​Toolkit for Access to Justice and People‑Centred Justice Systems

4. Governance infrastructure for people-centred justice

Abstract

People-centred justice systems aim to meet the needs of all individuals, including those who are more vulnerable to legal and justice needs and often lack resources to effectively resolve them. This requires systematic engagement; co-ordination across government, non-governmental and private actors; and the responsible use of digital technologies to ensure accessible, trustworthy and inclusive justice services. At the same time, fostering innovation and experimentation can support efforts to make legal and justice services more effective, simple and scalable. This chapter offers self-assessment questions, actions and examples to support the establishment of governance infrastructure for people-centred justice to facilitate the implementation of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People‑Centred Justice Systems.

Key provision of the OECD Recommendation

Establish a governance infrastructure that enables people-centred justice by developing and implementing legal and policy frameworks necessary to enable seamless, efficient, integrated, sustainable, resilient and user-centred justice pathways, in line with data privacy and protection laws and principles and respecting the independence and autonomy of the bodies involved, by:

• meaningfully and consistently engaging with target groups in their own languages, including those in vulnerable situations (See Chapter 5)

• strengthening co-ordination and co-operation across public service sectors and across the justice system, including non-governmental and private sector providers

• considering resource reallocation to ensure capacity and appropriate management across the justice system

• ensuring organisational capacity across the justice system

• increasing the transparency of justice system budgeting (see Ensuring organisational capacity across the justice system)

• enabling effective enforcement of and respect for outcomes across dispute resolution mechanisms in both the formal and informal parts of the justice system

• promoting responsible digital transformation across the justice system

• fostering innovation and experimentation to identify and enhance the simplicity, effectiveness, efficiency and scalability of people-centred justice pathways.

Strengthening co-ordination and co-operation across the public service and the justice system

Why is it important?

Ensuring a coherent approach to advancing people-centred justice requires clear institutional responsibilities across the public sector at the relevant levels (organisational, subnational and national) for designing, leading and implementing the elements of a people-centred justice system. This must be supported by strong co-ordination and collaboration mechanisms not only at the service level, but across the entire justice chain and government stakeholders.

The starting point lies in fostering inter-institutional co-ordination across public services (e.g. health, social services, services for businesses), recognising that legal and justice needs often intersect with broader social and economic issues. In this regard, infrastructure needs to enable integrated, cross-sectoral solutions while also ensuring whole-of-state and whole-of-justice chain ownership of these solutions. In addition, the effectiveness of co-ordination and accountability mechanisms at the national and subnational levels helps prevent needs from falling through gaps. Finally, non-governmental and private providers are integral. Many countries work with non-governmental and private actors for public supports and legal services (e.g. pro bono, legal assistance).

Priority checklist

A. Establish and strengthen co-ordination and co-operation mechanisms across public institutions, including the justice chain.

B. Implement co-ordination processes and strategies with non-governmental and private service providers.

A. Establish and strengthen co-ordination and co-operation mechanisms across public institutions, including the justice chain

Self-assessment questions

• Are there policies and frameworks that define roles, responsibilities and processes for inter‑institutional co-ordination?

• Have inter-institutional co-ordinating teams been established, including those focusing on addressing particular legal needs or target groups?

• Are key terminologies and procedures standardised across justice institutions?

• Are effective mechanisms in place to facilitate joint planning and co-ordination between services, including across sectors and non-governmental providers? Have appropriate information-sharing mechanisms been established to ensure needs assessment, triage, referral and service provision can be facilitated efficiently?

• Do existing policies and regulations enable and support the development of integrated services and are such services currently in operation?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Implement clear policies and frameworks that define clear roles and responsibilities for inter‑institutional co-ordination and set goals and targets for collaboration and collaborative outcomes across the justice system.

• Establish inter-institutional co-ordinating teams focusing on priority legal and justice needs or target groups, seeking closer co-ordination with other sectors; try to engage treasury and other central government departments to put in place the appropriate financial, budgeting and resource-sharing mechanisms.

• Standardise terminology, data definitions and procedures across justice institutions; ensure technological, IT and data-sharing mechanisms support whole-of-state approaches; and create mechanisms to facilitate the seamless sharing of information and the transfer of disputes between resolution pathways.

• Establish integrated and co-ordinated services (e.g. health-justice; social housing-justice partnerships; small and medium-sized enterprise-justice partnerships), and put in place effective referral systems, so that any entry point enables triage and referral to the most appropriate service.

• Provide training and capacity-building programmes for staff involved in inter-institutional co‑ordination, including skills in communication, negotiation and data governance.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to address silos within the justice system may lead to fragmented systems with inconsistent processes, terminology and limited collaboration and isolate legal and justice services from cross‑sectoral solutions.

• Failing to promote a pro-collaboration mindset across the system can undermine efforts to build shared data systems, joint planning and integrated service delivery, ultimately limiting progress toward people-centred justice.

Box 4.1. Good practice examples of whole-of-state co-ordination mechanisms

Spain: Establishing co-governance mechanisms and processes for the 2030 Justice Plan

The digital transformation of the administration of justice in Spain is being implemented through the Justice 2030 plan. Justice 2030 is a common ten-year work plan developed in co-governance which promotes the rule of law and access to justice as tools for the country’s transformation. The plan’s objectives include making justice more accessible and improving citizens’ access to public justice services.

Co-governance is central to the internal governance of the plan, including, for example:

• In terms of plan development and implementation, Ministry of Justice teams comprising staff from different areas of the ministry have been created, supported by liaison officers.

• Co-governance with the autonomous communities broadens the existing structures, expanding the spaces for dialogue and information, and the Sectorial Conference of the Administration of Justice is the body responsible for co-operation between the general state administration and the autonomous communities

• The National Technical Committee on Electronic Judicial Administration is responsible for the management of the digital ecosystem, and is composed of representatives from the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the General Council of the Judiciary, and the Advisory Commission on Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters. The Presidency of the State Technical Committee for Electronic Judicial Administration is shared and rotates every two years between the Ministry of Justice and the General Council of the Judiciary.

