Effectiveness of justice: who measures and howWhen speaking of the effectiveness of justice, one usually thinks of quick verdicts and low workload on judges. But in reality, effectiveness is not about speed at any cost. It is about the court's compliance with its main goal: restoring justice. How can one understand if the court is fair? And who should evaluate this? Answers to these questions are the subject of long-standing discussions and numerous theories. In this article, we will discuss what constitutes the effectiveness of justice, who measures it, and why there is still no single recipe for achieving it.Components of effectiveness: speed, quality, accessibilityEffective justice is usually described with three words: quickly, correctly, and accessible. Speed means that the process is not artificially prolonged and a decision is made in reasonable time. Quality refers to the legal rationale and correspondence with facts. Accessibility means that everyone can turn to the court, regardless of financial status.However, these three components often conflict. A quick trial may be superficial. Accessible may be overloaded. Quality may be expensive and slow. Therefore, effectiveness is not about maximizing each parameter, but their balance. And this balance depends on the legal system, culture, and resources of the country.In international practice, such criteria as predictability of decisions, enforceability of verdicts, and public trust are also highlighted. If people do not trust the court, it is ineffective even with the best indicators. Trust is not just a result, but the foundation of the legitimacy of judicial power.Who evaluates effectiveness: inside and outsideInternal evaluation is carried out by the judicial system itself. Usually, this is statistical indicators: the number of cases considered, average duration of the process, percentage of appeals, the number of overturned decisions. These data are collected by judicial departments and analyzed by the lead ... Read more