ISDLS Middle East
Rule of Law Conference
June 30 – July
2, 2003
Bilgi University, Istanbul,
Turkey
The ISDLS Middle East Rule of Law Conference took
place on June 30 – July 2, 2003, at Bilgi University in
Istanbul, Turkey.[1] The Conference exposed countries throughout
the region to the innovations and challenges of legal development
by examining successful reform initiatives in Egypt and Jordan
(in collaboration with ISDLS), and in the US federal and state
courts.[2] The Conference was an integral step in the ISDLS Middle
East Rule of Law Project, a regional initiative comparing modernization
efforts in dispute resolution processes throughout the Middle
East, and one of several ISDLS regional initiatives building towards
a Global Rule of Law Conference in Spring 2004.
The regional initiative demonstrates the need for
and cultural acceptability of legal reform, and accelerates the
otherwise lengthy process of reform. Exposing countries to local
reform efforts increases the acceptability of the reforms by demonstrating
their utility and compatibility in legal systems and cultures
similar to their own. A detailed examination of the stages in
developing legal reform in similar countries accelerates the multi-phase
process of reform study, design and implementation by presenting
an applicable model that has successfully negotiated challenges
that are common throughout the region.
Representatives from Egypt (3), Jordan (3), Morocco
(2), Bahrain (2), United Arab Emirates (2), Yemen (2), Oman (2),
France[3] (1) and the US (6) attended the Conference in Istanbul.[4]
The Conference was designed to: present the concepts of civil
and criminal justice modernization; expose participating countries
to the functioning of the dispute resolution process and modernization
efforts in the countries of the region; and present the practical
considerations and challenges of reform study, design, and implementation.
The presentations specifically addressed first hand reform experiences
and considerations of countries in the region, allowing similarly
situated countries that are contemplating modernization to accelerate
their reform process. At the Conference, the thorough consideration
of the Egyptian, Jordanian and US reforms demonstrated the benefits
and the feasibility of legal dispute resolution modernization,
and provided valuable lessons for similarly situated countries
throughout the region with an interest in undertaking legal reform.
All of the delegates expressed that there is insufficient
communication among the actors in the various Arab legal systems,
and that, until the Conference, they had not been aware of the
relevant procedural reforms in the region. The attending countries
are experiencing similar problems in their legal processes, and
have independently been considering similar reforms. Given that
significant and successful reform has already taken place in Egypt
and Jordan, ongoing regional dialogue and cooperation will significantly
accelerate reform throughout the region. The delegates confirmed
their interest in expanding the project to establish a regular
forum for continuing regional comparison and cooperation, including
a close examination of the extensive reforms implemented by the
Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Americans. The attending Gulf
countries (Bahrain, UAE, Yemen and Oman) expressed their interest
in conducting a modernization project with a joint Egyptian-American
faculty. The Jordanians specifically expressed an interest in
Egypt’s recent criminal justice reforms, which will significantly
change criminal justice practice by increasing the role and appointment
of defense counsel.
During the first day of the Conference, each delegation
summarized the functioning of their dispute resolution mechanisms
and any implemented or proposed modernizations. The presentations
and ensuing discourse provided a working appreciation for each
country’s mechanisms and needs. On the second day, the countries
that have undertaken civil justice reform efforts (Egypt, Jordan,
Morocco and the US)[5] presented their reform processes in greater
detail, including the gradual steps in their study of the US reforms,
the design of their models, training and implementation, evaluation
and results. The countries that have undertaken criminal justice
reform efforts (Egypt, Jordan, and France)[6] presented the same
on the third day. Following each presentation, the delegates posed
questions and engaged in spirited roundtable discussions.[7]
The attending Arab countries, particularly the Persian
Gulf countries, were particularly interested in the recent modernizations
in the Egyptian legal system. Egypt has implemented significant
civil justice reforms, and is preparing to implement even more
significant criminal justice reforms. The delegates saw the Egyptian
reforms as particularly relevant because many of the attending
Arab countries’ legal systems are either directly derived
from or are adaptations of the Egyptian system, and many judicial
officers from throughout the region study at the National Center
for Judicial Studies in Cairo.[8] Judicial and Ministry officials
from Egypt have also facilitated legal development throughout
the region, and have formed personal affiliations with many of
the leading legal professionals.
