15th UN Crime Congress: Committee II, Workshop 2 – 27 September 2026

Buenas tardes. I welcome you all to the Committee II of the 15th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. I do not need to ask you if I am well heard because I hear myself perfectly well with echo and everything. So, welcome everybody, and I am pleased to chair the first meeting of Committee II, and I had the honor of being elected as a chair by the plenary in the first day of the Congress. We will have very intense discussions and contributions by expert panelists along the next three or four days in two workshops and four sub panels. So I look forward to really learning a lot from our panelists, but also from the interaction with the participants from the audience. Before we begin, I will hand the floor to the Secretariat for a brief announcement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. We are grateful for your participation in the proceedings of Committee II of the Congress. which will cover two important workshops, as the Chair will explain in a while. As also experienced yesterday with Committee 1, these two parallel committees form part of the formal proceedings of the Crime Congress, alongside with the plenary itself. The objective of these committees is to facilitate exchange of views and experiences on the workshop topics, and inform, report back to the plenary in relation to the substantive agenda items which are linked to the workshop topics. The outcomes of the discussions and deliberations in these workshops will be communicated to the plenary according to the rules and the links between the workshop topics and the substantive agenda items. relying on your experience and exposure to crucial aspects of crime prevention and criminal justice to be addressed in these two workshops. We welcome all of you, and we look forward to productive deliberations. Thank you very much for your attention.

Very well. So we need now to proceed to the first step in installing the committee, which is election of officers. And I invite you to elect the remaining officers of the Bureau of our committee. And in accordance with Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure, this committee will need to elect a vice chair and rapporteur from among the representatives of the member states. I have been informed that Her Excellency, Ambassador Angela Vigliotta, who is a permanent representative of the Dominican Republic to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna, has been nominated as vice chair. And also that Ms. Refilwe Mthunye, acting deputy director in the Department for International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa, has been nominated as a rapporteur of the committee. So unless I hear any objection to those two nominations, I take it that it is the wish of the committee to elect them by acclamation. So it is so decided. And I thank both Ambassador Vigliotta and Ms. Mtambue for their cooperation with this Chair. On behalf of the Committee, I wish to congratulate both Ambassador Vigliotta and Ms. Mtambue on their election. Second step, the programme of work. and distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I would like to go to our agenda and organization of work as adopted by the plenary. The following program of work has been allocated to Committee II. The Committee will hold two technical workshops organized with the assistance of the Institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network. The arrangements for the workshops are as follows. Workshop 2 on ensuring equal access to justice for all towards safe and secure societies while respecting the rule of law in the afternoon today and in the morning of tomorrow, Monday 28th of September. That will be followed by Workshop 4 on turning the digital age into an opportunity, promoting the responsible use of technologies in crime prevention and criminal justice. which will be working in the afternoon of Tuesday 29 September and in the morning of Wednesday 30 September. So may I take that the committee wishes to approve this programme of work? Since I hear no objection, the programme of work for Committee 2 is now approved. We have a special request, and I would like to grant the floor to the principal secretary of the State Department for Correctional Services of Kenya. So I invite Ms. Salome Mviko to, if she could please, I would rather ask you if you could please move to the lectern and speak from there. You are granted the floor up for two minutes.

Thank you, Chair, delegates, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. The Republic of Kenya, under the leadership of His Excellency President Dr. William Ruto, is fully committed to ensuring equal access to justice for all. And Kenya's proposition is that its constitutional order places human dignity, equality, and access to justice and rule of law towards the center of governance. And it has constitutional and legal foundations, all founded under the UN Charter on Human Rights and its various articles under the new constitution of 2010. For us, what equal access means in practice is geographical access, financial access, procedural access, digital access, human rights access, remedy and accountability. We are, as Kenya, open to multi-door approach towards justice, that is formal courts, court-annexed mediation, alternative justice systems, small claims courts and mobilized and decentralized justice system. For us, legal aid is a great way of making equality real. The Kenya's Legal Aid Act provides legal aid in criminal, civil, children's, constitutional, and public interest matters. And legal aid has been strengthened through adequate financing, early screening, paralegal services. As the principal secretary of the State Department for Correctional Services, which includes the prisons as well as probation and aftercare, We are committed to correctional services that protect society while preparing offenders for lawful and productive reentry. We are pursuing various reforms in offender management, rehabilitation, aftercare, resettlement, and welfare of correctional officers with great emphasis towards non-custodial measures to reduce unnecessary incarceration while maintaining accountability and public safety. For us as Kenya, we lay great emphasis on decongestion from pressure to systemic reform because overcrowding is not only a prison management problem, but it is also a justice chain problem. And therefore, one of the ways we are doing this is through digital justice, opportunity with safeguards. digital case tracking, e-filing system, virtual hearings, and data analytics to reduce delay, travel, and administrative burdens. In conclusion, Kenya as a whole is aiming at building safer societies through prevention. Through social crime prevention, we address social and economic drivers of vulnerability along effective law enforcement. This is in order to build restorative and problem-solving approaches to repair harm and strengthen community cohesion where appropriate. The goal is to build public confidence and deliver security lawfully, fairly, and transparently. transparently. Kenya's message to the 15th UN Congress is this. First, justice must be people-centered. Secondly, prevention and rehabilitation are essential complements to enforcing and punishment. Thirdly, no one should be excluded because of poverty, geography, disability, age, gender, or status in custody. Fourth, digital and alternative pathways can expand access when designed around rights and inclusion. Fifth, safe societies are sustained by institutions that are fair, accountable, trusted, and responsive. Finally, Kenya stands ready to share its reform experience and learn from global practice in building accessible, humane, and effective criminal justice system. I thank you all for listening to me. Thank you.

We thank the distinguished delegate from Kenya, Principal Secretary from the State Department for Correctional Services, for her statement. And now we will proceed with our substantive work of the committee, starting with workshop two. And We will open the proceedings of the first workshop that will be held at this committee under the title, "Ensuring Equal Access to Justice for All: Towards Safe and Secure Societies While Respecting the Rule of Law." I would like to express sincere gratitude to the UN Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, ILANUD, which is part of the UN United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network and has worked with the Secretariat in preparing and organizing this workshop. During the workshop, panelists will discuss, among other things, evidence-based and multi-sectoral regional and national experiences to ensure equal access to justice for all and address cross-cutting issues such as the role of technology in ensuring equal access to justice for all and innovative approaches to address emerging challenges and developments. Distinguished participants, I would like to highlight that Crime Congress workshops are designed to be of a technical and practical nature, and that the agenda of this week Crime Congress has been negotiated and adopted with a view to ensure a close interconnection between the various substantive items and the workshops on the agenda. In particular, this workshop is thematically linked to substantive item four of the Congress agenda on promoting people-centered, inclusive, and responsive criminal justice systems in a world of continuous change. And Ms. Anna Giudice, UNODC's substantive focal point for this workshop, will report back on the salient points of the opening agenda item 4 in the plenary. The Committee has before it for the consideration of this agenda item the following documents: working paper prepared by the Secretariat on promoting people-centered, inclusive and responsive criminal justice systems in a world of continuous change. I will omit the specific nomenclature of the document because that is available elsewhere. Second document, background paper on the workshop on ensuring equal access to justice for all towards safe and secure societies while respecting the rule of law. Third, discussion guide for the 15th Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. And fourth, reports of the regional preparatory meetings for the 15th Congress, which are basically four documents. This afternoon, we will hold two subpanels. One, a subpanel on advancing equal access to justice for all through cross-sectoral collaboration and multi-stakeholder approaches. And second, another subpanel on expanding access to legal aid, including legal information. Tomorrow morning, we will hold two more subpanels, namely on, one, the role of the police, prosecution, judiciary, and the courts in facilitating access to justice. and second, access to justice for victims, including through restorative justice. At the outset of our work, I would like to invite the presenters and the panelists to be so kind as to respect the time limit assigned to their respective presentations so as to allow enough time for questions from the audience. I will now give the floor to Ms. Anna Giudice of UNODC to introduce the background paper. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, esteemed experts and colleagues. The background paper prepared by the Secretariat focuses on the four interconnected themes that you have outlined and that will be discussed in the four sub-panels of Workshop 2. I would like to encourage all participants to make use of the paper, especially its questions for discussion and recommendations, which build on the outcome of the regional preparatory meetings. In addition, I would like to mention that the report on General Assembly Resolution 78227, which was presented to the CCPCJ by the Secretariat in June this year, has been included in the background documents to the Congress by Brazil, Canada, and Spain. Access to justice enables people to protect their rights, seek remedies, and participate meaningfully in justice processes. Yet access to justice remains out of reach for many people. Key barriers standing in the way of equal access to justice include gaps in legal assistance and information, costs, procedural delays, inaccessible services, and discrimination. These barriers are often most severe for people living in poverty, victims of violence, persons with disabilities, people in remote areas, and others in vulnerable situations. Evolving forms of crime and rapid digitalization add further pressures that no single institution is able to address in isolation. The first aspect to be discussed is therefore the importance of those actors together and improve access to justice. UNODC has supported such efforts in different regions, and I will not go into details because the time allocated here is short, but I'm happy to share more with those who are interested. The second aspect to be discussed is the important role of legal aid and legal information. Too many people face financial, geographical, and other barriers to obtaining timely assistance and information. It should be available early, be of good quality, and extend beyond representation in court to include legal information, education, advice, and referrals. Specialized services are also required for groups with special needs and rights. A range of legal aid providers can help bring those services closer to people, particularly where formal legal infrastructure is limited. The third aspect for discussion focuses on how criminal justice institutions shape whether people experience justice as accessible and fair. Police are often the first point of contact. Their conduct can affect reporting, co-operation and public confidence. Weak investigative practices, limited accountability, or ineffective case management can further undermine access to justice. Professional rights-compliant policing, fair and effective prosecution, an independent and impartial judiciary, accessible courts, and credible oversight mechanisms are therefore essential. The fourth and final theme of discussion focuses on the rights of victims and the power of restorative justice. For victims of crime, access to justice requires more than participation as witnesses. Many face difficulties obtaining information, accessing appropriate support, and seeking remedies for the harm they have experienced. Victims must have access to information, protection, assistance, and remedies. Victim-centered, trauma-informed, and gender-sensitive services can help prevent secondary victimization. Restorative justice can also support accountability, reparation, and reintegration when it is grounded in clear safeguards and international standards. Mr. Chair, the UN standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice include specific instruments on the rights of victims of crime, access to legal aid, restorative justice, the functioning of police and criminal justice institutions, and the rights of women and children in contact with the criminal justice system. They provide detailed guidance and reflect the collective commitment of member states to close the justice gap and ensure criminal justice systems are accessible, fair and effective, whether for victims, witnesses or accused persons, or indeed people in detention. We hope that workshop two will allow participants to build on these commitments, exchange practical approaches, identify lessons that can be adapted across different legal systems, and advance concrete recommendations for ensuring equal access to justice for all. Continued multilateral collaboration, political will, and sustained investment will be essential to build on progress achieved and ensure lasting improvements at the national level. In conclusion, the Secretariat wishes again to thank the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders for its cooperation in organizing the workshop. Thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you very much, Ms. Giudice. Now, I will please invite you to take the floor once again and to present and moderate our first panel. So the Ms. Giudice at the end of the presentations will also summarize the key and salient points of the debate. So you can go ahead.

