ESTABLISHING MOMENTUM TOWARD 
FAIRER AND FASTER JUSTICE IN PANAMA 
EVALUATION OF USAID/PANAMA 
SPECIAL OBJECTIVE 
REPORT ON PHASE TWO 
Respectfully submitted by: 
James Michel 
Consultant in International 
Development Cooperation 
315 West Columbia Street 
Falls Church, Virginia 22046 
Tel: 1 703 536 3009 
Fax: 1 703 536 5573 
JamesMichel@erols.com 
July 2003 
Evaluation Team: 
James Michel 
Norma Parker 
Carlos 8erguido 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT ON PHASE TWO 
I. INTRODUCTION 
A. Background and Purpose of the Evaluation 
B. Methodology 
II. SUSTAINING THE MOMENTUM FOR REFORM (2003-2004) 
A. Objectives and Focus of Activities 
1. Strengthen Institutional Capacity and Inter-Institutional 
Coordination 
a. Supreme Court 
b. Judicial School 
c. Public Defender Institute 
d. Access to Justice 
(1) Alternative Dispute Resolution 
(2) Administrative Justice 
(3) Pilot Casa de Justicia 
e. Inter-Institutional Coordination 
2. Strengthen Civil Society 
a. Advocacy 
b. Institutional Capacity 
c. Broadening the Base 
iv 
1 
1 
2 
3 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
7 
7 
8 
9 
9 
10 
11 
12 
12 
B. Benchmarks and Options for an Expanded Program 13 
1. Design Requirements 13 
2. Budget and Program Options 14 
III. EXPANDED SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINABLE RULE OF LAW REFORM 15 
(2004-2009) 
A. Incentives and Motivations 15 
B. Objectives and Focus of Activities 17 
1. Civil Society Will Promote and Help Ensure a Strong Political Basis 17 
for Justice Reform 
2. Institutions Will Gain Increased Capacity to Carry Out Reforms 18 
That Will Enhance the Fairness and Efficiency of the Justice System 
a. Strategic Planning, Budgeting and Inter-Institutional 18 
Coordination 
b. Selection and Accountable Performance of Judges and Other 19 
Personnel 
c. Fair and Efficient Criminal Justice 20 
d. Judicial Security for Investment, Property Rights and Contracts 21 
3. Citizens Will Obtain Increased Access to Prompt, Fair and 22 
Affordable Means to Resolve Disputes 
4. The Justice Sector Will Be Characterized by Increased 23 
Transparency and Accountability 
C. Discussion of Options 24 
IV. PROGRAM l\1ANAGEMENT) 25 
A. Integrated United States Government Effort 25 
B. The Role of USAID 26 
1. Rule of Law 26 
11 
2. Linkages to Other Strategic Objectives 
C. Donor Coordination 
D. Local Ownership 
V. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 
Annexes: 
1. Executive Summary of Phase One Report 
2. Persons Interviewed and Meeting Participants During Phase Two 
3. Aggregate Questionnaire Responses, Phase One and Phase Two 
4. Results Frameworks for Current Special Objective (2000-2003), Modified Special 
Objective (2003-2004) and Possible Strategic Objective (2004-2009) 
5. Biographic Summaries of Evaluation Team Members 
III 
27 
27 
28 
29 
30 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT ON PHASE TWO 
This is the second of two reports on an evaluation ofUSAIDfPanama's special objective, 
"Momentum Toward Fairer and Faster Justice Established." A separate report on Phase One of 
the evaluation focused on the results of the ongoing program and prospects for the future. This 
report, on Phase Two, addresses the possible objectives, strategy and content of a future USAID 
program of expanded support for sustainable rule of law reform. 
The Phase One report recommended that USAID's immediate priority should be to sustain the 
momentum that has been achieved through a one-year bridge program. The only practical way 
for USAlD to maintain the continuity of its effort over the next year will be to extend the current 
special objective and also extend the period for performance by the implementing agents. 
During this one-year extension, USAID can develop the specific content of a possible new 
program and complete necessary administrative steps. During that same time, Panama will be 
making political decisions, including through national elections, that will shape the climate for 
reform. 
The one-year bridge program should seek to advance three strategic priorities: 
Maintain the pace of justice system improvement and civil society advocacy; 
Provide a concrete basis of knowledge for policy dialogue with political candidates; 
Prepare for the initiation of a new program of support for sustainable rule of law reform, 
increased transparency and accountability. 
The first intermediate result of the extended special objective under the bridge program should 
be to strengthen institutional capacity and inter-institutional coordination. Particular activities 
should concentrate on the following: 
Supreme Court. USAID should assist the Supreme Court to institutionalize its capacity to guide 
the implementation of the Court's strategic plan and carry out related research, analysis and 
planning. Assistance to the Supreme Court should include completion of the USAID-supported 
case tracking system now in operation in one of the Court's four chambers. This would provide 
a useful service and also constitute a valuable demonstration of the benefits of modernization. 
USAID support for the Supreme Court's Office of Judicial Audit should be offered as a part of a 
strategic effort to strengthen the overall accountability of judicial personnel. Such an effort 
would combine enforcement measures with clear ethical standards, careful screening of 
applicants, continuing education of personnel, transparent procedures and an overall climate of 
strong values and high expectations of ethical conduct. 
Judicial School. USAID should support selected activities to implement the strategic plan that 
USAID has been helping the Judicial School to develop. The School needs to build its capacity 
to carry out that plan on a sustainable basis. The Judicial School might also be involved in 
educational activities to increase accountability in the judiciary. 
Public Defender Institute. As in the case of the Judicial School, USAID should follow up on 
investment in the Institute's strategic plan with support for its implementation. Capacity to 
IV 
fonnulate and carry out strategic plans is especially important for the Public Defender Institute 
because it is severely understaffed, under-funded, under-equipped and overworked. 
Access to Justice. USAID should support the evolution of policies and the development of 
strategic management capacity that will help to make alternative dispute resolution mechanisms 
widely available throughout Panama on a sustainable basis. A similar approach should 
contribute to the institutionalization of measures to raise the quality of administrative justice. 
These activities would consolidate USAID initiatives begun under the special objective and help 
to make them sustainable. USAID might also discuss with the Inter-American Development 
Bank the possibility of including a mechanism for community participation in one of the Bank￾supported model regional justice centers now under construction. These discussions during the 
bridge program could lead to the establishment of a pilot community justice center (casa de 
justicia) under an expanded USAID program. 
Inter-Institutional Coordination. During the bridge period, USAID could begin a policy 
dialogue on issues of an inter-institutional nature. It could be very productive to engage the 
Judicial Council at the center of this dialogue. The Judicial Council has approved an action plan 
to improve the efficiency of the justice system. However, the Council is dependent on the 
Supreme Court for administrative support and tends to be reactive in its approach to issues. 
USAID might consider supporting the Council through a structure of technical working groups 
made up of experts from civil society as well as the public sector. USAID might also support a 
small technical staff to strengthen the Council's effectiveness. Particular activities might include 
a seminar to bring Panamanian jurists into contact with refonners from other Latin American 
countries where criminal procedures have been streamlined. 
The second intennediate result of the special objective under the bridge program should be 
strengthened civil society through activities directed at three kinds of objectives: 
Advocacy. The first priority should be to sustain the current six-part program ofthe Citizens 
Alliance for Justice. In addition, USAID should consider new activities that may be especially 
important at this time. In particular, a study of the costs to Panama of judicial system weakness, 
inadequate transparency and corruption (especially in the justice system) could have decisive 
importance for public advocacy and could influence the overall climate for refonn. Ideally, such 
a study would be undertaken by respected Panamanian institutions and would address 
all significant costs political, economic, social and environmental, including implications for a 
free trade relationship with the United States. Study could provide a concrete basis for a 
dialogue between civil society and Presidential candidates, followed by a post-election dialogue 
with the winning candidate and his transition team. An additional specific activity during the 
bridge period would be to initiate civil society monitoring of justice system perfonnance. 
Institutional Capacity. It would be highly desirable for USAID to provide technical assistance 
that would strengthen the capacity of the Alliance to monitor the perfonnance of the 
judicial system. USAID might also consider additional capacity strengthening in areas such as 
fundraising, project finance, proposal project implementation that would the 
financial sustainability of the Alliance. This kind of technical assistance should not be necessary 
beyond the bridge period. 
v 
If 
Broadening the Base. In order to maximize the impact of civil society activities, it would be 
helpful to look beyond the Citizens Alliance. In particular, the recent interest shown by the 
Panamanian Association of Business Executives (APED E) in the justice sector offers an 
important additional perspective from the private sector. An additional aspect of expanded 
participation is the need to engage the media more directly. USAID should seek assistance from 
the US Embassy's Public Affairs Counselor, and might also consider a pilot training course for 
journalists at the Panama-based Latin American Journalism Center (CELAP). 
Financial limitations and management discipline will impose a need to make choices among the 
elements recommended for consideration in the bridge program. Priorities can be selected by 
reference to the milestones to be attained and the need for immediate action during the bridge 
period - either to follow up on work already begun or to address time sensitive requirements. 
Milestones for the bridge program include: 
vigorous civil society support for reform; 
judicial implementation of the Supreme Court's strategic plan; 
Judicial Council fostering of inter-institutional coordination; 
justice sector action to carry out additional reforms; and 
active discussion of justice and transparency in public fora. 
USAID should assess progress toward those milestones before the bridge program ends in order 
to inform final decisions on the size and content of an expanded future program. The bridge 
program should be financed at a level of $1 million through September 2004. A follow-on 
program can be designed within a notional framework ofthree alternative funding options: $15 
million over five years; $10 million over five years; or $1 million over two years. The first two 
options assume indications of a strong will and a broad consensus for reform. If those factors are 
absent, the third option would be limited to closeout activities and strengthening the ability of 
civil society organizations to continue their advocacy and educational efforts after the USAID 
program ends. 
Consideration of a new USAID program of expanded support for sustainable rule of law reform 
should begin with an analysis of incentives and motivations. A challenge here is that the values 
that argue for reform are too often seen by Panamanian elites as being in conflict with interests 
that are served by the status quo. It will be necessary to show that values and interests can 
coincide in ways that are sufficiently compelling, and that the chances for success are 
sufficiently strong, to justify the risks and effort of reform. 
The above-mentioned study during the bridge period of the costs to Panama of judicial system 
weakness, inadequate transparency and corruption should be a unique tool for identifying costs 
that can motivate reform. The ensuing dialogue should seek to show how national interests and 
societal values alike would be served bv an effort to overcome those costs. Thus, criminal 
justice reform can advance both citizen security and human rights. Likewise, judicial 
security can promote integration into a free trade regime and economic growth as well as more 
equal treatment. 
VI 
An expanded USAID program, beginning in 1994, should support Panamanian interests, values 
and expectations and command sustained efforts. The objective of such a program would be to 
strengthen the overall independence, fairness, efficiency, accessibility, transparency and 
accountability of the justice system. The program would seek to attain four intermediate results, 
with progress to be measured against established indicators. 
The first intermediate result should be that civil society will promote and help ensure a strong 
political basis for justice reform. USAID would facilitate continued and intensified advocacy for 
justice and accountability reforms through selected support to an expanded range of civil society 
organizations. The private sector and the media would be expected to play major roles. 
The second intermediate result should be that institutions will gain increased capacity to carry 
out reforms that will enhance fairness and efficiency in the justice system. USAID should 
continue to assist the Supreme Court and other entities of the justice system to adopt strategic 
plans and to carry out those plans. Institutionalizing the planning, budgeting and administrative 
processes within the agencies concerned will be an important part of that assistance. Work with 
individual agencies should be complemented by an effort to strengthen the management capacity 
of, and expand the scope of participation in, the Judicial Council. 
Additional activities under this intermediate result would include assistance for implementing 
merit systems for the selection, evaluation and accountability of judges, prosecutors, public 
defenders and court administrators. The implementation of those systems would be monitored 
by civil society. In addition, USAID would provide assistance to streamline procedures in the 
criminal courts by reducing duplicative investigative phases and improving cooperation among 
courts, prosecutors and investigative police. In the civil courts, USAID would support judicial 
security for investment, property rights and contracts. This assistance would address the legal 
framework for the protection of economic interests, the mechanisms to ensure fair and efficient 
enforcement procedures, and improved case management to reduce court congestion and delays. 
Priorities would need to be identified through intensive discussion with the Panamanian legal 
community. 
The third intermediate result should be that citizens will obtain increased access to prompt, fair 
and affordable means to resolve disputes. USAID should to improve the availability of 
public defenders, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and a high quality of administrative 
justice. A pilot community justice center could be supported as a way to extend access to justice 
to communities that are remote from the capitaL The essence of this activity would be the 
collocation of corregidores, mediators, public defenders and legal advisors along with the basic 
institutions such as the judge, prosecutor and police. The other important feature would be civil 
society participation in the governance of the center. Successful experience with a pilot center 
might provide a basis for replication in such remote areas as the Darien. Access to justice would 
be enhanced by expanded citizen education. 
The fourth result the program should be that the justice sector will 
characterized by increased transparency and accountability. Increasing the integrity of the 
justice system should be a crosscutting component of the USAID program. Activities with the 
Vll 
public sector should support the full range of sustainable reforms: ethical standards, selection 
and training of personnel, transparent procedures, increased investigative capacity and the will to 
sanction wrongdoers. These activities should be accompanied by heavy emphasis on developing 
the analytical and management capabilities of civil society organizations to maintain pressure for 
integrity by augmenting their advocacy programs with social auditing of justice and related 
insti tuti ons. 
Program management will require continuous attention to a range of operational issues, budget 
allocations, coordination among US Government agencies, donor coordination and, most 
important, Panamanian ownership of reform issues and approaches to resolve them. All 
concerned US Government agencies need to work together to make the effort a true Country 
Team program. The continued interest and leadership of the Chief of Mission and Deputy Chief 
of Mission will be essential. Within an integrated US Government strategy, USAID needs to 
continue to be proactive in interagency consultations. The demands of program management 
warrant the continuation of the full-time rule oflaw expert on the USAID staff in Panama and 
the continuation of an on-site contractor chief of party. USAID's justice program will also 
support the strategic objective of protecting the Panama Canal watershed and buffer zones. In 
addition, it can support the strengthening of communities in the Darien through community 
justice activities. 
Common interests of the donors and multilateral organizations would be served by improved 
communication among them. A principal purpose of donor coordination should be to encourage 
Panamanians to take the lead in shaping a national reform agenda and in organizing international 
support. The donors should promote the articulation of a national vision that relies on 
international cooperation as no more than a complement to local initiatives and local resources. 
Local ownership would be enhanced by a broadly participatory structure, possibly under Judicial 
Council leadership. The goal should be to foster a network of informed and committed 
reformers from the public sector and civil society who join forces to inform, guide and sustain 
the reform. USAID should be among those who meet periodically with representatives of such a 
network. 
There remain many unresolved issues. Among them are how the Citizens Alliance and other 
civil society groups will evolve, who will provide political leadership, what combination of 
incentives and values will motivate reform, whether the US Government will remain committed 
over the medium term and whether it will deal effectively with the longstanding need for greater 
integration of police investigators and prosecutors. Managing these imponderables will require 
continuous adaptation as circumstances change over the life of the program. 