The Egyptian civil justice reform model, in which
settlement negotiations are conducted by a retired Supreme Court
Justice in administrative cases, and the proposed “civil
prosecutor” (case manager) model were discussed in great
detail. The attending delegates were also interested in the new
Jordanian case management system, which assigns all pre-trial
matters to several case management judges. The Jordanian model
differs significantly from the Egyptian model, and the contrast
between the functioning of the two countries’ mechanisms
illustrated that the objectives of judicial case management can
be realized through distinctively tailored Arab models.
The Egyptian and Jordanian delegations also explained
their ADR models, which are similar to non-binding judicial arbitration.
The Egyptians explained that their current mechanism is an intermediary
step to eventually developing a full-fledged, multi-option, court-annexed
ADR program. Since judicial settlement is the most politically
acceptable form of ADR, it is often the first form introduced
in a modernization effort and facilitates the introduction of
other forms later.
The proposed Egyptian criminal justice reforms,
including the use of a trial alternative (guilty plea) and a comprehensive
system of criminal representation for indigents[9], will be the
first significant criminal justice reforms in the Middle East,
and as such, elicited substantial interest from all participants.
The proposed reforms will come before Parliament this fall (2003).
The Egyptian implementation of the first public defender service
in the Middle East will have a profound influence on structural
integrity of the criminal justice process throughout the region.
Program Summary
June 30: The first day of the conference began with
brief introductions by Attorney Robert Goodin, President of the
ISDLS Board of Directors, and an insightful keynote address by
US District Judge Fern Smith, Director of the Federal Judicial
Center.[10] Judge Smith’s address emphasized the universal
principles of justice, the need for legal modernization, and the
importance of establishing ties between the legal systems of countries
throughout the world. Attorney Edward Davis, ISDLS Board Member,
introduced the civil justice conference topics and gave an overview
of the US dispute resolution process, explaining each step in
the timeline of a typical US case (translated into Arabic and
distributed to the delegates). French Magistrate Yves Rabineau
gave a brief overview of the workings of the French system and
described their recent modernization efforts, including the recently
introduced French legislation that will provide for a criminal
justice guilty plea mechanism. The Arab countries then presented
the current functioning of their dispute resolution mechanisms
(see below). Each presentation was followed by a question and
answer session. The presentations and discussions focused primarily
on the structure, timeline, and management of a typical case,
including the roles and responsibilities of the various actors
in the legal system. Many of the delegations discussed the need
to “educate consumers,” or cultivate a culture of
settlement, so that the litigants begin to recognize the value
of ADR. The delegations from the Gulf countries (comprised of
attorneys) also stressed the need for general and specialized
judicial education and training.
Many of the delegations conveyed that problems with
service of summons were a significant obstacle and source of delay.
While service is not usually problematic in the US, it is routinely
problematic in the Middle East. Some of the attending countries
(such as Jordan) have recently privatized their servicing companies,
which was the subject of some controversy. Possible alternatives
are under discussion in many of the countries in the region, but
with the exception of Jordan no new measures have been implemented.
July 1: The second day of the conference addressed
case management and ADR in greater detail. Judge Fern Smith described
the purpose and evolution of judicial case management in the US
federal courts, and Attorney Victor Schachter described its application
in the California state courts, including a detailed explanation
of the standardized California State Case Management Form (translated
into Arabic).[11] He emphasized its utility in streamlining and
expediting the case management mechanism in the general jurisdiction
California state courts, as the high volume state court model
more closely resembles the courts in many of the attending countries
than the limited jurisdiction federal model. The ISDLS team then
conducted a demonstration of a case management conference.[12]
In the demonstration, the judge set some initial limits on discovery,
referred the case to mediation, and informed the attorneys that
a trial date would be set at the next case management conference
in 90 days. The Jordanian and Egyptian delegations then described
in detail the functioning of their case management models (see
below). The questions and discussion following every case management
presentation were so extensive that the morning session ran an
hour over, and the roundtable discussion was finished after lunch.
