C. Reasons for introduction of trial waiver systems 56. Many different justifications are cited as reasons for adopting trial waiver systems, most related to efficiency aims, but there is a nearly uniform failure on the part of authorities to assess whether these aims are achieved in practice. The Phase 1 survey asked respondents why trial waiver systems were introduced or used in each jurisdiction.77 In some cases, where the practice was formally introduced in legislation (rather than, for example, jurisdictions in which higher courts ratified the practice through case law), it was possible for respondents to identify the stated intent of the statute. Other respondents cited commentary by judges in key cases or guidelines provided to prosecutors in relation to trial waivers. Still others provided rationales with no clear evidentiary basis, apparently reflecting the common views of stakeholders in the criminal justice system. 57. In Phase 2 of the research, the surveys further solicited the opinions of experts as to the systemic benefits of trial waivers in practice, and sought input on the perceptions of court actors of the justifications for the use of trial waivers. i. Efficiency 58. Efficiency-related justifications were the most cited reasons given in the surveys for the use of trial waiver systems. These rationales take a variety of related forms. Reduction in case backlogs 59. Many countries represented in the survey have justified the use of trial waiver systems as a means to clear longstanding case backlogs, which create often intolerable delays. This is a serious concern for countries regularly found to be violating defendants’ right to a trial within a reasonable period of time. Finland, for example, adopted a trial waiver system in 2015 which is made up of several mechanisms, including a process whereby guilty pleas are made during the pre-trial investigation (known as “tunnustamismenettely”), in which the case is heard in a full criminal trial, and a plea bargaining procedure which takes place post-investigation (known as “syyteneuvottelu”). The law which came into force in January 2015 was introduced as a result of concerns by the Ministry of Justice about the number of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases in which Finland was found to have violated Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which ensures trial within a reasonable period of time. 60.  Some jurisdictions, according to the surveys, have justified the adoption of a trial waiver system as “simplifying” proceedings or reducing procedural requirements and associated timeframes. This view is supported by the Council of Europe, which has recommended the use of simplified judicial proceedings including trial waivers (which it refers to as “guilty pleas”) and other forms of simplified and abbreviated proceedings, along with increased prosecutorial discretion to dismiss charges.78 The survey from Macedonia, for example, specifically cited the influence of the Council of Europe’s recommendation as part of the government’s adoption of a trial waiver system (known as “plea bargaining”). Human resources savings 61. Many of the responses to the Phase 1 surveys and the experts surveyed in Phase 2 of the research expressed the belief that trial waiver systems allowed straightforward cases with little in dispute to be resolved more quickly, freeing up prosecutors’ and judges’ time for contested cases. However, some respondents, for example from Serbia, indicated that trial waivers (which include both “plea agreements” and a witness collaborator programme) have in fact increased workloads in particular for prosecutors. Public spending 62.  In 23 survey responses, the rationale given for the introduction of trial waiver systems was the savings in public spending on the justice system which can be achieved as a result. Little data is collected in many jurisdictions to establish what savings, if any, had actually been made due to the adoption of trial waiver systems, nor is it clear what the parameters of a costbenefit analysis of the efficiency of trial waiver systems would look like. Adopting trial waiver systems can, for 77. Responses to this query from survey respondents are summarised in the table available at Annex I. 78. Recommendation No. R (87)18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning the Simplification of Criminal Justice, adopted on Sept. 17 1987, Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers. Available at: http://www.barobirlik.org.tr/dosyalar/duyurular/hsykkanunteklifi/recR(87)18e.pdf. At part III, paras. 7–9, it reads: ‘Wherever constitutional and legal traditions so allow, the procedure of “guilty pleas”, whereby an alleged offender is required to appear before a court at an early stage of the proceedings in order to state publicly to the court whether he accepts or denies the charges against him, or similar procedures, should be introduced. In such cases, the trial court should be able to decide to do without all or part of the investigation process and proceed immediately to the consideration of the personality of the offender, the imposition of the sentence and, where appropriate, to decide the question of compensation. 8.(i.) The “guilty plea” procedure must be carried out in a court at a public hearing. (ii.) There should be a positive response by the offender to the charge against him. (iii.) Before proceeding to sentence an offender under the “guilty plea” procedure, there should be an opportunity for the judge to hear both sides of the case. 9. Where the investigation process at the court hearing is retained, notwithstanding the willingness of the accused to admit his guilt, it should be restricted to those steps absolutely necessary for establishing the facts, taking account of procedure already gone through prior to the trial. In particular, the hearing of witnesses who have previously testified before a judicial authority should be avoided as far as possible.’ 36.