Specific suggestions are contained throughout this report. The principal thematic 
recommendations can be summarized as follows: 
1. Adequate FY 2003 funds, in the amount of $1 million if possible, should be made 
available for obligation immediately. This will enable USAID to initiate the bridge 
program without an extended interruption of activities. 
. < 
.. 
I 
2. Arrangements should be made as soon as possible for the study of the costs to Panama of 
justice system weakness, inadequate transparency and corruption. It is important that the 
study be completed and its results widely disseminated before the end of2003. 
3. USAID' s work with justice sector institutions should continue to concentrate on strategic 
planning and implementing capacity, with a stronger emphasis on interagency 
coordination and systemic improvement, transparency and accountability, and judicial 
security. 
4. USAID's work with civil society should concentrate on the financial sustainability of the 
Citizens Alliance and on broadening the base and increasing the pace and intensity of 
advocacy, to include the private sector and the media. 
5. USAID should help to institutionalize Panamanian capacities to increase access to justice 
for citizens of modest means. Areas for concentration include public defense and legal 
services for the poor, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and community justice. 
6. USAID's essential work to increase transparency and accountability in the administration 
of justice should reflect a comprehensive approach that strengthens public sector capacity 
as well as civil society oversight. 
7. USAID should avail itself of opportunities to link its justice work in Panama with its 
other activities dealing with the Panama Canal watershed and community development in 
the Darien. 
8. USAID management should continue to embrace a participatory approach to program 
management that includes adequate program implementation staff in country, country 
team collaboration, donor coordination and encouragement of Panamanian leadership and 
ownership, with reliable consultation and feedback mechanisms. 
IX 
I. INTRODUCTION 
A. Background and Purpose of the Evaluation 
This is the second of two reports that respond to a request by USAIDlPanama for an evaluation 
of its special objective, "Momentum Toward Fairer and Faster Justice Established." According 
to the scope of work, the purpose of the evaluation is "to assist USAIDlPanama in determining 
whether the expected momentum for fairer and faster justice has been established and to help 
make a managerial decision on whether or not to continue working in the justice sector." 
The scope of work divides the evaluation into two phases. The first phase was the subject of a 
separate report, submitted in June 2003, that focused on the results of the ongoing program and 
prospects for future USAID activity to support the rule of law in Panama. This report, on the 
second phase of the evaluation, addresses the possible objectives, strategy and content of a 
future, expanded USAID program. In particular, it seeks to answer the following questions set 
out in the statement of work: 
1. What should be the focus of an expanded AOJ program to achieve maximum results? 
What are the highest priorities? 
2. What would be the most effective type of AOJ program, taking into account other donor 
activities, the existing political environment, the status ofthe legal framework and other 
factors? What type of activities would the consultant(s) propose within this type of 
program and why? 
3. What would be the expected results of the expanded program? 
4. How would the expanded AOJ program relate to the Mission's other strategic objectives? 
How does it relate to other donor programs? 
In responding to these questions, the evaluators have taken into account the following criteria, 
identified by USAIDlPanama: 
A. Strategic Compatibility: Proposed administration of justice assistance activities must 
significantly contribute to the achievement of and fall within the Mission's strategy. 
Activities should also be compatible with and contribute to the Mission's other strategic 
objectives, particularly in the Panama Canal Watershed (PCW) and eventually in the 
Panamanian component of the Andean Regional Initiative. 
B. Timing and Funding Expectations: The Mission is interested in a program of activities 
which can achieve meaningful results over the next 4-5 years, starting in early FY 03. 
C. Political Will and Willingness to Work Together: Evidence of support within the 
executive branch, justice sector, the legal community and civil society organizations for 
specific elements of reform. 
The Phase One report described the historical background of USAID involvement with the 
administration of justice in Panama. It made findings about the achievements of the current 
program with respect to its two major components - increased access to justice in targeted areas 
and an improved proactive role of civil society in justice reform. In addition, it set forth 
conclusions, identified unresolved issues, and summarized needed additional actions and lessons 
learned. Finally, it made recommendations for future programming. The executive summary of 
the Phase One report is at Annex 1. 
B. Methodology 
The evaluation team for Phase Two relied upon the findings, conclusions, descriptions of 
unresolved issues and lessons learned, and recommendations set out in the June report on Phase 
One. That report provided the foundation for the team's current analysis and recommendations. 
In addition, the team has been able to draw upon the written materials and records of interviews 
compiled during our work on Phase One. Beyond this historical record, the team conducted an 
intensive program of additional interviews, meetings, site visits and research in Panama during 
the period June 15-27. Some of the interviews were with individuals who had been consulted in 
the course of Phase One; others were new. A list of persons interviewed and meeting 
participants during Phase Two is at Annex 2. 
Evaluation team members tested their own judgments against the views of a group of 32 
Panamanians from the public sector and civil society, who met as a consultation group near the 
end of the team's work in Panama. Consultation group members also completed a questionnaire 
that had earlier been used in Phase One, thus broadening the sample of responses. The responses 
address the benefits of an improved justice system, principal challenges, appropriate strategies, 
and the potential contributions of international cooperation. Aggregate responses to the 
questionnaire are summarized at Annex 3. 
In order to facilitate comparison ofthe structures of the current Special Objective (2000-2003), 
proposed modifications to the current program during a brief extension (2003-2004), and 
recommendations for a possible new Strategic Objective (2004-2009), results frameworks for 
those three periods are presented in outline form at Annex 4. 
The evaluation team for Phase Two was made up of James Michel, team leader; Norma Parker, 
specialist in rule of law programming; and Carlos Berguido, Panamanian legal specialist. James 
Michel is a former official of the Department of State and USAID with a strong baekground in 
rule of law programs. Norma Parker is also a former official of US AID, where, among other 
responsibilities, she played a leading role in the development of rule of law programs throughout 
Latin America and the Caribbean. Carlos Berguido is an experienced Panamanian attorney with 
a depth of knowledge of the Panamanian justice system and the conduct of business in Panama. 
Messrs. Michel and Berguido carried out the Phase One evaluation. Biographic summaries of 
the team members are set out at Annex 5. 
As in Phase One, the evaluators wish to acknowledge the assistance of many people who have 
generously eontributed information, insights and views that have enriched this report. 
2 
special thanks go to Melva D' Anello, manager of the USAIDIPanamajustice program, who 
consistently provided accurate and timely information and thoughtful guidance that facilitated 
the work of the team. All opinions and judgments expressed in this report are those of the 
authors, who accept full responsibility for any errors of omission or commission in this 
document. 
II. SUSTAINING MOMENTUM FOR REFORM (2003-2004) 
A. Objectives and Focus of Activities 
The Phase One report recommended that, for the immediate future, USAID's priority should be 
to sustain the momentum that has been achieved by continuing the work now underway. In this 
regard, the report observed that the timing is propitious for a bridge program over the next year. 
During that time, while USAID is developing the specific content of a new program and 
completing necessary administrative steps, the current term of the reformist President of the 
Supreme Court will end and national elections will be held in Panama. During the first year of 
the new Administration, the terms of office of the Procurador General, who directs the national 
prosecution service, and Controller General will expire. These events will shape the climate for 
reform. 
A bridge program can help to maintain the pace of justice system improvement and civil society 
advocacy during this time of decision for Panama. Such a program can also help to provide a 
concrete basis of knowledge for policy dialogue on rule oflaw issues with the candidates and 
parties engaged in the political campaign that is already in its initial stages. In addition, it can 
prepare the way for the initiation in 2004 of an expanded program of support for sustainable rule 
of law reform. 
An issue highlighted in the Phase One report is the widespread perception of corruption in the 
judicial system. Indeed, the perception is one of pervasive corruption throughout the public 
sector. It appears that this perception, rather than creating demand for reform, has contributed to 
a sense of resignation. This situation will have to be addressed if sustainable reform is to be 
achieved. The bridge program provides an opportunity to begin work on this crucial issue at a 
time when transparency and public integrity are sure to be debated in the election campaign. If 
these issues lead to a change in public expectations, there will be a greater likelihood of an 
improved environment for expanded efforts after the 2004 elections. 
The only practical way for USAID to maintain the continuity of its effort during the one-year 
bridge program will be to extend the current special objective for one year and also to extend the 
period for performance by the implementing agents. The evaluators strongly endorse the actions 
taken by USAIDIPanama toward those ends. 
This section of the report proposes ways to shape the objectives and focus the activities under the 
bridge program so as to advance the three strategic priorities mentioned above: 
3 
Maintain the pace of justice system improvement and civil society advocacy; 
Provide a concrete basis of knowledge for policy dialogue on rule of law issues with 
political candidates; 
Prepare for the initiation of a new program of support for sustainable rule of law reform, 
increased transparency and accountability. 
Activities in furtherance of those objectives will need to be carefully selected and designed so 
that they can be accommodated within available funding for FY 2003. This report later 
addresses the budget issues and recommends that $1 million be made available for the bridge 
program. 
1. Strengthen Institutional Capacity and Inter-Institutional Coordination 
The first intermediate result of the special objective should focus on a continuation and 
expansion of the institution strengthening work already begun under the rubric of "Increased 
Access to Justice in Targeted Areas." This restructured intermediate result should place 
increased emphasis on the key issues of inter-institutional coordination and policy dialogue: 
The starting point is the Strategic Plan for the Panamanian judiciary. The President of the 
Supreme Court led the development of this plan in 2002 with assistance from USAID and other 
donors. Since its adoption he has championed its implementation. The plan's six basic themes 
are emblematic of the judicial reform movement in Panama: 
Reengineering of judicial services; 
Analysis and improvement of administrative management; 
Revision of human resource systems for selection, training, evaluation, promotion and 
discipline; 
Development of technology; 
Increase in financing and budgetary independence; 
Increase in citizen participation and alternative methods of dispute resolution. 
As noted in the Phase One report, this framework for reform merits support. It will survive only 
if it produces results that are apparent to both the operators and the users of the judicial system, 
as well as to the general public. Continued USAID support for the plan during the bridge period 
will help to produce those results. 
There are additional reasons why USAID should support the implementation ofthe strategic 
plan. By demonstrating results, USAID support can provide a valuable incentive for continuing 
4 
and deepening the reform process. It can demonstrate the constancy of US Government support 
for justice reform during this politically charged year. And it can provide the basis for a policy 
dialogue in which specific activities are addressed in the overall context of their contributions to 
strengthened institutions and improved inter-institutional coordination. 
Particular activities appropriate for USAID support include, first of all, those already begun but 
not yet completed under the Special Objective. In addition, there are opportunities for selected 
new activities that will advance the objective of strengthened institutions and inter-institutional 
coordination, foster policy dialogue and otherwise help set the stage for an expanded future 
program. 
a. Supreme Court 
In the Supreme Court itself, there is a need to institutionalize capacity to guide the 
implementation of the Court's strategic plan and to carry out research, analysis and planning on a 
continuing basis. The President of the Court has requested USAID technical assistance in the 
creation of a unit that would carry out those functions. Among other proposed activities, this 
unit would develop guidance for adapting and using new technology, develop a manual of good 
judicial practices, and update every two years the strategic plan for the judiciary. 
This request should be given priority. USAID's previous support for the Court's strategic plan 
will have lasting value only if the planning process becomes continuous rather than a one-time 
event dependent upon outside assistance. Also, USAID is supporting strategic planning in 
subordinate institutions within the judiciary, specifically, the Judicial School and the Public 
Defender Institute. The point of departure for those efforts is the basic strategic plan of the 
Supreme Court. Thus, the institutionalization within the Supreme Court of the capacity to plan￾and the related capacity to guide and monitor the implementation of plans - should have a 
beneficial impact throughout the judiciary. 
In the future, the judiciary might develop a coherent network of planning offices of the various 
entities, with the Supreme Court unit (or, perhaps, a separate administrative office of the courts) 
at the center. During the bridge period, however, given the uncertain future of the Supreme 
Court's commitment to reform, USAID's focus should be on establishing a basic institutional 
capability in the Supreme Court. The initial emphasis should be on the unit's ability to help 
achieve timely and efficient implementation of the Court's current strategic plan, which is 
scheduled to remain in force through 2004. 
An obvious example of a need for continuity in USAID support is the case tracking system now 
in operation in one of the Supreme Court's four chambers and installed but not yet operating in a 
second chamber. At relatively low cost and in a relatively short time, this system can be serving 
the entire Supreme Court. This would be a useful service to magistrates and staff and would also 
be a valuable demonstration of the benefits of modernization. On the other hand, leaving the 
system incomplete would be a waste of US AID's previous investment and would represent a 
failure of the Court's strategic plan that would be highly visible to skeptics within the judiciary. 
5 
Beyond its own merit, completing the case tracking system would provide an opportunity to 
initiate a dialogue on institutionalizing the way in which the justice system uses technology, one 
of the basic themes of the strategic plan. At present, a variety of case tracking systems and 
statistical information systems are in place or being planned, often sponsored by donors. There 
is an increasingly urgent need to rationalize the policy and practice of information technology 
management in the justice system. As discussed below, this issue has substantial inter￾institutional aspects. However, rationalization and a strategic, institutional approach within the 
judiciary would be an excellent beginning that could establish the parameters for a later, system￾wide effort. This should be an early task for the proposed new planning unit, discussed above. 
Other issues where the Supreme Court has requested USAID assistance also provide 
opportunities for encouraging institution strengthening. For example, the Supreme Court has 
requested USAID assistance in strengthening the Office of Judicial Audit. This office is 
responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by judges and other judicial personnel. 
Effective enforcement, of course, is an essential tool for establishing accountability and 
overcoming a legacy of unethical conduct and pervasive rumors of continued corruption. 
However, enforcement measures need to be combined with additional tools clear ethical 
standards, careful screening of applicants, continuing education of personnel, transparent 
procedures that minimize opportunities for malfeasance, and an overall climate of strong values 
and an expectation that ethical conduct \vill be rewarded and unethical behavior will be 
discovered and punished. 
USAID assistance should always contribute to the overall capacity of the system rather than 
provide temporary budgetary support of doubtful sustainability. Accordingly, any support for 
the Office of Judicial Audit should be offered as a part of a strategic effort by the Court to 
strengthen the overall accountability of personnel in the judicial system. These issues were 
addressed in Supreme Court President Arjona's most recent written request for USAID 
assistance (June 25,2003). An initial focus on transparency, rather than a complete redesign of 
the judiciary's human resources system, would seem the most appropriate response during the 
bridge period. 
h. Judicial School 
The Judicial School, an official institution of the judiciary, is in the process of adopting a 
strategic plan for its institutional development. USAID has provided substantial technical 
assistance in the development of this plan. The principal objective ofthe plan is to enable the 
school to impart to judges, prosecutors, and other personnel in the judiciary and Public Ministry 
practical knowledge and values they will need in order to carry out their responsibilities. 
As in the case of the Supreme Court's strategic plan, USAID support for implementation ofthe 
plan of the Judicial School can demonstrate results and thereby provide an incentive for 
continuing the reform process. If USAID were to end its involvement after the publication of the 
School's plan, significant results could not be expected. The Judicial School needs to develop its 
capacity to carry out the plan on a sustainable basis, and will need some initial financing. 