After addressing the remaining questions from the
morning case management presentations, the afternoon session focused
on civil ADR. Because the very involved discussions had caused
the program to be almost 90 minutes behind schedule, the ISDLS
team elected to dispense with the majority of their mediation
presentation and demonstration, allowing more time for the Jordanian
and Egyptian delegations to present in detail the workings of
their ADR mechanisms. Mr. Goodin briefly described the US mediation
mechanism, its evolution, and its current widespread use and tremendous
success in the California federal and state courts. The Jordanian
and Egyptian delegations then presented the workings of their
judicial settlement models (see below). Again, the delegates had
extensive and detailed questions following every presentation,
and the discussions were involved and informative.
Law School Dean Turgut Tarhanli of Bilgi University
hosted the conference participants for a formal dinner on the
evening of July 1.
July 2: In the early morning of July 2, Judge Richard
Iglehart, a member of the ISDLS team, suffered a fatal heart attack.
Arrangements surrounding the death prevented the ISDLS team from
participating in the third day’s program. At the request
of the ISDLS team, the Egyptian delegation led the program on
the scheduled criminal justice topics, focusing on the proposed
Egyptian criminal writ and representation for indigents model.[13]
In the roundtable discussion, the delegations compiled a list
of the specific reform topics each attending country felt to be
their reform priorities (see Recommendations, below). Following
the program, the ISDLS team met with the delegates for a final
debriefing. The delegates summarized the day’s discussions
and expressed their strong interest in continuing and expanding
the regional project, guided by the Egyptian and US experiences.
Country Summaries[14]
Egypt
Egypt has long been the leader of the Arab world;
the legal systems of all the attending Arab countries have been
directly derived from or significantly influenced by the Egyptian
system, and Egypt plays a significant role in legal education
and assistance throughout the region.[15] For these reasons, the
Egyptians were the clear leaders of the participating Arab delegations,
and all the attending countries were particularly interested in
Egypt’s recent reforms.
The Egypt-ISDLS collaborative civil and criminal
justice reform project was initiated in 1992[16] to address the
increasing caseload and complexity of disputes that overburdened
the Egyptian courts and made the development of modernized procedures
necessary. Prior to the reforms, there were structural delays
at each phase of a case. Through a collaborative project with
ISDLS, the Egyptian Legal Study Group conducted an extensive study
of the US civil and criminal reforms, designed and implemented
civil justice reforms, and will soon implement major criminal
justice reforms.
In the Egyptian civil justice reforms (thus far
only implemented in administrative cases), the case is referred
to a retired Supreme Court Justice who evaluates the case and
directly facilitates settlement negotiations. (The Justice can
also refer the case to another mediator or settlement judge at
their discretion.) The model, implemented in 2000, has been highly
successful, with settlement rates of approximately 50%.
Conciliation committees of retired judicial officers
also conduct ADR and settlement in Egypt; these committees have
settled approximately half of the cases they have heard. Cases
are referred to the conciliation committees before the court process
begins (as opposed to the US model, which integrates the pre-trial
and ADR processes).
The Egyptian Legal Study Group is currently considering
ways to expand and further develop the civil justice reforms.
Detailed draft legislation providing for the creation of a civil
prosecutor will be presented to Parliament this year. The Egyptian
civil prosecutor will actively manage the pre-trial life of the
case and will have the authority of a pre-trial judge. The new
civil prosecutor model will initially be utilized only in administrative
cases. Additionally, a specialized family law mediation program
is currently being developed, and additional ADR mechanisms to
create a full multi-option court-annexed ADR program are under
consideration.
The Egyptian Legal Study Group has completed the
design of their criminal justice reforms, and will present the
new procedures in a conference under the Prosecutor General in
Cairo in October 2003. Immediately following the conference, the
reforms will be presented to Parliament. The reforms propose the
creation of the summary trial, a criminal justice trial alternative
that resembles the US guilty plea. The summary trial will include
evidence and witnesses, when necessary, to establish the factual
basis of the case and enter the defendant’s plea of guilty.
The reforms also include dramatic revisions to the
Egyptian system of representation for indigent defendants. Currently,
only indigent arrestees charged with serious felonies (7 year
prison term or higher) are provided with appointed representation.