• The Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces is creating a Justice Commission, which will be the venue for co-governance of the Justice 2030 projects that have a direct impact on the municipal territory.

Importantly, the Justice 2030 plan includes annual justice digital transformation forums that bring together government, citizens, and non-governmental and private sector actors to promote the role of justice in Spain’s digital transformation within the framework of the Justice 2030 strategic plan.

United States: Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable

Since 2012, the Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable has brought together federal agencies to streamline and improve co-ordination among federal programmes; increase the availability of meaningful access to justice for individuals and families, regardless of wealth and status; and promote the efficiency of the federal government. Through interagency collaboration and stakeholder engagement, the Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable develops policy recommendations that improve access to justice in federal, state, local, tribal and international jurisdictions; advances relevant evidence-based research, data collection and analysis of civil legal and indigent defence; and promulgates best practices.

Sources: US Department of Justice (2012[1]); Spanish Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts (2023[2]; 2025[3]); Government of Spain (2025[4]).

B. Implement co-ordination processes and strategies with non-governmental and private service providers

Self-assessment questions

• Are non-governmental and private providers integrated within the legal and justice services through clear co-ordination and regulatory frameworks (also see Chapters 3 and 5)?

• What mechanisms exist to facilitate the integration of these services with those provided by the public sector in a coherent way?

• Have the issues of pricing, quality and access been considered in relation to the incorporation of non-governmental and private sector service providers into broader justice service delivery?

• Do justice institutions, including legal aid, map and engage in partnerships with key non‑governmental and private actors?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Consult with target groups, non-governmental and private entities to design integrated services.

• Draw lessons from established public-private and public-non-governmental models (e.g. health) and adapt good practices for justice.

• Ensure common data-collection protocols and processes across public, non-governmental and private providers to support system-wide monitoring.

• Ensure that regulatory frameworks established to facilitate integration of non-governmental and private sector actors) are based on sound information concerning characteristics, capacities, and costs.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to recognise the essential role of non-governmental and private sectors in legal assistance delivery and to establish effective co-ordination, regulation and integration mechanisms risk underutilising key service providers therefore weakening overall system capacity, which leads to fragmented service delivery.

Box 4.2. Good practice examples of service delivery partnerships

Australia: Cooperative Legal Service Delivery Program

The Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) has a complex system of legal assistance services involving public, non-governmental and private sector elements. In 2004, the Cooperative Legal Services Delivery (CLSD) Program was established to improve access to justice and service delivery to the community through better co-ordination and collaboration within regions – not just among legal services but also incorporating other human and social services that work with and provide services to the same clients as the legal services, as well as pro bono supporting law firms.

Initially operating in two regions, the programme has expanded to 12 partnerships (as at 2025). The CLSD programme is funded internally by Legal Aid NSW, and each partnership is supported at a regional level by a regional co-ordinator from the CLSD unit within Legal Aid NSW. Legal Aid NSW also provides training and support for the regional co-ordinators, disseminates information about the work of partnerships and trends and emerging issues, and acts as a point of contact for all of the regional partnerships. CLSD partners work together through quarterly meetings and place-based projects to leverage their different skills and resources to collectively address emerging and unmet legal and related needs in their regions.

Each CLSD region is also supported by a range of data resources to assist in the collaborative planning of service delivery within their region, including “Need for Legal Assistance” indicators (see Box 3.1) and other demographic indicators for each geographic area in the region.

Sources: Legal Aid NSW (n.d.[5]; 2024[6]).

Considering resource optimisation and/or reallocation to meet legal and justice needs

Why is it important?

In a people-centred system, appropriate services should be available for all groups when, where and how they need them. Within constrained fiscal contexts, governments should prioritise and devote the necessary and proportionate other resources to ensure that services are available to meet people’s legal needs, recognising the positive spill-over effects that accessible justice can have in other sectors such as health and housing.

Given that only a small fraction of people’s everyday legal and justice needs are resolved through formal institutions, there is a need for careful reflection on how government funding is distributed across the justice system. Striking the right balance between investment in lower intensity, front-end services – such as legal information, advice and early resolution mechanisms – and support for formal institutions is essential. Achieving this shift in funding priorities requires that justice stakeholders map needs, costs and outcomes, and place a high value on addressing them effectively, equitably and efficiently.

Priority checklist

A. Determine the resourcing for justice institutions and services based on a planning and budgeting process that prioritises legal and justice needs, measurable outcomes, and value for money

Self-assessment questions

• Is meeting priority legal and justice needs a stated and measured objective in planning and budgeting at all levels?

• Does the justice budget and workforce plan reflect a distribution of resources that broadly relates to need, case complexity and expected outcomes?

• Does the justice system have a sound understanding of which services, strategies and pathways are the most effective, affordable, proportionate and context-appropriate, including digital options?

• Does the justice system have a sound understanding of unit costs and cost per outcome of delivering these services and pathways across regions and channels (see also Chapter 3)?

• Are target groups and service providers systematically engaged during the justice budgeting process through transparent mechanisms (see also Chapter 5)?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Ensure that addressing priority legal and justice needs and improving outcomes per euro spent is a core objective of justice planning and budgeting processes.

• Ensure a data-driven culture for budget decisions; incorporate representative legal needs surveys, administrative data and performance metrics at the start of planning.

• Using appropriate methodologies, identify the full economic costs and capacity requirements of delivering different services by geography and channel, considering likely demand.

• Within fiscal constraints, review justice institutions’ resources and capabilities to consider periodic reallocation, as necessary, taking into account priority needs, location, service mix, delivery costs and projected volumes.

• Use digital queue management, e-filing and automation to reduce disposition times and associated costs of services.

• Actively involve public service providers and non-governmental stakeholders in people-centred justice budgeting, including surveys, public forums and advisory committees, to co-define priorities and trade-offs.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to align budgeting processes with people-centred justice goals and to involve communities and public, non-governmental and private sector service providers in planning and budgeting can result in underfunded priorities, weak implementation and missed unmet needs, regardless of policy intent.