6 
USAID should consider supporting selected activities under the plan that would complement 
shared objectives, with an eye to the sustainability of those activities. 
For example, there is the Supreme Court's request, described above, for USAID assistance to 
strengthen the Court's Office of Judicial Audit. If the Court were to show interest in a strategic 
approach to increased accountability in the judiciary, and if USAID wished to contribute broadly 
to that strategic approach, the effort could include initiatives with the Judicial School among 
other activities. Work with the Audit Office would strengthen enforcement capacity, while work 
with the Judicial School could provide increased capacity for initial and follow-up training in 
ethical values and practices. Work with other entities would address other aspects of judicial 
accountability. 
c. Public Defender Institute 
The considerations mentioned in the foregoing discussion of the Judicial School also apply in the 
case of the Public Defender Institute. USAID assisted the Institute to develop its own strategic 
plan, which was published in June 2003. This plan is built on the six themes of the Supreme 
Court's plan, listed above. The capacity to formulate and carry out strategic plans is especially 
important for the Public Defender Institute because it is severely understaffed, under-funded, 
under-equipped and overworked. For the foreseeable future, it will have to rely on improved 
management more than any expectation of significantly increased resources. The recently 
adopted plan was developed in a highly participatory manner, involving the entire staff of the 
Institute. Thus, expectations are high for improved working conditions. The mere existence of a 
plan, however, will have little meaning vvithout the capacity to implement it. 
As in the case of the Judicial School, USAID should follow up on its investment in the Institute's 
strategic plan with support for its implementation. Specific activities should be chosen that will 
contribute to a strengthened institutional capacity and will also advance shared strategic interests. 
F or example, USAID might consider supporting the capacity of public defenders to secure the 
release of indigent defendants from unwarranted pretrial detention within the context of a 
broader effort to build support for procedural reform of the inefficient and slow criminal justice 
system. 
d. Access to Justice 
(1) Alternative Dispute Resolution 
The USAID-supported mediation center is an additional example of a promising beginning that 
remains at an early and fragile stage of development. The existing center operates under judicial 
branch (Organo judicial) auspices at a single location in the capital with a limited staff All staff 
members, including the Director, are employed under temporary contracts. The center's 
caseJoad is growing and the use of mediation is expanding, including through new centers, some 
of which are sponsored by universities, others by the Human Rights Ombudsman (Defensor del 
Pueblo), and still others by the Technical Judicial Police (Policia Tecnica Judicial). 
7 
· . 
There is a need to define policies as to how the state will support the use of mediation as a 
complement to the judicial system. For example, should the judiciary operate centers that accept 
cases other than those referred by courts? Should mediation services be provided free of charge 
to all, irrespective of ability to pay? Should private mediation be encouraged? If so, how will 
high professional standards be assured? How will mediation services be provided outside the 
capital city? There are also policy questions about what additional means of alternative dispute 
resolution, such as conciliation, arbitration and community-based approaches, should be 
developed and encouraged, and through what means those additional services should be made 
available. 
Beyond the policy issues, there is a need to manage those issues strategically. The ability to plan 
and to carry out plans efficiently would help to assure the realization of the potential value of 
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as a way to increase access to justice for ordinary 
citizens throughout Panama. In particular, continued US AID support for mediation through the 
judiciary's mediation center should focus on rationalizing and strengthening the institutional 
base for sustainable expansion of high quality mediation services. 
An important part of any effort to increase access to justice by citizens should be a dialogue with 
civil society to learn directly about the needs and desires to be served. Such a dialogue might be 
a useful activity for USAID support during the bridge period. There might be a role for the 
Citizens Alliance for Justice (Alianza Ciudadana pro Justicia) in such an initiative. Promotion of 
alternative dispute resolution is one of the six lines of action in the Alliance's strategic plan. 
Also, the Alliance has been active in publicizing the judiciary's mediation center. A grant from 
USAID to the Alliance for a defined activity in this regard could be a further step away from 
dependency on general budget support and toward financial sustainability for the Alliance. 
(2) Administrative Justice 
USAID has supported admirable work by the Citizens Alliance for Justice, in collaboration with 
the Procuraduria de la Administracion, to improve the quality of justice administered by 
corregidores throughout Panama. This work has included providing to the corregidores the texts 
of laws they administer, as well as operating manuals and related training. It has also included 
wide dissemination of a citizen's guide to administrative justice. 
These efforts deserve praise for improving the quality of the form of justice most often 
experienced by ordinary citizens. However, the improvement will not be sustained unless it is 
institutionalized. Corregidores serve at the pleasure of the mayors who appoint them and new 
appointees will be untrained. Moreover, adult education needs to be of a continuing nature, with 
periodic refresher courses and adjustment of content as laws and policies change. 
Major implementing action may not be needed during the bridge period. However, this would be 
an opportune time to plan on how to institutionalize improvements in the work of the 
corregidores. For example, USAID might initiate a dialogue on this theme with the Procuraduria 
de la Administracion and the Citizens Alliance. Among other issues, the dialogue could address 
how to finance and carry out a continuation of the work done by the Alliance, with a view to 
8 
assuring sustainability. The Procuraduria's training center for the modernization of public 
administration (Centro de Modernizaci6n de la Administraci6n Publica) was involved in the 
earlier training activity, and might play an important role in the continuing professional 
education of corregidores. As in the case of alternative dispute resolution, this dialogue could 
begin to change the financial relationship between USAID and the Alliance from one of a 
general subsidy to one of payment for work performed. It could also facilitate planning for a 
phasing out of US AID support and a phasing in of Panamanian responsibility for continuous 
improvement in the quality of administrative justice. 
(3) Pilot Casa de Justicia 
If sufficient resources were available, a more ambitious initiative to increase access to justice 
would be to join forces with the Inter-American Development Bank in planning a pilot project to 
include a community justice facility in one of the two Bank-supported model regional justice 
centers. (The center at San Miguelito would probably be the more convenient from a logistical 
standpoint.) Under this concept, USAID would support the inclusion of a mechanism for 
community participation in the governance of a center that offered a broad range of justice 
services, including the presence of a mediator, a corregidor, a public defender and a legal 
counselor, along with the basic institutions that would otherwise be collocated there. As with 
alternative dispute resolution and administrative justice, the Citizens Alliance would be able to 
playa significant role in this initiative. A pilot effort that was planned during the bridge program 
could be implemented under the expanded USAID program as early as the fall of2004, by which 
time construction of the center at San Miguelito should be completed. A broader effort, 
including the possibility of increasing access to justice for communities in the Darien, might be 
considered later if warranted by the experience with the pilot project. 
e. Inter-Institutional Coordination 
The Phase One report noted the resistance by Panamanian justice institutions to thinking and 
acting as integral parts of a single system. The report recommended that USAID address this 
issue in a focused way, beyond the inclusion of individuals from a number of different 
institutions in the same training courses. Further interviews during Phase Two and responses to 
the questionnaire distributed during the evaluation confirm that Panamanians see this as a 
significant issue. 
During the bridge period, USAID could begin a policy dialogue on issues of an inter-institutional 
nature, such as information systems and the streamlining of criminal and civil procedures in 
order to reduce unnecessary delay. It could be very productive to engage the Judicial Council at 
the center of this dialogue, and to do so in a manner that would strengthen the capacity of that 
advisory body to promote system-wide thinking and inter-institutional coordination. 
In December 2002, the Judicial Council approved an action plan to improve the overall 
efficiency of the justice system. It is now meeting on a quarterly basis to review progress in key 
areas of impact, such as citizen perceptions of impartiality and independence, access to justice, 
an organizational culture of service, and improvement in the quality of justice. However, the 
9 
Council is dependent upon the Supreme Court for administrative support and tends to be more 
reactive than proactive in its approach to issues. USAID might consider support for technical 
working groups of experts in various issues - from civil society as well as from the public sector 
- nominated by the organizations that participate in the work of the Council. USAID might also 
consider supporting a small technical staff reporting to the Council. These features could help 
give higher visibility to inter-institutional issues and also strengthen the Council's effectiveness. 
An advantage of focusing on the Council with respect to inter-institutional issues is that it is an 
existing institution with an accepted national identity. In addition, the Supreme Court has been 
flexible about allowing participation in the work of the Council by concerned organizations in 
addition to the statutory members. (The statutory members include the judiciary, the 
Procuraduria General, the Procuraduria de la Administraci6n and the Colegio de Abogados.) 
The Human Rights Ombudsman, the Public Defender Institute and the Citizens Alliance for 
Justice all participate regularly. Presumably that flexibility would extend to including additional 
institutions, such as the Ministry of Justice and Government or the Technical Judicial Police, on 
areas of direct relevance to them. 
A particular activity planned by USAID with the Judicial Council is a seminar to bring 
Panamanian jurists into contact with reformers from other Latin American countries where 
criminal procedures have been streamlined as part of the adoption of oral, accusatory justice 
systems. Such an event could be addressed in the context of a policy dialogue with the Council 
about criminal procedure. In this regard, the Council's December 2002 action plan contemplates 
analysis with respect to an accusatory criminal justice process. 
An important aspect of criminal procedure reform is the current practice of prolonged pretrial 
detention for those accused of crimes. USAID's dialogue with the Supreme Court on this issue 
has stimulated a number of administrative measures to alleviate the situation. This dialogue has 
also called attention to the need to streamline the segmented and duplicative process that is the 
major cause of delay. Reform would involve consideration by Panama of how to adapt to local 
needs the experience of many Latin American countries that have moved from an inquisitory to 
an accusatory system. (Panama's mixed procedure contains both inquisitory and accusatory 
elements.) 
The Supreme Court has requested USAID assistance in establishing a model courtroom that 
would facilitate learning about the logistical demands of oral hearings and continuous trials. 
This would not seem a high priority for the limited resources available under the bridge program. 
However, USAID might wish to consider how this proposal might contribute to improved inter￾institutional coordination. Rather than regard the model courtroom proposal in isolation, it 
should be an integral element of a dialogue with the Judicial Council about a strategic effort to 
reengineer the structure of the criminal justice process. 
2. Strengthen Civil Society 
The second intermediate result of the special objective should be strengthened civil society. The 
Phase One report described the progress made by the Citizens Alliance for Justice in developing 
10 
and carrying out a strategic agenda of public advocacy and education, and also in strengthening 
its management capacity. It will be especially important to strengthen further that capacity 
during the period of the bridge program, when issues of justice and transparency are sure to be 
prominent in the electoral campaign. In addition, in order to maximize the voice of civil society 
on these issues, consideration should be given to expanding the base of civil society activity 
through greater emphasis on the roles of the private sector and the media. As in the case of the 
first intermediate result, efforts to strengthen civil society should include the continuation of 
activities already underway as well as new activities that will advance the three strategic 
objectives of the bridge program. 
a. Advocacy 
The first priority should be to sustain the six-part program of the Citizens Alliance for Justice: 
Consolidation of the Alliance as an organization; 
Judicial independence and transparent administration of justice; 
Improvement of the corrections system; 
Reform of administrative justice; 
Promotion of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms; and 
Citizens' legal education and dissemination of information. 
In addition, USAID should consider new activities that may be especially important during the 
period of the bridge program. 
A new activity that could have decisive importance for public advocacy during the bridge period, 
and could influence the overall climate for reform for years to come, is a country-specific study 
of the costs to Panama of weakness in the justice system, inadequate transparency and corruption 
(especially in the justice sector). Those costs are political, economic, social and environmental. 
A persuasive analysis, well publicized, could help to raise the profile of justice, transparency and 
corruption in the public debate. If the study were to find that, as some believe, these issues are 
preventing Panama from being included in a free trade relationship with the United States, the 
public reaction could be expected to be especially strong. However, the study should address all 
significant costs, not just those relating to trade. 
Ideally, such a study would be undertaken by one or more respected Panamanian research 
institutions, would benefit from consultation with prestigious international organizations, and 
would be accompanied by a broad consultation with civil society groups that would build 
knowledge, support and local ownership. The study results could provide a concrete basis for a 
dialogue between civil society and Presidential candidates in late 2003 and early 2004, followed 
by a post-election dialogue with the winning candidate and his transition team. The overall 
11 
objective would be to use the study as a way to inform the internal policy debate and to promote 
consensus in favor of reform, based on objective research, solid facts, sound analysis and shared 
interests. 
A study of this nature would be a major undertaking, requiring several months of work and a 
commitment of significant resources. Therefore, an early decision is needed on how to proceed. 
USAID could seek to complement any financing it might provide with contributions from the 
Panamanian private sector and from international donors. 
A second specific activity for consideration later during the bridge period would be to initiate 
civil society monitoring (social auditing) of justice system performance. USAID support in this 
field could complement the study being undertaken by the Citizens Alliance with a grant from 
the United Nations Development Program. The timing for this activity would depend upon the 
availability of funds and the development ofthe institutional capacity ofthe Alliance. However, 
it would be desirable if monitoring could begin during the pre-election period. 
h. Institutional Capacity 
If the Citizens Alliance were to undertake an expanded role in civil society monitoring of the 
performance of the justice system, it would be highly desirable for USAID to provide technical 
assistance as soon as possible that would strengthen the capacity of the organization to carry out 
that activity. USAID might also consider additional capacity strengthening to foster the 
Alliance's financial sustainability, especially with respect to fundraising, project finance, 
proposal writing and project implementation. The past arrangement for technical assistance to 
the Alliance would be relevant to this kind of effort, in light of the principal consultant's 
experience with USAID and international organizations. There are obvious advantages of 
maintaining continuity in the relationship between the Alliance and the technical advisor. This 
kind of technical assistance should not be necessary beyond the bridge period. 
c. Broadening the Base 
In order to maximize the impact of civil society activities during the bridge period, it would be 
helpful to look beyond the Citizens Alliance to a broader range of institutions. In particular, the 
recent interest by the Panamanian Association of Business Executives (APEDE) in the justice 
sector offers an important additional perspective from the private sector For example, at its 
annual conference this year, organized around the theme of "Justice, the Rule of Law and 
Economic Development," APEDE circulated a pro-justice reform declaration that has attracted 
broad private sector support. 
APEDE might be included among organizations supporting an effort to quantify and report on 
the economic costs of judicial system weakness, inadequate transparency and corruption in 
Panama. USAID collaboration with APEDE in such an undertaking (perhaps including cost 
sharing with respect to the study) could help to assure a continuing role for this influential 
private sector organization in the effort to improve the administration of justice and increase 
12 
transparency in governance. Another organization that could be involved in the study, especially 
with respect to the costs of corruption, is the Foundation for the Development of Citizen 
Freedom (Fundaci6n para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana), the Panamanian chapter of 
Transparency International and a member of the Citizens Alliance. 
An additional aspect of expanded participation to increase the impact of civil society is the need 
to engage the media more directly. One part of responding to this need will be to seek the 
assistance of the US Embassy's Public Affairs Counselor. A second possibility would be to take 
advantage of the presence in Panama of the Latin American Journalism Center (CELAP). The 
Center, originally established with a grant from USAID, has a strong capacity for training 
journalists. USAID might consider a pilot training course this year, when public awareness is 
especially important. A more sustained effort might be pursued later, perhaps as a regional 
project involving journalists from a number of countries with cost sharing by participating 
USAID Missions. 
