Making Justice Systems More Effective and People Centred

2. Leading the transformation of the justice system

Abstract

Making justice systems more effective and people centred, requires transformational leadership that unites political ambition, institutional collaboration, and cultural change across the sector. This chapter emphasises political commitment, shared purpose, and coordinated leadership across all branches of government and society, while safeguarding judicial independence. It highlights mechanisms for collaboration, transparency, and learning from data, showing how empirical evidence, sound data governance, and justice impact assessments can strengthen policies and practices. The chapter also discusses building a representative, skilled, and empathetic justice workforce that reflects the diversity of populations served and integrates emotional intelligence and cultural competence.  

Introduction

Making the pivot to people-centred justice requires a major transformation in how the justice system is organised, how people in the justice system see themselves and how they value and assess their contribution to society and the economy. This is a long-term process that requires political leadership and ambition, commitment to overcoming resistance to change, and smarter investment of financial and human resources. By placing people at the centre of justice, justice institutions - in the broadest sense of the word - can better address the diverse and evolving everyday justice problems that people face, individually or collectively. This promotes trust and confidence in the rule of law, as individuals see that they can stand up for their rights and resolve problems and disputes effectively, while norms about desirable behaviour are confirmed.

The OECD Recommendation calls on adherents to “establish a people-centred purpose and culture in the justice system by securing commitment at the highest levels of government to promote people-centred justice, based on empirical data and evidence, through whole-of-state and whole-of-society approaches …” This chapter seeks to operationalise these elements, firstly, by providing guidance and examples of how collaboration and joint leadership can be organized. This is particularly relevant because of the nature of the justice system, which includes many actors of which the independence is not only guaranteed by the constitution, but also a critical requirement of the rule of law. Secondly, it discusses using data and evidence for learning and improvement, which is required to ensure thar policies and reforms are based on empirical data and evidence. The third paragraph finally addresses key elements that are needed to establish a people-centred purpose and culture in the justice system, including by ensuring the justice workforce is representative and able it to meet the needs of diverse groups and humanizes the justice system to enable it to respond not only to rational communications and interests, but also to people’s emotions, perceptions and experiences.

Collaboration and joint leadership

All sections of society are impacted by a decline in the rule of law and the growing justice gap. Every part of government makes use of laws and regulations as one of the main tools to shape the behaviour of people and organisations and achieve the societal outcomes governments are elected to deliver. Whether related to health or education, labour relations, housing or any other part of the public system, an accessible and inclusive justice system is needed to underpin effectiveness of the government, foster prosperity and strengthen public trust.

The 2023 Recommendation calls for whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, as well as coordination with regional and local governments (OECD, 2023, p. art. 11.1[1]). It requires countries to establish a people-centred purpose and culture in the justice system by securing commitment at the highest levels of government. It calls for strengthening coordination and cooperation mechanisms and uses a broad definition of the justice system, which includes agencies and institutions across all branches and levels of government as well as non-governmental stakeholders and private sector providers of justice services.

Challenges in this area are often related to the requirement for formal separation between different actors in the justice system. While independence of all branches of power is critical to protect the rule of law and democratic values, many perceive it as an impediment to closer collaboration. Yet, while cross-boundary collaboration is challenging in any system, there is a strong need to find a meaningful, actionable and acceptable entry-point for the collaboration across branches of power. It requires a balanced representation of perspectives, trust between the partners and a sense of agency among those collaborating (Orbegozo, 2022[2]). Cross-boundary collaboration is possible with due respect for different roles and mandates and is critical to operationalising whole-of-state and whole-of-society approaches.

Collaborative leadership between the legislative, executive and judicial branch can lead to comprehensive reforms that address systemic issues and promote access to justice for all. By working together, these branches can organise systemic learning from the justice problems that people face. They can keep tabs on how complex policies are affecting people in practice, where things are going wrong and whether people are inadvertently excluded.

An example of collaborative leadership comes from Canada’s Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, which brings together people from across the justice system. It has been in operation for over 15 years, offering a framework for a range of organisations to collaborate (Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2024[3]). Another example is the National Council on the Administration of Justice of Kenya, which was established in 2011, bringing together both state and non-state actors from the justice system in a collaborative context. Its mandate is “to ensure a coordinated, efficient, effective and consultative approach in the administration of justice and reform of the justice system” (NCAJ, 2024[4]). One of its early initiatives has been the establishment of Court User Committees (NCAJ, 2024[4]).