Currently also the defense attorney has no role in the pre-trial
process, as he cannot conduct an independent investigation and
is not allowed access to the prosecutor’s evidence until
the trial begins. The criminal trial alternative necessitates
defense counsel at the plea stage in all cases. Based on the US
models, the Egyptian Study Group has determined that the defendant
must have the advice of defense counsel for his decision to accept
or reject the trial alternative to be fair and informed. Further,
the defendant and counsel must have full knowledge of the prosecutor’s
evidence, so that the defendant’s plea is based on the facts
of the case. The new model includes appointed representation in
felonies and misdemeanors for the pre-trial and trial stages,
and will allow the defense access to the prosecutor’s evidence
early in the life of the case; if the case is not settled through
the summary trial alternative, the defense counsel then has all
the necessary information to fill a critical and significant role
in the pre-trial and trial process.
The proposed Egyptian reforms are the first substantial
criminal justice reforms in the Middle East, and the model was
the subject of much interest at the conference. The Egyptian creation
of a criminal trial alternative and a comprehensive system of
representation for indigents will have a profound influence on
the criminal justice systems of the entire region.
Jordan
Jordan’s recent civil justice reforms were
also the subject of significant interest at the conference. The
delay in litigation has been the driving force behind Jordan’s
case management and mediation reform effort. The amendment to
the Code of Civil Procedure providing for case management and
ADR in Jordan is effective as of October 1, 2002, and the process
has been generally well received and successful. The case management
mechanism has been implemented in the first instance court in
Amman, and will be expanded. The Jordanian legal study group has
also designed an ADR mechanism that will be implemented in Amman
this fall (2003).
The Jordanian case management mechanism differs
significantly from the Egyptian model, but serves the same broad
goal of transferring the control of the pre-trial life of the
case to court, rather than the attorneys. Under the Jordanian
case management mechanism, several judges in the first instance
court in Amman have been designated as case management judges,
dealing only with pre-trial matters including establishing time
limits for discovery and ruling on pre-trial motions. The initial
results have been very successful; the Jordanian team estimated
that the new system saves approximately 40% of the judicial time
spent on each case.
The proposed Jordanian mediation model allows the
case management judge to refer cases for judicial settlement or
mediation. The Jordanian Legal Study Group will work in California
in August 2003 to complete the design of their ADR model and finalize
their implementation plan; upon their return, the model will be
implemented in the first instance court in Amman.[17]
Morocco
The Moroccan legal system is experiencing the same
problems that have necessitated the use of ADR worldwide: increasing
filings, high cost of litigation, more complex laws, and a lack
of judges and court staff. ISDLS has recently begun working with
the Moroccan Ministry of Justice to examine the possibility of
creating an alternative to the full trial; the project is still
in the initial phases.[18]
The Moroccan legal modernization effort has recently
focused on establishing specialized courts for family law, administrative
law, etc. Currently there are no legal stipulations for ADR, but
the “code of conciliation” allows for the possibility
of settlement. In practice, however, settlement is not common.
Any judicial case management is at the discretion of the trial
judge, and the parties primarily control the pre-trial life of
the case. The Moroccan Legal Study Group is working with ISDLS
to examine possible judicial case management and ADR models.
Bahrain
The Bahraini legal system is modeled on the Egyptian
system. They have recently set up specialized courts for specific
types of cases (labor, commercial, etc). Due to the increasing
caseload, court delays have recently become more common and pronounced.
The most significant procedural reform currently
under consideration to address the backlog and delay is the creation
of a non-judicial case manager through the complaints (filings)
office. Under the proposed system, the complaints office would
actively manage the entire pre-trial life of the case. The delegation
expressed that they expect significant attorney resistance to
the activation of the complaints office; the office does not have
any real authority yet, but there has already been resistance
to its establishment. Given the initial resistance, a judicial
case manager may be more successful than the non-judicial staff
of the complaints office because of the judicial officer’s
greater authority.