B. Benchmarks and Options for an Expanded Program 
1. Design Requirements 
The bridge program probably will not be able to include all of the elements suggested for 
consideration in the foregoing section. Financial limitations and management discipline will 
require that priorities be established and choices made with regard to program content. In 
making those choices, USAID should consider the milestones that the bridge program should 
seek to attain. Also, priorities can be selected by reference to the need for immediate action 
during the period of the bridge. In all cases, preference should be given to activities that can help 
to strengthen Panamanian institutions and positively influence a readiness to undertake reform. 
Thus, high priority should be given to activities that are necessary in order to follow-up on work 
begun under the Special Objective, the value of which would be jeopardized by an interruption 
of effort. Examples include the implementation of strategic plans for the Supreme Court, the 
Judicial School and the Public Defender Institute and also the completion of the case tracking 
system at the Supreme Court. 
A second level of priority should be accorded to new activities that are time-sensitive. Examples 
include the proposed study of the costs to Panama of judicial system weakness and related issues, 
expanding the base of civil society participation in the public debate on issues of justice and 
transparency, and working with the Supreme Court to increase accountability within the 
jUdiciary. 
The lowest priority should be assigned to otherwise meritorious new actions that are not time 
sensitive and could be postponed until the beginning of an expanded project in 2004. Examples 
of this kind of activity include planning for the initiation of a pilot casa de justicia or 
institutionalizing the capacity of the Procuraduria de la Administraci6n to enhance the 
professional quality of corregidores. 
13 
The bridge program should seek to attain the following milestones before it ends in September 
2004: 
Civil society organizations are vigorously supporting justice reform and efforts to reduce 
corruption through advocacy, public dialogue and public education. 
The jUdiciary is implementing selected high impact activities from the strategic plan of 
the Supreme Court. 
The Judicial Council, or some other entity, is beginning to foster inter-institutional 
coordination. 
Panamanian justice sector institutions are carrying out additional elements of a reform 
agenda. 
Justice reform and transparency issues are being actively discussed in public fora. 
USAID should discuss its expectations for the bridge program with Panamanian counterparts in a 
spirit of partnership. Then, before the bridge program comes to an end, and after the May 2004 
elections, USAIDlPanama should make an assessment of the degree to which those milestones 
are being achieved. That assessment would inform final decisions on the size and content of an 
expanded program for the 2004-2009 timeframe. 
2. Budget and Program Options 
The costs of the bridge program will depend upon the specific programming choices made by 
USAIDlPanama. Nevertheless, the evaluators believe that no less than $1 million will be 
required to finance a range of activities sufficient to sustain momentum on efforts now underway 
and also to provide time-sensitive support to the policy debate and set the stage for a new 
program. Among other considerations, the proposed study of the costs to Panama of judicial 
system weakness, inadequate transparency and corruption is a very important tool for improving 
the climate for reform before a new government takes office. This activity represents an 
unplanned cost that would reduce funds otherwise available for other priorities. The Phase One 
report recommended that a means be found to augment the limited funding available for FY 
2003, if possible. That recommendation bears repeating here. 
Taking into account the results of the assessment of progress toward established milestones, the 
design of the follow-on project can be considered within a notional framework of three 
alternative funding options. The choice among these options should reflect the degree to which 
milestones have been achieved and the demonstrated readiness by Panamanian counterparts to 
undertake needed reforms. The next section of this report discusses programming issues within 
the framework of those three alternative funding levels. They are: 
14 
Option A: $15 million over five years (if there are indications of strong will and a broad 
consensus for reform, and if financing is available); 
Option B: $10 million over five years (if there are indications of strong will and a broad 
consensus for reform, but more limited available financing); 
Option C: $1 million over two years (the exit option in the event that the climate is not 
propitious for an expanded program). 
III. EXPANDED SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINABLE RULE OF 
LAW REFORM (2004-2009) 
A. Incentives and Motivations 
Opinion leaders in Panama are ambivalent about the nation's justice system. On the one hand, 
there is widespread dissatisfaction with the slowness, inefficiency and inadequate independence 
of the courts. On the other hand, Panamanian elites have learned how to conduct their affairs in 
ways that largely avoid reliance on undependable justice institutions. The perception described 
in a 1998 sector assessment prepared for USAID (cited in the bibliography for the Phase One 
report) seems harsh, but it finds an uncomfortably familiar echo in many interviews with 
informed Panamanians: 
"It is commonly believed that the politically and economically powerful enjoy 
immunity in criminal cases and either avoid civil litigation or prevail in their 
disputes through a system of influence (which may well involve monetary 
considerations) the ordinary citizen or the foreign community cannot penetrate. 
Leadership's attachment to this organizational status quo impedes further reform 
and undermines public confidence in the sector." 
The values that argue for reform are thus too often seen as being in conflict with interests served 
by the status quo. The first challenge, then, is to find how values and interests can be shovvn to 
coincide in ways that are sufficiently compelling to justify the risks and effort of reform. 
The excessive reliance on pretrial detention of those accused of crimes is an example of a 
situation that is perceived by many as reflecting a conflict between values and interests. The 
practice offends the value of respect for human rights and harms Panama's international image. 
On the other hand, it is seen by many as serving a societal interest in keeping criminals off the 
streets. Thus, the practice is tolerated, even though it is a principal cause of Panama having the 
highest per capita prison population in Latin America. More profound analysis might 
demonstrate that incarcerating more and more citizens has not diminished a rising crime rate and 
has increased the prospects that accused first offenders will become ruthless and efficient repeat 
offenders after spending a year or two in the penitentiary awaiting trial. It may well be 
that Panamanian values and interests coincide on this issue. But this will have to be 
demonstrated persuasively. 
1 
In the same way, having a preferred access to decision makers and a degree of freedom from 
legal accountability can be perceived as valuable economic advantages, even though they offend 
the value of equal justice under law. Again, that conclusion might be challenged by analysis 
showing that potential investors were limiting their exposure in Panama because of inadequate 
judicial security. Thus, it might be concluded that increased assurances of judicial fairness and 
independence would translate broadly into economic benefit for Panama - and for those who 
previously had been satisfied with the limited rewards of the status quo. 
Among the particular issues that should be explored in an analysis of costs, benefits and values, 
the most important is surely Panama's interest in achieving a free trade agreement with the 
United States and in being able to attract investment that would maximize the benefits of such an 
agreement. lfUS businesses are aggrieved by Panama's justice system, that will be an 
impediment to negotiations and also a limitation on Panama's ability to benefit from any 
agreement reached. 
Another important issue is the environment. The pollution of the bay in the capital city is a 
constant reminder of the consequences of inadequate enforcement of environmental laws and 
regulations. Equally alarming are the continuing deforestation and soil erosion in the watershed 
that provides the fresh water on which the Panama Canal depends for its ability to function. 
Concerns about the loss of natural resources in remote regions such as the Darien are also 
growing and can be a part of the motivation for reform. 
Section II of this report suggests a public dialogue during and immediately after the current 
election campaign, grounded in a persuasive analysis of the costs to Panama of weakness in the 
justice system, inadequate transparency and corruption (especially in the justice system). Such a 
study should be a unique tool for identifying costs that can motivate reform. The ensuing 
dialogue should seek to show how national interests and societal values alike would be served by 
an effort to overcome those costs. Thus, criminal justice reform can advance both citizen 
security and human rights. Likewise, increased judicial security can promote interests such as 
integration into a free trade regime and economic growth as well as values such as more equal 
treatment. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the issues mentioned here are generally consistent 
with the priorities identified by Panamanians who responded to the questionnaire used in the 
evaluation (see Annex 3). 
A second challenge is to raise the level of confidence that reform can, in fact, bring about results 
that will serve identified national interests and societal values. This is one reason why it is so 
important to maintain continuity of progress and to demonstrate positive results during the period 
of the bridge program. However, reform is necessarily a continuous process. Any expanded 
program will need to reflect a compelling vision and long-term goals, combined with a flexible 
capacity to achieve and publicize interim results to help sustain momentum. 
Thus a new USAID program of expanded support for sustained rule of law reform should 
support Panamanian interests, values and expectations in a manner that can command sustained 
efforts by political leaders, institutions and civil society. The incentives and motivations needed 
to sustain the effort underlie the recommendations of the evaluators with respect to objectives 
and activities for consideration in a program of expanded USAID support. 
16 
B. Objectives and Focus of Activities 
The objective of a new program of expanded support for sustainable rule of law reform would be 
to strengthen the overall independence, fairness, efficiency, accessibility, transparency and 
accountability of the justice system. Taking into account issues that might constitute motivation 
for reform, as discussed above, the evaluators propose four intermediate results for this strategic 
objective. They are: 
Civil society will promote and help ensure a strong political basis for justice reform. 
Institutions will gain increased capacity to carry out reforms that will enhance the 
fairness and efficiency of the justice system. 
Citizens will obtain increased access to prompt, fair and affordable means to resolve 
disputes. 
The justice sector will be characterized by increased transparency and accountability. 
The following indicators would provide measures of progress toward those intermediate results: 
A substantial base of support from both political and civil society leaders will foster a 
process of continuous improvement of the justice system. 
Individual justice sector entities will begin to institutionalize long term planning, 
budgeting, and administrative capacities. Also, an inter-institutional planning and 
coordination mechanism will begin to operate for the sector. 
There will be measurable progress in achieving fair and efficient criminal and civil 
justice, including the effective combat of international crime, due process and a far more 
timely disposition of cases. 
Access to justice for citizens, including administrative justice and alternative dispute 
resolution mechanisms, will become more widely available, and public confidence in the 
justice system will rise. 
Transparency and accountability in the sector will increase. 
1. Civil Society \ViII Promote and Help Ensure a Strong Political Basis for Justice 
Reform 
The groundwork for this component will have been laid during the bridge period. By June 2004, 
civil society organizations, including the media and the private sector, will have actively 
participated in a policy dialogue first with the presidential candidates, and then with the new 
17 
president of the country. Civil society will also continue i.ts ongoing policy dialogue with 
Panamanian justice sector institutions, including through the Judicial Council. Willingness to 
reform selected components ofthe justice system and to take the initial steps toward establishing 
a national system of integrity (transparency and accountability) will have been determined by the 
assessment of performance, measured against the milestones suggested in the preceding section 
of this report. 
Policy dialogue would continue throughout the period of the new strategic objective under all 
funding options. USAID would facilitate continued and intensified advocacy for justice and 
accountability reforms through selected support to an expanded range of civil society 
organizations, including the Citizens Alliance for Justice, Transparency International and private 
sector groups such as the Panamanian Association of Business Executives (APEDE). The 
USAID assistance would build the capacity of these organizations, especially the Citizens 
Alliance, to conduct social auditing in order to monitor progress in carrying out reforms. USAID 
assistance would also help to build their research and analysis capabilities so as to improve their 
advocacy and monitoring capacities. 
The private sector has a huge stake in the modernization of the justice system and the 
establishment of a system of national integrity. It should be expected to playa major role in 
dialogue with government and judicial officials, including in public meetings to focus attention 
on the need for reform. The leadership being shown by APEDE may offer a new opportunity in 
this regard. APEDE might well serve as a catalyst to mobilize a number of private sector 
organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, the American 
Chamber of Commerce, and sectoral groups representing major industries such as banking, 
insurance and construction. USAID should encourage this potential opportunity to add 
influential voices to the demand by civil society for political attention to issues of justice and 
integrity. 
The media should be expected to play an important role in maintaining the reform momentum. 
Training of both print and electronic media journalists in the complex issues of justice and 
transparency reforms is critical to keeping the public informed and involved. USAID could 
support a grant to the Latin American Journalism Center (CELAP) for this type of training. 
A partnership with civil society, the government and the judiciary would provide the strongest 
base for a long-term reform effort. 
2. Institutions Will Gain Increased Capacity to Carry Out Reforms That Will Enhance 
the Fairness and Efficiency of the Justice System 
a. Strategic Planning, Budgeting and Inter-Institutional Coordination 
The weak capacity of public sector justice institutions to plan strategically and to manage the 
implementation of strategic plans has emerged as a significant impediment to reform. USAID 
has begun to address that impediment under the current special objective and would continue to 
do so under the bridge program, as discussed in section II of this report. In addition, there is an 
18 
evident need for inter-institutional coordination and system-wide thinking. The Supreme Court, 
through the implementation of its strategic plan and with the limited participation of the newly 
reactivated Judicial Council, is beginning to coordinate the agencies ofthe judiciary. Moreover, 
the President of the Court has expressed interest in extending the scope of Judicial Council 
efforts to the entire justice system. 
As a key component of the new strategic objective, USAID should continue to provide assistance 
to the Supreme Court and other entities of the justice system to help them adopt individual 
strategic plans and strengthen their capacity to carry out those plans. Support for 
institutionalizing the planning, budgeting and administrative processes within the agencies 
concerned would be an important part of that assistance. 
Work with individual agencies should be complemented by an effort to strengthen the 
management capacity and expand the scope of participation in the Judicial Council. As 
previously noted, the membership of the Council is established by law, but there has developed a 
practice of flexibility in permitting additional organizations to participate. It will be important 
that participation continue to be expanded in this same flexible manner to enable the Council to 
address on an informed basis issues involving coordination between member and non-member 
entities. Coordination between police investigators, prosecutors and judges is an example of a 
subject that would obviously benefit from the participation of the Ministry of Justice and 
Government and police agencies in the Council's deliberations. At some point, consideration 
might be given to a revision of the enabling legislation to expand both the mandate and the 
membership of the Council. However, that is not an urgent requirement. 
b. Selection and Accountable Performance of Judges and Other Personnel 
There is a critical need to address the process by which judges are selected and maintained in the 
system. Ideally the judicial career would be implemented in a manner whereby judges are 
selected on merit, receive training in how to be a judge, and are evaluated on their performance 
as judges. Likewise this approach to establishing a professional core of judges would also be 
applied to the Public Ministry, the Public Defender Institute and court administrators. The 
USAID program would provide assistance for implementing merit selection and performance 
evaluation systems. In this regard, it could provide familiarity with models from countries that 
are operating successful merit systems for the selection and evaluation of judges, prosecutors and 
other personnel. 
Increased accountability is indispensable to improve the quality of judges. Building on the 
dialogue and initial activities under the bridge program, USAID should encourage the Supreme 
Court to proceed with an institutional approach to this complex subject. Such an approach 
should include ethics codes, continuing training in ethical values and practices, and strengthened 
capacity to investigate wrongdoing and sanction violators. Civil society, the Citizen Alliance for 
Justice in particular, should receive assistance to enable monitoring of judicial performance and 
the operation and enforcement of ethical standards. These issues should also be pursued with 
other officials in the justice system prosecutors, public defenders, court administrators and 
19 
members of the legal profession. The Procuraduria de la Adminstraci6n, which has developed an 
ethics program for public employees, might be a good collaborator in this field. 
