Cracks in an anti-corruption success story,” U4 Practice Insight 2010:2; accessed

November 12, 2018, https://www.u4.no/publications/police-reform-in-georgia-cracks-in-an-anti-corruption-success-story.pdf

[1341]

302 Molly Corso, “Georgia: How Transparent Are Law Enforcement Agencies?” eurasianet, May 22, 2012; accessed November 12,

2018, https://eurasianet.org/georgia-how-transparent-are-law-enforcement-agencies

303 Julinda Beqiraj and Lawrence McNamara, International Access to Justice: Barriers and Solutions (Bingham Centre for the Rule

of Law Report 02/2014). (London: International Bar Association, 2014). [887]

304 Danish Kayani and Faran Rafi, Pakistan Votes. (Islamabad: Coffee Communications, 2013).

305 World Bank Group, G20 Digital Identity Onboarding. (Washington DC: World Bank Group, 2018). [1816]

306 H V Fineberg, “Public Health and Medicine: Where the Twain shall meet,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Volume 41,

Issue 4, Supplement 3, ppS149–S151, 2011; accessed January 28, 2019, https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(11)00514-9/

fulltext [1585]

307 Jackie Dugard and Katherine Drage, ““To whom do the people take their issues?”: The Contribution of Community-Based

Paralegals to Access to Justice in South Africa,” chapter in Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the

Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018). [1230]

308 Thomas D Barton, “Preventive Law and Problem Solving: Lawyering for the Future,” 2009, p361. [1245]

309 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017 - Governance and the Law. (Washington DC: The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2017). [848]

310 Paul Heinrich Neuhaus, “Legal Certainty versus Equity in the Conflict of Laws,” 28 Law and Contemporary Problems 795-807

(Fall 1963); accessed April 7, 2019, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2981&context=lcp

311 Andrew Hutchison, “How contracts drawn up as comic strips are being put to use in South Africa,” The Conversation, August

8, 2018; accessed November 23, 2018, https://theconversation.com/how-contracts-drawn-up-as-comic-strips-are-being-put-

to-use-in-south-africa-100835; Gerlinde Berger-Walliser, Robert C Bird, and Helena Haapio, “Promoting Business Success

130

Through Contract Visualization,” Journal of Law, Business, and Ethics (2011), vol 17; accessed November 23, 2018, http://ssrn.com/

abstract=1744096 [1353]

312 Frank J Elgar, Peter D Donnelly, Valerie Michaelson, Geneviève Gariépy, Kira E Riehm, Sophie D Walsh, and William

Pickett, “Corporal punishment bans and physical fighting in adolescents: an ecological study of 88 countries,” BMJ Open

2018;8:e021616. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021616; accessed October 29, 2018, https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/9/e021616

[1294]

313 United Nations Security Council, “The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies - Report of the

Secretary-General,” UN Doc. S/2004/616*, August 23, 2004; accessed January 28, 2019, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/

atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/PCS%20S%202004%20616.pdf [1664]

314 Tricia D Olsen, Leigh A Payne, and Andrew G Reiter, Transitional Justice in Balance: Comparing Processes, Weighing Efficacy

(Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2010); Hunjoon Kim and Kathryn Sikkink, “Explaining the Deterrence

Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions for Transitional Countries,” International Studies Quarterly 54, 4 (2010): 939-963; Guillermo

Trejo, Juan Albarracin, and Lucia Tiscornia, “Breaking State Impunity in Post-Authoritarian Regimes: Why Transitional Justice

Processes Deter Criminal Violence in New Democracies,” Journal of Peace Research 55, 6 (2018), 787-809; Tove Grete Lie, Helga

Malmin Binningsbo, and Scott Gates, “Post-Conflict Justice and Sustainable Peace” World Bank Policy Research Working

Paper 4191 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007), 17-18; Leigh Payne, Andy Reiter, Chris Mahoney, and Laura Bernal-Bermudez,

“Conflict Prevention and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence,” Background Paper for UN-World Bank Pathways for Peace study

(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2017); Mariam Salehi and Timothy Williams, “Beyond Peace vs. Justice: Assessing Transitional

Justice’s Impact on Enduring Peace Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis,” Transitional Justice Review 1, 4 (2016), 96-123.

