[{"bbox": [82, 82, 1169, 756], "category": "Table", "text": "<table><tr><td></td><td>until such legislation has been drafted and adapted.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Planning, processes, and system.</td><td>E-justice services could further enlarge the digital gap and create further exclusion, as they rely on individuals' digital literacy and network connections while presenting important risks in terms of data protection/safety.</td><td>M</td><td>M</td><td>In accordance with the needs of the relevant field, the capacity-building process will be planned</td></tr><tr><td>Political</td><td>Weak enforcement. While each of the nine core human rights treaties is assigned monitoring bodies to assess implementation among States, and eight treaty bodies have communications procedures, States are not \"sanctioned\" for not implementing their treaty obligations. Therefore, some state actors may be reluctant to continue to address politically sensitive topics such as the death penalty and national human rights institute development. In addition, the priorities may change due to a change in political power.</td><td>M</td><td>M</td><td>Continue the political dialogue with the EU, EU Member States, and other development partners to gain political support, utilizing the conditionality measures.</td></tr></table>"}, {"bbox": [92, 755, 1163, 833], "category": "Text", "text": "The Mid-Term Evaluation of EU JULE²² and consultations with the NSAs, national stakeholders in the justice system, academia, EUMS, and development partners have informed the Action. These processes provide the following lessons learned and recommendations which are relevant to the Action at hand:"}, {"bbox": [92, 834, 254, 859], "category": "Section-header", "text": "**Lessons Learnt:**"}, {"bbox": [131, 860, 1163, 995], "category": "List-item", "text": "1. Support, in harmonisation with the Paris Principles or the extension of the Human Rights Institute's mandate to reporting on HR issues. An intervention designed to support reform on the moratorium or complete eradication of the death penalty by ratifying its Second Optional Protocol, is heavily dependent on the political will of the State to establish an independent HR institution. In this regard, the Action's implementing partner may spend significant time creating a conducive environment to facilitate these two support areas."}, {"bbox": [131, 994, 1163, 1127], "category": "List-item", "text": "2. The EU JULE as EU-funded Action would have benefited from more relevant best practices in legal aid, legal compensation, legal awareness, and juvenile justice system from the EUMS (Croatia, Slovenia, Poland, etc.) or countries with similar geopolitical, multi-ethnic representation and legal system with adequate anti-corruption and justice index record (Georgia, Lithuania,). The EU JULE could have also engaged experts from the European Commission for the Effectiveness of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe (CoE)²³"}, {"bbox": [131, 1126, 1163, 1233], "category": "List-item", "text": "3. Based on the lessons from JPP JIFF and EU JULE, this project adopts an integrated, sector-wide approach, including research and policy dialogue at local and national levels. Furthermore, engagement between grantees and government stakeholders should be linked to a comprehensive information and monitoring platform based on ICT, engaging in strategic research on higher-level reform initiatives."}, {"bbox": [131, 1232, 1163, 1339], "category": "List-item", "text": "4. The envisaged 12 months implementation period for the JIFF sub-grants was insufficient to cope with the many approvals, pandemics, and consequences of the natural disaster. While grantees performed well and delivered planned activities, no time was left to sustain the results. In the given context, at least 18 months to two years should be planned for the implementation duration of the sub-grants in the future"}, {"bbox": [131, 1338, 1163, 1418], "category": "List-item", "text": "5. The Mid Term evaluation of EU JULE found that ensuring complementarities and synergies between the JIFF and EU JULE by linking the duty-bearer with right-holders, NSA with the State's agencies - is the best strategy for the people-centred implementation."}, {"bbox": [131, 1417, 1163, 1498], "category": "List-item", "text": "6. EU JULE management model, where indirect and direct management are combined into one management structure, did not prove as successful as expected. Therefore, a mix of aid modalities of this type should be considered if the implementing partners can guarantee reasonable flexibility, transparency, and agility."}, {"bbox": [131, 1497, 1163, 1551], "category": "List-item", "text": "7. E-justice could provide valuable solutions to enhance the efficiency and quality of the justice systems by reducing the cost of legal services, minimizing corruption, improving access to justice providers outside"}, {"bbox": [103, 1595, 832, 1623], "category": "Footnote", "text": "²² Mid term evaluation of EU JULE - EU Justice and Legal Empowerment Programme. D-37404"}, {"bbox": [99, 1643, 340, 1667], "category": "Footnote", "text": "²³ https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej"}, {"bbox": [1039, 1665, 1157, 1690], "category": "Page-footer", "text": "Page 14 of 27"}]