In addition to Panamanian experience and models of other countries, progress in issues of 
judicial selection and accountable performance might benefit from consideration of international 
standards. For example, the Caracas Declaration, adopted by the Presidents ofIbero-American 
Supreme Courts in 1999, sets forth a hemispheric consensus on issues of budgetary autonomy 
and independence; judicial selection, training and performance evaluation; and fighting 
corruption, including a code of ethics of the Ibero-Americanjudicial civil servant. 
c. Fair and Efficient Criminal Justice 
A vailable judicial statistics reveal a large number of cases backlogged in the criminal courts and 
a consistent pattern of delay in arriving at final decisions. One disturbing consequence of this 
inefficiency is the highest per capita prison population in the Hemisphere (11,000 prisoners, of 
which 6,000 are being held in pre-trial detention). A critical component of the strategic objective 
would be streamlining the procedures in the criminal courts by reducing duplicative investigative 
phases and improving cooperation among courts, prosecutors and investigative police. 
In that light, the office that prosecutes drug offenses (Fiscalia de Drogas) has developed a model 
of administrative management and police/prosecutor cooperation with technical support from the 
US Departments of State and Justice. There has been some replication ofthis model in 
specialized anti-corruption and organized crime units of the Public Ministry. However, most 
prosecutors still operate under traditional, formalistic and archaic procedures that contribute to 
unnecessary delay. USAID could finance a pilot to extend modern management practices to 
other parts of the Public Ministry. Similarly, at the Option A funding level, USAID could 
finance pilot courts to demonstrate more efficient case management procedures and effective 
inter-institutional coordination. 
One possibility would be to offer support for a pilot effort to improve the management of 
environmental law enforcement. This is an area where both the Public Ministry and the Supreme 
Court have requested USAID assistance. Strengthening Panamanian capacity to enforce 
environment protection of the watersheds around the Panama Canal would link the USAID 
strategic objective of "Panama Sustainably Manages the Canal Watershed and Buffer Areas" to 
the justice system strategic objective. Similarly, improved enforcement of environmental laws in 
the Darien would contribute to USAID's special objective of strengthening selected Darien 
communities. 
Consultations with practitioners in Panama showed a clear preference to begin with 
administrative reforms and to pursue legislative remedies only where experience shows that there 
is no alternative. However, ultimately, the outdated criminal procedure code will have to be 
revised in order to address the structural problems ofthe sector. USAID could begin to address 
this need by supporting a more active program of interchanges with regional leaders in criminal 
justice reform, building on the experience gained III the bridge program. Countries such as 
Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic would be excellent sites for visits by 
members of the judiciary and legislators, together with representatives of the Public Ministry and 
the investigative police (PTJ). There, they could see first hand how justice sector reforms are 
being implemented under new criminal procedure codes. The Justice Studies Center of the 
Americas (CEJA) is a repository of the Hemisphere's experience with criminal procedure· 
reforms and could be of assistance in this regard. USAID might also consider a grant to CEJA to 
visit Panama and advise the sector on procedural reforms. 
If the interest and commitment to redraft the code were to become manifest, USAID could 
support technical assistance from other reforming Latin American countries to advise the justice 
commission of the Legislative Assembly in its work to develop proposed legislation. If and 
when a revised code should be enacted, USAID and other donors could begin the difficult 
process of training justice system operators to implement the reforms adopted. (Most countries 
that have adopted major procedural reforms have provided for delayed entry into force of new 
procedure codes to allow time for such training.) Even if a new code is not developed, some 
training of sector personnel will be needed to implement administrative measures intended to 
streamline the criminal justice process. 
d. Judicial Security for Investment, Property Rights and Contracts 
Panama is actively seeking a free trade agreement with the United States. This was a major 
theme in President Moscoso's recent official visit to Washington. Among the barriers to the 
negotiation of such an agreement is the issue of judicial security. Uncertainty about the legal 
protection of investment and the judicial enforcement of contracts and property rights is a 
significant issue. This issue could be even more significant if, instead of a bilateral treaty, 
Panama were to seek to "dock" to some existing agreement, such as that with Singapore or Chile, 
or the one currently under negotiation with Central America. In that case, Panama would have to 
satisfy not only the United States but also the other treaty party or parties. 
USAID can assist in Panamanian efforts to strengthen the legal framework for protection of 
economic interests and the mechanisms to ensure fair and efficient enforcement procedures. 
Beyond the basic issues of judicial selection and accountable performance, discussed above, 
which are fundamental, efforts can be directed specifically at the performance of civil and 
commercial courts. Priorities for such efforts need to be identified through intensive discussion 
with the Panamanian legal community after consultation within the United States Government, 
in particular with the United States Trade Representative. There are a number of possibilities 
that could emerge from those discussions and consultations. 
For example, court dockets are congested and cases often linger for years awaiting a decision. A 
project by the Inter-American Development Bank provided temporary relief by paying for 
temporary judges to help reduce the backlog. But that effort did not change the way cases are 
managed, and the backlog began to grow as soon as the project ended. Court congestion is 
a current topic of interest, as indicated by the major conference on the subject sponsored by the 
Supreme Court in late May 2003 with support from APEDE. A USAID program might 
introduce pilot courts for civil and commercial cases that would demonstrate more efficient case 
management and effective inter-institutional coordination, similar to what is being proposed for 
21 
the criminal courts. A case tracking system that could help to measure the progress of cases in 
the various courts and to identify causes of delay would seem highly desirable to establish an 
empirical basis for such an activity. 
Another possibility might be training for judges and other actors in the system to familiarize 
them with international standards agreed to by Panama and also with related economic issues and 
business practices that are relevant to the cases presented in civil and commercial courts. 
Training ofthis nature might be considered in the strategic plan ofthe Judicial School. 
USAID could also support interchanges with leaders in civil and commercial justice reform 
within the region, especially with regard to possible reform of the civil procedure code, in order 
to help speed the movement of cases through the court system. A need for procedural reform 
was suggested in the consultation group meeting organized by the evaluators. It was pointed out 
during the meeting that as new specialized areas of the law have been introduced into 
Panamanian jurisprudence, there has been a tendency to create new courts and new procedures. 
One distinguished professor advised that, as a result of this practice, by his count there are now 
37 different procedures in force in Panama, not including the criminal justice system. An effort 
toward greater unity and simplification would seem to be needed. 
Activities of this nature could go a long way in strengthening and institutionalizing judicial 
security. While the specific focus of any USAID activity in this area must be determined after 
consultations, the nature of that activity should be consistent with the overall emphasis of 
USAID's program on sustainable improvement through strengthened institutional capacity. 
3. Citizens Will Obtain Increased Access to Prompt, Fair and Affordable Means to 
Resolve Disputes 
Access to justice services is very limited for citizens of modest means. This scarcity exists for 
both civil and criminal justice matters. 
In the criminal justice system, with only 40 public defenders to serve the whole country, it is 
understandable that the poor do not receive adequate legal assistance and make up the bulk of the 
prison population. USAID should continue to support the strategic plan of the Public Defender 
Institute, including the expansion, training, and improved management of public defenders to 
increase efficiency and bring them more in line with the numbers and levels of competence of 
the prosecutors. Public defenders should be available throughout the country. 
More generally, USAID should continue the efforts initiated or expanded under the bridge 
program to increase the availability of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution 
mechanisms within a sound policy and management framework. The objective should be to 
institutionalize these means for increasing access by ordinary citizens to services that will help 
them to resolve many of their disputes in a reasonable time and at reasonable cost. In the same 
vein, the expanded USAID program could help to permanence to a process of continuously 
improving the quality of administrative justice. Institutionalizing training for corregidores, for 
example, could be an important contribution to improved access to justice. 
As suggested above in section II of this report, a pilot community justice center (casa de justicia) 
could offer a way to extend access to justice in municipalities that are remote from the capital. 
Depending on the outcome of initial consultations with the Inter-American Development Bank, 
an integrated approach to providing justice services at the community or local level might begin 
by expanding the range of services offered at one or both of the regional centers being 
constructed with IDB financing. Other possibilities would be to engage directly interested 
municipalities that want to expand citizen access to justice services. 
In either event, the essence of the pilot activity would be to support the collocation of 
corregidores, mediators, public defenders and legal advisors along with the basic institutions that 
would be present, such as the judge, prosecutor and police. The other important feature of the 
community justice center would be to include civil society representatives in its governance and 
to encourage cooperation among all the public agencies involved. Local governance would give 
voice to the people as to their priorities and desires for justice services. The goal is to bring 
justice directly to the people and to involve them in defining the services they need. 
As suggested above, successful experience with a pilot effort might provide a basis for 
replication in remote areas such as the Darien. The special objective of strengthening selected 
Darien communities contemplates efforts to strengthen the organizational capacity of local 
governments and community-based organizations. This results framework would easily 
accommodate activities to improve access to justice at the community level, including through 
participatory structures. The Government of Panama has established a special program to 
address the needs of this poor and isolated region and the Inter-American Development Bank is 
providing major financial support (in excess of $80 million). It seems likely that this increased 
attention will produce an increase in disputes and that appropriate means to resolve those 
disputes should be a part of community development plans for the region. 
Citizen education in the administration of justice and in transparency and accountability is 
another potential activity for increasing access to justice. The number of civic education courses 
has been reduced in the schools and, apart from the work of the Citizens Alliance for Justice, 
there is not much adult education on these topics. It might be useful to work with the Alliance 
on a more intense civic education program. In this regard, the Alliance might benefit from 
exchanges with other organizations in the NGO network that carry out extensive education 
efforts, such as the Peruvian Institute for Education and Human Rights (Instituto Peruano de 
Educaci6n en Derechos Humanos y la Paz - IPEDEHP). 
4. The Justice Sector Will Be Characterized by Increased Transparency and 
Accountability 
Lack of transparency in public administration is a serious problem in Panama. It is certain to be 
an issue in the negotiation of a free trade agreement with the United States and generally 
diminishes the integrity of democratic governance. The issues are multiple. They include 
allegations of corruption in the management of the ports, slowness in implementing the civil 
law and general norms for conduct of public sector employees, a regulatory structure that 
makes the transparency law ineffective, standards and procedures that inhibit the prosecution of 
public officials for illicit enrichment while exposing investigative journalists to criminal libel 
charges, and a lack of transparency in public bidding on commercial contracts. 
An expanded USAID program needs to include a crosscutting result of increased transparency 
and accountability in the justice sector. As noted in the Phase One report, addressing this issue 
will be an important part of any credible reform. USAID should build upon the efforts begun 
under the bridge program to increase the integrity of the justice system. Activities for 
consideration in USAID's cooperation with the public sector include those that support the full 
range of sustainable reforms: ethical standards, selection of personnel, training in ethical values 
and practices, transparent procedures, increased capacity to investigate alleged misconduct, and 
the will to sanction wrongdoers in an open and public manner. Moving beyond the judiciary, 
consideration should be given to cooperation on this crosscutting issue with the Public Ministry, 
the Comptroller General and the organized bar. 
Another important aspect of increasing transparency and accountability in the justice sector is to 
strengthen oversight by civil society. Working with the media and the private sector, a group 
like the Citizens Alliance can raise the public's awareness of the accountability and transparency 
issues to a higher level. It can also increase public confidence that citizens can effectively 
demand greater integrity from public institutions and thereby overcome the prevailing sense of 
resignation and public apathy. USAID should place heavy emphasis on developing the 
analytical and managerial capacity of civil society organizations to maintain pressure for 
integrity by augmenting their advocacy programs with social auditing of justice and related 
institutions. Ultimately, the goal is to develop political will to reduce corruption and build a 
national system of integrity based on a code of conduct for Panamanian public servants. 
C. Discussion of Options 
The program described above assumes that funding will be available at the Option A level of $15 
million for the life of the project over five years. If the Option B level of $1 0 million for the life 
of the project is selected, activities directed at major reform of the criminal and civil procedure 
codes and attendant training of the operators of the system would not be undertaken. Specific 
criteria should be developed with respect to funding the proposed pilot activities with the Public 
Ministry, courts and community justice. For example, if political will exists in the Public 
Ministry to replicate the administration, management, and coordination systems in use in the 
drug prosecution office, that pilot activity would be funded and some other activity, perhaps the 
community justice pilot, might have to be dropped. Other criteria could be developed such as the 
costs of the pilot, whether another donor was willing to provide funding, and the prospects for 
early scaling up from the pilot activity to national impact. 
Under Option B, the crosscutting result addressing transparency and accountability would be 
focused on public sector capacity and civil society monitoring. More expansive efforts, such as 
reaching out to the organized bar, would not be included. In the end, the components remaining 
under Option B will depend on USAID's assessment of the milestones achieved under the bridge 
and the availability of funding in the 2004-2009 period. 
At the Option C level of $1 million over two years, only limited closeout work with the public 
sector and the activities of civil society in maintaining reform momentum and raising awareness 
of transparency and accountability issues would be funded. There should be budget space within 
the $1 million to support selected social auditing activities. This option should be closely 
coordinated with another large donor that, in theory, could pick up those remnants of the USAID 
program that might remain of interest. It allows two years for the Citizens Alliance and other 
civil society organizations to identify other funding sources so that USAID' s departure from the 
sector would leave behind a continuing process of advocacy that might find success in generating 
political will at a later time. 
IV. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 
Program management will require continuous attention to a range of operational issues, budget 
allocations, coordination among US Government agencies, donor coordination, and most 
importantly, Panamanian ownership of reform issues and approaches to resolving them. 
USAID should assure that proposed changes in mission management structures for the region 
will not inhibit the continuation of an on-site contractor chief of party and supporting technical 
assistance and consultation resources. Experience under the special objective has 
demonstrated the importance of having this capability in country. 
The budgets for both the bridge and the follow-on programs are provided exclusively from the 
Economic Support Fund (ESF) controlled by the Department of State. For the bridge period 
the ESF is part of the Andean Regional Initiative. Discussions in Washington and Panama 
indicate that about $750,000 in 2003 will be made available for the bridge program. As 
suggested above, a level of $1 million would better assure progress during this crucial period. 
Based on the FY 2004 budget request to Congress, USAIDlPanama is hopeful that $3 million 
each year will be allocated for this program in 2004-2009. However, given the uncertainties 
in estimating budgets for future years, it is necessary to be prepared for the possibility of lower 
funding levels. 
A. Integrated United States Government Effort 
USAID needs to share responsibility for the success of this undertaking with the other US 
Government agencies at post. All concerned agencies need to work together to make the effort a 
true Country Team program. In this regard, the continued interest and leadership of the Chief of 
Mission and Deputy Chief of Mission will be essential. It is the understanding of the evaluators 
that the Deputy Chief of Mission will lead efforts to coordinate efforts by the narcotics assistance 
section, public affairs section, and the economic and political sections of the Embassy with 
USAID's development work and the operational law enforcement cooperation of the Department 
of Justice, including the Drug Enforcement Agency_ The evaluators strongly applaud this 
development, which places Country Team coordination of law enforcement cooperation within 
the broader framework of democracy, good governance and the rule oflaw. 
Among other benefits, this structure for coordination will allow experience gained by any of the 
concerned agencies to inform efforts by any other agency working in the field of justice. For 
example, DEA can identify reliable collaborators and share lessons learned in strengthening the 
impressive management system of the drug prosecutors as USAID seeks to promote replication 
ofthat model in other parts of the Public Ministry. In tum, USAID's efforts to strengthen 
institutional capacity in other parts of the Public Ministry can help to increase the benefits of 
operational law enforcement cooperation. 