Oman
Over the last several decades, Oman’s legal
system has shifted from Islamic to Constitutional Law. The new
civil and criminal system is based on Egypt’s, and Egyptian
Counselor Aly Al Sadek has worked extensively with the Omanis
to facilitate their transition to constitutional law. They have
recently established specialized administrative courts, and the
first instance courts have specialized departments.
A new commercial arbitration law, based on a similar
Egyptian model, was issued in 1997. The delegation reported that
pressure from foreign investors was the primary motivation for
the arbitration law, as backlog and delay are not a significant
problem in Oman.
United Arab Emirates
UAE’s legal system is based on Egypt’s
and very similar to Bahrain’s. They have established specialized
courts (labor, etc). In 1999, new legislation introduced conciliation
committees throughout the country to address the courts’
increasing caseload. Initially, the legislation required the establishment
of conciliation committees in every court, but implementation
was problematic. Particularly in remote, rural areas, the caseload
is so light and the typical case so minor that a conciliation
committee is unnecessary and even an impediment to the quick resolution
of disputes, so, in 2001, the legislation was amended to allow
such courts to establish conciliation committees at their discretion.
Currently conciliation committees have been implemented in five
of the seven Emirates, and their use is most common in the capital.
In the Emirates, the judge has long had the authority
to propose conciliation at the first hearing, but it is only with
the implementation of the new legislation that conciliation began
to be practiced systemically. Recently, specialized family guidance
conciliation committees have been established and have enjoyed
a 90% settlement rate.
Yemen
The structure and functioning of Yemen’s legal
system is similar to Egypt’s, and has strong British influences.
They have established an arbitration law for commercial, civil,
and even criminal cases. Many cases are resolved through community
processes, but litigation is still delayed and lengthy because
of the abundance of judicial vacations: the courts are closed
for approximately half of each year.
Problems with the enforceability of judgments and
the need for more comprehensive judicial and legal education have
both been cited as impediments to the effective functioning of
the Yemeni legal system. Cultural resistance to legal modernization
is also an obstacle.
Egypt has assisted in the development of the Yemeni
legal system; no substantial modernization efforts are currently
underway.
France
Many of the legal systems in the Middle East are
based on the French civil law system; sometimes, legal modernization
mechanisms that are utilized in the common law system are seen
as inapplicable to civil law systems. However, plea bargaining,
a criminal justice trial alternative (developed in the US common
law system), is in the process of being incorporated into the
French system, and is expected to soon be introduced into legislation.
The French guilty plea model demonstrates the utility and adaptability
of trial alternatives in civil and common law systems.
In the French civil justice system, it is primarily
the parties that control the speed of litigation, and although
the judge is required to attempt conciliation, in practice settlement
is rare. Mediation is used, but only in cases with a high monetary
value or with a pre-existing arbitration contract clause.
United States
The US and California state and federal legal procedures
in both civil and criminal justice practice have changed dramatically
in the last several decades. The implementation of trial alternatives
and active judicial case management has fundamentally reshaped
the operation of the courts, reducing backlog and delay and ensuring
the quick delivery of justice. The high volume, general jurisdiction
state model is particularly applicable to countries considering
procedural reform in their trial courts, and California has led
the US states in innovation in procedure and trial alternatives.
The state model provides a useful model for implementation, while
the federal model clearly demonstrates the theory behind the reforms.
The California court-annexed ADR and judicial case
management models have completely changed civil justice practice,
and have been the solution to the substantial backlog and delay
that once overwhelmed the California courts and currently is obstructing
the operation of courts around the world. The criminal justice
innovations are perhaps even more significant. In the California
courts, plea-bargaining is now conducted with judicial facilitation,
similar to judicial settlement conferences in civil cases. Many
District Attorney’s Offices have pre-trial diversion programs
directly through their offices, so that the charges against first
time misdemeanor offenders are suspended with an understanding
that any new offences will be charged along with the original
suspended charges. Effectively the least serious cases are put
on “DA’s probation” without the time and expense
of a trial, or a guilty plea that remains on their record.
Adapted versions of the California federal and state
procedural reforms have been successfully implemented, with ISDLS
facilitation, throughout the world. The principles behind these
procedural reforms have proven compatible with legal systems of
every type, and have been successful in improving the functioning
of the courts.