Independence, interdependence and shared goals

A system of checks and balances between the different branches of government and the independence of the judiciary are critical to the rule of law. While the institutional design and operational details vary from country to country, the independence of different actors within the justice system is often guaranteed in the constitution or legislation. Yet the whole system is interdependent in its objectives of being able to achieve fair outcomes for people, promote the rule of law and contribute to prosperity.

The 2023 Recommendation invites countries to publicly embrace the goal of ensuring equal access to justice for all, by defining shared goals for collaboration between different justice stakeholders and regularly monitoring progress towards these goals (art. II.1.b). It recognises the independence of justice actors and the need to ensure clear roles and prerogatives, while emphasising the need for cooperation and coordination (art. II.1.c). SDG16 and its promise to provide access to justice for all is a shared goal that all justice actors can contribute to.

Establishing common objectives promotes collaboration and coordination among different justice actors. By aligning their efforts towards a shared vision of justice, these actors can pool resources, expertise and networks to address systemic issues and improve outcomes. This collaborative approach fosters a sense of collective responsibility and ownership, leading to more integrated and impactful interventions. Engaging a broad range of stakeholders in the goal-setting process and soliciting their input and feedback can help develop better goals, strengthen collaboration and build consensus around common values and priorities.

The above-mentioned Action Committee on Access to Justice in Canada established nine shared Justice Development Goals, to align the work of organisations across the country (Action Committee on Acces to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2023[5]). Progress towards these goals is reported on annually, using national metrics on justice. In the Dutch justice sector, collaboration between criminal justice actors developed in several waves, focusing on linkages between the actors within the criminal justice chain that are working together on a collaborative law enforcement strategy (Zouridis, 2016[6]). More recently, a shared mission and vision for the justice sector have been established and formally communicated to Parliament (Netherlands Ministry of Justice, 2024[7]).

Enhancing transparency and openness

Transparency and participation are foundational values for legitimate, resilient, and people-centred justice systems. They are not merely tools for efficiency or administrative openness, but enablers of judicial independence, impartiality, accountability, and integrity. These values strengthen the rule of law by ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

Transparency allows for scrutiny of judicial processes and relevant legislation; participation promotes responsiveness to public needs. Together, these values act as powerful safeguards against corruption and reduce opportunities of undue influence, thus reinforcing public trust and forming the connective tissue of the justice system.

However, these values are increasingly strained by contemporary threats. Threats to information integrity, declining institutional trust, digital exclusion, and opaque judicial processes all erode public confidence in justice. In response, justice institutions must not only adopt procedural safeguards but cultivate a culture of openness and engagement.

Transparency is key in appointments, evaluations, disciplinary systems, and case allocation to ensure that judicial power is exercised with integrity. It also strengthens the prevention of corruption and promotes accountability within the judiciary and beyond. To this end, the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity (2017) requires countries to promote transparency about the effectiveness of the justice system and the outcomes of corruption cases. Financial disclosures, asset declarations and statistical dashboards are a few of the datasets that countries are increasingly making available to promote accountability and demonstrate commitment to integrity (OECD, 2017[8]).

When applying open governance principles to the justice sector, these initiatives also contribute to the transition towards an open state, in line with the OECD Recommendation on Open Government (OECD, 2017[9]). Open justice initiatives advance transparency and participation by making judicial decisions, procedures, and institutional performance visible and understandable to the public. This includes access to public hearings, anonymised court decisions, case statistics, and judicial appointment procedures. In France, the “Open Data of Court Decisions” initiative enables online access to rulings in which the names of parties are systematically anonymized, while the “Justice in Data” portal in Spain centralises performance data to guide evidence-based policy and citizen engagement (Justicia 2030, n.d.[10]); (Ministère de la Justice, n.d.[11]) . Access to justice and open justice commitments within national Open Government Partnership Action Plans have consistently grown since its founding, with just over 50% of its country members implementing commitments as of 2024 (Open Government Partnership, 2025[12]). However, transparency must be balanced with confidentiality and privacy rights. In France, for example, the law affords particular protection to private life. In addition to the mandatory anonymisation of the parties mentioned above, the identity of judges and court clerks may also be concealed when their security or privacy could be compromised. A reform is currently under consideration to make such anonymisation compulsory. These policies reflect the need to reconcile transparency and public access with data protection and security.