A coordinated Country Team approach will help to avoid conflicts and duplication of effort. It 
will also begin to relate operational law enforcement cooperation more directly to the longer￾term development of sustainable change in the organization, administration, and operation of 
justice institutions. Fair and efficient justice is a common objective sought in operational law 
enforcement and in institutional development. Coordinating the two approaches so that law 
enforcement results and institutional development are mutually reinforcing will advance both US 
and Panamanian interests. The program implementation strategy, therefore, should have a dual 
focus of building Panamanian institutional capacities while also meeting US operational needs. 
B. The Role of USAID 
1. Rule of Law 
Within an integrated US Government strategy, USAID's role is to identify and respond to 
development priorities and opportunities within the overall framework of its country strategy and 
areas of concentration. With respect to the rule of law, section III of this report suggests that 
those areas include fostering civil society advocacy and demand, strengthening the capacity of 
justice sector institutions, expanding access to justice, and increasing transparency and 
accountability in the justice system. These activities are central to USAID's overall mission in 
Panama. This is not necessarily the case for all agencies represented in the Country Team. 
Accordingly, USAID should continue to be proactive in assuring that the other agencies are kept 
informed, in eliciting their cooperation and assistance, and in adapting USAID activities to broad 
national interests identified in interagency consultations. For example, the public affairs section 
should be an important resource for engaging the media; priorities in enhancing judicial security 
should be informed by consultation with the economic section (and guidance from the US Trade 
Representative in Washington); the narcotics assistance section and USAID need to coordinate 
closely to assure a consistent US policy and to achieve optimum results. In particular, 
cooperation with the NAS will be essential to promote the integration and coordination of the 
various Panamanian agencies involved in the criminal justice system. 
The broad scope and intensive nature of a justice and accountability program, with all the 
individual elements that need to be coordinated, warrants the continuation of the full time rule of 
law expert on the USAID staff in Panama. The incumbent in this position has substantial 
experience in implementing justice development programs and has demonstrated the stature 
necessary to engage effectively senior levels ofthe Panamanian government, US agencies, 
multilateral agencies and other donors. 
26 
2. Linkages to Other Strategic Objectives 
As described in section III, the USAID objective of expanded support for sustainable rule of law 
reform will also support the strategic objective of protecting the watershed of the Panama Canal 
and its buffer zones. The justice program would provide training and technical assistance to 
increase the capacity of the Public Ministry and the courts to protect the environment through 
more efficient enforcement of environmental laws. At the same time, that support for 
environmental law enforcement would also expand the use of modem and efficient management 
in the justice system. 
The justice program can also support the special objective of strengthening communities in the 
Darien by including community justice activities among the various local community services to 
be extended to this remote area. Communities in the Darien could also be the sites of casas de 
justicia and a focus of other efforts to expand citizen access to alternative dispute resolution and 
an improved quality of administrative justice. 
C. Donor Coordination 
The major program of international cooperation in the justice sector is the $27 million project of 
the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), now nearing completion. A principal focus of 
that project has been the improvement of physical infrastructure in the courts and the Public 
Ministry. The construction of two regional justice centers in San Miguelito and David, financed 
under the project, is scheduled for completion in the second half of2004. The IDB will send a 
mission to Panama in September 2003 to review performance under the current project and 
consider a possible follow-on activity. Based on discussions with IDB staff in Washington and 
Panama, it appears that a new project is likely if one is requested by Panama. 
The Spanish Cooperation Agency is the other significant donor. Its program of technical 
assistance involves case tracking, information technology, training in civil and criminal 
procedure, centers for judicial notifications (centros de comunicaciones judiciales) and 
communications support for the Supreme Court's judicial audit unit. Spain also sponsors visits 
by Spanish jurists to share knowledge with Panamanian counterparts. A recent visit by several 
judges from Seville provided information on a study of the costs of the judiciary in Spain. (The 
methodology for that study could be useful in developing studies of Panama's justice system.) 
The European Union has provided limited support to the prison system and sent a study mission 
with a broader focus to Panama in May 2003. A second visit is expected in September, but there 
are no clear indications as to the likelihood of an expanded EU program. 
The United Nations Development Program maintains a regional office in Panama. It has a 
continuing interest in access to justice but does not have an active UNDP did, 
however, provide financial support to the Citizens Alliance for Justice for a study of the 
operation of Panama's justice system to be conducted later in 2003. 
In meetings with representatives of US AID, Spain, IDB and UNDP, the evaluators found an 
unfortunate absence of information sharing, let alone program coordination, and only limited 
interest in the subject. However, all expressed a willingness to attend periodic meetings if 
organized by Panama, perhaps through the Judicial CounciL UNDP expressed willingness to 
host donor meetings if requested to do so. 
The evaluators believe that common interests of the donors and multilateral organizations would 
be served by improved communication and coordination among them. An informal international 
group made up ofthe principal donors and international organizations could usefully meet on a 
periodic basis to share information and discuss how to avoid unnecessary inconsistencies in 
policy, technology or financing in their respective programs relating to justice and transparency. 
It might be advantageous for such a group to meet under UNDP auspices. UNDP has subject 
matter expertise and local knowledge. At the same time, because it does not have a major 
program of its own, others might be more likely to accept it as a disinterested facilitator. 
A principal purpose of donor coordination should be to encourage Panamanian leaders to take 
the lead in shaping a national reform agenda and in organizing international support in a manner 
that will complement local initiatives and resources. In particular, donors can make clear to their 
Panamanian counterparts that all are interested in supporting sustainable improvement of the 
justice system and that none is interested in piecemeal projects to offset shortfalls in operating 
budgets. Ideally, Panama should assume the leadership of the donor coordination mechanism as 
early as possible. This would imply a national vision with identified priorities and some 
structure, perhaps under the auspices of the Judicial Council, to perform that function. 
D. Local Ownership 
The Phase One report concluded with the observations that justice reform was a manifestation of 
democratic governance, that a reform process was internal to each society, and that international 
cooperation needed to be based on shared goals, an agreed division of labor and respect for local 
ownership. The report recommended that USAID obtain guidance and feedback from a 
Panamanian consultation group to assure that the USAID program will be locally owned. 
After further extensive consultations during Phase Two (see Annex 1), including a half-day 
meeting with a group of 32 reform-oriented Panamanians from both the public sector and civil 
society, the evaluators believe that a consultation mechanism for USAID is only a part of a 
broader structure that is needed. As suggested above in section II of this report, USAID might 
begin a dialogue now with a view to strengthening the role of the Judicial Council as a body that 
could promote system-wide thinking. With USAID and, perhaps, other donor assistance, the 
Council might establish a small technical staff and organize technical working groups of experts 
on the various subjects included in the Council's very broad action plan. The technical groups, 
drawn from civil society and the public sector, could make periodic reports to the Council to 
facilitate overall coherence of the effort and to sustain momentum. 
28 
The evaluators met with many talented and committed Panamanians who might be willing to 
donate some of their time to such a participatory reform process. These individuals included 
representatives of justice sector institutions, NGOs, businesses, universities and law firms. If a 
participatory structure, presumably under Judicial Council leadership, were to emerge, then 
USAID should consult regularly with those participating in that structure. The goal should be to 
foster a network of informed and committed reformers, from the public sector and civil society, 
who join forces to inform, guide and sustain the reform. USAID should be among those who 
meet periodically with representatives of such a network. 
v. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 
The Phase One report described the ultimate unresolved issue as being "whether a broadened, 
more organized base of civil society demand and strengthened capacity of justice sector 
institutions will combine to motivate basic structural reform." That general statement of the 
issue incorporates a host of imponderables that will need to be addressed throughout the life of 
the bridge program and any expanded follow-on activity. 
Among the unresolved issues that will require continuing attention are the following: 
How will the Citizen's Alliance evolve as a central force for civil society? Will it 
develop the capacity to carry out social monitoring of judicial performance and publicize 
accountability issues on a continuing basis? Will it develop the capacity to secure and 
implement grants and attract diversified contributions so as to achieve financial 
sustainability? 
How will other civil society groups become involved in issues of justice reform and 
transparency, including groups such as the media, the private sector and environmental 
NGOs that are not part of the Alliance? 
Where will the reform movement find political leadership within the public sector after 
the term of the current Supreme Court President expires? Can that leadership be 
expanded and become less dependent on the political fortunes of any single individual? 
What combination of incentives and values is most likely to capture and hold public 
opinion and be persuasive with political leaders so as to motivate reform? Free trade, 
physical security from crime, human rights, social justice, environmental protection and 
other issues are all at play. How can motivation be sustained over the time that will be 
required to convert reform from a temporary to a continuous process, from a process in 
need of external support to one that will be self-sustaining? 
What degree of support is the US Government willing to commit to a medium-term effort 
to strengthen the rule oflaw, transparency and accountability in Panama? Will adequate 
financial resources be provided over the life of an expanded program? Will USAID 
programmatic activities have adequate management backstopping and coordinated 
Country Team support? Will a way be found for the US Government to deal effectively 
with the longstanding need for greater integration of police investigation and the 
prosecution of criminal cases? 
Will donors and international organizations work together to advance common interests 
and encourage Panamanian ownership of refonns? 
The evaluators have attempted to structure their analysis and recommendations in a manner that 
takes these questions into account. Where possible, they have included suggestions for 
addressing them. However, the imponderables will remain and will require continuous 
adaptation as circumstances change over the life of the program. 
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 
This section consolidates the principal themes addressed throughout the report. It seeks to 
present them in the fonn of concrete recommendations of an overarching nature. It does not 
repeat all the specific suggestions contained throughout the report. 
First, it is imperative that FY 2003 funds be made available for obligation immediately in order 
to initiate the bridge program without an extended interruption of activity_ Now that some 
momentum has been achieved, it should not be allowed to wane because of administrative 
delays. If at all possible, an allocation sufficient to pennit a bridge program of $1 million over 
the next year would be highly desirable. This will be a year of decision that will shape the 
climate for refonn in Panama. Reduced funding this year would have a much higher cost in 
tenns of program effectiveness than a comparable reduction in some future year. 
Second, the study of the costs to Panama of weakness in the justice system, inadequate 
transparency and corruption, proposed in section II of this report, is extremely time sensitive. 
Arrangements should be made as soon as possible (presumably through a grant from the 
institutional contractor to a local research institution). If the study is to be an important tool for 
public debate during the election campaign it should be completed and its conclusions widely 
disseminated before the end of 2003. 
Third, in its work with justice sector institutions USAID should continue to concentrate on 
building capacity to plan strategically and to carry out strategic plans. It will be important to test 
proposed activities against criteria that measure relevance to systemic improvement. In this 
regard, more concentrated attention to interagency coordination and a stronger emphasis on 
transparency and accountability will be important. These are crosscutting issues of central 
importance to the attainment of the program goal. Increased attention should also be given to 
judicial security for investment and for contract and property rights. This will be an increasingly 
important issue for Panama's economic development as an active participant in global and 
regional commerce, including through free trade relationships with the United States and other 
trading partners. 
Fourth, in its work with civil society USAID should seek to strengthen the capacity of the 
Citizens Alliance for Justice to attract resources and become financially sustainable. Areas for 
30 
technical assistance include, in particular, social monitoring of justice system performance, 
fundraising, project finance, proposal writing and project implementation. In addition, USAID 
should seek to broaden the base and increase the pace and intensity of civil society advocacy for 
improvement in the administration of justice, including by engaging the private sector and the 
media. 
Fifth, USAID should continue its efforts to increase access to justice for citizens of modest 
means, including through alternative dispute resolution, higher quality administrative justice and 
participatory community justice mechanisms. Institutionalizing these capacities will help to 
make the rule of law a practical reality rather than an unrealizable ideal for most Panamanians. 
Sixth, USAID's essential work to increase transparency and accountability in the justice sector 
should reflect a comprehensive approach that will strengthen public sector capability to 
prescribe, disseminate and enforce ethical standards and values as well as oversight by civil 
society, including the media and the private sector. 
Seventh, USAID should avail itself of opportunities to link its work in the justice sector with its 
other objectives. Increasing the capacity of the justice system to enforce environmental laws will 
contribute to sustainable management of the Canal watershed and buffer areas. Likewise, 
introducing community justice mechanisms in the Darien will extend needed government 
services and help strengthen communities in this remote region. 
Finally, USAID management should continue to embrace a participatory approach that includes 
Country Team collaboration, donor coordination and encouragement of Panamanian leadership 
and ownership, with reliable consultation and feedback mechanisms. In particular, USAID 
should consult regularly with representatives of a network of informed and committed reformers 
from the public sector and civil society who engage in participatory structures to advance 
coherent and continuous improvement in the administration of justice. At the same time, it will 
be essential to have a capable program implementation staff in country, including a USAID 
program manager and a resident chief of party for the institutional contractor. 
31 
ESTABLISHING MOMENTUM TOWARD 
FASTER AND FAIRER JUSTICE IN PANAMA 
ANNEX 1 
EVALUATION OF USAID/PANAMA SPECIAL OBJECTIVE 
REPORT ON PHASE ONE 
JUNE 2003 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This is a report on Phase One of an evaluation ofUSAIDlPanama's Special Objective, 
"Momentum Toward Fairer and Faster Justice Established." Phase One focuses on the results of 
the ongoing program and prospects for the future. A second phase will address the possible 
objectives, strategy and content of a future program ifUSAID decides that such an analysis is 
needed. The purpose of the evaluation is "to assist USAIDlPanama in determining whether the 
expected momentum for fairer and faster justice in Panama has been established and to help 
make a managerial decision on whether or not to continue working in the justice sector." 
USAID has been supporting the administration of justice in Panama since 1990. A major 1992 
program was terminated prematurely in 1997, when a severe budget crisis caused USAID to plan 
the closing of the Panama mission. However, the planned closure was reversed and an 
evaluation of the terminated justice program recommended a follow-on activity to sustain 
momentum and extend achievements beyond the earlier focus on criminal justice. 
USAIDlPanama undertook a new study of Panama's justice system in 1998, and incorporated a 
new justice program in its proposed strategy for 2000-2006. Reviews by USAID in Washington, 
interagency deliberations within the country team in Panama, and uncertainties about contractual 
arrangements delayed significant start-up activity until the middle of2001. The first year of 
performance was plagued by the need to learn how to re-engage after a four-year interruption, 
continued disagreements over program objectives and content (leading to a restructured results 
framework), and management problems of the institutional contractor. 
Significant progress in achieving momentum toward increased access to justice became evident 
beginning in 2002, with the election of the current Supreme Court President. Early in his tenure, 
Magistrate Adan Amulfo AIjona made clear his desire to initiate a comprehensive, strategic 
reform of the jUdiciary and USAID has responded. Over the past 18 months, the USAID 
program has attained more clear direction, sharper focus and an emphasis on strengthening the 
capacity of Panamanian institutions. It has proved to be a flexible mechanism for helping 
Magistrate AIjona transform his desire for reform into a concrete plan, and for supporting the 
implementation of that plan. 