Thank you so much again, Mr. Chair. So as we have already mentioned, the first panel looks at access to justice for all through cross-sectoral collaboration and multi-stakeholder approaches. so-called all of government approaches, but all of country approaches, because of course other actors also play a role. It is my privilege to moderate this workshop together with Mr. Douglas Duran Chavarria, the Director of the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, ILA NODS, as of now. We have had the pleasure of organizing this workshop together, and I really extend our deep gratitude to Dr. Duran and all his colleagues for the excellent collaboration. The first sub-panel, as I mentioned, will focus on multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral collaboration. Before we turn to our first sub-panel, I would just like to remind us of the agreed format for all sub-panels today and tomorrow. Each panelist has between five and 10 minutes for their intervention, and I kindly ask them to adhere to the time limit. This will allow us to open the floor for around 20 to 30 minutes of discussion after each sub-panel. So I'm now happy to turn to our first sub-panel, which focuses on advancing equal access to justice through cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder approaches. We are privileged to have a diverse panel with speakers working on access to justice issues in government, civil society, and international organizations. They will share perspectives from different countries and regions, reflecting on national, regional, and global efforts to advance access to justice challenges and good practices. Welcome to all our panelists. We're very happy to have many of you here in person and a few video messages or online interventions today and tomorrow. So the first speaker, unfortunately, the first speaker that was planned has not been able to join us, but we may be able to receive her video message for tomorrow in case we will play it then. So I will now immediately turn to Canada. Ms. Erin McKee, who is a director and general counsel of the Criminal Law Policy Section in Canada. Ms. McKee is a lawyer and has began her career as a prosecutor with Canada's Department of Justice, where she's currently the general counsel and the director with the Criminal Law Policy Section. Her focus throughout her career has been on criminal law, and in particular, on the transnational aspects of criminal law and crime. In 2023, Ms. McKee played a leadership role in developing and advancing the resolution on equal access to justice for all from its tabling as the first resolution in the history of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice on this topic, through its adoption by the General Assembly, and has subsequently worked closely with others and with UNODC on its implementation. Ms. McKee, you have experience as a policymaker, both in government and in intergovernmental forum. What national strategies have been most effective in advancing equal access to justice, and how important are multilateral institutions in this area of work?

Thank you very much. It is really a pleasure today to join all of you for this important discussion on advancing equal access to justice for all. I am pleased to share Canada's experience with cross-sectoral collaboration, multi-stakeholder approaches, and evidence-based policymaking, the importance of which is underscored in the December 2023 UN General Assembly resolution that we've heard about at paragraph 7, and in at least two of the recommendations flowing from the UN expert group meeting on equal access to justice for all that was convened in Brazil in December 2024 in implementation of the resolution. The report on the implementation of the resolution referenced earlier is found in the criminal justice tab of the publications page of the Congress website. I think it's a very valuable document and encourage you to look at it. It includes the recommendations of the expert group meeting. And I'd like to really thank the Accelerating Justice team at the UNODC for the really, really strong collaboration and leadership role that they've played in advancing implementation of the resolution. For Canada, access to justice is a fundamental pillar of a fair and effective justice system. It is also essential to strengthening public trust, advancing human rights, and promoting secure societies. Canada's commitment to ensuring equal access to justice for all is reflected in its support for the 2030 Agenda. At Justice Canada, this includes advancing Sustainable Development Goal 16, which calls for equal access to justice for all. The Department of Justice Access to Justice Office in Canada helps advance this work by promoting a people-centered approach across the federal government, nationally, as well as internationally. In practice, this means starting from the perspectives and lived experiences of individuals and communities in order to better understand their legal needs and design justice responses that are inclusive, practical, and effective. Our experience has shown that access to justice cannot be addressed in isolation. It must be embedded in broader social strategies because it affects people's abilities to participate fully in society. Ensuring true access to justice requires cross-sectoral collaboration, multi-stakeholder approaches, and strong evidence to ensure that justice systems are responsive, fair, and effective. people-centered approach to justice must be grounded in strong evidence. At Justice Canada, a specialized group of social science researchers works collaboratively with policy and legal teams to conduct and support quantitative and qualitative access to justice research, as well as disaggregated data collection to better understand people's justice needs and experiences, identify systemic gaps, and support targeted reforms and resource allocation. Canada is also helping to advance this agenda internationally. With the OECD, Canada is co-leading the Justice Action Coalition's workstream on data and evidence, reflecting our commitment to promoting stronger justice data and evidence globally. This work focuses on improving measurement, building the economic case for investment in people-centered justice, and fostering collaboration. and shared learning so that justice systems can become more responsive, accountable, and people-centered. This international work is complemented by Canada's contribution to the OECD's work on the economic value of investing in people-centered justice. As one of three country studies, Canada is helping examine the social and economic impacts of unresolved justice problems and the benefits of a more people-centered approach. This work looks at the incidence of legal problems, the pathways people take to seek resolution, and the direct and indirect costs borne by individuals, justice systems, and society. It also considers the experiences of different population groups and how improved access to justice can reduce these costs. This research underscores that too many serious justice problems remain unresolved. Resolution rates appear to be particularly low for issues related to property and violent crime, reinforcing the need for more responsive justice pathways and sustained evidence-based investment. These findings also point to an important lesson. Justice problems are rarely isolated, and effective responses often depend on collaboration across sectors and with a wide range of partners. This is why advancing access to justice also requires stronger coordination among formal justice institutions and other social service systems and community-based organizations. In Canada's experience, justice needs are often closely connected to broader social challenges, including housing, health and mental health, employment, and income security. When services are fragmented, people may face barriers to getting help and experience gaps in support that undermine effective and lasting outcomes, needs, and the broader circumstances shaping them. In Canada, this can be seen in several examples of collaboration across different levels of government and in sectors such as justice, health, and community services. I'm just going to share a few examples. Canada's Black Justice Strategy provides an important example of this approach in practice. The strategy aims to address the anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination that have led to overrepresentation of Black people in the criminal justice system, including as victims and survivors of crime. It takes a comprehensive approach across social determinants of justice, policing, courts and legislation, corrections and parole, and reentry and reintegration. The strategy was developed in partnership with an external steering group of Black experts and leaders from across Canada and informed by engagements with Black communities and organizations nationwide. It recognizes that the criminal justice system does not operate in isolation. It also identifies employment and income, housing, education, health and mental health, child welfare, and immigration and settlement as determinants of justice that can shape justice system outcomes. This is why the implementation is being pursued through a whole of government approach. The 10-year implementation plan responds to the steering group's 114 recommendations with initial investments that involve eight federal departments and agencies. The first phase includes continued expert advice from the steering group. funding for Black-led, Black-serving, and Black-focused community organizations, and ongoing collaboration with federal, provincial, and territorial partners. It also includes a commitment to strengthen disaggregated race-based data collection. This will help us to better understand how unequal outcomes within the justice system and in areas such as education, health, housing, and employment can increase the risk of involvement with the criminal justice system. Canada has also applied this approach to the work of the Policy Centre for Victims Issues at Justice Canada. Victim-centred, the Centre supports initiatives that bring together justice institutions, police, health and mental health services, child protection partners and community organizations to provide more coordinated responses to the full range of needs individuals may experience. Family information liaison units are an example. These assist families of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQI+ people in obtaining information about their loved ones. This information is often held by different institutions and levels of government, including police services, coroners, correctional authorities, and others involved in investigations or the administration of justice. The Family Information Liaison Units help families navigate these systems while connecting them to culturally grounded, trauma-informed services. The initiative shows how coordinated, people-centred approaches can help families pursue information, accountability, and justice. It has helped more than 4,000 family members across Canada access needed information and move through difficult processes. while strengthening coordination amongst institutions, supporting victims' rights, and improving access to justice for families of survivors and victims. Community justice centres in Canada provide another example of this approach in practice. The centres are designed to move justice out of traditional courtrooms and into a community setting. They bring justice, health, mental health, addictions, employment, and social services together to help address the root crimes of cause. crime, support rehabilitation and reintegration and improve overall community well-being. The Government of Canada helps fund these centres, which have shown promising results in several of our provinces. To conclude, Canada's experience shows that building inclusive, secure and resilient societies depends on people-centred approaches, strong evidence and sustained collaboration across governments, institutions and communities. I hope that The examples that I've shared today offer some food for thought, and I look forward to learning from innovative practices that others are implementing. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Ms. McKee, for sharing your experience, both within the international framework and Canada's efforts to ensure equal access to justice for all. I would like to now give the floor to an online intervention. In fact, Ms. Maaike de Lange, the senior advisor at the OECD Public Governance Directorate, was not able to travel with us, to travel to Abu Dhabi, so she has sent a video message. She's the head of the Justice Cluster at the OECD, where she leads the OECD's work on justice and the rule of law, including on a measurement framework for people-centered justice systems. Until 2022, she directed the Pathfinders for Justice program, creating the Justice Action Coalition, the Iberian American Justice Alliance, and the Young Justice Leaders. If we're ready, can we play the video of Ms. De Lange, please? Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. Let me start by thanking the UNODC for inviting us to be part of this workshop. To present the OECD's perspective on justice measurement, I would like to focus on justice as a public service, which should be assessed by what it enables people, businesses and communities to achieve. The starting point is how we understand access to justice. This extends beyond whether institutions process cases efficiently. Meaningful access to justice requires that people can understand their options, obtain support, and reach a fair and effective solution. In this context, at the OECD, we see access to justice as a public governance responsibility. The 2023 recommendation on access to justice and people-centered justice systems asks governments to organize justice around people's needs and preferences. That requires leadership and a shared purpose across the sector, but also collaboration. Justice problems cross the boundaries between ministries, courts, legal aid, the police and social services. A whole of government approach, therefore, needs connected priorities and pathways. A whole of society approach, in turn, includes communities, businesses, civil society and the people who use or cannot use justice services. Their experience is part of the evidence needed to improve the justice system. The OJD measurement framework for people-centered justice systems, which was published in our paper in June this year, offers a conceptual framework that connects policy and system characteristics, services and pathways to justice outcomes. This connection matters because the institutional activity does not by itself show whether justice works for people. Caseloads, waiting times and clearance rates remain useful, but outcome measures ask different questions: did people resolve their problems? they experience the process as fair, do they trust the justice system, and are they able to avoid further harm? The framework also includes access to information, assistance and advice, and dispute resolution as outcomes. It follows people's justice journey across formal, informal, and community services and helps conceptualize the justice sector as a whole. Let me say a few words about our Thailand case study, which focused on measuring the costs of crime and violence. The OECD study published last year estimated the costs of crime and the criminal justice system to Thai society. These costs reached 973 billion Thai baht in 2022, which is equivalent to 5.6% of Thailand's GDP. We found that victims of domestic and sexual violence bear a significant share of these costs. Legal and procedural fees made-up more than 20% of crime costs, driven in part by high volumes of court cases, in particular for drug-related offences. The study points to several important actions, including violence prevention and alternative drug policies. It also underscored the need for better data to understand what works and target public expenditures accordingly. Measurement becomes useful when it informs planning and budgets. Our analysis shows that administrative data are widely available and often provide the foundation for planning and budgeting in the justice sector. There are very few countries, however, that systematically use evidence on people's access to justice to inform resource allocation and investments. Evidence from legal needs surveys is important in this regard, because it helps identify problems that otherwise remain out of sight of justice institutions. But as said, such empirical data on justice problems and people's justice pathways are rarely used in planning and budgeting. This is one of the findings included in the forthcoming OECD report on justice as a public service, delivering better outcomes. And this is the link between better measurement and better justice, knowing not only what justice services provide, but also what they achieve. Thank you for your attention. We look forward to continuing our collaboration to strengthen justice data and measurement and to support better outcomes for people.

Thank you. Thank you to Ms. De Langen from the OECD. I would like to now give the floor to another speaker from another multilateral institution. We have with us Mr. Sang-Sun Park, who is a senior counsel at the World Bank and a public prosecutor from the Republic of Korea. He is a senior prosecutor with nearly 17 years of experience. Since joining the World Bank as senior counsel in 2025, he has been supporting knowledge sharing efforts, including study visits and exchanges with delegations. And he's currently preparing a research paper that examines the design, implementation, and key lessons from Korea's transformation toward a fully digital criminal justice system. Mr. Park, you have been personally involved in dealing with the impact of the digital transformation on access to justice. What are the key challenges and lessons learned concerning digitalization and its impact on access to justice in the criminal justice system?