Civil society plays a critical role in enhancing transparency, accountability, and trust. CSOs, journalists, bar associations, and researchers contribute to informed debate, in monitoring court conduct and holding institutions to account, promoting reform, and educating the public. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirms the public’s right to observe hearings and access judgments, a principle echoed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (United Nations, 2014[13]).

Using data and evidence for learning and improvement

The 2023 Recommendation stipulates that legal and justice services should be developed through an appropriate mix of policy, regulatory and other measures and continuously improved upon based on feedback from people, businesses and communities about their experiences. Collecting information and feedback around the experience and satisfaction of users is an essential source of evidence and can help identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies in service delivery and implement reforms to address them.

By analysing data and assessing the fairness of outcomes, it can be used to inform and create feedback loops for learning and improvement. This enhances accountability by helping to ensure that resources are allocated efficiently and that interventions are grounded in people’s experiences and responsive to the needs of the communities they serve. At the national level, the satisfaction with justice services can be measured along with other public services through national surveys or separately by individual justice institutions such as courts.

To empower justice leaders to use data and evidence in planning, monitoring, and evaluation, a culture of continuous learning and improvement must be fostered, one that prioritises evidence-based practices. Moreover, regular monitoring and evaluation of shared goals facilitate learning and knowledge-sharing among justice actors, enabling them to adapt strategies and approaches to achieve better results.

An example of using data and evidence to improve justice sector performance is Indonesia’s Access to Justice Index. Launched in 2009, this acts as a benchmark against which to judge whether access to justice is being provided to all citizens (Civil Society Consortium for the Index of Access to Justice, 2020[14]). It measures not only access to formal justice sector mechanisms but informal dispute resolution services and legal aid provision, as well as the prevalence and type of legal disputes (Civil Society Consortium for the Index of Access to Justice, 2020[14]). The index has become one of the targets in the indicators for achieving the 2020-2024 National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Goal 16.3.3.

The European Union’s Justice Scoreboard is a further example. This annually updated index measures the efficiency, quality and independence of justice systems, with the aim of assisting EU member states to improve the effectiveness of their justice systems (European Commission, 2024[15]). The Council of Europe’s Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) “prepares benchmarks, collects and analyses data, defines instruments of measure and means of evaluation, adopts documents (reports, advice, guidelines, action plans etc.)” (Council of Europe, 2024[16]). It analyses justice systems, defines ways to improve them, and provides states with assistance where needed (Council of Europe, 2024[16]).

The OECD Public Integrity Indicators (OECD PIIs) are another tool measuring the integrity of justice systems. Based on the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity, the PIIs provide policymakers and practitioners with an objective assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of judicial integrity systems based on actionable data. Currently, the PIIs for justice systems assess appointment, selection, dismissal and disciplinary processes, as well as conflict-of-interest and asset declarations systems and the public availability of justice sector data. The OECD works closely with governments to collect, analyse and validate the data, which can eventually be used to drive reforms that focus on ensuring the capacity of justice systems to serve as a proper check on corruption.

Data governance

Sound data governance is a key component to guide justice systems in the collection, storage, access, use and re-use of data (OECD, 2019[17]). It provides the structure and principles necessary for ensuring that justice data are managed responsibly, consistently, and with clear accountability. As a governance function, it contributes to the integrity and predictability of justice institutions, which are key elements of the rule of law. Effective data governance enables governments and justice institutions to move from fragmented, institution-centred data collection to integrated, people-centred justice systems grounded in evidence. This includes internal or administrative data as well as people-centred justice data collected through legal needs surveys in line with international standards and methodologies (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[18]) (OECD, 2025[19]).

Data governance is critical to learning and improvement: when data are governed in a coherent and coordinated way, they can reveal the underlying dynamics of justice systems, identify systemic issues, and inform evidence-based reforms that respond to people’s needs. They also strengthen transparency and accountability, reinforcing public trust in the institutions responsible for upholding the rule of law. Sound governance frameworks can also facilitate broader access to high-quality data, creating opportunities not only for governments to design and deliver more effective justice services, but also for researchers, innovators and civil society actors to contribute to the justice ecosystem. When responsibly shared, justice data can stimulate research, encourage collaboration, and support the development of new, data-driven services that improve access to justice for diverse population groups (OECD, 2023[20]).