315 See, for example, Tricia D Olsen, Leigh A Payne, and Andrew G Reiter, Transitional Justice in Balance: Comparing Processes,

Weighing Efficacy (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2010); Hunjoon Kim and Kathryn Sikkink,

“Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions for Transitional Countries,” International Studies Quarterly

54, 4 (2010): 939-963; Guillermo Trejo, Juan Albarracin, and Lucia Tiscornia, “Breaking State Impunity in Post-Authoritarian

Regimes: Why Transitional Justice Processes Deter Criminal Violence in New Democracies,” Journal of Peace Research 55, 6

(2018), 787-809 and Transitional Justice Working Group, “Report on Transitional Justice and SDG16+,”. (Task Force on Justice,

background paper, March 2019)

316 International Center for Transitional Justice, “What is Transitional Justice?” (New York: ICTJ, 2009); accessed April 7, 2019, https://

www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Global-Transitional-Justice-2009-English.pdf

317 Transitional Justice Working Group, “Report on Transitional Justice and SDG16+,”. (Task Force on Justice, background paper,

March 2019)

318 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017 - Governance and the Law. (Washington DC: The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2017), Box xx. [848]

319 Lant Pritchett , Michael Woolcock and Matt Andrews, “Looking Like a State: Techniques of Persistent Failure in State Capability

for Implementation,” The Journal of Development Studies, 49:1, 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2012.709614, p9. [1818]

320 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017 - Governance and the Law. (Washington DC: The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2017), pxiii. [848]

321 Innovation Group, “Innovating justice: needed and possible,” (Background paper for the Task Force on Justice, February 4, 2019)

322 Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, “The Argentinians who Bring Justice to the People who Need it Most,”

March 1, 2019; accessed April 7, 2019, https://medium.com/sdg16plus/the-argentinians-who-bring-justice-to-the-people-who-

need-it-most-efee671c0043

323 Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, Access to Civil & Family Justice - A Roadmap for Change.

(Ottawa: Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2013). [1311]

324 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project Final Report. (Sydney: Law Council of Australia, 2018). [1236]

325 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project Final Report. (Sydney: Law Council of Australia, 2018). [1236]

326 Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2018), Indonesia chapter. [1230]

327 Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2018), Introduction. [1230]

328 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017 - Governance and the Law. (Washington DC: The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2017). [848]

329 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017 - Governance and the Law. (Washington DC: The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2017). [848]

330 Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, “The Argentinians who Bring Justice to the People who Need it Most,”

March 1, 2019; accessed April 7, 2019, https://medium.com/sdg16plus/the-argentinians-who-bring-justice-to-the-people-who-

need-it-most-efee671c0043

331 Mark Hughes-Morgan, Building the reputation of Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts - Said Business School

Cases. (Oxford: University of Oxford, 2015). [1346]

332 Gillian K Hadfield, “More Markets, More Justice,” Daedalus, 148 (1), Winter 2019. [1615]

333 Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, Ending legalised violence against children - global progress to

December 2017. (London: Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2017); accessed October 29, 2018, http://

endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/global/Global-report-2017-singles.pdf [1291]

334 Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, Ending legalised violence against children - global progress to

December 2017. (London: Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2017); accessed October 29, 2018, http://

endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/global/Global-report-2017-singles.pdf [1291]

131

335 High-level Group on Justice for Women, Justice for Women - High-level Group Report. (New York: UN Women, IDLO, World

Bank and Task Force on Justice, 2019), p23. [1814]

336 Daniel Ayalew Ali, et al, “Empowering Women through Land Tenure Regularization: Evidence from the Impact Evaluation of

the National Program in Rwanda (English),” Development research group case study. (Washington DC: World Bank, 2015)

337 World Health Organization, “Declaration of Alma-Ata: International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR, 6-12

September 1978,” accessed January 28, 2019, https://www.who.int/publications/almaata_declaration_en.pdf

338 International Finance Corporation, Investing in Women: New Evidence for the Business Case. (Washington DC: International

Finance Corporation, 2017). [1641]

339 World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018. (Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2018), Appendix C,

Table 1.06.