First of all, I'd like to extend my sincere gratitude to especially UNODC and everyone, and chair and panelists and great participants here. Today, I'd like to focus on Korea's digitalized criminal justice system and legal aid. Improved access to justice, Korean government has fully digitalized the criminal justice process and strengthened the country's legal aid system. Digitalized criminal justice system has two key features. First, in the past, the all criminal cases were created and maintained and preserved in paper format. But now, electronic records completely replaced all the papers throughout the entire process. Second, in the past, the large volume of paper files had to be transferred from institutions, which it takes up to a few business days in each process. But now, they are transferred and exchanged electronically within a few minutes. Legal Aid informs us to keep features too. First, each local community service center connects the direct people in use with lawyers from Legal Aid corporations. Second, AI-enabled assistance provide 24/7 consultation and connects the user with the appropriate legal advisors. At this point, you maybe raise these kind of three questions to me. First, why did Korea decide to digitalize the criminal justice system and how did it go about building and implementing the system in practice? Second, has this digitalization actually improved access to justice? And three, now, what is the next step? So first one. Although Korea has somehow achieved economic development over the past several decades, assessment of the public trust in a justice system have consistently deteriorated. To address this challenge, Korean government undertook the digital transformation of the criminal justice system. Korea's efforts to digitalization began in 2004. Around 2010, Korea developed its first generation model However, it functioned primarily as a case management system. The next generation initiative was launched in 2020 that led to the completion of the system in 2024. One of the major criticism of the first generation was the information was not effectively shared among the relevant institutions, resulting in significant inefficiencies. To address this issue, government established a department within a Ministry of Justice to act as a liaison for the exchange of electronic information among all relevant institutions. Now, the second, has the digitalization of the system actually improved access to justice? At this stage, it is too early to provide a definitive answer. The new system is still in its implementation phase. Nevertheless, there are strong reasons to expect positive outcomes. The new system not only enabled electronic exchange of records, but also it enabled online access to case information, online statements and online submission of evidence for victims and every interested parties. So now the question, now third question, what's the next step? The digitalization of the justice system may be the one of the most significant challenge of our time. An important point is that Korea pursued judicial digitalization largely in response to the declining public trust in justice system. The fundamental challenge is that they need to handle the entire disputes with limited personnel and resources. Having said that, all resources saved through digitalization should now be redirected toward strengthen access to justice. In my view, access justice has two core dimensions. The first is efficiency. The second is provision of genuine and meaningful access to vulnerable groups. The digitalization of the system is largely related to the improving efficiency. However, sometimes nowadays it appears that they focus on the digitalization so much, they seems like they've forgotten the very objective why they initiated the digitalization in the first place. Bottom line is, digitalization of the justice system should not be viewed as a goal itself, but should be viewed as a tool or platform to achieve broader objectives, to provide fair and reliable justice to all members of society, particularly for those who face the greatest barriers accessing it. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Mr. Park, for sharing this experience on digitalization and also the open questions that remain. And we do see these questions appear in many countries around the world. We now have our next speaker, who is Dr. Moses Maranga, who is the executive director of the National Council on the Administration of Justice in Kenya. He's a senior public sector performance management and governance professional with around 20 years of experience in government. He currently serves as the executive director of the National Council on the Administration of Justice, where he spearheads justice sector coordination, collaboration, and consultation. He previously served in Kenya's judiciary as an assistant director responsible for measuring judicial performance. Dr. Maranga, sorry. You have longstanding experience in leading strategic planning and coordination towards justice reform and evidence-based planning. What are the key elements and priorities for cross-sectoral collaboration and multi-stakeholder approaches to advance access to justice for all?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, moderator. please allow me to appreciate the rest of the panelists and those who have joined this panel. Yes, yes. Thank you. Sorry about that. At the onset, I want to mention that no justice institution can deliver justice on its own. The topic of the day, equal access to justice through cross-sector collaboration. So effective justice delivery depends on all of us coming together despite our different merits and working towards a common goal. Again, equal access to justice is a system outcome. It cannot be an outcome of a single agency. First and foremost, it reduces duplication, improves timeliness, and widens access to justice with other sectors. And again, it supports accountability using shared evidence and reporting. So how do we collaborate or how should we collaborate across the group? Key point there, we must agree and pursue shared priorities. Is there a shared priority in our country or in your country that cuts across various institutions? If the answer is yes, then you can collaborate. Again, collaboration have to move beyond the normal talk. We have to create structures, very critical. When do we collaborate as institutions? when we have criminal justice challenges and when there is a crisis. But again, we should not wait for a crisis for us to collaborate. We always say that for us to collaborate better, there has to be within institution collaboration, core justice sector institution, judiciary, DPP, police, and the wider justice system ecosystem or what today we are referring as cross-sector collaboration. So I want to share the Kenyans model of collaboration. It is anchored in the role, judicial service act, specifically a role that was enacted in Kenya in 2011 with 46 institution, 16 explicitly in the role and that the others co-opted. As you can see from there, they are core justice sector institutions. They are those that are from wider justice sector, children's department, labour department, Ministry of Defence, health, and they all have a primary role in criminal justice system. In Kenya's model, we have private sector alliance and association of manufacturers. Again, we have other oversight bodies, as you can see, human rights bodies, research and professional bodies and most importantly the civil society organization. So that's the Kenya's model established under the law and again which came to address the challenges of inefficiencies in the justice sector. I'll focus now on the outcome. Does this collaboration yield outcome? First, In Kenya, we have sectoral planning, and that one is NCAJ strategic plan 2021-2026. It's a very unique model where as a country, we are doing a joint sector strategic plan. Again, in Kenya, we do a single annual report on the administration of justice in Kenya, covering all the agencies I have mentioned in the previous slides. Other achievements, people-centered justice guidelines framework. We have guided the justice sector because we came to realize that the topic of people-centered justice has been in major forums, conferences, and we decided we have to guide the sector. And that's a guideline for the sector having programs for implementation. Again, very critical ICT policy and action plan for the entire justice sector and not for a single institution. That's collaboration in practice. In Kenya, we usually have a challenge on traffic cases and road safety. And that's the top leadership of justice sector coming together. The photo at the center. the NCAJ was joined by his Excellency, the president, the photo on the right hand side, the honorable Chief Justice with members of the justice sector coming to a common place and agreeing that something must be done to address the charge of traffic eh accidents. Cross sector collaboration to advance child justice sector reforms. We have a sector national strategy on justice for children, training on child exploitation and abuse. We also have sentencing policy guidelines. We have a Children Act, again, developed at sector level and not at institutional level. Collaboration in the fight against corruption. We have anti-corruption strategic guiding framework for Kenya's justice sector. As the name suggests, Kenya's justice sector, a sectoral, cross, multi-institutional approach. Again, we have standard operating procedures to address sexual and gender-based violence. We partner and we value our collaborators, specifically among others, UNODC, through a program supported by the EU, which has given us a lot of support, financial and technical, focusing on coordination, criminal justice, digitization, integrity, and access to legal aid. Most of those documents I have portrayed there were supported through that program. We also celebrate achievements of collaboration. Those photos are for the leadership of the justice sector and the around different policy document. The first for there is the chief justice, the inspector general of police, former U ambassador to Kenya, among others, and those are different output of sector collaboration. As I wide up, For all of us to succeed in collaboration, we have to start with commitment to justice seekers. This is the spirit of the people-centered justice, commitment to justice seekers. Then the leaders must show support and again, agree on shared priorities. And we have to be deliberate. on follow through and strong monitoring and evaluation of justice sector performance. Again, involvement of the user and participation of the user is very critical. With your permission, I will not emphasize why we should fail, for today I want to remain optimistic and I believe that as a sector across the group, we can succeed by cross-sector collaboration. Thank you.

Thank you so much, in particular for this last slide and this very clear recommendation on what is needed for justice sector reform to work. Our next speaker could also not be with us in person and has provided a recorded statement. Mr. Fernando Marani is a program director of Justice, Inclusion and Equality at Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies. He's an international policy leader and former diplomat from Argentina. He's now the deputy director at the New York University Center on International Cooperation, where he also leads his justice, inclusion, and equality portfolio. He also serves as the head of the secretariat teams for two global platforms that you've already heard about, the Justice Action Coalition, as well as the Global Alliance Against Inequality. Before joining NYU, he served as Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Advisor to four consecutive presidents of the UN General Assembly. Can we please play the video of Mr. Marani.

English delegates, dear colleagues, let me start by thanking UNODC and for the invitation to contribute to this workshop on advancing equal access to justice for all. I regret that I cannot join you in Abu Dhabi in person, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to send this video message. My name is Fernando Mariani, and I'm the Deputy Director of New York University Center on International Cooperation. At the center, we are really honored to host the initiative, Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just, and Inclusive Societies. We work together with governments and partners from around the world. We work to advance people-centered justice, equality, and inclusion. Let me begin with a simple observation. People do not experience justice as a collection of institutions. They experience it as a problem that needs to be solved. It is a land dispute, a family matter, violence in the home or a community, a criminal charge, a person trying to understand their rights, or where to go for help. At the same time, our justice systems are organized around ministries, courts, agencies, professionals, mandates, and funding streams. The distance between these two realities is in many ways where the justice gap lives. And this is why I think that cross-sectoral collaboration really matters, not only because it puts people around the same table, but because it can really help us redesign the table itself, how we understand people's justice need, how is it priorities, how we allocate resources, and how we move from promising ideas to solutions that work in people's everyday life. I want to use my few minutes today to highlight three initiatives that I hope can help illustrate ways in which we are trying to help to make this happen. The first one is the Justice Action Coalition. The coalition was launched in 2021 and is bringing together 19 countries and 24 international partners. Creating a space where governments, international organizations, civil society, academia, and grassroots organizations can really work together around one practical question, how we make justice delivery better. The coalition is building some of what we hope are the key infrastructure needed to turn evidence into action. Common approaches to measure people-centered justice, how we can work on justice financing, including the development of a justice financial framework. how we support country-level innovation, how we have a shared communication strategy when we speak about people-centered justice. And we hope it's also a platform that continue to help to test ideas across different contexts on improving access to justice. The Justice Action Coalition also launched earlier this year five new thematic tracks that reflect something important about where the justice, people-centered justice agenda is going. customary and informal justice, AI and emerging technologies, democracy and the rule of law, inclusive justice, and criminal justice. In other words, justice is no longer being treated as a sectorial issue, but really trying to make it transforms, taking into account what is happening around it. The second example I want to mention is the Ibero-American Alliance for Access to Justice. Here, the contribution is somehow different. The alliance was created as a space for countries, justice institutions, and civil society from the Ibero-American region to learn from one another. But it's also a network of networks that is helping to translate global commitments into regional tools. A particularly important development this year was the adoption of the first Ibero-American Convention on Access to Justice. which establishes a common legal framework for access to justice and recognize it as an autonomous human right. For me, the interesting lesson that we can take from the regional cooperation in the Americas is how important is to translate this broad principles into something that countries can actually collectively own, adapt, and implement at national level. The third example is the African Alliance for People-Centered Justice. And here, the lesson that we take is Particularly relevant taking into account the diversity of justice systems across Africa. The alliance brings together governments, regional institutions, civil society, and other justice actors around a common people-centered justice approach. While recognizing that justice does not happen only inside formal courtrooms. In fact, for many people, customary, community-based, and other informal mechanisms are part of the justice pathway that they actually use. The point is not to romanticize those systems, but to try to assume that informal mechanisms are always fair or effective. I think that the point of the work of the African Alliance is to help countries to acknowledge the reality of how people seek to resolve disputes and to ask more practical questions. How can the different pathways of the justice ecosystem work together to provide a better outcome? This is also where data and evidence continue to be critical. The ambition is not just to collect more data about institutions, but to actually understand what are the people's justice problems, identify what is working, and to use that knowledge to make better decisions about policy and resources. So there are three different coalitions, one at the global level, two at regional level. But we tend to think that we see common trends among the work that the coalitions are doing. And there are at least three common lessons that we can take for the work that the coalitions have been taking ahead so far. The first one is that effective collaboration needs infrastructure. A partnership is most valuable when it produces something that individual institutions cannot produce on their own. It could be shared evidence, common standards, financing mechanisms, peer learning, or just a way to test and scale effective solutions. Second is a global and regional platform should not be seen as spaces only for sharing experiences. At their best, these platforms can really help countries to adapt ideas to their own realities and to turn international commitments into locally owned action. And third, we should judge collaboration by the way it's impacting the people's life, not just by the number of participants in a meeting. So what happened after the work of this coalition and these networks? That is really changing where resources go, where justice problems are identified. Can we bring new actors into the assigning of solutions? And I think that these questions are particularly important when we look at the criminal justice as well. Police, prosecutors, legal aid providers, victim support services, community organizations, technology actors, they all often operate into really different institutional worlds. But the true thing is that the person is navigating a justice problem, usually is navigating those systems, experiences just one justice journey. The opportunity before us is therefore not to improve each institution separately, but to really try to make the connections between them to work better. Dear colleagues, perhaps the challenge for us is no longer to make the case that collaboration is important. I think that right now we have made a case that many times But I think it's more interesting question that we can pose is whether we can be a form of collaboration that actually change how justice is designed, financed and delivered. That will be at the end of the day, what people justice, what people center justice demands. No better institutions, but actually institutions that are able to learn from one another. to work together and to respond to the problems that people actually face. I thank you for this opportunity, and I wish you all a really great session.