Meanwhile, USAID's work to achieve momentum in civil society's role proceeded more 
smoothly. This work, which began in 2000, has concentrated on the institutional development of 
ANNEX 1 
the Citizens Alliance for Justice, a coalition of 12 organizations, and support for an Alliance 
strategy and work plan of public advocacy for justice reform. The USAID program has been a 
major factor in elevating public interest and participation in the administration of justice. 
Specific findings of the evaluation with respect to increased access to justice focus on six themes 
addressed by the USAID program: 
Pretrial detention. Panama has a very high prison population, with more than one-half of those 
incarcerated serving in pretrial detention. A USAID-financed diagnostic study has prompted the 
judiciary to take some helpful administrative measures. However, the basic problem is a 
structural one that will require basic political decisions and major changes in how criminal law is 
administered, including a reform of Panama's complex system of criminal procedure. USAID￾sponsored training is producing interest in procedural reform at the grass roots level. Yet, there 
is no indication of a political readiness for imminent action on needed reforms. 
Alternative dispute resolution. USAID has helped to make the Supreme Court's mediation 
center operational and has provided training for its small professional staff. A public 
information campaign by the Citizens Alliance and five pilot courts supported by USAID are 
increasing the volume of cases referred to mediation. USAID is also supporting an expansion of 
mediation services through additional centers that are being established at several universities. 
There is a need for strategic planning capacity to assure that this expanding field develops in a 
sound and sustainable manner as an integral a part of a justice system that broadly protects 
individual rights, strengthens democratic governance and facilitates economic progress. 
Dissemination of Supreme Court and other appellate court decisions. The USAID-supported 
judicial registry has made Supreme Court decisions broadly available in a matter of days and has 
facilitated research in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. This body of accessible knowledge 
should help the lower courts to reduce errors, inform litigants as to whether appeals are likely to 
prosper, assist journalists and the public to monitor judicial performance and generally promote 
greater uniformity in how similar situations are treated in the judicial system. 
In addition to the registry, USAID is supporting related information technology initiatives in the 
Supreme Court, including a standardized format for judicial decisions and a case tracking 
system. These efforts require coordination with automation activities in other justice institutions 
so that there will be a single, coherent system-wide information system. Again, there is a need 
for strategic planning capacity. 
Public defenders strengthened. USAID has assisted the Public Defender Institute to develop a 
strategic plan. This will be an important tool for strengthening the capacity of the Institute to 
plan and carry out its heavy responsibilities. With only 40 attorneys to attend to a pretrial 
detainee popUlation of 6,000, the Institute remains a weak, underfunded and understaffed 
dependency of the jUdiciary. 
Enhanced professionalism of justice system operators. USAID has assisted the Supreme 
Court's Judicial School to develop a strategic plan. The focus is on practical ways for judges to 
carry out their professional responsibilities, with an emphasis on values. In addition, USAID has 
2 
ANNEX 1 
provided courses, seminars, simulated trials and related activities that have emphasized inter￾institutional collaboration and the potential benefits of procedural reform. Additional effort will 
be needed, especially to improve working relationships between police investigators and 
prosecutors. This particular need was identified by the USAID program, but did not receive 
needed support from the Departments of State and Justice. The Judicial Council may offer a 
venue for increasing inter-institutional cooperation and systemic thinking about the 
administration of justice. 
Improved quality of administrative justice. USAID has worked through the Citizens Alliance to 
provide legal and operational resources and training to the more than 500 corregidores who 
decide small claims and impose penalties for minor offenses outside the formal judicial system. 
The Alliance has also developed and distributed a citizen's guide to administrative justice. 
These activities are improving the quality of the form of justice most often experienced by 
ordinary citizens. 
Specific evaluation findings with respect to the role of civil society in justice reform focus on 
two themes: 
Increased capacity to influence policy making through advocacy. The US AID-supported 
Citizens Alliance has adopted a strategic plan and annual work plans to support judicial 
independence and transparency, prison reform, administrative justice reform, alternative dispute 
resolution and citizens' legal education. The Alliance has engaged senior officials on this 
ambitious agenda in a constructive way and has earned trust and respect. The Alliance now 
participates in the deliberations of the Judicial Council. It also carries out an extensive program 
of national fora, workshops, training activities and pUblications. It has an informative web page, 
a newsletter and weekly radio and television broadcasts. 
Increased management, networking and fundraising capacity. The Citizens Alliance is now a 
nonprofit corporation with an established governance structure, operating procedures, a financial 
system and a full-time executive director. The Alliance is a member of the Network of Civil 
Society Justice Organizations of the Americas and participates in international conferences on 
themes relating to its strategic interests. While still financially dependent on USAID, the 
Alliance is diversifying its sources of financing through grant proposals to international 
organizations, in-kind contributions and dialogue with private firms interested in corporate social 
responsibility. 
It can be concluded that, despite a slow start, USAID, through its Special Objective, is achieving 
momentum toward fairer and faster justice. Evidence of that momentum includes the following: 
Pretrial detention is a public issue; 
Mediation is gaining ground as an efficient way to resolve disputes; 
The judicial registry is increasing timely access to court decisions; 
The Supreme Court, the Public Defender Institute, the Judicial School and the Citizens 
Alliance have begun to build institutional bases for strategic planning and action; 
The quality of administrative justice has improved in the corregidurias; 
3 
ANNEX 1 
The Citizens Alliance has brought civil society into the debate and other groups are 
showing increased interest in the administration of justice. 
Of particular importance, USAID was able to help the Supreme Court President develop and 
begin to implement a strategic plan that can provide a framework for improving the quality of the 
jUdiciary. In this way, USAID is showing positive results that create incentives for continuing 
and deepening the process of reform. The momentum that has been achieved justifies continued 
USAID investment. 
Of course, uncertainties remain. Principal among them are the sustainability of the Supreme 
Court's strategic plan, institutional capacity to deepen the reform effort, the existing constraints 
of limited inter-institutional cooperation, and how best to address perceptions of corruption in the 
jUdiciary. The ultimate unresolved issue is whether a broadened base of civil society demand 
and strengthened institutional capacity will combine to motivate needed basic structural reform. 
A case in point is the need for criminal procedure reform to increase efficiency and due process 
and serve shared US-Panamanian interests in combating international crime. 
Experience has demonstrated that many of the specific issues are symptoms of broader, structural 
problems that have system-wide implications and require fundamental reform. USAID, 
therefore, will need to address incentives and capacities for structural reform in its future 
programming. It is clear that a proactive civil society will be a vital ingredient, and that public 
sector institutions will need the capacity to plan strategies and manage the implementation of 
their strategic plans. USAID support for systemic change is inherently intensive work, requiring 
a physical presence for day-to-day management. 
For the immediate future, USAID's priority should be to sustain the momentum, continue the 
work underway and, if possible, augment the limited FY 2003 funding. Timing is propitious for 
a bridge program over the next year, during which time the election of the Supreme Court 
President and national elections will shape the climate for reform in significant ways. 
For the medium term, USAID should concentrate on key ingredients of reform where it can have 
a substantial impact, including civil society demand, institutional capacity, inter-institutional 
coordination and system-wide thinking. The subject matter of US AID's program should address 
themes of shared US-Panamanian interests. Possibilities include fair and efficient criminal 
justice; independence, integrity and transparency; judicial security for investment, property and 
contract rights; and access by citizens to prompt, fair and affordable means for resolving their 
disputes. Efficient coordination of related US Government programs and a mechanism for donor 
coordination (ideally under Panamanian leadership) should enhance USAID effectiveness. 
Finally, justice reform is essentially an internal process that involves changes in political culture 
and changes in relations between citizens and public institutions. USAID should consider a 
consultation mechanism to obtain guidance and feedback from reform-oriented leaders in 
government and civil society in order to assure that the agenda in USAID's program is an agenda 
that has local roots and local ownership. 
4 
ANNEX 2 
PERSONS INTERVIEWED AND MEETING PARTICIPANTS 
Panamanian Public Sector 
Gimara Aparicio, Jueza, Juzgado XVI de Circuito Civil, I Distrito Judicial 
Adan Amulfo AIjona, Presidente, Corte Suprema de Justicia 
Rosa Maria de Bolanos, Directora, Centro de Modernizaci6n de la Administraci6n Publica 
Cynthia Camargo, Asistente del Magistrado Presidente, Corte Suprema de Justicia 
Luis Mario Carrasco, Magistrado, II Tribunal Superior Penal, I Distrito Judicial 
Cristina Ciniglio, Coordinadora, Proyecto Mediaci6n, Corte Suprema de Justicia 
Argelis Escudero, Coordinadora, Proyecto Registro Judicial, Corte Suprema de Justicia 
Gabriel Fernandez, Director Nacional, Instituto de Defensoria de Oficio 
Alma Montenegro de Fletcher, Procuradora de la Administraci6n 
Andres Fuentes, Coordinador de Asistencia Internacional, Corte Suprema de Justicia 
Jorge Gianareas, Asesor del Magistrado Presidente, Corte Suprema de Justicia 
Hip6lito Gil Suazo, Director, Escuela Judicial 
Mercedes Arauz de Grimaldo, Procuradora General Suplente de la Naci6n 
Waleska Hormechea, Jueza, Circuito Mixto de San Miguelito 
Rosendo Miranda, Fiscal Primero Especializado en Delitos Relacionados con Drogas 
Jose Manuel Perez, Director Ejecutivo, Programa de Desarrollo Sostenible de Darien, Ministerio 
de Economia y Finanzas 
Guil1ermo Rios, Defensoria del Pueblo 
Guido Rodriguez, Defensor del Pueblo Adjunto 
Angela Russo, Magistrada, Tribunal Superior de Familia 
Ricaurte Soler, Director, Centro de Mediaci6n, Organo Judicial 
Antonio Sossa, Procurador General de la Naci6n 
ANNEX 2 
Juan Antonio Tejada Espino, Defensor del Pueblo 
Simon Vega, Asesor del Programa de Mediacion, Corte Suprema de Justicia 
Panamanian Civil Society 
Nicolas Ardito Barletta, Socio, Asesores Estrategicos 
Fernando Berguido, Presidente, Capitulo Panamefio de Transparencia Internacional 
Roberto Brenes, Vicepresidente Ejecutivo y Gerente General, Boisa de Valores de Panama 
Dayra Casteiiedas, Abogada, Camara de Comercio, Industrias y Agricultura 
Magali Castillo, Directora Ejecutiva, Alianza Ciudadana pro Justicia 
Raul Delvalle, Presidente, Camara de Comercio, Industrias y Agricultura 
I. Roberto Eisenmann, Presidente, Fundacion para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana 
Maria Alejandra Eisenmann, Abogada 
Ana Matilde Gomez, Abogada 
Carlos Ernesto Gonzalez, Frente Nacional contra la Corrupcion 
Tomas Herrera, Abogado, Miembro de Comision Nacional Anti Corrupcion 
Saul Maloul, Fundacion para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana 
Francisco Martinelli, Abogado, Camara de Comercio, Industrias y Agricultura 
Angelica Maytin, Directora Ejecutiva, Fundacion para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana 
Jorge Molina, Abogado 
Maribel Cuervo de Paredes, Directora Ejecutiva, Centro Latinoamericano de Periodismo 
Carlos Alberto Vasquez, Presidente, Colegio Nacional de Abogados 
2 
ANNEX 2 
United States Government and Contractors 
Fay Annstrong, Rule of Law Advisor, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of 
State 
Maria Barron, Democracy Officer, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, USAID 
Jay Bergman, Country Attache, Drug Enforcement Administration, US Embassy Panama 
Eugene Bigler, Counselor for Political and Economic Affairs, US Embassy Panama. 
Andrew Bowen, Economic Officer, US Embassy Panama 
Melva D' Anello, Program Manager, USAID Panama 
Michael Deal, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, 
USAID 
Leopoldo Garza, Mission Director, USAID Panama 
Robert Kahn, Deputy Director for Central America and Mexico, Bureau for Latin American and 
the Caribbean, USAID 
Christopher Mc Mullen, Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy Panama 
Julieta Valles Noyes, Deputy Director for Policy Planning and Coordination, Bureau of Western 
Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State 
Ermitas Perez, Political Officer, US Embassy Panama 
Cesar Solanilla, Chief of Party, Management Sciences for Development 
Donald Terpstra, Public Affairs Counselor, US Embassy Panama 
David Wattley, Legal Attache, US Embassy Panama 
International Community 
Felix Alderete, Inter-American Development Bank 
Marta Isabel Alvarado, United Nations Development Program 
Bernardo Lopez-LOpez-Rios, Embassy of Spain 
Paloma Morazo, Agencia Espanola de Cooperacion Internacional (AECI) 
3 
ANNEX 3 
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES 
Introduction 
The following is an English translation of a questionnaire that the evaluators distributed to 
individuals who participated in three group meetings during the evaluation. One group was 
made up of private attorneys in civil and criminal practice; the second group included 
representatives of universities and NGOs; the third group included judges and other public 
officials as well as attorneys, business leaders and other representatives of civil society. 
The 30 responses received indicate a definite pattern as to which issues were considered most 
important. While the sample is quite small, the results are nevertheless interesting. The number 
of individuals who chose a given answer is reported below for each question. The several 
additional issues raised by respondents were quite varied and did not reveal any particular 
patterns. Accordingly, they are not reported in this annex. 
As shown below, according to the responses received, the most important issues in each of the 
four themes addressed in the questionnaire were as follows: 
A. The most important benefits of a more fair, efficient and accessible system of justice are 
to protect citizens against arbitrary or corrupt government misconduct and to assure 
greater equality of treatment. 
B. The most important challenges for Panama's justice system are inadequate support for 
reform within the political leadership and slowness and inefficiency. 
C. The most important strategy for responding to these challenges is to strengthen the 
human and institutional capacity of justice system operators. 
D. The most important contribution of international cooperation is to improve the efficiency 
of the courts and related organizations. 
The responses also indicate some inconsistencies. For example, protection against arbitrary or 
corrupt government misconduct was identified more than any other factor as a highly important 
benefit of reform. Yet, corruption was identified as only the third most important challenge to be 
overcome, after inadequate political will and slowness and inefficiency ofthe courts. 
It is also noteworthy that legislative reform was given such a low priority as an area for 
international cooperation. 
There follows the text of the questionnaire, together with a tabulation of how respondents 
answered the questions. 
ANNEX 3 
Questionnaire 
This questionnaire elicits views from a wide range of interested Panamanians concerning the 
benefits of improving the nation's justice system, the principal challenges, the appropriate 
strategies, and the potential contributions of international cooperation in support of national 
efforts. Responses will be compiled by independent consultants, without attribution to any 
individual, for consideration in the planning of future programs of cooperation by the United 
States Agency for International Development. 
A. How can a more fair efficient and accessible system of justice contribute to a more 
secure, stable, just and prosperous Panamanian society? 
1. Many claims are made about the benefits of a predicable legal environment, an objective 
and independent judiciary, and the availability at reasonable cost of reliable services to 
help resolve disputes and the safeguard the security of person and property. Please 
indicate which of the following benefits you believe should be given high priority, which 
should be given medium priority, and which should be given low priority as objectives of 
an effort to improve Panama's justice system. 
