Democratization: Rule of Law Just as work in the area of criminal justice takes place at different levels — the working level of lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement personnel, as well as the political level of criminal policy — so should reform assistance. In its approach to reform, the ODIHR does just this. At the working level, training is provided to judges and lawyers to help them improve their professional skills; opportunities to exchange experiences and skills are also created through the organization of seminars and conferences. And at the political level, the ODIHR provides advice and expertise to facilitate policy decisions to further uphold and strengthen the rule of law and human rights in criminal justice. Justice and society In the former Soviet Union, trials were decided by a judge who was typically joined by two socalled lay assessors, who were ordinary citizens, not legal professionals. Due to their penchant for agreeing with whatever the judge decided, these assessors became known as “nodders”. Seen as both expensive and ineffective, this system was dismantled during the first wave of judicial reforms in the early 1990s that took place in most post-Soviet states. Following these initial changes, however, some of these countries began considering the idea of reintroducing lay assessors. In some cases, the argument for this return centred on a widespread distrust of the judiciary, allegations of corruption, judicial dependence on the executive branch, or on the lack of transparency in the making of judicial decisions. In Russia, the fact that jury trials were used prior to the 1917 Revolution also contributed to this renewed interest. Russia was the first post-Soviet country to take such a step, reintroducing jury trials in 1993. As a result, there have been improvements: defence lawyers have better standing in criminal proceedings; there is more procedural balance between the defence and the judiciary; and rules related to the admissibility of evidence have begun to work in practice. Since Russia’s return to jury trials, other post- 24 Soviet countries — Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine — have also been considering the possibility of taking this step. The reintroduction of lay participation in criminal proceedings can have a serious impact on the administration of justice and the rule of law. On the one hand, it can help to further democratize judicial systems that have often been viewed as corrupt and unjust. Reform, however, should avoid the return of the “nodders” system, which would further undermine trust. In addition, the reintroduction of lay participation needs to be seen in the broader context of its role in the entire criminal-justice system. If the prosecution and defence are not ensured equality of arms, if the judiciary depends on the executive, and if jurors or lay assessors are unable to make independent decisions, then such a system would hardly perform any better than its predecessor. With this in mind, the ODIHR has been facilitating discussions in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on both the means of reintroducing lay participation and the possible consequences of doing so. These discussions have included the sharing of experiences from those OSCE states that have jury trials, including expertise from Russia. Torture prevention Prevention of torture, as well as other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, is a topical issue in the OSCE area. Frequent instances of such treatment are symptoms of deficient criminal-justice systems that lack adequate safeguards for the protection of human rights. Such systems have implicit incentives that reward “solving crimes” at any cost. This leads to reliance by the police and prosecutors on confessions and witness testimonies obtained through pressure and illegal treatment, while courts often close their eyes to such illegally obtained evidence. Breaking this cycle requires the removal of flawed institutional incentives, greater professionalism, and a zero-tolerance policy towards abusers. For these reasons, the ODIHR approaches torture prevention as an integral part of crim- ANNUAL REPORT 2005