The OECD Recommendation identifies data governance as a core component of people-centred justice. It calls on countries to establish sound and coherent governance arrangements for justice data, supported by safeguards that ensure privacy, data security, sovereignty, equity and non-discrimination. The Recommendation highlights the importance of interoperable systems and anonymised, aggregated open data, as well as tools and protocols that enable responsible access and sharing of data. It also recognises that sound data governance depends on institutional capacity, requiring investment in the skills and resources of justice actors to generate, interpret and use data effectively.

Box 2.1. Towards effective governance of justice data

Recognising that delivering people-centred justice requires a cultural shift, the OECD working paper Towards Effective Governance of Justice Data highlights the need to evolve existing frameworks from focusing solely on the data needs of agencies towards systems that capture the actual pathways, experiences and legal needs of people, ensuring that data practices reflect the lived realities of individuals navigating the justice system.

The paper also identifies significant constitutional, cultural and legal barriers that can inhibit data collection, sharing and use, particularly concerns about the implications of data for judicial performance management and judicial independence. It notes that while data are essential for improving justice systems, their use must not lead to excessive scrutiny of judges or compromise the independence of judicial and prosecutorial functions. Developing new governance frameworks that bring together stakeholders from the executive and judicial branches to navigate these sensitivities is therefore vital to harness the benefits of data for people-centred justice.

More broadly, the paper underscores the importance of grounding justice data frameworks in constitutional and legal safeguards that address both the opportunities and challenges of digital transformation. It calls for governance structures that promote data sharing and interoperability across institutions within and beyond the formal justice system, enabling responsiveness to diverse legal needs and fostering collaboration.

Finally, the working paper introduces the application of the OECD Data Governance Framework for the Public Sector, which includes three layers—strategic, tactical and operational—applied to the justice context. It stresses the need for strong leadership and clear vision for data-driven justice, coupled with inter-institutional coordination, capacity building, and regulatory functions capable of ensuring accountability and supporting the practical implementation of people-centred justice data governance.

Source: (Byrom, Piccinin-Barbieri and Wells, 2024[22]).

An illustrative example of effective data governance can be found in the United Kingdom. The Data First programme links administrative data on individuals from multiple courts and connects it with social and demographic data from outside the justice system. This initiative enables researchers and policymakers to better understand how people move through the justice system and how justice outcomes intersect with broader social and economic factors. To ensure data security and public trust, access to datasets is provided exclusively through the Secure Research Service managed by the Office for National Statistics and the SAIL Databank in Wales, both of which comply with the “Five Safes” model for research data: safe data, safe projects, safe people, safe settings, and safe outputs (Wells, 2024[21]). Complementing this initiative, the United Kingdom has also established a Senior Data Governance Panel, which advises the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice on requests to access or share court data. The panel provides independent recommendations to promote the responsible use of justice data, prevent misuse, and ensure that data sharing advances the public interest (Wells, 2024[21]).

Justice impact assessments

Prevention of justice problems can be facilitated by justice impact assessments, which can assess the likely effects of new policies on people, businesses and communities and the expected legal needs and justice problems emerging as a consequence. These effects include the burden on the justice system via an increased caseload as well as the likely costs of a policy to the civil, administrative and criminal justice systems. The idea behind them is to minimise likely impacts in terms of increased justice problems and to help justice systems prepare for those impacts that cannot be avoided. Such justice impact assessments can be part of broader regulatory impact assessments or completed as a stand-alone exercise.

The 2023 Recommendation calls on countries to integrate justice impact assessments into the early stages of the policy, budget and service delivery process (OECD, 2023[1]). The UK has implemented mandatory justice impact tests for a number of years, which asks those proposing new policies about their likely impact on the number of criminal cases, the justice system caseload, prison populations and legal aid, among other considerations (Ministry of Justice UK, 2016[23]).

The Council of State of the Netherlands uses an integrated assessment framework to review proposed legislation and policies and assess their implications, including for the justice sector. Its advice helps to refine policies to avoid placing overwhelming burdens on the sector. For example, review of a bill to amend the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to strengthen the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime raised concerns about privacy and legal safeguards and recommended greater clarity in these areas to reduce the potential burden on the justice system from an increase in related disputes.

The Criminal Sentencing Commission of Virginia in the US focuses specifically on the likely fiscal impacts of proposed legislation that may result in increased periods of imprisonment in state prisons (Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, n.d.[24]). Where these impacts are considered likely to be severe, the commission makes recommendations for adjustments to sentencing guidelines (Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, n.d.[24]).