• Equating progress solely with higher spending without rebalancing early resolution, proportionate procedures, efficiency gains and digital delivery where appropriate can reduce impact and sustainability.

Box 4.3. Good practice examples of evidence-based resource allocation

Australia: National-level funding priorities informed by legal needs assessments

The Australian National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance was informed by legal needs analysis, especially the Law Survey and Reshaping Legal Assistance Services. The funding of legal assistance services in Australia is governed by the new National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-2030 – an agreement between the Commonwealth government and the state and territory governments concerning the funding of legal assistance services.

The National Access to Justice Partnership is designed to facilitate the “achievement of the outcomes outlined within the National Strategic Framework:

• legal assistance services are focused on, and are accessible to, people experiencing disadvantage

• legal assistance services are delivered in a client-centric manner in order to better consider people’s legal needs and capabilities

• legal assistance and other service providers and governments collaborate to provide integrated, client-centric services to address people’s legal and other problems

• legal assistance services are provided at an appropriate time, which best addresses people’s legal needs, including preventative action when appropriate

• legal assistance services empower people and communities to understand and assert their legal rights and responsibilities and to address, or prevent, legal problems

• legal assistance providers are supported to build the capacity of their organisations and staff, to ensure they can effectively respond to evolving service demand.”

Canada: Integrating quality of life into policy and resource allocation

Canada’s Quality of Life Framework is a high-level national framework that monitors key determinants of well-being for people living in Canada. It provides decision makers with a planning tool to inform priorities and to develop policies, programmes and budgets that lay out a path toward better outcomes.

The framework consists of 91 indicators organised into 5 domains: prosperity, health, society, environment and good governance (which includes indicators on justice and human rights). It also incorporates two cross-cutting lenses applied across all domains: 1) fairness and inclusion; and 2) sustainability and resilience. Its development reflects recognition that social and environmental factors, alongside economic growth, contribute to improved quality of life.

In March 2022, Statistics Canada launched Canada’s Quality of Life Hub, bringing together key economic, social and environmental datasets to support the measurement of quality of life. The hub provides indicators with definitions, data information, and relevant releases and products, helping to inform policy and equip decision makers with evidence in areas that matter the most for people’s well-being.

In May 2025, a Quality of Life and Well-Being Cabinet Committee was established to consider ways to improve community safety and health, advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and enhance the overall quality of life and well-being of Canadians. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada sits on this committee, ensuring that justice contributes directly to broader quality of life objectives.

Colombia: Statistical input for the strategic allocation of justice resources

The Judicial Branch Statistical Information System (SIERJU) provided strategic input for optimising and expanding the supply of justice. The statistical analysis generated from the forms and data reported by officials nationwide are fundamental for decision-making by the Superior Council of the Judiciary. They make it possible to objectively identify where demand for services is higher, where the creation of new positions or offices is required, how to redistribute workloads to balance supply, and where to focus resources for plans to decongest and remove service bottlenecks.

Sources: Australian Attorney‑General’s Department (2019[7]); Coumarelos (2012[8]); Government of Australia (2025[9]); (Government of Canada, 2024[10]); (Government of Colombia, 2025[11]).

Ensuring organisational capacity across the justice system

Why is it important?

People-centred justice systems require a continuum of legal and justice services, designed to address the range of legal and justice needs. To be effective, this continuum must be implemented at both the service and system levels, ensuring coherence, co-ordination and sustainability.

In addition to services being available and accessible, they must also have the operational, managerial, data and co-ordination capacity to meet the needs of the panoply of users. This thus also means that service providers need to:

• operate as part of the overall justice system, fulfilling their place in the continuum of legal and justice services, providing services to specific segments of the population and meeting specific needs

• have the management capacity and institutional capabilities to effectively plan, co-ordinate and deliver appropriate and timely services, with clear mandates, performance objectives and risk management arrangements.

Thus, in addition to the professional skills and capacities required across the services of the continuum, service providers need to have the strategic and operational capacity to function as part of an integrated and co-ordinated justice system. This includes planning operations and service delivery collaboratively; maintaining effective referral programmes and capabilities; and delivering services in a timely, responsive and people-centred manner.

As such, it is essential that both individual legal and justice services and the justice system as a whole are resourced and equipped – including with workforce capability, digital infrastructure, data and evaluation functions, and institutional support – to efficiently deliver a coherent and co-ordinated response to the legal and justice needs within the fiscal constraints and with transparent reporting on performance and outcomes.

Finally, justice budgets need to be communicated in a timely and appropriately disaggregated manner. Transparency and clarity in budget allocations are also necessary for all stakeholders to enable scrutiny throughout the budgetary process.

Priority checklist

A. Ensure system-wide operational, managerial and co-ordination capacity with a focus on efficiency, interoperability and performance – within countries’ fiscal contexts.

B. Employ good practices in budget communications, stakeholder scrutiny and transparency.

A. Ensure system-wide operational, managerial and co-ordination capacity with a focus on efficiency, interoperability and performance – within countries’ fiscal contexts

Self-assessment questions

• Are financial resources strategically allocated to support the co-ordinated operation of the justice system overall, and to support the provision of key justice functions and services?

• Is performance tracked with cost per outcome, timeliness, user experience and equity indicators to guide investment and efficiency gains?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Conduct regular review of the capabilities of the justice system and institutions to ensure the provision of key functions and services to meet legal and justice needs.

• Ensure justice institutions’ core capabilities are well-aligned with their strategic objectives and mandates, particularly in relation to responding to people’s diverse legal and justice needs.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Underinvesting in people-centred skills and the system’s capabilities can lead to weak access and delivery, lost efficiency gains, poor digital uptake, and fragmented co-ordination.

Box 4.4. Good practice examples of building capabilities for people-centred justice

Latvia: Bridging the digital skills gap in justice institutions

To promote the use of its court information system (“Tiesu informatīvā sistēma”, TIS), the Court Administration in Latvia provides regular training sessions for judges and administrative staff to support their understanding and application of the latest tools offered by the TIS. In 2021, justice civil servants reported training workshops on TIS functionalities as being among the most beneficial to their work.