340 Gillian K Hadfield, “More Markets, More Justice,” Daedalus, 148 (1), Winter 2019. [1615]

341 Transparency International, People and Corruption: Citizens’ Voices from Around the World. (Berlin: Transparency International,

2017). [1820]

342 See: Justice Leadership Group, accessed April 7, 2019, http://justiceleaders.org/leadership/

343 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017 - Governance and the Law. (Washington DC: The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2017). [848]

344 OECD and World Justice Project, “Building a Business Case for Access to Justice - An OECD White Paper in collaboration with

the World Justice Project: Preliminary draft,” 2018. [1755]

345 Tim Williamson, Change in Challenging Contexts: How does it happen? - Executive Summary. (London: Overseas Development

Institute, 2015). [1642]

346 Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá. Scope of the peace strategy. Accessed April 15, 2019. http://www.ccb.org.co/en/Transformar-

Bogota/Peace/Scope-of-the-peace-strategy

347 FICOSEC, “Transforming Chihuahua into Mexico’s Safest State,” (Presentation, undated). [1821]

348 Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, The Roadmap for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies – A Call to Action

to Change our World. (New York: Center on International Cooperation, 2017), p41.

349 Center on International Cooperation, “Challenge paper: Justice as Prevention,” (Background paper for the Task Force on

Justice, Discussion Draft 14 December 2018).

350 International Bar Association, The Role of the Universal Periodic Review in Advancing Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice.

(London: International Bar Association, 2018). [1793]

351 “Declaration on Equal Access to Justice for All by 2030,” Adopted at the Ministerial Roundtable on Access to Justice, in the

Peace Palace in The Hague on February 7, 2019. [1822]

352 Peter Chapman, Sandra Elena, Surya Khanna, and Open Government Partnership, “Opening justice: Access to justice, open

judiciaries, and legal empowerment through the Open Government Partnership - working draft,” accessed April 7, 2019,

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/opening_justice_working_draft_public_version.pdf [1636]

353 See: Merriam Webster, “Merriam-Webster’s Words of the Year 2018,”, accessed January 28, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.

com/words-at-play/word-of-the-year-2018-justice/justice

354 Eliza Ennis and Lauren Wolfe, #MeToo - The Women’s Media Center Report. (Washington DC: Women’s Media Center, 2018).

[1643]; accessed June 7, 2019, http://www.womensmediacenter.com/assets/site/reports/media-and-metoo-how-a-movement-

affected-press-coverage-of-sexual-assault/Media_and_MeToo_Womens_Media_Center_report.pdf; Andrew Morrison, “La

aportación de la economía en la era de #NiUnaMenos,” El Pais, November 24, 2018; accessed June 7, 2019, https://elpais.

com/elpais/2018/11/22/planeta_futuro/1542890933_480822.html; Liz Ford, “‘A gift to feminists’: how Trump’s ‘gag rule’ inspired

a worldwide movement,” The Guardian, December 28, 2018; accessed June 7, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/global-

development/2018/dec/26/how-trump-gag-rule-inspired-worldwide-movement-shedecides

355 Nicholas Zaremba and Tabatha Thompson, “Effectively Fighting Corruption Without Violence; Sudanese Learn How to Safely

Organize for Civil Resistance,” United States Institute for Peace, August 30, 2017; accessed January 28, 2019, https://www.usip.