Thank you very much to Mr. Marani for these important contributions to the conversation on multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder approaches and cooperation at the both global and national level. Before we open the floor for discussion, I will say a few words in my capacity as the team leader of the Accelerating Justice team at the UNODC Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Section. I would like to take this opportunity to build on the outcomes of the regional preparatory meetings many of you attended last year around the world and recall some of the recommendations that were included in the working paper for workshop two. First, it is important to place equal access to justice for all at the center of global criminal justice policies by addressing the root causes of inequalities, exclusion, and barriers to justice by ensuring that responses meet the needs of individuals in contact with the justice system. Especially important are timely, culturally appropriate, and qualitative delivery of services, particularly in remote or rural areas. but also efforts to facilitate the safe use of technology to enhance service provision and procedural efficiency. Second, a whole of sector approach and cross-sectoral, multidisciplinary, and multi-stakeholder programs are key to facilitate equal access to justice for all and to address the full range of criminal justice needs. In particular, this requires inter-ministerial cooperation, engagement with civil society organizations, and partnerships with the private sector, as well as engagement of groups and individuals with lived experience of inequalities and exclusion and with lived experience of contact with the criminal justice system. Third, while enhancing institutional capacity is not sufficient, It is a necessary component and should not only include training, but also constant reviews, mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of criminal justice policies, performance measurement, as we've heard from other speakers, ethical leadership, inclusiveness, transparency, and professionalism within the workforce and institutions, as well as strong internal and external oversight mechanisms. General Assembly Resolution 78227 and now the new Abu Dhabi Declaration provide a strong political framework for accelerating action. The resolution highlights the importance of people-centered justice systems, legal aid, evidence-based policy making, restorative justice, non-discriminatory justice services, and the responsible use of technology to expand access to justice. In response, UNODC has intensified its support to member states through technical assistance, capacity building, and the development of practical tools grounded in the UN standards and norms, but also in the practical experience from across the world. We have also invested in building partnerships, in providing the space for countries, experts, practitioners and other actors in this area to exchange on what works in access to justice and criminal justice reform, creating networks of professionals, practitioners, and other actors, and creating the space really for learning from each other in a very multi-stakeholder and multi-regional point of view. Our approach is really that Everyone can learn from each other. We are all facing many similar challenges, and innovation, good evidence base is coming out of countries and regions across the world. Our experience shows that reforms are most successful when they're based on reliable data, informed by human rights principles, and developed through whole-of-government and multi-stakeholder partnerships. and again, involving justice institutions, of course, but also other parts of government, civil society, academia, and affected communities. Mr. Chair, that concludes the first round of our panelists. I would now hand back the floor to you for questions and comments from participants. We have about 30 minutes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Giudice. And I also thank the panelists for those initial presentations. If you would like to make a comment or ask a question to the panelists, please raise your nameplates so I can direct the floor to you, please. The United States, please.

Thank you, Chair. The United States believes it is time we address the real barrier to justice, which is impunity. When criminals operate knowing they will never be investigated, arrested, or prosecuted, abstract discussions about access to justice ring hollow. The document that we have before us acknowledges cycles of impunity, but then diverts to broad development agendas instead of the core problem, criminals are getting away with their crimes. Discussions on so-called access to justice give member states an excuse to avoid difficult reforms. Too many member states promote woke ideological agendas rather than confront uncomfortable truths. Police who lack investigative skills, prosecutors who are overwhelmed or compromised, courts with massive backlogs, and correction systems that serve as criminal universities. For too many people worldwide, justice is abstract because they've never seen it delivered. They report crimes that are never investigated, they witness violence that is never prosecuted, They watch criminals flaunt their wealth on social media. Real access to justice means consequences. A murder victim's family sees the killer convicted. A trafficking victim sees their exploiter imprisoned. A community sees less crime because criminals are behind bars. The United States strongly urges this workshop to focus on what actually works, building investigative capacity, strengthening prosecutorial services, improving judicial efficiency, and ensuring crimes have consequences. That's the access to justice that victims demand. The United States will oppose any recommendations that go beyond the basics and beyond our treaty mandates. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the United States for basically it's a statement more than a question. So then I ask the panelists if anyone would like to respond to that or make comment additionally from what the US has stated. Canada, please. Ms. McKee.

Thank you, and thank you for your observations. I think it's important to have an opportunity and to have exchanges of views and learn what others think is important in the context of a discussion on access to justice. And I think my observation would just be that some of the issues that you raised and some of the initiatives that you'd like to see undertaken I don't think are mutually exclusive from the concept of access to justice and that there's often a perception that access to justice means soft on crime and I think that those of us who are working hard within this area see those as see them as mutually reinforcing and that removing barriers to equal access to justice serves to reinforce confidence in the public administration of justice and faith in the justice system. It's not just about offenders, but access to justice is also about supporting victims and survivors. By doing that, I think that we're trying to undertake some of the initiatives that you've raised. So those are important initiatives. I think they're part of the access to justice package. And it's not about just focusing exclusively on a single point, but in taking that broader view and working in all of those areas in a holistic fashion. So thank you.

I thank Ms. McKee for her comments as well. And I now give the floor to Malta.

Thank you. First of all, I wish to thank the UNODC and the United Arab Emirates for hosting this event. Some observations of what we are doing in Malta and also what we are being faced with. Justice systems are being asked to do more and also to do it better. Crime has become much more complex and transnational. Technology is changing how offences are committed, investigated and prosecuted. People rightly expect justice to remain fair, accessible and responsive. For Malta, this is not an abstract concept. It is the basis of democratic governance, public confidence and also the effective administration of justice. It depends on independent institutions, fair procedures and most of all accountability. Yet it must also be experienced and practised by every person who needs the protection of law. I wish to focus on two priorities which are central to Malta's approach: equal access to justice, but also the responsible use of innovation. Equal access to justice cannot be secured through legislation alone. Rights must be supported by services which people can understand and use effectively, particularly for victims, children, vulnerable persons and those facing financial or practical barriers. Justice system must be designed around the people it serves. should not expect every person to find their way through complex structures without the right support. Malta has continued to strengthen legal aid on this basis. We have implemented and are continuing to implement specialised panels of legal aid lawyers being introduced in the civil and criminal fields and also for victims of crime. The purpose is practical, to improve the quality of assistance and to ensure that support responds more closely to the circumstances of each person. The same people-centred approach guides Malta's work on child-friendly justice. This includes safeguards adapted to children and a stronger role for children's advocates in the family and juvenile courts in the upcoming family court reform, which will come into effect from the 1st of October of this year. Our second priority is digital transformation. Technology gives us an important opportunity to simplify access to legal information, improve the interaction with justice services, and make the administration of proceedings much more efficient. Malta's first digital justice strategy is guiding the gradual redesign of business processes across the justice sector through a digital by default approach. A key part of this work is the upcoming court information management system, which is intended to digitalize court processes, streamline operations, and make better use of resources, while digital process mapping is currently being carried out across our justice institutions to ensure that reform starts from a clear understanding of how services operate and where improvement is needed. But here we need to be also very clear and also be very careful that digitalization itself must never create a new barrier to justice. Different levels of digital literacy must be taken into account. Effective access must remain available to court users and legal professionals. Technology should assist human decision-making and definitely not replace either independent judgment or also the responsibility of the professionals working in the field. Innovation must also be accompanied by safeguards for privacy, data protection, procedural fairness and human dignity. Public trust cannot be treated as an afterthought. It must be built into the design and the use of every digital justice service. Investment in people is just as important as investment in systems. Judges, prosecutors, court staff, lawyers, other justice professionals need opportunities for continued development. Judicial and professional training strengthens not only individual expertise, but also the capacity of institutions to respond to change. Criminal activity crosses borders, uses new technologies, and generates complex electronic and financial evidence. Strong laws need professionals with the knowledge, skills, and networks required to apply them effectively. No one needs to be left behind. Colleagues, no country can address these challenges alone, and this is very important. Evidence, assets, and service providers may be spread across several jurisdictions, And so cooperation between competent authorities must be practical, timely, and grounded in mutual trust, while respecting different legal systems. This is something that we really need to be working on, both within our own country, because the silo mentality within our institutions sometimes is a hindrance, and also between countries, both neighboring and not. This Congress is an opportunity to commit to shared principles and devise practical solutions. Malta is ready to contribute, learn from others, and support justice systems which are independent, effective, accountable, and most of all, centered on the people they serve. For Malta, access to justice is equal opportunity of justice for all. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished delegate from Malta for that statement as well. I also did not identify a specific question. I wonder if anyone would like to make a comment on that.

Just a comment on legal aid, which you have explained its importance. I would advise that as a country, we need to know where we are. We have to measure who are those number of clients who deserve legal aid. Then from there, We should be able to determine how many have we assisted through legal aid, such that now we convert everything into action. Lastly, you have mentioned the issue of zero mentality. We need to formalize. We must formalize as countries, whether we start by having meetings And after that, we decide whether we need to enact a role to support that collaboration, as I have explained the case for Kenya. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that comment as well. I now give the floor to the delegation of the Philippines, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the body. Impunity is never more prevalent and apparent right now, and it's being facilitated through the anonymity in social media, messaging, and streaming platforms.

This is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

If these platforms remain unchecked in their practices of harboring threat actors in their platform, either by willful non-disclosure or lack of identification or traceability of threat actors using their services. My question would be what actions or policies can the body institute for platform accountability?

Because access to justice means accountability and not anonymity.

Thank you very much. Just following with the same procedure, if anyone from the panel would like to comment on the Philippines' statement. Don't see any, so I will give the floor next to the Republic of Korea delegation, please.