In 2023, Latvia announced its commitment to establish the Justice Academy by 2025, a unified training centre for further education and continuous skills development for civil servants in the justice system. The academy is supported by the Ministry of Justice. It develops training for members of the judiciary, a regulatory framework and capacity building. It also conducts an overall training needs assessment and develops and pilots the training programmes.

United Kingdom: Developing staff capacity with needed skills and competencies

As part of the enhancement of HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) following the pandemic, a new Data Strategy was developed and implemented in December 2021. The strategy began with recognition that HMCTS’ data had “yet to reach the level of consistency and simplicity necessary to allow us to exploit it to the extent we would like. Data is a key part of both our HMCTS objectives, and the wider priorities of the Ministry of Justice.” The HMCTS reform programme and response to the pandemic “have enabled HMCTS to gradually become a more data-driven organisation and highlighted the opportunity and need for further change.”

Essential to the success of the Data Strategy was the building of the necessary analytical skills and culture to be able to implement this vision. This was reflected in one of its core data strategic pillars:

• “We have the right analytical skills and culture, so we can enjoy a culture where everyone is able to find, use, and protect the data they need:

  • we have a clear vision and plan for analytical capability and capacity

  • we have a credible vision and plan for analytical skills expected in different roles

  • we have clarity over roles, responsibilities and accountability for data in HMCTS”.

Sources: Government of Latvia (2021[12]; 2022[13]; 2023[14]); HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2021[15]).

B. Employ good practices in budget communications, stakeholder scrutiny and transparency

Self-assessment questions

• Do the justice budget documents communicate adequate disaggregation, enabling readers to see and understand the linkages between budget allocations and:

  • people’s priority legal needs

  • the most effective and affordable strategies and services to address those needs

  • the unit and collective costs associated with delivering such effective services?

• Are justice system and broader stakeholders actively engaged throughout the budget process? Do they have opportunities and capacity to scrutinise, comment and provide input?

• Are justice budgets regularly reviewed, audited and evaluated to ensure budget allocations are in accordance with priorities and allocated to effective services?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Seek to implement justice budget processes, documentation, communications and stakeholder engagement in accordance with international standards and best practices.

• Disaggregate justice budgets to show how allocations align with priority legal and justice needs, effective services, and associated unit costs.

• Involve stakeholders, including the public, in the budgeting process through public consultations, surveys and forums to gather input and feedback.

• Leverage technology to make budget information accessible and available to stakeholders in a timely fashion. Online platforms, interactive dashboards and other technological platforms can be used to publish budget reports, updates and other relevant information in real time.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to involve justice service users in budget development and oversight, as well as to align budgets with the lived realities of those needing justice services, risks overlooking critical needs, leading to unbalanced targeted resource allocation.

Enabling effective enforcement of and respect for outcomes across dispute resolution mechanisms

Why is it important?

An important part of effective justice systems are the implementation and enforcement of dispute resolution outcomes. However, it is often the case that once decisions to resolve disputes are taken, parties to the dispute are left to comply with the orders without systematic assistance or compulsion.

While effective enforcement provisions and mechanisms are most often found within formal justice processes, even court-resolved disputes rarely automatically lead to enforcement actions. For example, enforcing a civil debt may require a separate application to the court or to another (sometimes private) agency, increasing costs, delays and barriers for many people. At the more informal end of the dispute-resolution continuum, enforcement options are even less available.

A people-centred justice system develops and applies a range of mechanisms to help individuals implement agreements and enforce decisions, regardless of whether these arise from formal or informal processes. To move toward this goal, it is first necessary to assess the scope of existing gaps or inefficiencies in enforcement mechanisms and to prioritise those the most in need of attention. The next step is to design effective and affordable enforcement solutions to close these gaps.

Priority checklist

A. Regularly assess the scope and effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms in both the formal and informal parts of the justice system.

B. Establish or enhance affordable, effective and accountable enforcement mechanisms to ensure that enforcement is effective across both the formal and informal parts of the justice system.

A. Regularly assess the scope and effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms in both the formal and informal parts of the justice system

Self-assessment questions

• Does the justice system engage with service users, stakeholders and broader groups of people to assess the effectiveness, affordability and accountability of justice system enforcement mechanisms?

• Are existing enforcement mechanisms timely, affordable and accessible to target groups and the broader population without creating additional administrative burdens or obligations (such as the need to engage in separate court proceedings)?

• Are there dispute resolution processes that lack effective accompanying enforcement mechanisms?

• What enforcement mechanisms are available for negotiated and mediated resolutions and for resolutions through informal justice system processes?

• What is the success rate of existing enforcement mechanisms?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Assess the scope and effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms across the justice system using a range of complementary methodologies. These can include:

  • the preferred objectives and nature of enforcement mechanisms (that is, the form and characteristics of the most suitable enforcement mechanisms for people confronting a range of legal and justice needs in a range of circumstances)

  • the extent to which their needs in terms of enforcement mechanisms is presently being met, and in what circumstances/parts of the justice system they are being met the least

  • the extent to which existing mechanisms operate ethically, fairly, transparently and accountably.

• Based on this assessment, identify a set of priorities for action to broaden the range and operation of enforcement mechanisms.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to address the barriers to enforcing legal resolutions, also from a user perspective, creates additional obstacles and erodes trust in the justice system.

B. Establish or enhance affordable, effective and accountable enforcement mechanisms

Self-assessment questions

• Are there any insights into the number/proportion of “resolved” legal and justice issues that are not fully enforced?

• Is there an understanding of barriers that limit effective enforcement at all levels of the justice system?

• Have independent oversight bodies been established to monitor enforcement agencies and policies?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Make the needs and capabilities of those experiencing legal and justice needs the starting point for the design and reform of enforcement processes and mechanisms. These should drive priorities for enhancing existing mechanisms and creating new ones across formal and informal justice processes.

• Streamline enforcement procedures to minimise delays and reduce costs and educate the public about enforcement processes and their rights.

• Leverage technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement, for example via electronic databases, online payment systems and digital communication tools.