org/publications/2017/08/effectively-fighting-corruption-without-violence

356 “The Arab Spring: A Year of Revolution,” NPR, December 17, 2011; accessed January 28, 2019, https://www.npr.

org/2011/12/17/143897126/the-arab-sprin-a-year-of-revolution

357 Open Government Partnership, “Exploring Open Justice, a New Frontier in Open Government Reform,” May 21, 2018; accessed

January 28, 2019, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/exploring-open-justice-new-frontier-open-government-reform

358 Sandra Elena, “Open Justice: An Innovation-Driven Agenda for Inclusive Societies,” Biblioteca Digital; accessed June 19, 2019,

http://www.bibliotecadigital.gob.ar/items/show/2569, p.32

359 OECD and Open Society Justice Initiative, Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice - launch copy. (Paris and New York:

OECD/OSF, 2018). [1492]; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,

Manual on Victimizations Surveys. (Geneva: United Nations, 2010). [358]

360 Ministry of Justice, Justice Impact Test – Guidance. (London: Ministry of Justice, 2018). [1608]

361 Lawrence W Sherman, The Rise of Evidence-Based Policing: Targeting, Testing, and Tracking. (Chicago IL: University of Chicago,

2013). [1274]

362 Innovation Group, “Innovating justice: needed and possible,” (Background paper for the Task Force on Justice, February 4, 2019)

363 See: HiiL, “Justice Accelerator: for Partners,” accessed April 7, 2019, https://www.hiil.org/what-we-do/the-justice-accelerator/

partners/

132

364 See: UNDP, “Accelerator Labs,” accessed April 7, 2019, https://acceleratorlabs.undp.org/

365 See: apolitical, “Mapped: The innovation labs transforming government — and how to get in touch,” accessed April 7, 2019,

https://apolitical.co/government-innovation-lab-directory/

366 HiiL, “The Chief Innovation Officer of a Ministry of Justice,” July 24, 2018; accessed April 7, 2019, https://www.hiil.org/news/the-

chief-innovation-officer-of-a-ministry-of-justice/

367 Jules Verdone and Carl Matthies, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Public Safety Technology: A Roundtable Discussion. (New York:

Vera Institute of Justice, 2014).[777]

368 Abigail Moy, Stacey Cram, and Vivek Maru, “The Case to Fund and Protect Grassroots Justice Defenders: Policy Brief,” Justice for

All, January 20, 2019; accessed March 27, 2019, https://www.justiceforall2030.org/tools/case-to-fund-protect-grassroots-justice-

defenders/ [1640]

369 OECD, Making Blended Finance Work for the Sustainable Development Goals. (Paris: OECD, 2018).

370 M Willis and M Kapira, Justice Reinvestment in Australia: A Review of the Literature. (Canberra: Australian Institute of

Criminology, 2018).

371 Abigail Moy, Stacey Cram, and Vivek Maru, “The Case to Fund and Protect Grassroots Justice Defenders: Policy Brief,” Justice

for All, January 20, 2019; accessed April 7, 2019, https://www.justiceforall2030.org/tools/case-to-fund-protect-grassroots-justice-

defenders/ [1640]

372 Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, The Roadmap for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies – A Call to Action

to Change our World. (New York: Center on International Cooperation, 2017).

373 Andrew Green, “HIV in Mozambique: starting, and staying on, treatment,” The Lancet, vol 387, January 30, 2016; accessed April

7, 2019, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00213-0/fulltext [1823] and Namati. “Realizing the

Right to Health.” accessed April 15, 2019, https://namati.org/ourwork/health/

374 Stavros Zouridis, “From Justice Archipelago to Security and Justice Chain: Strategy-Organisation Configurations in the Dutch

Criminal Justice System,” Chapter 6 in A. Hondeghem et al. (eds.), “Modernisation of the Criminal Justice Chain and the