Conclusions
Egypt’s reforms have a profound influence
on countries throughout the Middle East. Because the legal systems
in the region are so strongly influenced by Egypt’s, their
reforms will have the greatest acceptability and will be the most
easily implemented in countries throughout the region. Because
Egypt’s reforms are new and for the most part untested,
an examination of the longstanding US reforms provides a useful
model for implementation considerations and long-term effects.
For this reason, a regional initiative led by a
joint US and Egypt faculty offers the most immediate and practical
path to reform in the Persian Gulf. A Persian Gulf civil justice
modernization study project will be structured similarly to the
individual country reform collaborations. The study group will
contain representatives from Bahrain, Oman, and UAE; and perhaps
Yemen, Kuwait, and/or Saudi Arabia. The joint US-Egypt faculty
will present the American and Egyptian reform experiences in regional
conferences, and assist in reform design, implementation strategy
and training in individual country workshops. The study group
would work in the US and in Egypt to observe the functioning of
the reform mechanisms.
The Middle East Rule of Law Project will also be
continued and expanded; under that initiative, the Jordanians
and others will have the opportunity to consider a study of the
proposed Egyptian criminal justice reforms to be presented in
the October conference. When the time is appropriate, both the
Jordanian and Egyptian models will be critical in shaping the
further development of the legal systems in the Palestinian Territories.
The broader regional initiative also offers the opportunity to
formally include Turkey in the project and regional dialogue.
While there are many cultural differences between the Turks and
the Arabs, there are certainly also significant similarities.
Turkey’s ongoing criminal justice reform effort offers valuable
lessons to the countries in the region, and Turkey’s increased
involvement can only benefit both Turkey’s relatively isolated
judiciary and legal professionals, and countries throughout the
region by an examination of Turkey’s reforms.
Recommendations
On the final day of the conference, the attending
delegates compiled a list of what they determined to be their
reform priorities; all of these issues can be addressed within
both the larger regional and the Persian Gulf initiatives. Their
list is as follows:
Bahrain
1. It is recommended that the Office for Complaints
be activated to complete all case proceedings and speed up adjudication
with the judge’s knowledge. This shall be done through the
holding of mutual visits and exchanging experiences with the US
counterparts and pioneer Arab countries.
2. To carry an in-depth study of the Egyptian experience
of the “Criminal Writ”, the “Conciliation System”
and the written plea of guilt, by holding intensive meetings to
gain more knowledge of said experience.
Egypt
1. To further activate the criminal writ practice,
to expand the conciliation system and to spread out the Egyptian
experience to other Arab countries.
2. To work on putting the “written plea of
guilt” system into application.
3. To revive the “civil prosecution”
project.
Jordan
1. To hold training on judicial and private mediation.
2. To look into the possibility of adopting new
means in criminal matters in the light of the Egyptian experience.
3. To provide for the principle of judicial assistance
within the framework of the civil attorney general, through the
exchange of opinions and experience and an attempted twining of
the Jordanian Court of Cassation with the Egyptian Court of Cassation.
4. To train lawyers on negotiation skills.
Morocco
1. To pursue efforts made for the adoption of ADRs
through drafting appropriate legal provisions to that effect.
2. To intensity meetings to exchange opinions and
experiences on civil and criminal ADRs.
Sultanate of Oman
1. To adopt the Case Management system in civil
matters promptly to avoid any case backlog. That can be achieved
through meetings with the US group and Arab countries that have
pioneering experience in this field, as well as through training
of legal profession (judges and lawyers).
2. In criminal cases: To adopt modern mechanisms,
particularly the criminal writ, the conciliation system and the
written plea of guilt, alike the experience in other Arab countries,
but in a such a manner that would be tailored to the Omani society.
Yemen
1. To train on modern means of management of the
judiciary, including case management and ADRs, on the basis of
pioneering experiences. To benefit from the US experience through
the training of judges and lawyers.
2. To hold academic seminars with the participation
of decision makers to find new solutions.