• Incorporate strategies to ensure transparency in all enforcement mechanisms and processes, both existing and new.

• Consider strategies to encourage and support collaboration on enforcement between different stakeholders, including courts, law enforcement agencies and civil society organisations.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to shift focus beyond formal justice system processes and to design enforcement mechanisms around the needs and capabilities of users overlooks the vast majority of legal and justice needs, particularly those addressed through informal or community-based mechanisms, which also require accessible and effective enforcement pathways.

• Neglecting to ensure transparency and accountability in enforcement increases the risk of misuse and public mistrust, especially in cases involving low-value decisions or vulnerable individuals.

Box 4.5. Good practice examples of enforcement mechanisms

International Union of Judicial Officers: The Global Code of Enforcement

Officially launched by the International Union of Judicial Officers in 2015, the Global Code of Enforcement aims to help improve good governance through enforcement by highlighting good practice that countries should consider in their debates about fostering better enforcement systems. Providing a unified set of standards and principles that countries can follow, the code states, among others:

• A fundamental principle about the need to have judgements that are immediately enforceable, with beneficiaries not being required to have recourse to other legal procedures to obtain enforcement (Art. 4).

• The need for countries to co-ordinate among different state institutions and private actors to ensure access to information about debtors’ assets. This means disclosing to the enforcement professionals all information leading to these assets and prohibiting withholding information (Art. 9).

• Transparency, meaning that countries ensure that the people are informed about enforcement measures (Art. 14).

• Specialisation, ensuring that only officers authorised by the state are able to conduct enforcement procedures (Art. 16).

• Flexibility of enforcement measures. Countries should organise their enforcement systems so that they are compatible with creditors’ interests and with the economic and social situation of debtors. In line with this, countries should be able to diversify enforcement measures depending on the circumstances.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice: Good Practice Guide on Enforcement of Judicial Decisions

Launched in 2015, the Good Practice Guide on Enforcement of Judicial Decisions sought to inspire harmonisation across the enforcement systems of the Council of Europe’s member states, highlighting good practices applied in the member states, including:

• Partial removal of enforcement processes from the control of the courts. As a general rule, dividing tasks can help to ease court congestion, speeding up enforcement. Together with centralising enforcement in only one agency, this can make processes easier to follow by litigants, whether they are involved as debtors, creditors or third parties.

• Ensuring that the parties fully understand the enforcement process. The guide recommends disseminating fact sheets about national legislation, with concise and practical information – in plain language – about enforcement procedures and agents. This also involves providing written and oral information for recipients of documents, advice for creditors, standardisation of procedural documents and a clear statement of the costs of enforcement procedures, all of which should be disseminated as widely as possible.

• Promoting e-enforcement as a way to help accelerate enforcement and save time in implementing certain protective or enforcement measures.

• Protecting the privacy of debtors and their families, ensuring their involvement in enforcement procedures (so that traumatic experiences, such as being suddenly forced out of the property, can be properly avoided), and adequate protection of the rights of third parties.

• Promoting the use of a common legal terminology on enforcement across countries.

Sources: UIHJ (2015[16]); CEPEJ (2015[17]).

Promoting responsible digital transformation across the justice system

Why is it important?

Digital transformation offers profound opportunities to modernise justice systems, increase operational efficiency and – most critically – expand equitable access to justice. When responsibly implemented, digital technologies can streamline complex legal processes, reduce costs, enhance transparency, and offer more timely and user-friendly pathways to address legal and justice needs. Through innovations such as online dispute resolution, digital legal information platforms, virtual legal aid and artificial intelligence-driven triage tools, governments can make justice more accessible, especially for those traditionally excluded from the system.

Digital transformation also allows for a more data-informed justice system, where real-time insights can inform service planning, resource allocation and systemic reform. When integrated with robust data privacy and protection frameworks, these technologies can strengthen public trust and accountability.

However, to be genuinely transformative, digital innovation must be people-centred. This means designing systems that accommodate diverse user capabilities, including those with limited legal knowledge, lower literacy, disabilities and digital exclusion. Vulnerable and marginalised populations – such as older adults, rural communities, low-income individuals and those with limited Internet access – may face significant barriers in navigating digital platforms. A “digital by default” strategy, if applied rigidly, risks exacerbating inequality by sidelining those least able to engage with technology.

A responsible digital justice strategy must therefore balance innovation with inclusion. It must provide a range of access points – both digital and non-digital – and build in flexibility to respond to users’ needs, preferences and capacities. Digital transformation should enhance choice, not restrict it. Moreover, meaningful public engagement, continuous evaluation and cross-sector co-ordination are critical to ensure technologies remain responsive, ethical and aligned with the principles of fairness and accessibility.

In essence, digital transformation is not just about modernising tools, it is about rethinking the way justice is delivered to ensure it works for everyone.

Priority checklist

A. Maximise the use of digital transformation to increase accessibility and efficiency through new and enhanced pathways to resolving legal and justice needs.

B. Ensure a people-centred approach to digital transformation, ensuring that the digital and other capabilities of those with legal and justice needs drive the design and delivery of services.

A. Maximise the use of digital transformation to increase accessibility and efficiency through new pathways to resolving legal and justice needs

Self-assessment questions

• Is there a national digital strategy that includes the justice system, with clear leadership to co‑ordinate transformation, set priorities and engage users?

• Does the strategy encourage innovation and transformation of existing legal and justice processes?

• Is there digital infrastructure in the justice system to facilitate effective innovation and harmonise with broader national digital infrastructure?

• Are there clear policies and evaluation frameworks to ensure data privacy, protection and the ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of digitalisation efforts?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Develop an overarching digital governance structure that includes a common, justice system-wide terminology, data protocols and processes, and digital standards.

• Implement the OECD Digital Governance Policy Framework across the justice system, in co‑ordination with the whole of state. This includes, among others:

  • applying a “digital by design” approach by embedding digital technologies and data from the outset of any reforms or innovations to transform justice policies, services and processes

  • implementing a “government as a platform” approach by encouraging the use of common digital infrastructure and tools across the justice system, including databases for legal precedents and legislation, digital identity, and document authentication systems

  • implementing an “open by default” approach to ensure transparency and openness where possible across the justice system.