Yeah, thank you for giving me the floor. First of all, Mr. Chair, congratulations on your election as chair of this committee too. And also, I'd like to express my appreciation to today's excellent panelists for their interesting and very inspiring presentations. And Mr. Sang-Sun Park is my distinguished post-collegue. Yeah, I simply wanted to say that. Yes, back to my comment and question. I'd like to just underline the importance of active cooperation between government actors and multi-stakeholders in advancing the equal access to justice. So I think we are in many ways partners at the same time, and we are sharing strength and compensating our weakness each other. Nevertheless, in practical level, in pragmatic level, differences between government actors and Buddhist stakeholders in mandates or perspective can make our communication or collaboration a little bit hard, challenging sometimes. So I would be interested to hear whether the panelists have encountered such a situations, challenging situations, and if so, how you overcame the such difficulties or of communication gaps, especially the excellent panelist from Kenya, he mentioned the importance of actualizing cross sectors relationships. So yes, I'd like to stop here. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the distinguished delegation of Korea. And I would then turn back to the panel, turn to panelists and find if someone would like to reply to that. Now we do have a specific question from a delegation. So, Mr. Maranga, please.

Okay, thank you. She asked something about Kenya. We experienced challenges of poor communication, but we addressed that by formalizing. The justice sector actors meet every quarter and they do it without fail. They come and address cross-sector challenges, zoning issues, and things that require immediate interventions. Sometimes we hold closed-door meetings. You know, sometimes, especially those from the government, don't want to speak in public, but we address those issues. Then lastly, accountability and I think it was a question by the delegate from another country. For us to be accountable, we have to institutionalize sector reporting. We are coming together as a sector. We have to produce a sectoral report and we have to tell justice seekers what is this that we have done for them, what is this that we have made them achieve. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We now give the floor to the United Nations Development Programme, please.

Thank you, Chair. And I echo the thanks and appreciation to all the panellists for their excellent presentations and our great partners at UNODC, World Bank and other members of the Justice Action Coalition. I'd just like to focus on this point also brought up by Dr. Moses on after decades of speaking about people centeredness giving this a real meaning and congratulate them for their work in Kenya on the people centered approaches to justice framework that you developed in UNDP. We had similar challenges trying to give people centeredness a real meaning. And in 2021, we endeavored on a four year consultation with our UNDP country offices positioned in over 170 countries globally to figure out not just what does people-centeredness mean, but what doesn't it mean and where is it being misused and misunderstood. And to that effect, we have a global policy now on people-centered approaches to justice and a detailed guide on implementing people-centered approaches to justice, including engaging with justice users, designing solutions, and most importantly, adapting them when they are not working. My question is very concretely to any of the panelists in the actualization or in the operationalization of people-centered approaches, what are some of the bigger challenges, including resources, technical expertise, time, capacities, et cetera, that you experience in giving a people-centered approach to justice real meaning on the ground. I thank you. So.

Any of the panelists would like to take this floor?

I don't want to seem to be speaking too much.

But please, go ahead.

But the The real measure, to actualize people-centered justice, the biggest challenge is for the duty bearers understanding the programs that constitute people-centered justice so that they can translate those programs to address the needs of justice seekers. So if you are in a meeting of government officers developing the strategic plans and work plans. What is this that is so people-centered and what is this program that is not people-centered? It requires great understanding and it requires even at the height that it requires to know the priority needs of justice seekers. The question is whatever the program we are doing, is it addressing a certain need? If the answer is no, then that program is not people-centered justice, it's part of institutional-centered justice. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that response. I would now give the floor to Our secretary here for a question as well. And then we will have one last intervention from the floor. So please go ahead.

Thank you very much. And the floor will be given immediately to you, the panelist. I was actually-- it was very interesting to note that to highlight actually the interconnected nature of this workshop with the following workshop because references to digitalization efforts and digital transformation is also a key area and the focus for the other workshop. This indicates the cross-cutting nature of this important issues for the overall concept of the proper administration of justice. But I have a specific question for Minister Saxon Park. I was impressed to hear the statement that we should not view digitalization as a goal itself, but as a tool. And I would be very much interested in hearing what kind of challenges may be encountered if digitalization is viewed as a goal itself. And such challenges have been analyzed and addressed only in relation to the domestic aspects of criminal justice systems or also in the context of international cooperation between criminal justice institutions of different countries? Thank you.

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Park.

Yeah, thank you so much for your question. Actually, we, our Korean system was fully focused on the domestic, of course, and My job at World Bank is actually implementing those knowledge and practices to the other developing countries. So, as we are now, we are assessing the level of the development of the Korea and the knowledge product of the Korea. Actually, we are in the process of writing the paper about the practices of the implementing of the Korean system, and we are trying to introduce to other countries, and now we are inviting other countries to Korea. I believe it could be an example for other countries to build access to justice. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're running out of time, so I do have still two interventions from the floor. First, the European Union, and then I will give the floor last to Medical Impact, and we will end it there. So please, the European Union has the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the floor. A few words from the side of the European Union. First of all, to thank for this workshop, to thank UNODC, to thank Ilan Nud for this important subject, which for us is a fundamental pillar of the rule of law. Equal access to justice is essential to a fair, humane, and effective criminal justice system. It's also a prerequisite for human rights, public trust, and safe, inclusive, and resilient societies. And yet we know that for many individuals and communities, justice remains difficult to access or entirely out of reach. So it's a subject that we need to continue focusing on. Justice systems must be people-centered, accessible, effective, and accountable. This includes fair trial guarantees, independent and impartial institutions, accessible legal aid and effective support services for victims. Access to justice must be upheld across the criminal justice chain, from the first contact with law enforcement to judicial proceedings and remedies. We have six EU directives on the rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings that establish a solid framework on minimum standards in this respect. We have also strengthened our legal and policy framework on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. This year, in 2026, a revised Victims' Rights Directive was adopted, and a new EU strategy on victims' rights is planned for the end of this year. Our framework places particular emphasis on victim-centred, trauma-informed, gender-transformative and child-sensitive approaches. We also underline the importance of child-friendly justice for both child victims and children who come into conflict with the law, some of whom have themselves been victimised. At the level of the EU, these priorities are reflected in legislation and policy, including the above-mentioned Victims' Rights Directive and the Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings. The EU also recognizes the potential of digital tools to improve access to justice through better information and more efficient services. At the same time, and this is for us, it's really important, digital transformation must remain inclusive and fully respect human rights, privacy, accessibility, and non-discrimination. effective non-digital avenues to justice must remain available, especially on criminal matters. So as this workshop has really underscored, ensuring equal access to justice requires cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder cooperation, including among law enforcement, prosecution services, courts, staff of detention facilities, parole officers, legal aid providers, victim support organizations, social services, and civil society. We therefore very much welcome these discussions and we hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will be able to draw useful conclusions also that we can take forward now that we have a strong mandate from the Abu Dhabi Declaration, for which we again congratulate our gracious hosts, the United Arab Emirates. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished delegate from the European Union, and I give him assurances that we will try to draw the interesting conclusions that he's asking for. And now I will give the last intervention from the floor to Medical Impact. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Rodrigo Martinez. I am part of the science diplomacy team at Medical Impact, a non-profit civil society organization. For Medical Impact, we have learned that justice and crime prevention require genuine multi-state harden implementations. In Sierra Leone, our work in prisons uses healthcare to build trust with persons deprived of liberty, creating an entry point for rehabilitation and successful reintegration. In highly vulnerable communities in Latin America, the same principle applies earlier.

Doctors and health NGOs often hold a level of community trust that public institutions struggle to achieve. That trust allows us to educate young people, challenge narco culture, prevent drug use, and promote sport and healthy lifestyles before recruitment into crime occurs. This is why civil society should participate beyond consultation, bring us into implementation, think outside of the box.

And push collaboration outside the justice system, for example, in health NGOs. Justice institutions, governments, healthcare professionals, and communities each reach people differently.

Combining those capabilities allow us to intervene before vulnerability becomes criminality.

Finally, we would love to use the opportunity to congratulate Kenya and Mexico for their continued.

Support to civil society efforts in the field that serves as examples for their respective regions. Thank you.

We thank that medical impact for that final statement. I ask the panelists if they would like to give some final remark. Okay, so I will conclude by myself, highlighting two or three things that come to my mind. First of all, I would like to highlight Mr. Park saying that sometimes focusing too much on digitalization distracts us from measuring the impact on the population. And I think that we should be very much aware of this. We shouldn't forget that the main purpose is to bring better access to justice to everyone in society. And that also, I would like to say that we should, perhaps when I was listening to most of the participations, I was thinking that they were thinking on the victim side, but we also need to provide fair justice to the offenders. And in this regard, I think that we should be giving equal access and balanced justice both to the victims and to offenders themselves, with always keeping in mind that we need to attempt reformation on that side. Second observation, I like very much Mr. Maranga's list of institutions that are basically the stakeholders on any exercise or in Kenya specific exercise on how to coordinate. And I think that the word coordinate that Mr. Maranga used was very important because coordination needs, it's indispensable to bring this goal to fruition. And there were categories of institutions that were mentioned in one of his slides. Aside from the very valuable one on the with which he finished his presentation stating what are the factors of success and what are the factors of failure, I think that we should draw on that on that final slide to draw more conclusions. And also this last contribution by the European Union also enrich the list of institutions that are involved in this very necessary coordination. And this gives me to one personal observation. If we need to coordinate all these institutions and all these stakeholders, both from government and outside government in a given society, in a given judicial system, we also need to take into account that inequality is a very important factor within any given society or any given judicial system. Because the more unequal a society is, the more difficulties we will have to provide equal access to justice to everybody. it is very likely that participating or claiming justice is an expensive matter for most people. And if we don't have institutions that make it accessible and that provide a fair playing ground to both actors who have enough economic resources and those who don't, we will not be able to achieve that equal access to justice. And that will be it on my-- no, one final conclusion drawn from Mr. Marani's comments. And I thought also that one of the highlights of this panel was that Mr. Marani said we should bear in mind that people, when they approach or in need to approach the justice system, What they want is a solution to a specific concrete problem. And we need to put ourselves in the shoes of that person who is affected by a crime and who needs to seek justice. Because that person, frequently, what he gets, the first thing that he gets back from the justice system is a bureaucratic response and something that is very much detached from what he really needs. So with that, I will conclude. And I would also thank once more our panelists for their participation, for their contributions. And now we will make some adjustment in the chairs. I will invite the first panel participants to go back to their places in the floor. And we will get perhaps the new panelists occupying the high table so we can start. with the second panel, who will be moderated by Dr. Douglas Duran, who is the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, ILANUD, and he will be our moderator. So now, please help me thanking our first panelists. And whenever you're ready, you can go ahead.

Thank you, Ambassador. Excellencies, distinguished authorities, dear colleagues, good afternoon. My name is Douglas Duran Chavarria. I'm the director of the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, ILANUD. I have the pleasure to moderate the second sub-panel today. The title of this panel discussion is expanding access to legal aid, including legal information. And I am happy that we will have a full set of speakers on the podium with us. The topics are very important. For example, decongestion of criminal justice system, empowerment of vulnerable groups, reduction of barriers to access to justice, among others. Please join me in welcoming Mrs. Margarita Gutierrez, Undersecretary of the Department of Justice for Public Service and Strategic Communication of the Philippines, Professor Dr. Abdullah Abdul Karim Abdullah, Professor of Private Law at the College of Law at Qatar University. Mrs. Megan Longley, Executive Director of Dalhousie Legal Aid Service in Canada. Monsieur Guy Valere Badanaho, member of Generation Justice Youth Network from Togo. and Mr. Andrew Munanura, who is the Deputy Director General of the, has been acting Director General of the United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, UNAFRI, since April 2026. He has decades of experience in both public service and private legal practice. including as deputy registrar at the Tax Appeals Tribunal and lectured at the Law Development Centre. Mr. Munanura, you played an instrumental role in revitalising UNIFRIS engagement in global crime prevention and criminal justice initiatives. From your regional experience, Andrew, what are the lessons and promising practices from criminal justice systems in African countries in responding to systemic barriers for free legal services? Andrew.