Empowering people in the justice system

Delivering people-centred justice requires the reorientation of the justice sector workforce. In turn, this shift requires broadening our conception of the justice system, its personnel, and the skills required by them on an individual and collective basis. Members of this workforce should be competent, professional, empowered and engaged, with a high level of integrity. Its personnel should reflect the diversity of the people it serves and should be hired, appointed, and promoted in a transparent manner. They should be empowered to prevent injustices and solve problems.

A representative justice sector workforce

Empowering people and designing and delivering people-centred legal and justice services requires a representative justice sector workforce. Action in this regard is essential for trust-building given that justice institutions and services are generally more accessible to and oriented towards dominant groups in society. When public institutions mirror the demographic and cultural diversity of the populations they serve, they tend to be more approachable, better able to understand people’s problems, and more likely to maintain public trust even when mistakes occur (Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, 2021[25]).

People-centred justice requires services that meet the needs of different groups. This includes non-discrimination, as well as accommodations for minority languages, physical or intellectual disabilities and so on - expansion on this level enhances the rule of law. When justice systems are more connected and relevant to all groups in society, they reinforce democratic legitimacy and strengthen perceptions of fairness and dignity (Di Giovanni and De Langen, 2024[26]).

This transformation requires acknowledging the breadth of the justice system personnel required to empower people to prevent and solve justice problems. Judges, administrative tribunals, police, and public and private lawyers are joined by advice services, ombuds institutes and other public sector mechanisms, ADR professionals, paralegals and other types of non-lawyer providers of legal assistance, such as point of entry staff (navigators, information providers, triage assessors), local justice centre personnel, and university legal clinics.

Justice actors across the justice chain and society, including ministry officials, policy analysts, and researchers should be considered as part of the justice sector workforce. Given the diffuse nature of this workforce, collaboration across the sector is essential but difficult to achieve. In Canada, the National Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters coordinates information-sharing and collaboration among representatives of various justice institutions (Action Committee on Acces to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2023[5]). At its request, each province and territory established a similar committee to facilitate collaboration within each jurisdiction and to provide the national committee with updates on local developments (Action Committee on Acces to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, 2023[5]).

Cooperation across disciplines is necessary to fully assist people and communities to resolve all aspects of justice problems, both legal and non-legal. Multidisciplinary approaches are particularly effective in the context of service provision, especially with community-based justice centres. This cooperation is more difficult to achieve at the policy, planning and interdepartmental levels.

Humanising the justice system

A responsive rule of law is strengthened by a humanised justice system, which responds to people’s needs and feelings. Research has demonstrated that people are more likely to accept and be satisfied in encounters with the criminal justice system where they perceive procedures to be fair and trust in the motives or character of legal authorities and decision makers (Tyler and Huo, 2002[27]). This research has demonstrated that trust in the justice system is almost solely explained by these two factors, independent of a person’s perception of the favourability, fairness, predictability, or expectedness of the outcomes of people’s interactions with legal authorities (Tyler and Huo, 2002[27]).

On the civil side, a study in England and Wales found that positive accounts of lawyers and courts from family and friends were associated with significantly more positive attitudes towards the accessibility and equality of legal services and processes (Pleasance and Balmer, 2018[28]). In a similar vein, the Public Understanding of the Law Study (PULS) report underscores the correlation between a person’s positive perception of lawyers and courts and their ability to have their needs met within the court system. PULS concludes that there is “potential value of initiatives aiming at promoting positive aspects of legal services and processes, to win hearts and minds” (Balmer et al., 2024[29])

A humanised justice system will contribute to changing negative attitudes and narratives about the fairness and legitimacy of the justice system. This requirement should be at the forefront of design of all interfaces with people and communities, and in the culture and attitudes of all members of the justice workforce. It must be integrated into the education and training that justice personnel receive through community justice programs, law schools, and judicial education. People-centred justice requires different skills in comparison with more conventional conceptions of professional legal and judicial competencies. The experience of community justice workers is that abstract legal knowledge and technical legal skills are less important to positive outcomes than a broad range of communication and active listening skills, a problem-solving orientation and mediation skills and practical legal knowledge (De Langen, 2023[30]).