• Track median time-to-disposition, user time-on-task and cost per case across institutions for digital vs. non-digital channels; reallocate to channels with proven gains.

• Scale online dispute resolution, guided triage, e-enforcement and interoperable data where pilots show backlog cuts and effective meeting of legal and justice needs.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to establish an overarching digital governance structure across justice institutions can undermine interoperability and lead to fragmented and duplicative systems with inconsistent data standards and processes.

• Failing to streamline processes through unified digital frameworks can lead to confusion for users, forcing them to navigate multiple systems or submit the same information repeatedly.

Box 4.6. Good practice examples of digital transformation

Portugal: Action Plan for Digital Transition

The Action Plan for Digital Transition is a strategic document adopted by the Portuguese government to guide the country through a comprehensive digital transformation. This initiative aims to leverage digital technologies to drive economic growth, improve public services and enhance quality of life for all citizens.

Many of the Action Plan for Digital Transition’s priority areas apply to the modernisation of justice, in particular to the design and delivery of services. Priority measures with a direct impact on the justice system include:

• digitalisation of the 25 most used public services, with the aim of simplifying and enhancing online access

• increased provision of digital services in different languages, with the aim of ensuring that the services available on the ePortugal.gov portal are multilingual, and that content and electronic forms are translated into languages other than Portuguese

• the creation of a strategic framework for the adoption of cloud tools by the public administration

• simplification of public procurement of information and digital technology services by the public administration.

Spain: Digital Efficiency Law

The digital transformation of public justice services in Spain is empowered and mandated through the Digital Efficiency Royal Decree Law. Its aim is to regulate the use of information technologies by citizens and professionals in their dealings with justice services and ensure a data-driven approach to the administration of justice. In particular, it mandates how IT will be employed to ensure “…digital legal security, access, authenticity, confidentiality, integrity, availability, traceability, conservation, portability and interoperability of the data, information and services…” as part of the administration of justice.

The law, among other things:

• defines the rights and responsibilities of citizens and justice officials in relation to access to relevant justice data

• mandates specific requirements in relation to the provision of digital access as part of the administration of justice, including, in particular, the “Justice Folder” designed for efficient and effective access to the necessary information for citizens

• provides the institutional framework to support co-operation and judicial interoperability to ensure that information and communication systems used in the administration of justice are interoperable.

Uganda: Virtual legal advice

Lawyers 4 Farmers is a legal initiative that aims to spread awareness of basic legal knowledge and entrepreneurial skills to the farming population. Its main objective is to enable farmers to navigate the complexities with legislation and support how they start, structure and manage their farm businesses for increased productivity and profitability. The SMS‑based platform provides educative, basic legal advice to farmers in their local language and offers instant guidance on legal problems. Everything is translated and interactions are conducted in the local language.

United States: Guided information pathways in California

I-CAN! Legal helps people prepare their court forms using an easy online questionnaire. I-CAN! provides step-by-step instructions for how to file the forms and proceed with the court case. In Orange County, California, I-CAN! also provides e-filing of certain forms. This low-cost software includes online court form preparation in multiple areas of law in many states.

Spring ACT: Chatbot Sophia

Sophia is a confidential, artificial intelligence-powered chatbot designed to support individuals affected by or seeking information on domestic violence and unhealthy relationships. Available 24/7, anonymously, and currently accessed in 172 countries, Sophia provides expert-reviewed information, guidance and connections to essential resources, all while ensuring privacy and security.

How Sophia can help:

• Recognise abuse – Learn the signs of unhealthy relationships.

• Find options – Get guidance on legal rights, safety planning and next steps.

• Access support – Connect with local shelters, helplines and emergency services.

• Secure documentation – Store messages, photos and recordings privately in the Digital Safe.

Sources: HiiL (2017[18]); Stanford Legal Design Lab (2016[19]); Spring ACT (n.d.[20]); SG Courts (n.d.[21]); Portugeuse Presidency of the Council of Ministers (2020[22]); Spanish Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts (2023[23]).

B. Ensure a people-centred approach to digital justice transformation

Self-assessment questions

• Are there mechanisms to support and encourage people to use digital justice services?

• Is there monitoring of the accessibility of digital legal and justice services?

• What mechanisms are used to ensure digital transformations of the justice system are focused on people’s legal and justice needs?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Collect data that show which groups may or may not be using digital services to address their legal and justice needs.

• Continue to use easily accessible and people-centred alternatives to ensure no one is left behind.

• Assist groups of people who are less digitally capable by providing advice and assistance.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to consider the needs of digitally excluded groups – such as older people, people with disabilities or those without Internet access – and to provide accessible non-digital alternatives risks deepening existing justice gaps and undermining the goal of people-centred justice.

Box 4.7. Good practice examples of people-centred approaches to digital transformation

France: Promoting access to online public services through digital advisers

An initiative launched by the Secretary of State for Digital Transition and Electronic Communication created 4 000 digital advisor positions (conseillers numériques) who are trained to support access to online services for people and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The initiative aims to encourage stakeholders to embrace digital transformation by helping people and businesses to access and learn how to use online services in their day-to-day lives. The digital advisors are placed in areas that involve close interaction with the local population (e.g. city halls, libraries, associations). This allows for increased partnership between stakeholders, including central government and local authorities, associations, and solidarity-based or social enterprises. Workshops to train and help people and SMEs to use digital services and tools also form part of this initiative and are often organised by digital advisors.

Beyond contributing to bridging the digital gap in France, digital advisors are also an important source of help for users to find the right service channels or local facilities for tailored information or support (e.g. by providing contact details for different justice institutions, such as legal aid providers).

Sweden: Digitalisation Strategy

The Swedish government is working to improve and develop the use of modern technology in the judicial system. By moving from paper-based to digital exchanges of information between authorities, the system aims to reduce errors, shorten processing times and free up resources for core judicial tasks. Digitalisation also aims to strengthen analysis and follow-up by making cases traceable across the judicial chain, enabling better capacity planning, crime statistics and evaluation of legislative changes.