Come again, I didn't pick that statement. I was prepared in my presentation. You're asking.

From your experience, Andrew, what are the lessons and promising practices from criminal justice systems in African countries in responding to systemic barriers for free legal services?

The.

You want the challenges to the problems that we face in providing legal services in Africa.

Why don't you go ahead with your presentation, and you could try to conclude with the summary.

Okay, sorry, I didn't hear that very well. So I can present with my... Okay, thank you very much.

We have prepared a presentation, and then in the end, either the moderator or myself will make a specific question.

Okay, thank you very much. My presentation, now, who can highlight it? I sent it in PowerPoint. Okay. My presentation is on challenges of expanding access to legal aid and legal information in Africa. I first of all want to give an overview of Africa and what are we talking about in Africa when we talk of access to legal justice, to legal aid. We have 54 countries in Africa and a population of about 1.5 billion people. And this represents 19% of the world's population. almost 19% of the world's population. And the median age of people in Africa is largely about 19.5 years. So this is the population we are talking about. And this is according to the World Bank. And the current total GDP of Africa is about $3.2 trillion. compared to about 33.6 trillion of East Asia and the Pacific. So when we're talking about access to justice, this is the population we're talking about. So what are the challenges of expanding access to legal aid and legal information for this continent? We did a study of access to justice When we started preparing for this presentation under the chairmanship of ILANUD, we contacted nine African countries from West Africa, from Central Africa, and Southern Africa. So the information I'm going to provide you is largely what we picked from these member states as the challenges they face in expanding access to legal aid. and legal information. So we looked at Zambia, we looked at Kenya, we looked at Uganda, we looked at Ghana, we looked at Morocco, and Seychelles, Tanzania, and Malawi. So in Zambia, we looked at how the law provides for or grants or allows legal aid to be operationalized. under the Legal Aid Act of 2021. In Kenya, they also have a provision for ensuring access to justice in the Kenya Constitution, Article 48 of the 2010 Constitution. But when you look at a country like Uganda, Uganda has no law on legal aid. There is a National Legal Aid Bill 2022, which has been stuck in Parliament, which creates a bit of a challenge in terms of, yes, there are my article comes. Thank you. That's the overview I gave about Africa. That's the advocates in these countries. Look at Ghana, 11,000 advocates, a population of 36 million people. Look at Kenya, number of advocates under 6,000 in a population of 58 million people. Look at Uganda, number of advocates 8,000, a population of 45 million people. These ratios are really incomparable. How do you provide access to justice with this type of numbers? These numbers speak a lot to the issue of access to justice in Africa. I'm just summarizing and giving these briefs and tips. Then, as you've seen, we have 54 member states in Africa. These languages, one, we have the first challenge of being anglophone, Francophone, Spanish speaking, Portuguese, which other languages, Arabic. So we are, we are, this language and culture diversity gives us a very, very big challenge in, in how we, we, and some of these languages are, these are the official languages. We're not talking about our own local languages, which are much, have a lot of diversity. So according to UNESCO, There are 1,500 to 3,000 languages in Africa. Yes. And yet almost all these countries in Africa either speak French, English, or some other as an official language. So how do you provide legal services to these people? In Nigeria, they have another special English, all right, which they call Pidgin English, some English which is mixed with the local and whatever. and there is a case here. There is a case I cited. Ah whether children could not communicate in proper English but in pitched in English. Therefore, legal information is in languages, majority of Africans do not understand. And yet, many of these countries adopted common law and other law from from the French civil law. So, that's the language in which we practice law in Uganda for example. That's the law many common law countries experience and practice. So how do the local people access justice in this setting? How is legal information disseminated to these people in this setting? As I said, we operate both common law and civil law. These laws have complex procedures for one to obtain a remedy. So you have a peasant, a peasant woman, a peasant child, in a success in an administration for his estate for example in a succession dispute and you're citing English common law confrontational nature of adversarial the aggressive cross-examination that we undertake in in uh in in common law so you know you have a small peasant from a deep in the village First of all, who doesn't understand your language, English, who doesn't comprehend the cross-examination and why you're being so aggressive and so adversarial in nature. And yet, this is the setting in many of these countries. So creating a complex situation for provision of legal aid and legal services in this continent. Then of course, we have challenges of resistance from governments in Africa. Yes, because legal aid that stretches to political matters meets resistance from governments. The government considers such aid as interference in its matters. So we've had many countries in Africa throwing out some of this aid and assistance as a way of trying to influence the way things are done. So they say, we shall provide the support that you want to provide legal aid. creating a very big challenge. Then there's an issue of stigma and mistrust, especially among women and girls who have suffered harassment. Many of our women, young children, continue to face challenges in the criminal justice system, especially because of the stigma and mistrust, especially for women. We gave a case study of, recently we were conducting a training with the help of the Ghanaian traffic with the Ghanaian police to the Ghanaian police force and eh we are talking to a victim who had a a survivor, a victim of human trafficking who was trafficked for sexual, sexual exploitation. But said she could not open up to investigators because she feared to take. Yes. Ah even when she was even when she was provided with legal aid. She felt like the people who were doing the investigations were men. The people who were asking her were men. The people who wanted to examine her medically were men. So she felt violated and refused to cooperate. So there's this stigma and mistrust, especially among our young girls. And it's a very big hindrance to the provision of legal aid and legal services to our people. Then, of course, there is the challenge of political instability. Several countries are facing political instabilities. Sudan, I'm sorry if I mention your country here, the eastern area, southern Sudan, Libya, DRC, Somalia. There are several instabilities there that are really documented. In Sudan, where there's a political civil war which began in April 2023. United Nations Population Fund has reported stories, including one of a woman who delivered on a roadside surrounded by militants. As she was in labor, the militants declared that she would be killed, that they would kill the child if it was a boy. Luckily for her, it was a girl. She narrated that everybody else was being killed or raped. How do you provide legal services and legal aid to such a population? How do you help such people? So in such cases, the victim's mind is more about survival than justice. So when we are talking about legal aid and legal services in these settings, our lenses are totally different. You're looking at a clean environment, peaceful, and everything. Somebody is delivering on the roadside and fighting for a life. Mauritius has not had political instability since independence. No wonder its GDP is this $13,000 and is about 16 times than that of Sudan. So we're looking at, if you look at this comparison, you look at what political instability can do. Yes. So the effect is that it is more convenient to access legal information and legal aid in Mauritius than it is in Sudan. That's the comparison I'm trying to bring about. So The issue of political instability remains a very, very delicate issue. Kenya has established the National Legal Aid Service through the Legal Aid Act of 2016. It has deployed all over about 90 state councils across all 47 counties of Kenya to manage local legal aid clinics. Part of our mandate is now to go there and interrogate these these what the impact of these state councils is to legal aid services. But even you know but it's a step in the right direction. Ghana's legal aid commission established in 2018 under the legal aid commission act to provide legal aid to integrant. Ghana's legal aid clinics has decided to partner with civil society to reach the grassroots and the international community to overcome the funding gaps. We shall be coming to Ghana to study the impact of of this progress. Uganda, even with no distinct law and legal aid, has tried to translate the constitution in major local languages. It's a step in the right direction. But merely translating a constitution into a local language of somebody, somebody may not know how to read and write. So even when you put it in my language, you find I can't read my language. Big challenge is there. the government has tried to establish mobile courts to reach the underserved. All these are efforts in which to really bring justice closer to the people. So these are efforts to circumvent the other bigger problems. So and steps in the right direction. Yes, that's the end of my discussion. Thank you very much. Uh Douglas, I can now go back to your question. I'm supposed to be presenting in the plenary. So, I had just received the message that I'm about and I was still disconnected. Thank you very much for listening to me.

Thank you, Mr. Munanura, for your intervention. Yes, I know you have to go to the plenary, so go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Let me now turn to our next speaker, Mrs. Margarita Gutierrez, Undersecretary of the Department of Justice for Public Service and Strategic Communication from the Philippines. As Undersecretary of the Department of Justice for Public Service and Strategic Communication, Mrs. Gutierrez leads key justice sector reforms center on access to justice. and legal empowerment. She is also head of the Department of Justice Action Center, which champions the delivery of free, accessible, and responsive legal assistance, particularly for persons deprived of liberty, women, children, and other protected groups. She is also involved in providing legal information to communities as a host of different national TV broadcasts and the author of newspaper column. Mrs. Gutierrez, you have the floor.

Good afternoon to the UNODC, our colleagues from the justice sector, our partners, fellow advocates and participants in this workshop. Thank you for the opportunity to share the Philippine experience in expanding access to legal aid. Let me begin with a practical question. What happens when a person has a legal problem but does not know where to go, whom to approach, or what remedy is available? That question is at the heart of the work of the Department of Justice Action Center, or DOJAC. DOJAC provides legal counseling and advice, referrals, and endorsements assistance in preparing simple affidavits, mediation, and responses to public inquiries and requests for legal assistance. But our experience has shown that having a legal service is not enough if people cannot reach it. So we brought the service closer. Through the Katarungan Caravan or Justice Caravan, we travel to communities where people may not know that something wrong has happened to them, but do not know what the law allows them to do next. Let me tell you a story during one of our caravans in the Gupen City. Gloria Abad came to us asking for help. Her daughter had allegedly been repeatedly sexually assaulted by a relative. A complaint had already been filed, yet the alleged perpetrator remained free. She came forward, she reported the abuse, she placed her trust in the justice system, but she was still waiting. Our team sat down with her, explained the legal steps available, and guided her on what she needed to do next. We also endorsed her for financial assistance. But we knew she needed more than advice. She needed to know that her daughter's case would not disappear beneath paperwork and delay. Our office followed up and formally requested action, and a few weeks later, a warrant of arrest was issued against the alleged perpetrator. For this mother, access to legal aid meant that someone finally stood beside her and helped move her daughter's case forward. And this is why we launched the Katarungan or Justice Caravan in June of 2024 to ensure that people do not have to find their way through the justice system alone. Through the caravan, we bring legal assistance, legal information, and essential government services directly to communities, including remote and underserved areas, schools, local government units, and correctional facilities. When they cannot reach the system, The system must be willing to reach them. And the scale has grown significantly. From January 2022 to June, from employment. They later learned that more than 120 of their former coworkers were facing similar concerns. DOJ provided legal aid, referred the matter to the appropriate agency, and endorsed the beneficiaries for possible financial assistance. The matter eventually proceeded through the appropriate labour mechanisms, resulting in the payment of government contributions over time and salaries involving more than 120 affected workers. DOJAC did not take place of the agencies with jurisdiction over the case. Its role was to help people find the right door and make sure they could get through it. That is also how the Justice Caravan reaches persons deprived of liberty or PDLs. Since 2024, DOJAC has a total of 36 Katarungan Caravans, 17 of which were conducted inside correctional facilities, including New Bilibid Prison, the Correctional Institution for Women, and penal facilities in Mindanao, providing legal assistance on GCTA or Good Conduct Time Allowance, parole, executive clemency, appeals, and other available remedies. One case involved Tony Abdul, a father who had been serving a life sentence and had accumulated more than 43 years of credited time served. He asked for help in the penal facilities. It is about ensuring that no person remains behind bars simply because they lack the legal assistance needed to have their case reviewed and their release process. Justice Caravan is not limited to resolving individual cases. It also brings legal information closer to the people. Through the Justice in Action lecture series, the DOJAC works with law schools, local government units, the academe, and other partners to provide information on rights, procedures, and available government services. As of July 2026, we have reached 4,877 participants through over 30 sessions of Justice in Action lecture series across the country. This was made possible because our belief that the person may not need a lawyer immediately. Sometimes they first need to know which agency has jurisdiction over their problem or simple as what documents to prepare, what their rights are, and what they can do next. That is where information becomes an intervention. We also work with the DOJ Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution to facilitate mediation and other appropriate interventions, because not every dispute needs to proceed through prolonged litigation. In some cases, the appropriate response is earlier intervention, proper referral, or mediation. This same need for coordination is reflected in the Justice Zones Initiative of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council, which is led by the Supreme Court, the DOJ, and the Department of the Interior and Local Government, who are working through 16 justice zones nationwide to strengthen coordination among the different pillars of the justice system. The reason is straightforward. A person's problem rarely fits within the boundaries of one institution. A person may need a lawyer, a prosecutor, a court, a government agency, or community intervention. When these institutions work separately, people are left to navigate the gaps alone. But when they work together, those gaps can be addressed. That is the direction of our work at the DOJ Action Center. When we speak of access to legal aid, I hope we remember the people behind that commitment. The mother seeking justice for her daughter, the workers who received what they were owed, and the father who walked free after more than four decades, just in time to see his son graduate. Access to legal aid means ensuring that people know where to go, understand their options, and have someone help them move forward. Because when a person faces a legal problem and does not know where to turn, the answer must be simple. They should not have to face it alone. Thank you, and I look forward to our discussions.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gutierrez, for your participation. Let me now turn to our next speaker, Professor Dr. Abdullah, Abdulkarim Abdullah. professor of private law, College of Law, Qatar University. The focus of the participation of Dr. Abdullah will be the Qatari experience and broader Arab initiatives on legal awareness, empowering vulnerable groups through legal information, education, and advice beyond legal assistance and courtroom defense. Dr. Abdullah is professor of private law at Qatar University and advisor to the executive vice president for academic affairs. He also serves as a seconded academic consultant to the executive committee of the higher council at the police academy of the Ministry of Interior of the state of Qatar and previously served as a legal advisor to the Ministry of Justice of the State of Qatar. Professor Abdullah, thank you for joining us. The floor is yours.