Judicial System,” Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 50, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25802-7_6[1542]

375 United States Department of Justice, “Presidential Memorandum – Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments

and Agencies,” October 24, 2018; accessed April 7, 2019, https://www.justice.gov/olp/presidential-memorandum

376 IDLO, “Justice from the Ground Up: Strengthening Mali’s Justice Chain,” June 29, 2017; accessed December 21, 2018, https://

www.idlo.int/news/highlights/justice-ground-strengthening-malis-justice-chain

377 Stavros Zouridis, “From Justice Archipelago to Security and Justice Chain: Strategy-Organisation Configurations in the Dutch

Criminal Justice System,” Chapter 6 in A. Hondeghem et al. (eds.), “Modernisation of the Criminal Justice Chain and the

Judicial System,” Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 50, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25802-7_6[1542]

378 UNICEF, Justice for Children: Detention as a Last Resort - Innovative Initiatives in the East Asia and Pacific Region. (Bangkok:

United Nation’s Children Fund, undated). [1824]

379 UNDP, UNICEF and UN Women, Informal Justice Systems - Charting a course for human-rights based engagement. (New York:

UNDP, UNICEF and UN Women, undated). [1506]

380 Rhodri Williams, Judges as Peacebuilders: How Justice Sector Reform Can Support Prevention in Transitional Settings. (Solna:

International Legal Assistance Consortium, 2018). [1164]

381 IDLO, “Justice from the Ground Up: Strengthening Mali’s Justice Chain,” June 29, 2017; accessed December 21, 2018, https://

www.idlo.int/news/highlights/justice-ground-strengthening-malis-justice-chain

382 OSCE and ODIHR, “Strengthening Judicial Independence and Public Access to Justice - Consolidated Summary,” (paper

prepared for OSCE Human Dimension Seminar, Warsaw, 17-19 May 2010); accessed January 28, 2019, https://www.osce.org/

odihr/70836?download=true [1644]

383 See: UNESCO, “UNESCO observatory of killed journalists,” accessed January 28, 2019, https://en.unesco.org/themes/safety-

journalists/observatory

384 Front Line Defenders, Annual Report on Human Rights Defenders At Risk in 2017. (Blackrock, Co Dublin: Front Line, the

International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, 2017) [1645]

385 See: Namati “2017 Annual Network Survey Results,” accessed January 28, 2019, https://namati.org/wp-content/

uploads/2018/06/2017-Annual-Network-Survey.pdf [1646]

386 “Americas: Historic environmental and human rights treaty gains momentum as 12 countries sign,” Amnesty International,

September 27, 2018; accessed June 7, 2019, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/09/americas-12-countries-sign-

historic-environmental-treaty/

387 Abigail Moy, Stacey Cram, and Vivek Maru, “The Case to Fund and Protect Grassroots Justice Defenders: Policy Brief,” Justice

for All, January 20, 2019; accessed January 28, 2018, https://www.justiceforall2030.org/tools/case-to-fund-protect-grassroots-

justice-defenders/ [1640]

388 Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, Access to Civil & Family Justice - A Roadmap for Change.

(Ottawa: Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2013).

389 IDLO, Women Delivering Justice: Contributions, Barriers, Pathways. (Rome: IDLO, 2018).

390 See, for example: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions_and_justice_networks-20-en.do; and https://

whatworks.college.police.uk/Support/Pages/epc.aspx

The Justice for All report is available in English, Spanish, and French. It builds on a series

of reports from working groups and other commissioned research. Download these and

other materials from: www.justice.sdg16.plus/report

The Task Force on Justice is an

initiative of the Pathfinders for

Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies,

a multi-stakeholder partnership

that brings together UN member

states, international organizations,

civil society, and the private sector to

accelerate delivery of the SDG targets

for peace, justice and inclusion.

The Task Force is chaired by ministers

from Argentina, the Netherlands, and

Sierra Leone, and by the Elders.