BENEFITS 
ISSUE 
a. Protect citizens against common delinquency 
b. Protect citizens against arbitrary or corrupt 
governmental misconduct 
c. Facilitate peaceful commerce, fair competition, 
productive investment and economic 
development 
d. Assure more fair and equal treatment and 
diminish unfair advantage or impunity based on 
political influence or social or economic status 
HIGH 
19 
25 
17 
24 
MEDIUM LOW 
8 3 
2 3 
10 3 
5 o 
2. Are there other benefits to be gained from an improved justice system that are equally 
important or more important than those listed in question 1, above? If so, please identify 
them and indicate their relative importance. 
B. \Vhat are the challenges? 
3. The following factors have been identified in various studies as important challenges for 
Panama's justice system. Please indicate which of these considerations you believe 
should be regarded as high priorities, which should be regarded as medium priorities, and 
which should be regarded as low priorities. 
2 
ANNEX 3 
CHALLENGES 
ISSUE HIGH MEDIUM LOW 
a. Inadequate judicial independence and excessive 19 8 2 
corruption --
h. Slowness and inefficiency in courts and other 21 8 0 
institutions 
-- --
c. Excessive reliance on imprisonment as the 19 11 0 
preferred form of punishment. 
d. Inadequate access to justice and legal services, 15 13 1 
especially for the poor and disadvantaged -- --
e. Inadequate support for reform within the 22 6 1 
political leadership --
f. Unwillingness of justice system institutions to 10 19 0 
work together toward a shared vision --
4. Are there other challenges for Panama's justice system that are equally important, or 
more important, than those listed in question 3, above? If so, please identify them 
and indicate their relative importance. 
C. What strategies are needed to respond to the challenges? 
5. Many different strategies can be relied upon in efforts to improve the administration of 
justice. Several areas of possible strategic emphasis are described below. In responding 
to the challenges you have identified as high priorities, please indicate how much 
emphasis should be given to each of the following strategic approaches. 
AREAS OF STRATEGIC EMPHASIS 
APPROACH HIGH MEDIUM LOW 
a. Foster political commitment 18 11 0 
h. Increase civil society demand 16 12 1 
c. Modernize laws and procedures 19 10 1 
3 
d. Revise the structure and organization of courts 
and other institutions 
e. Strengthen human and institutional capacity of 
justice system operators 
f. Promote willingness of justice system institutions 
to work together toward a shared vision 
22 
27 
21 
ANNEX 3 
8 o 
3 o 
9 o 
6. Are there additional strategies that should be used to respond to the priority challenges? 
If so, please identify them and indicate how much emphasis should be given to them. 
D. What should be the contribution of international cooperation? 
7. The Inter-American Development Bank, the United Nations Development Program, the 
United States, the European Union, Spain and others have programs of support for 
Panamanian efforts to improve the justice system. These programs of international 
cooperation address a number of areas, described below, that Panamanian judicial 
authorities and civil society organizations believe warrant the investment of additional 
resources or require additional knowledge. Please indicate the degree of relative 
importance you attach to each of these areas. 
AREAS OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 
THEME 
a. Expand justice services to poor and 
disadvantaged populations 
b. Improve the efficiency of courts and related 
organizations 
c. Introduce less costly, more expeditious means to 
resolve disputes 
d. Modernize codes of law and procedure 
e. Improve training of judges, prosecutors, public 
defenders and other justice system operators 
f. Increase public awareness of issues and public 
participation in the discussion of policy reform 
4 
HIGH MEDIUM LOW 
18 11 0 
26 4 0 
23 7 0 
12 17 0 
21 9 0 
19 10 0 
ANNEX 3 
8. Are there other areas where international cooperation would be especially helpful? If 
so, please identify them and indicate their relative importance. 
5 
Justice Sector D 
Only 38 pub 
Backlog of 
Limited coo 
reform proc 
Administrat 
incarceratio 
Panama'sju 
American sy 
<:J 
.... 
:"I '" :.0.::: 
<:J ::l 
E ~ 
t~ 
C 
..... 
II> 
<:J 
..... E (IJ 0 
~~ ::l 
o 
USAIDr , loama 
Results Framework for Special Objective (SpO), 2000-2003 
MOMENTUM TOWARD FAIRER AND FASTER JUSTICE ESTABLISHED 
lodiCilors: 
Ind I: Total Score of Pre-Trial Pilot Projects Implemented (milestone) 
lnd 2: Level of Completion of Altc:marivc Dispute Resolution Pilot Projects (milestone) 
velopment Context: Stratcl!ic Mechsni.Ol': 
lie defenders for a population of 2.8 mi llion. 
8,000 cases in civil courts. r Supreme Court 
dination of civil society input in the Justice Sector l 5S. 
ve law judges impose sentences of up to one year of 
I without legal representation or possibility of appeal. Pilot projects in Criminal and Civil Courts 
lieial system remains inquisitorial while Central l stems have adopted adversarial procedures. 
I I 
Intermediate Result 1 Intermediate Result 2 
Access to Justice in Targeted Areas Proactive Role of Civil Society in Justice 
Increased Sector Reform Improved 
Indicator: Indicator: 
Level oflmprovement in Dissemination of Judicial Level of Civil Society Advocacy for Justice Sector 
Opinions & Pending Case Status (milestone) Reform (milestone) 
---{ Pre-trial detention reduced Civil society advocacy capacity to influence 
- policy-making process increased 
Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution 
- mechanisms to reduce backlog of commercial Management, networking, and fundraising cases inTroduced - capacity of the Citizens Alliance for Justice 
(ACP J) increased 
f--
Dissemination of Appellate Court and Supreme 
Court judicial opinions increased 
Y Public Defenders strengthened 
J 
Critical Assumption: 
• Justice Sector refonn remains a hi gh priority for the GOP 
and civil society. 
--------.... ult 3 (ICIT AP) 
n Investigators and 
Improved 
---------.1 
___________________________________ , __________________ ---------r-------------------------r------------------ --------~----------------------------
PRE-TRIAL ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE 'JUDICIAL REGISTRY : CIVIL SOCIETY ALLIANCE (CSAl ' TRAINING OF TRAINERS AND 
• Conduct assessment to identify a) # MECHANISMS (AOR) • Enable publication of • Consolidate Alliance , PILOT COURT STAFF (throul!h 
of pre-trial detainees, and b) causes • Conduct assessment to identify # monthly, up-to-date judicial • Establish self-~nan:ing Alliance the Judici.al Schooll 
for long-term pre-trial detention and types of potential ADR cases opinions and pending cases • Integrate CSA mto JudIcial refonn • Tram pIlot court starr, prosecutors 
• Launch pilot project to improve pre- in current system (internet, CD and hard copy) strategy and other justice sector officials 
tnal process • Launch pdot ADR for tiled cases • Launch web-site • Implement Public Outreach programs (oral procedures, ethics) 
• Upgrade skills of public defenders • Help spark public debate for changes ' • Train public defenders in oral 
• Upgrade skills of prosecutors in administrative justice (respect for procedure, negotiation, etc 
• Introduce bailiffs in courts human rights, due process, legal • Seminars for Colegio Nacional de 
;;., 
,-
.... '" 
Q.l 
.~ 0 ....... 
<r￾rP.Tlr"~"nl~linn\ Ahnl'.lins (nrnl nrnr. .. .<111rp.. AnR\ 
~13 QI￾E iil ... QI 
.fic:r 
C 
... 
1/1 
QI 
E 
§ 
::s 
o 
~ 
USAID/twdnama 
RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR SPECIAL OBJECTIVE (SPO) 
SUSTAINING MOMENTUM FOR REFORM (2003-2004) 
Milestones: To be assessed before initiating the Expanded Support for Sustainable Rule of Law Reform Project (2004-2009). 
* GOP justice sector institutions are carrying out elements of reform agenda. 
* Civil Society Organizations are supporting justice reform efforts through advocacy, public dialogues, and public education. 
* Selected high impact activities from Supreme Court strategy are being implemented. 
* Judicial Council or some other entity is beginning to foster inter-institutional coordination. 
* Justice reform issues are being actively discussed in public fora. " 
I 1 
Intermediate Result 1 Intermediate Result 2 
Institutional Strengthening and Inter-Institutional Coordination. Civil Society Strengthening 
Indicator: (to be determined) Indicator: (to be determined) 
f-IStrategic plans of individual judicial HAdvocacy capacity strengthened organizations being implemented. 
~ Strategic plans of selected justice institutions Hcsos Institutions made more sustainable developed. 
HpoliCY agenda for reforms developed by GOP 
institutions and CSOs. Hcsos engaging in social auditing. 
Judicial Council or other is designated to discuss ~ 
broad-based Citizen Alliance membership expanded justice reform with other GOP 
agencies and civil society 
"- Design and Program Options for new project "-- Private sector actively engaged in justice issues. 
initiated. 
••••••••••••••• * ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• - . ....•.•.•.....•....•...•.•.......•........•.........•.............•...................•.... 
Inter-institutional Coordination Advocacy lost. Capacity Expand Base 
B 
';;; 
t; 
<I( 
Institutional Strengthening 
• Judicial School 
• Public Defender Institute 
• Mediation Center 
Court 
- Case-tracking 
- Judicial auditing 
- Model courtroom 
• Expand Judicial Council • Study on costs to * Fund-raising 
* Policy Agenda economy sustainability 
• Judicial Security for • Bldg. a shared vision • Research/anal.cap. 
investmenUproperty • Comm. Just. • Social aud. capacity. 
• Pilot Activities in access to - adm just. 
justicellocal justice - mediation 
• Priv. Sec. 
• Media 
* Expand Alianza 
membership 
• More active NC 
activities 
ANNEX 4 
ultima version: 0611912003 
~~ Q)-
E ~ I.. Q) 
2" 
c 
M 
III 
Q) 
E 
~ ::l 
o 
>-
~ 
USAID I PANAMA 
Results Framework for Expanded Support for Sustainable 
Rule of Law Reform Project (2004-2009) 
Objective: To strengthen effectiveness! and accountability of the justice system. 
Indicators: 
1. A susbstantial base of support will exist for continuous improvement of the justice system from both political and civil society leaders. 
2. A long tenrn planning, budgeting and administrative will begin to be institutionalized In the indiVidual entities; an inter-institutional planning and coordination mechanism will begin to 
operate for the sector. 
3. There will be measurable progress in achieving fair and efficient criminal justice) induding effective combat of international crime, due process and timely disposition of cases. 
4. Access to justice for citizens will increase, and confidence in the justice sector will rise. 
5. Accountability and transparency of the sector will increase. 
Intermediate Result 1 
Civil Society will continue to promote and 
help ensure the political base for jUstiCE 
refonrn 
1. Expanded participation by civil 
~soCjety organizations, induding thE 
private sector and the media, Ir 
promoting and maintaining thE 
reform momentum. 
1--12. Sustainable CSOS participating in 
the refonrn process. 
1--. 
3. CSOs have developed researcr 
and analysis capacity on justiCE 
reform issue. 
4. CSOs have developed capacity to 
conduct social auditing/monitoring 
L..--Iactivlties fo the institutions carrying 
out the reforms. 
I 
Intermediate Result 2 
Strengthened and expanded capacity 
among justice institutions to carry ou 
selected refonrns 
1-11. Strengthened planning, 
budgeting, and administrativE 
capabilities among justiCE 
institutions 
2. Strengthened Inter-instituiona 
f--Icoordination among justice sector 
organizations. 
1'--13. Strengthened merit selection 0 
I Ipersonnel for the Judiciary and the 
Public Ministry. 
1-14• Criminal and civil nrorpr1l1rP~ 
streamlined. 
5. Incresead judicial security fo 
'--linvestrnent, property rigths and 
contracts. 
I 
I 
Intermediate Result 3 
Expanded access by citizens to prompt'l 
fair. and affordable means to resolve 
disputes. 
t--. 
1. Integrated approached tc 
community justice expanded. 
2. Public defender services 
1--1 expanded throughout. the country. 
1.....-13. Legal services to the pool 
expanded. 
1 
Intermediate Result 4 
Increased transparency and accountability 
of the justice sector. 
1. More transparent and 
accountable justice system being 
-'established with Increased dtizen 
participation through social 
auditing of the work of the judicia 
audit unit of the Supreme Court 
and monitoring of personnel 
selections of the judidary. 
2. System-wide approach tc 
1--1 ethical codes and thel 
enforcement created. 
3. Increased participation by civil 
SOCiety, indudlng the privatE 
sector and media, in promotin~ 
~and maintaining focus on reducln~ 
corruption in the public sector. 
ANNEX 4 
ultima version: 07/23/2003 
.. 
ANNEX 5 
BIOGRAPHIC SUMMARIES OF EVALUATORS 
James Michel advises private firms, international organizations and the United States 
Government as an independent consultant in international development cooperation. He 
previously had a long career of public service with the United States Government and 
with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. He joined the U.S. 
Department State as an attorney in 1965 and served in that Department as the Principal 
Deputy Legal Adviser and as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter￾American After serving as U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala from 1987 to 1989, 
hejoined the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1990 as Assistant 
Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean. He later served as Counselor, 
Deputy Administrator and as the Acting Administrator of US AID. In January 
he was elected Chair of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization 
l::,C1DnC)mltC Cooperation and Development, where he led international efforts to 
coordinate the development cooperation policies of the major donors until his return to 
USAID in 1999. He left government service at the end of2000 to work independently in 
support of international cooperation for economic and social development. 
Norma Parker has been a consultant in democracy and rule of law for the past four 
years, after a 23- year career in the Foreign Service with the US Agency for International 
Development. She has consulted on rule oflaw projects in Peru, West Bank/Gaza, and 
the Eastern Caribbean and helped USAID to develop the democracy strategy in Peru 
during and after the departure of President Fujimori. She also managed a large anti￾corruption project for Latin America and the Caribbean and participated in anti￾corruption assessments in Honduras and Ecuador. She was recalled by USAID to serve as 
senior democracy advisor in 2001 where she advised USAID on democracy programs 
throughout Latin America and guided the program oftechnical cooperation for the 2001 
presidential elections in Nicaragua on behalf ofthe National Security Council. Along 
with State Department colleagues she was instrumental in the establishment of the Justice 
Studies Center of the Americas. In her government career, she served as Deputy 
Assistant Administrator of US AID's Latin America and Caribbean Bureau; as Director of 
South America and Mexico Affairs, where she helped direct the Andean Drug Initiative; 
and as Director of Democratic Initiatives, where the first programs in rule oflaw and 
election assistance were conceptualized and funded. 
Carlos Berguido is a lawyer in private practice in Panama. He has held senior positions 
with a number of Panama's leading banking and insurance institutions, including the Caja 
de Ahorros (1990-1993), Metropolitana de Seguros (1993-1994) and ASSA Comparua de 
Seguros (1994-2002). He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Panamanian 
Association of Business Executives (APEDE), and chairs APEDE's permanent 
committee on excellence in justice. Mr. Berguido is a qualified arbitrator and is a 
founding director of the Center for Mediation and Arbitration at the Panama Chamber of 
Commerce. He is the author of numerous articles in his fields of professional 
specialization. He holds degrees from the University of Richmond (in business 
administration) and from the University Santa Maria La Antigua (in law and political 
science).