Importantly, Swedish authorities continue to offer services through non-digital channels. One can contact Swedish authorities in person, by telephone, postal mail, email or via their official websites. The Swedish National Courts Administration actively works on improving the accessibility of the digital platforms and e-services of Swedish national courts. The aim is to provide easily understandable information as well as a clear design and interface that cater to the needs of all citizens, including persons with disabilities. In 2021, the Swedish National Audit Office reviewed the work of public authorities to ensure accessible, high-quality services for individuals who are unable or unwilling to use digital channels in their contact with authorities. While the report does not focus exclusively on the justice system, it indicates that digitalisation has not led to a decline in access or service quality within Swedish public authorities.

Sources: World Justice Project (2025[24]); Government of France (2025[25]); (European Commission, 2025[26])

Fostering innovation and experimentation to enhance justice pathways

Why is it important?

Legal systems and institutions have evolved over centuries, generally with a system-centric focus rather than a people-centred focus. To bring about the necessary changes to make justice systems and institutions more people-centred, a conscious, intentional effort on evidence-based innovation seeking more people-centredness and system-wide application will be required.

Justice innovation is needed across a wide range of areas – such as in relation to regulatory reform, seeking innovative funding models for services to meet every day legal and justice needs, new models of integrated service delivery (such as health-justice partnerships), and ways to reach target groups. Innovation efforts bringing all parties together to develop targeted approaches can produce some of the most effective results.

To contribute to a people-centred justice transformation, the justice innovations must themselves seek people-centred goals; that is, putting the needs and capabilities of people at the centre, rather than being driven simply by the latest technological developments.

Importantly, justice institutions can stimulate innovation and the availability and accessibility of such services through appropriate engagement, financing, investment, and the enabling infrastructure and environment for non-governmental providers.

Priority checklist

A. Establish a clear set of priorities for innovation and investment across the justice system to ensure innovations are developed in a coherent way.

B. Enable and support stakeholder-driven innovation in justice processes through collaboration and co-design processes.

A. Establish a clear set of priorities for innovation and investment across the justice system

Self-assessment questions

• Is there a process for determining the priorities for investing in and working on innovation at the system level?

• Are these priorities driven by the target populations’ priority legal needs and capabilities?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Use legal needs and user satisfaction data to identify priority areas for potential investment in innovation.

• Explore the allocation of resources to the development and evaluation of innovations in accordance with agreed-upon priorities.

• Ensure that the legal capability and needs of target groups are at the heart of the development of any innovation in service delivery or policy.

• Encourage innovation in non-governmental and private sector service delivery models through the provision of appropriate investment, regulatory and enabling infrastructure.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to adopt a system-wide approach to innovation and to align innovation priorities with people’s actual needs and capabilities risks investing in technologies and other innovations that are poorly suited to delivering people-centred justice outcomes.

• Failing to promote a co-ordinated approach to innovations across institutions can undermine consistency; limit interoperability; and reduce the potential for a scalable, system-wide transformation.

B. Enable and support stakeholder-driven innovation in justice processes through collaboration and co-design processes

Self-assessment questions

• How are the perspectives of target groups, including those in vulnerable conditions, incorporated into the justice system innovation process?

• Are there mechanisms that bring target groups together with service providers, policymakers and other stakeholders to develop innovation initiatives?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Establish processes through which input from target groups can be regularly gathered in relation to possible innovations and reforms to justice policy and service delivery.

• Identify the priority issues affecting target groups for which access to justice may be improved through the development of collaborative solutions.

• Consider facilitating “innovation labs”, “innovation hubs”, legal or regulatory “sandboxes”, and other mechanisms to identify, encourage and promote user-driven collaborative reform and innovation.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to empower and support target groups, as well as to provide tailored support mechanisms – such as for children, people with disabilities and indigenous communities – to participate meaningfully risks tokenistic engagement and undermines the credibility and impact of collaborative processes.

Box 4.8. Good practice examples of justice innovations

Canada: Regulatory innovation for legal services

Canadian provinces are actively exploring innovative ways to regulate the delivery of legal services to enhance access to justice.

The Law Society of Alberta’s Innovation Sandbox creates a controlled environment in which regulatory constraints on legal service delivery are relaxed to encourage innovation. It allows both lawyers and non-lawyers to pilot new models aimed at improving efficiency, accessibility and affordability while maintaining oversight and compliance with ethical standards.

HiiL: Innovation Lab Process in Nigeria and Tunisia

HiiL worked with the governments to convene stakeholders from across the justice system, spanning different branches and levels of government, as well as civil society actors and representatives of justice users. Together, they co-designed new justice services aimed at responding more effectively to people’s needs. Through the Justice Innovation Lab, HiiL encouraged innovation and experimentation to make services simpler, more effective and more efficient. The process also guided participants to approach service design from the viewpoint of users, ensuring that their needs and expectations shaped the resulting solutions.

The Justice Innovation Lab in Tunisia developed a plan for an online employment justice platform, the Lab in Ogun State, Nigeria developed a one-stop shop “place of refuge” in Yoruba, which will provide tailored support and referrals for survivors of domestic violence, and the Justice Innovation Lab in Imo State, Nigeria developed a Community Justice Centre model.

United States: Utah Regulatory Sandbox

Regulatory sandbox programmes aim to provide a safe regulatory environment for lawyers and other professionals to deliver non-traditional legal services in a controlled environment, such as in Utah under the supervision of the state supreme court. This space can, for example, allow the application of new technology – like natural language processing and machine learning – to legal services. They can also provide spaces where, in certain circumstances, non-lawyers (such as paralegals) and non-law businesses can provide services which in traditional spaces they could not provide.

As examples, in 2020, the Utah Supreme Court established a regulatory sandbox that eliminated a rule that prevented non-lawyers from co-owning legal firms. In Utah, a number of community organisations have made use of the Utah Sandbox to enable community justice workers to offer forms of legal advice and representation that would ordinarily not be permitted. For example, the Timpanogos Legal Centre, a non-profit supporting survivors of domestic violence, created a Certified Advocate Partner Programme, through which trained community justice workers can provide guidance on matters relating to protective orders. A particularly innovative aspect of this program is that it embeds community justice workers within municipal and county law enforcement and government agencies – 77% of clients served through the programme lived in rural areas of Utah.