Distinguished chair, dear colleagues, thank you, the hosts and organizers for putting together this conference. My presentation examines how legal awareness supports early access to legal aid and justice. Access to justice is widely recognized as a fundamental principle of the rule of law. Yet a gap often remains between the existence of legal rights and people's ability to benefit from them in practice. For many individuals, the first barrier is not the absence of legal protection, but the lack of awareness of their rights and where to seek assistance. Rights cannot be exercised if they are not understood, and legal remedies cannot be used if people do not know or don't know that they exist. This presentation proceeds from a simple concept: access to justice does not begin in the courtroom. It begins much earlier, when individuals understand their rights, can access reliable legal information, and know where to seek help when legal problems arise. For that reason, legal awareness should be viewed not only as an educational activity, but as an empowering tool that helps make justice more accessible, inclusive, and effective for all. My paper looks at legal awareness as an enabling tool for early access to justice in Qatar and other Arab countries. It focuses on people who face greater barriers to getting help. Let me briefly outline the structure of this presentation. I will first discuss legal awareness and early access to justice, then the Qatar experience and comparative Arab experiences, before turning to digital tools, measurement of impact, and the main findings and recommendations. The core argument, redefining the gateway to justice. The main idea, as I mentioned, access to justice begins before a person enters a court. People need to know their rights. They also need to know where to go for help. Legal aid includes clear information advice and support, as well as a lawyer in court. UN standards reflect this wider view. Early help can stop a legal problem from becoming a crisis. This brings us to the next point, the path to justice, a step-by-step journey to protection. This slide shows the steps toward justice. First, a person sees that a problem involves a legal right. Then they learn about that right. With the right support, they can act and seek help. This is legal empowerment, giving people the knowledge and ability to use the law. Based on this, let us look at the four pillars of legal awareness. Legal knowledge helps people understand their rights. Legal information tells them where to go and what to do. Legal guidance helps them choose the right path. Legal education builds a wider culture of respect for rights. Together, these make legal aid easier to understand and use. However, knowledge alone is not enough. We must also remove the barriers and support the legal empowerment. Knowledge alone is not enough. people may face barriers linked to cost, language, distance or disabilities. Support must respond to these needs. It may include translation, sign language or information in clear formats. The Qatari example on this slide concerns an interpreter during an investigation for someone who does not know Arabic, understanding the process helps people take part in it. Let me now turn to Qatar's strategic foundations. Qatar National Vision 2030 provides a broad basis for justice, equality, and the rule of law. The third national development strategy links better public services with wider access. The Ministry of Justice plan also supports legal awareness, digital services, and community partnerships. These plans help connect legal awareness with national goals and everyday services. Legislative guarantees in practice and targeted protections in Qatar. laws offer several forms of support. Under the legal profession law, a lawyer may be appointed for people who cannot afford one and the meet condition. The labour law removes court fees for the workers, the claims covered by it. For persons with disabilities, the law supports access to justice and the free informed consent People must understand what they are agreeing to. Qatar's Law No. 9 of 2022, regulating the right to access information, requires online publication of rules and service procedures. It also requires help for people who need support to access information, including persons with disabilities. For these protections to work, people must know about them and how to use them. Free legal aid in Qatar. At the Qatar International Court, volunteer lawyers give free legal advice and representation to people with limited means. The service applies to cases covered by the court of the QFC regulatory tribunal. Early advice helps people understand their rights and choices. They also need to know where to ask for help. Information as action, institutional and community delivery. Clear legal information is itself a form of legal aid. One of the main arguments of this paper is that legal information should not be viewed as a supporting service. It should be recognised as a form of legal aid in itself. Public service centres, official websites and contact centres can guide people to help. Universities, legal clinics, and community groups can bring this support closer to daily life. At Qatar University, the Law Clinic provides a practical example of this approach. It helps individuals understand their rights and legal options at an early stage, before disputes escalate into formal legal procedures. the comparative insights, regional innovations in early access, other Arab countries offer useful examples. In Lebanon, the example links telling people about their rights with access to a lawyer. In Tunisia, a woman facing violence can receive legal information and guidance alongside legal aid. In Jordan, legal aid is linked to the Mizan system for managing court cases. The Arab Model Law on Judicial Assistance covers legal advice and help with writing contracts. Its explanatory note explains how this can help reduce disputes. In Morocco, The example includes social support and guidance within court. In Iraq, legal aid includes awareness of constitutional and legal rights alongside support in court. In Saudi Arabia, Taravi system helps people settle disputes. In the United Arab Emirates, Shur system offers free legal advice while Senate provides legal representation and the Abu Dhabi Legal and Community Awareness Center helps legal awareness. Such efforts help that avoid legal problems. The digital opportunities and necessary guarantees, digital tools can make legal help easier to reach. Websites and applications in different languages can explain rights and the steps people need to take. AI can support this work with protection for privacy and fairness. Human help must remain available. People who cannot use digital services should still be able to get support. Measuring through impact, moving beyond outputs, we also need to measure results Do people understand their rights? Do they know where to get help? Did they receive that help? And how long did it take? These questions tell us more than the number of meetings or website visits. This chart should show possible measures as an example. Allowing with SDG 16, the imperative to leave no one behind. This approach supports sustainable development goal 16 and equal access to justice for all. It gives special attention to people facing greater barriers. These include women, children, persons with disabilities, and victims of trafficking. Legal awareness help make the concept of leaving no one behind a reality. The main findings, first, legal aid starts before a case reaches court. Second, clear information is a form of help. It is own right. The paper calls for access to it to be treated as a basic right. Third, legal empowerment helps people turn knowledge into action. Fourth, Arab experience shows several ways to provide early support through laws, public services, and digital tools. I would like to close with four recommendations. One, make legal awareness and the clear information a core part of national legal aid plans. Second, support partnerships between justice bodies, universities, lawyers and community groups. Third, develop digital services in different language, protect personal data and measure whether people receive useful help. Fourth, strengthen Arab and international cooperation. We can build on the Arab model law on judicial assistance to develop wider guidance on legal awareness and early access to justice. Justice becomes real when when people know their rights and can get help to protect them, investing in legal awareness brings us closer to the goal. Thank you for your attention. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Abdullah, for sharing with us your view on the Arab world access to justice. Now, Let me turn to Mrs. Megan Longley, Executive Director of Dalhousie Legal Aid Service Canada. Her intervention will be on the delivery of legal aid to marginalized communities and people in vulnerable situations, including good practices like impact of race and culture assessments, to inform sentencing. Mrs. Lonley joined the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University in the fall of 2021 as assistant professor and executive director of Dalhousie Legal Aid Service. She is responsible for teaching administration of the clinic and representing clients in criminal and family courts. In her career, she gained ample experience as criminal defence counsel and at Nova Scotia Legal Aid, including as CEO of Nova Scotia Legal Aid. Mrs. Longley, you have ample experience in providing legal aid and understanding the challenges people face when they go through the criminal justice system. I give you the floor, Mrs. Lawley.