Justice system personnel who work closely with people and communities require training and support in dealing with emotions, grief and trauma as well as cultural awareness and intercultural competencies. The experience of Argentinian access to justice centres is that personal characteristics and attitudes are important. They look for staff that have “the ability to sustain the same kind of quality of work consistently throughout the entire workday, as well as day after day, with the same passion, dedication and empathy” (Maurino, 2020[31]). The design of these access to justice centres is informed by a deep understanding of the alienation that people feel (“defeated, resigned and ashamed”) and a recognition that vulnerable people often experience a plurality of legal needs (Maurino, 2020[31]). Consistent with people-centred justice, this understanding contributes to an emphasis on humanising the process of helping to resolve justice problems. In the Argentinian example, steps are taken to create an environment of trust and comfort, through hospitality, the physical appearance of the office, and the amount of time and attention set aside for people (Maurino, 2020[31]). Services are provided through respectful communication and an interviewing technique that is non-bureaucratic and non-paternalistic. According to the staff manual, the objective of service provision is not only solving justice problems but to empower people by helping them to “acquire the skills necessary to help themselves” (Maurino, 2020[31]).

References

[5] Action Committee on Acces to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (2023), Canada’s Justice Development Goals: 2022 Progress, Action Committee on Acces to Justice in Civil and Family Matters.

[3] Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (2024), About the Action Committee, https://www.justicedevelopmentgoals.ca/about.

[29] Balmer, N. et al. (2024), “A New Perspective on Legal Need and Legal Capability”, The Public Understanding of Law Survey (PULS), Vol. Volume 3: A New Perspective on Legal Needs and Legal Capability.

[22] Byrom, N., M. Piccinin-Barbieri and P. Wells (2024), “Towards effective governance of justice data”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 74, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d2950e02-en.

[14] Civil Society Consortium for the Index of Access to Justice (2020), Index of Access to Justice in Indonesia in 2019, Civil Society Consortium for the Index of Access to Justice.

[16] Council of Europe (2024), About the European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ), https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/about-cepej.

[30] De Langen, M. (2023), Delivering Justice and Fairness in People’s Lives, Looking Beyond the Usual Suspects to Understand the Knowledge and Skills Required to Solve People’s Justice Problems, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4587998.

[26] Di Giovanni, A. and M. De Langen (2024), “People-Centered Justice in International Assistance: Rule-of-Law Path Dependencies or New Paths to Justice for All?”, Canadian Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 39/1, pp. 383-403.

[15] European Commission (2024), The 2024 Eu Justice Scoreboard, Publications Office of the European Union.

[10] Justicia 2030 (n.d.), Justice in Data, https://datos.justicia.es/en/.

[31] Maurino, G. (2020), Putting People at the Center: A Case Study on Access to Justice Centers in Argentina.

[11] Ministère de la Justice (n.d.), Open data of court decisions, https://www.justice.gouv.fr/documentation/open-data-court-decisions.

[23] Ministry of Justice UK (2016), Justice Impact Test, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/justice-impact-test.

[4] NCAJ (2024), Our History, https://www.ncaj.go.ke/index.php/our-history/.

[7] Netherlands Ministry of Justice, M. (2024), Letter to Parliament, 13 December 2024.

[19] OECD (2025), Government at a Glance 2025, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en.

[20] OECD (2023), “2023 OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index: Results and key findings”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 43, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a37f51c3-en.

[1] OECD (2023), Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0498#committees.

[17] OECD (2019), The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/059814a7-en.

[9] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.

[8] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0435.

[18] OECD/Open Society Foundations (2019), Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9a36c-en.

[12] Open Government Partnership (2025), OGP Data Dashboard, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/data-dashboard/.

[2] Orbegozo, E. (2022), “Entry Points: Gaining Momentum in Early-Stage Cross-Boundary Collaborations”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 58/4, pp. 595-645.

[25] Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies (2021), Justice in a Pandemic - Briefing Three: Justice for All and the Social Contract in Peril, Center on International Cooperation, https://www.sdg16.plus/resources/justice-in-a-pandemic-briefing-three-justice-for-all-and-the-social-contract-in-peril/.

[28] Pleasance, P. and N. Balmer (2018), Legal Confidence & Legal Attitudes to Law: Developing Standarised Measures of Legal Capability, PPSR.

[27] Tyler, T. and Y. Huo (2002), Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts, Russel Sage Foundation.

[13] United Nations (2014), Report of the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul : addendum, https://www.refworld.org/reference/themreport/unhrc/2014/en/99615.

[24] Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (n.d.), Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/.

[21] Wells, P. (2024), Towards effective governance of justice data, OECD.

[6] Zouridis, S. (2016), From Justice Archipelago to Security and Justice Chain: Strategy-Organisation Configurations in the Dutch Criminal Justice System, Springer.