Notes: Similarly, the Law Society of Saskatchewan’s Future of Legal Services Initiative, including a Limited Licensing Pilot, is testing the provision of specified legal services by non-lawyers who are not otherwise authorised to practise. This approach aims to increase access to regulated legal services for underserved populations, balancing innovation with public protection.

Sources: HiiL (2023[27]; 2023[28]); State Justice Institute (n.d.[29]); Nabil (2021[30]); Burnett and Sandefur (2024[31]).

References

[7] Australian Attorney‑General’s Department (2019), National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance, Australian Government, https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/legal-assistance-services/national-strategic-framework-legal-assistance.

[31] Burnett, M. and R. Sandefur (2024), “A people-centred approach to designing and evaluating community justice worker programs in the United States”, Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 51, pp. 1509-1551, https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2982&context=ulj.

[17] CEPEJ (2015), Good Practice Guide on Enforcement of Judicial Decisions, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, https://rm.coe.int/european-commission-for-the-efficiency-of-justice-cepej-good-practice-/16807477bf.

[8] Coumarelos, C. (2012), Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia, Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Sydney, Australia, https://lawfoundation.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/31PJR_Legal-Australia-Wide-Survey.-Legal-need-in-Australia_2012.pdf.

[26] European Commission (2025), 2025 Rule of Law Report - Country Chapter Sweden, https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2025-rule-law-report-communication-and-country-chapters_en#files.

[9] Government of Australia (2025), National Access to Justice Partnership: Intergovernmental Agreement (Commonwealth, States & Territories), https://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/agreements/national-access-justice-partnership.

[10] Government of Canada (2024), Quality of life framework for Canada : lessons learned on multisectoral action for public health, Public Health Agency of Canada, https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.938691/publication.html.

[11] Government of Colombia (2025), SIERJU, https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/web/consejo-seccional-de-la-judicatura-de-risaralda/sierju.

[25] Government of France (2025), Conseiller Numérique website, https://www.conseiller-numerique.gouv.fr.

[14] Government of Latvia (2023), “Academy of Justice will be opened on January 1, 2025”, news, https://www.esfondi.lv/en/about-eu-funds/news/academy-of-justice-will-be-opened-on-january-1-2025.

[13] Government of Latvia (2022), “Extensive digital skills training for justice staff concludes”, https://www.ta.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/nosledzas-apjomigas-digitalo-prasmju-macibas-tieslietu-darbiniekiem.

[12] Government of Latvia (2021), Court Administration, https://www.ta.gov.lv/lv/media/2183/download?attachment.

[4] Government of Spain (2025), “Digital transformation of the Administration of Justice”, web page, https://espanadigital.gob.es/en/lines-action/digital-transformation-administration-justice.

[27] HiiL (2023), “Programmes in Nigeria”, https://www.hiil.org/programmes/nigeria.

[28] HiiL (2023), “Programmes in Tunisia”, https://www.hiil.org/programmes/tunisia.

[18] HiiL (2017), “Lawyers 4 Farmers: The legal startup trying to change Ugandan farming”, news, https://www.hiil.org/news/lawyers-4-farmers-the-legal-startup-trying-to-change-ugandan-farming.

[15] HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2021), HMCTS Data Strategy: Our Vision and Plan for a Data-driven Courts and Tribunals Service, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/643fc22e22ef3b000c66f4f3/HMCTS626_Data_Strategy_v3.pdf.

[6] Legal Aid NSW (2024), CLSD Reflection Project Report, Legal Aid NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia, https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/about-us/our-partners/cooperative-legal-service-delivery-program/clsd-reflection-project-report.

[5] Legal Aid NSW (n.d.), “Cooperative Legal Service Delivery (CLSD) Program”, https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/about-us/our-partners/cooperative-legal-service-delivery-program.

[30] Nabil, R. (2021), “Regulatory sandbox programs can promote legal innovation and improve access to justice”, The Hill, https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/576041-regulatory-sandbox-programs-can-promote-legal-innovation-and-improve-access/#:~:text=Most%20U.S.%20states%20and%20Canadian,machine%20learning%20%E2%80%93%20to%20legal%20services.

[22] Portugeuse Presidency of the Council of Ministers (2020), Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 30/2020 of 21 April, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/resolucao-conselho-ministros/30-2020-132133788.

[21] SG Courts (n.d.), “Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS)”, web page, https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/services/cjts.

[3] Spanish Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts (2025), “Methodology”, web page, https://www.justicia2030.es/en/metodologia.

[23] Spanish Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts (2023), “Digital justice and procedural efficiency measures”, https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/JusticiaEspana/ProyectosTransformacionJusticia.

[2] Spanish Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts (2023), “Digital transformation projects in the justice system”, web page, https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/JusticiaEspana/ProyectosTransformacionJusticia.

[20] Spring ACT (n.d.), “Meet Sophia”, https://www.sophia.chat/about-sophia.

[19] Stanford Legal Design Lab (2016), “I-CAN! Legal”, web page, https://justiceinnovation.law.stanford.edu/i-can-legal-get-help-filling-out-court-forms.

[29] State Justice Institute (n.d.), “Utah Regulatory Sandbox Project”, web page, https://www.sji.gov/utah-regulatory-sandbox-project.

[16] UIHJ (2015), Global Code of Enforcement, International Union of Judicial Officers, https://uihj.com/archive-uihj/en/global-code-of-enforcement_2165010.html.

[1] US Department of Justice (2012), “Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable”, web page, https://www.justice.gov/atj/legal-aid-interagency-roundtable.

[24] World Justice Project (2025), Assessment Tool for ICT-Driver Reforms in Family Justice Version 1.0: Conceptual and Evaluation Framework, World Bank, https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP.ConceptualFramework.18June2025.pdf.