CHAPTER THREE. Courts’ efficiency in adjudicating criminal cases The present chapter aims to measure the effectiveness of the First Instance Courts and the Serious Crimes Court in deciding the cases presented before them. Trials should always be conducted in an efficient and expeditious fashion: according to Art. 12 of the Palestinian Constitution, everyone has a right to be tried “without delay”. The defendant’s right to a trial within reasonable time is also enshrined in Art. 9(3) of the ICCPR. Delays adversely impact on other parties to the proceedings as well, such as the victims’ right to know the truth and seek monetary compensation, and the prosecution’s ability to devote its time to investigating and prosecuting other criminal offences. However, during the monitoring timeframe, ISTIQLAL observed a number of trials that were characterized by unnecessary, considerable delays. While it would be overly simplistic to try and pinpoint one single reason responsible for delays in criminal proceedings before Palestinian courts, ISTIQLAL tried to identify some key recurring factors that contributed to delaying adjudication of cases before High Crimes and First instance courts. First, the team considered each court’s overall case-processing capacity, in terms of working hours, hearings held, and average time devoted to each hearing. The team then turned to examine the effectiveness of the court’s work, by considering the number of hearings that resulted in some progress in the case and analysing the reasons for lack thereof. It also considered what measures, if any, court took in response to parties’ behaviours obstructing proceedings. Moreover, the report also analyses the length of trial postponements. Lastly, it analyses the adverse impact generated by the replacement of members of the judiciary occurred during the reporting period. 1. Courts’ case processing capacity A first series of indicators considered to assess courts’ efficiency pertain to their overall workload and case processing capacity. More detailed indicators included the average number of hearings held per day, the average duration of a hearing, and the total daily time devoted to hearing cases. The data is shown in Tables 7 and 8 below. 27