Thank you very much. Today I'm going to share just one example of how a reasonably strong criminal legal aid system can lead to a meaningful impact for people from a historically disadvantaged population who have been charged with a criminal offense. This kind of result benefits not only the individual accused person, but also communities and the larger system. it ultimately improves public safety. I'm from Nova Scotia, which is a small province on the east coast of Canada. Nova Scotia has many historical African Nova Scotian communities, which have existed for over 400 years, creating a distinct history and distinct challenges in accessing justice. The history of how these communities came to be and also the present context is unique from the landscape in the rest of Canada. I cannot do justice to this complex history in the time I have today, but this serves as the high-level backdrop to my remarks. Centuries of marginalization, exclusion, and colonial impacts, along with systemic racism throughout the justice system, has resulted in over-policing and so over-representation in the criminal courts and penal institutions of African Nova Scotians. Both the history of the individual and also of their community are important factors in how they came to be before the court and also in how to best foster rehabilitation and address overrepresentation. Legal aid defense lawyers trying to find a way to respond to this challenge led to the development of what we now call Impact of Race and Culture Assessments, or IRCAs. Starting with the landmark case of R. v. X. in the youth court, an IRCA was accepted into evidence by the court for the first time in Canada. Other legal aid lawyers took up the charge in an adult sentencing context. These reports are now in regular use, not only in Nova Scotia, but across the country. Impact of race and culture assessments are structured clinical evaluations used at sentencing. They assist judges in understanding how factors such as racism, poverty, and discrimination may have contributed to the individual's circumstances and involvement in the justice system. IRCAs provide a comprehensive social and cultural context, helping ensure that sentencing decisions are more informed, fair, and equitable by acknowledging systemic barriers that traditional reports may overlook. IRKAs are prepared by trained professionals such as social workers or other experts with specialized knowledge and cultural understanding, systemic racism, and social justice issues. This is important as most sentencing reports are done through corrections and without a clinical lens. Judges then have better information to allow for a sentence that still holds offenders accountable, but in a way that recognizes how they came to be before the court, tailors interventions to their own cultural context, which in turn eliminates or reduces reliance on incarceration and also better protects the public. Ensuring courts have this information has become a hallmark of competent defense practice with systemic impact in helping to reduce overrepresentation in prisons. After success in Nova Scotia, including at the Court of Appeal level, lawyers in Toronto, Ontario, began adapting this approach to their regional context, again with very good success. Most defendants in criminal courts do not have the resources to hire counsel and so definitely do not have the resources to fund these reports, which are specialized, take time, and are also expensive. Having an IRCA presented to the court required defendants to first qualify for legal aid and then for legal aid to approve the expense of having the report prepared, initially even in Ontario by writers from Nova Scotia. I'm now going to try in one or two sentences to explain the constitutional division of powers in Canada to help understand what happened next. In Canada, criminal law is a federal responsibility, but legal aid is in the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. Because of this, we have 13 separate legal aid plans in Canada, which all operate slightly differently and assist people in different ways. Access to lawyers and access to things like IRCA and other reports is not always consistent. Legal aid plans also provide assistance to low-income people in the areas of family and child protection law, which are not areas of federal jurisdiction, so most legal aid funding comes from the provinces or territories. Because criminal law is federal, however, the Government of Canada provides significant funding towards the provision of criminal legal aid, which is essential to ensure access to justice and fair trial and sentencing. In that context, recognizing the importance of culture and history in tackling overrepresentation of people of African descent, the Government of Canada set up a fund in cooperation with the legal aid plans to have IRCA writers trained across Canada and also to provide a pool of funding for individual reports for those being sentenced in serious or complex cases. Although the context of Black and African populations across the country is very different from that in Nova Scotia, the legacy of historical overrepresentation and systemic racism exists everywhere. The ability to have trained report writers, typically from the impacted population, across the country was an amazing step. Equally important is the ability for people to access these reports during significant sentencing hearings when incarceration, often for very long periods of time, is otherwise inevitable. Without a reasonably robust legal aid plan, the opportunity to make big impacts to the benefit of the justice system and the public would be far more challenging. The work of bringing new ideas through impact litigation is very time consuming and very expensive. Without adequate funding for lawyers conducting legal aid cases, the capacity to make these arguments and then participate in the inevitable appeals would be very difficult beyond the ability to fund expert reports. In this example, the existence of a stable, although I would argue still underfunded, criminal legal aid plan made a difference in two ways. It gave the lawyers in the X case and then beyond the capacity to dig into a novel argument and change the law. Secondly, having the federal government recognize the value of VRCA's allowed this development to gain traction across the country, giving impact of populations access to sentencing reports written by trained professionals. Support of legal aid plans not only helps vulnerable populations have their constitutional rights protected in criminal proceedings. But doing a better job of addressing systemic bias and overrepresentation of particular populations in jails by tailoring accountability measures to the offender's own culture and context ultimately serves to enhance protection of the public by reducing recidivism and getting at the root causes of crime. Those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Longley. It was very interesting, the challenges that you shared with us, that you face in Canada concerning the access to justice that I think are challenges that are present in many countries of the world, in many other regions. Thank you. Let us now move to a different continent as our next speaker is a member of the Generation Justice Youth Network from Togo. Monsieur Guy Valere Batanao, member of Generation Justice. The focus of his presentation will be on increasing access to legal aid through houses of justice in Togo, which provide free community-based justice centers designed to reduce barriers to access to justice by providing legal information, guidance, mediation, and conciliation, particularly for people in rural, underserved, and vulnerable communities. Monsieur Badanaro is a lawyer and human rights defender from Togo and a member of UNODC's Generation Youth Justice Network. He currently heads the Human Rights Protection Department at the Collective des Associations contre l'impunite au Togo, a human rights organization based in Togo. Previously, he served as human rights monitoring officer, Africa program coordinator at CACIT, and coordinator of the SOS Torture Judicial Intervention Group in Africa for the World Organization Against Torture. He also headed the Togolese chapter of the International Association of Law Students. Monsieur Badanavon, you bring a youth perspective and have ample experience in advocating for access to justice and related human rights. You have the floor, Monsieur Badanavon.

Thank you, Chair. Distinguished panelists, delegates, I'm very happy to be here to have this opportunity with UNHRC and all partners to bring youth perspective in increasing access to legal aid through House of Justice in French. As previous panelists talked about challenges on legal access, we have a lot of barriers. We can talk about geographic barriers, financial barriers, but lack of awareness on legal information or judicial information. But we, most of the time, the thing we remark on the field is that Many peoples have some stereos to go in front of court because they don't have money to pay lawyers, but they don't have this culture to go in front of court to have access to justice. And we know that access to justice is a fundamental right that is dedicated by international instrument. And it is important to put mechanism on places to make sure that all individuals have access to justice. In this way, Togo has put in place a mechanism that is called Maison de Justice, that is a local initiative with a focus to make mediation, conciliation, and provide legal information to communities. Since 2018, Justice House was put in place, and most of the time they make mediation and conciliation. For example, I will give some statistic for, for, for example, 2024 cases were recorded at Justice House and we have for example, an increasing of the technical season in 2024, we have 22% increase in comparison with 23 and 43% increase in in comparison to 22 similarly we have um an an increasing on the rate of uh successful mediation or conciliation for example in 2023 we have 85% on successful mediation and conciliation to 2024 we have a 90 mediation and conciliation, successful action. And the thing that is very important to say that is this action of mediation have a focus on civil affairs, civil affairs that can lead to criminal matters and that can lead also to imprisonment in the context of the debt, for example. In 2022, the Justice House have recovered 80, 94,000 US dollar. In 2020, in 2024, the recovery rate increased to $200,000. this um statistic or this found can be uh insignificant in other ways but for this insignificant um depth people are going to jail and that is important to bring out that this mediation this conciliation make um make actors or those people who are fighting or who are in this effort to have an agreement and to have some program or some agreement to pay or to record the debt and to make sure that people will not go to jail for an insignificant debt. That will make me move forward to a link that I think is very, very crucial, the link between civil justice and criminal matters or criminal justice. When we take, for example, the example of the debt, or civil, other civil efforts like a loan dispute or something like that, we can analyze that if these civil efforts don't have a resolution or don't have a mediation or conciliation, that can lead to violence or that can lead to other, what can I say, other efforts that can lead specifically to criminal matters. We've finally put the people who can be put in jail with a criminal investigation, presentation in front of prosecutor and yes. that can be a very, very difficult way. And in this perspective, Justice House have the important role to solve dispute that are very latent, that are, um, that are, uh, on the ground to make sure that this dispute will not, um, make, will not lead to violent crime as, uh, homicide or, uh, murder rate that can, uh, be, uh, very, um, um, that can be, uh, lead to, to, uh, imprison, imprisonment, uh, uh, um, um, uh, that can lead to imprisonment. Yes. And, I will make a focus on actors and talk about legal assistance or paralegal that the first contact with these people who need access to justice, who need access to legal information. This person, most of the time, they need a continuous capacity building to have the right tools to engage with these people, to know, to be aware of their needs, and to provide them the right legal information, legal And there, for example, in CACIT, Collective des Associations Contre le Punitif, to go, we have focal points across the country that make this work to put the people that need legal information that in to put people who need information to to to make them in contact with Justice House and to provide them information. These people are playing a key role in this mechanism that's important to bring them out to to share youth perspective with with the assembly. We make um a a a survey and um the the the results is that um 80 80% of uh of Youth said that they have already heard of um justice and 46 of them having heard about them via social media and 25% through word of mouth. It's something we call they heard about it in formal discussion or in a meeting or something like that. And without this, this unawareness of the mechanism of Justice House is is is this our in an awareness is the the consequences of the lack of information about the Justice House. It is what it is what is very important to make the sensitized to to make a sensitization to all young people, all families to make them aware of the existence of this mechanism and to make them go in front of this mechanism to have conciliation, to have mediation, and to solve a long-term problem that can help to criminal matters. We also found that 84% of young people have never used the service of Justice House. and it either directly or indirectly. It means that they know about, they heard about the mechanism, but they don't interact with the mechanism. And they recommend that to have action of sensitization with youth inclusion in university, in school, to make all young people who represent a large part of the population of Togo to be aware of this mechanism and to make the evaluation of this mechanism on communities. According to time, I will stop here. If there is a question, I will be happy to answer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Badanavo. I think we are lucky to have the participation here of Generation Justice Youth Network with you, Monsieur Badanavo. And we also had a very balanced participation of the African countries. because we had the English-speaking African participation and the French-speaking African participation also with you, Monsieur. And, Mr. Chair, that concludes the presentations from our second panel, and I will hand back to you to open the floor. We have about 30 minutes. Thank you. Or less. Less.

No, thank you very much, Mr. Duran. I appreciate your conduction and moderation of the panel. I also want to thank all the panelists for this very important presentation. I want to apologize to the audience and to the delegations. I, since taking from the experience of last time that we basically had statements from the delegations rather than questions, please feel free to get to Ms. your comments or your statements. We will take them into account when doing the report, but we don't have any more time to give you the floor right now. So I will just close it with my own personal conclusions, and we will leave it at there for tonight. I found this particular the panel very, very interesting and very motivating on reflecting on the several issues. We already had started pointing out to the importance of economic fairness and on equal access to justice being a part of solving the inequality problem in most of our societies. And this panel has reinforced that concern. I want to take from Mr. Munamora-- no. No, the first panelist from UNAFRI, Munamora. He mentioned something that struck very close to home on the Mexican situation. And it was that he pointed out about the complexity of in a continent like Africa that has, and it really surprised me that we don't know really, there is a huge difference between 1,500 and 3,000 different languages. 1,500 is really too many, 3,000 is twice too many. And then we get the, he pointed over the complexity of and having to dispense justice with those frameworks and with a foreign language or language that people not necessarily understand or speak in a sufficient manner. And that, I told you that it struck me close to home because in Mexico we do have that issue as well. And the way we have solved it partially is that we have something happened here. 00 PM, oh, okay, well, they fixed it, okay. I was thinking that they were going to turn off the lights next or something like that. So thank you very much for allowing me a few more minutes, I won't be long. And in Mexico, we do have a partial solution to that, and it's what we call usos y costumbres, which is that we let the communities from our indigenous populations to dispense justice in a community, in the community fashion, according to the way they have dispense justice. This is not probably, not always the best way, because they resort to, methods and practices that sound a little bit awkward for the most westernized part of the country. But anyway, it's a way in which we resort to bring grassroots justice to the biggest part of the population that do not share with Spanish as a common language, or that come from parts of our society that have peculiarities. and these different ethnic origins. So that's one point that I wanted to point out. Another one is from Ms. Gutierrez. I really admire the way that the Philippines has managed to, as you said it, I think it was, if people cannot go to where the justice institutions are, we need to get the justice institutions where the people are. And we have in in I can relate to that as well as being a member of the Mexican foreign service because we do that with consular services we provide those consular services to people in in our communities abroad by bringing the consular officials to those communities and not waiting for them to come to the consulates and themselves and that has allowed us to bring and getting the legal part here, this has allowed us to get to those communities and to those people one of our stronger programs on the legal side, which is the immigration law advice from pro bono lawyers that help them identify their individual situations and the possibilities they have to regularize their stay in another countries. And that also brings me to one of, what I thought is one of our key programs, since we do not believe in the death penalty, but 25% of our population lives in other countries that do have the death penalty. And unfortunately, sometimes our population does get in trouble and does commit crimes that are punished there by the death penalty. Our consular officials try to get the best advice possible at the earliest stage possible in the process, because if you wait until the legal system, the local legal system provides them with a lawyer that basically don't care or are not specialized in such terrible crimes, then the likelihood of them getting the death penalty increases. So in that sense, I just want to point out from our Mexican experience. And finally, I want to also point out to the the way that Canada has managed to solve this initial contradiction between having the federal-- so the prosecutor, if I understand well, comes from the federal system, but the legal aid comes from the provincial jurisdiction. So that, in the end, adds one more complexity to the whole equation. And I like the way that you mentioned how Canada has been trying to solve this discrepancy. Final point. I take from Mr. Valera the main conclusion that we need to take into account that in these matters, young people are particularly vulnerable. They are more prone to fall into the wrong company. They are more prone to not measure the consequences of their actions. and having legal systems that are specialized in assisting them is something that I think that we should all underscore as a common practice that we should pursue. With that, I close it. I thank you all. I thank the second panel for their expert contributions. I thank you for your understanding, not opening the floor to them. But again, if you feel free to approach the Secretariat and deliver in electronic or written form your comments. I do assure you we will take them into account. Thank you all. And with that, I will announce that we will resume work tomorrow, 00 a.m. So the meeting is now adjourned.