_____________________________________
[1]Turkey is not an official participant
in the ISDLS Middle East Rule of Law Project. However, ISDLS in
currently working with the Turkish Ministry of Justice on a separate
project to address issues of freedom of expression, police abuse
and oversight, and criminal justice modernization. Through this
project, ISDLS facilitated a developing affiliation between American
University in Washington and Bilgi University in Istanbul. Istanbul
was selected as the conference city as a neutral (non-participating)
and scenic location; the Bilgi University School of Law offered
to host the conference because of the relationship developed through
the ISDLS Turkey project. At the invitation of ISDLS, members
of the Bilgi School of Law faculty observed some conference sessions.
[2] The Egyptian, Jordanian, and
American experiences are examined in detail in the project because
they have successfully designed and implemented reforms. The Moroccan
reform effort is still in its initial phases, and is examined
to a lesser degree. While the ISDLS projects in the Palestinian
Territories, Tunisia, and Turkey are not curriculum for the regional
initiative, experiences from all three have been considered in
developing the design and structure of the regional initiative.
The ISDLS project in Israel, though it has resulted in the implementation
of significant civil and criminal justice reforms (see attached
report), is not included in the project because of the tensions
in the region.
[3] Most of the legal systems
in the Middle East are derivatives of the French civil law model,
so a consideration of the ways in which the French system is modernizing
is relevant in the region. Ideally, representatives from the French
Ministry of Justice will continue to be involved in both the ISDLS
Middle East Rule of Law Project and the Global Rule of Law Conference
to which it builds.
[4] Participant list attached.
[5] Egypt’s civil justice
reforms have been extensive and successful; Jordan’s more
recently implemented reforms have also been successful. Morocco
is still in the initial phases of considering possible reforms;
their presentation illustrated the considerations in the earlier
phases of a reform effort.
[6] Egypt has designed and will
soon implement dramatic reforms to their criminal justice process
and system of representation for indigents. Jordan is contemplating
similar reforms, and France is also considering the implementation
of a criminal trial alternative.
[7] The level of participation
was so high that the ISDLS team elected to cut short their presentations
to allow more time for discussion and questions.
[8] The National Center for Judicial
Studies in Cairo is the Ministry of Justice training academy.
All Egyptian judges and prosecutors begin their careers as prosecutors
with intensive study at the Center. Substantial career-long training
continues at regular intervals, and is intensified as a prosecutor
is promoted to a judicial officer. The Center also provides special
courses for legal professionals throughout the region.
[9] See attached paper on the
Egyptian model of appointed counsel for indigent defendants.
[10] Judge Fern Smith and Attorneys
Robert Goodin and Edward Davis have worked in all of the ISDLS
individual country projects in the Middle East since 1992.
[11] The US state court model
is often more appropriate for consideration because it is a high-volume,
general jurisdiction court, and for this reason more similar to
foreign models than the limited jurisdiction federal model.
[12] Using the Sedona fact pattern,
a three party commercial breach of contract case.
[13] ISDLS has been working with
the three Egyptian delegates since 1992; the long-established
partnership and mutual understanding ensured a seamless continuation
of the program under their leadership on the third day.
[14] The country summaries are
a compilation of each delegation’s presentations and comments
throughout the conference.
[15] Egyptian delegates Aly Al
Sadek and Hany Hanna had both instructed members of the delegations
from the Gulf countries during their study at the Egyptian National
Center for Judicial Studies (currently directed by Counselor Al
Sadek), and Counselor Al Sadek has worked in several of the participating
countries to provide training and consultation assistance.
[16] At the request of the Egyptian
Minister of Justice and with the support of the US State Department
and Embassy.
[17] The 2002 case management
legislation also authorized the implementation of ADR, though
the design of the model was not yet finalized.
[18] During the coffee
break following the Moroccan presentation, Egyptian Counselor
Hany Hanna commented that Morocco’s current situation is
strikingly similar to what Egypt’s was in 1992, at the beginning
of the ISDLS project (Counselor Hanna has been a member of the
ISDLS study group since the initiation of the project). Based
on their presentation, he felt that they are examining exactly
the same topics and have experienced the same problems that Egypt
addressed in the early phases of their reform effort. He strongly
felt that a thorough examination of the Egyptian reform process
would benefit the Moroccan reform effort.
|