Digital tools to open the judiciary: A perspective from Argentina

By promoting conscious uses of digital technologies in favour of open justice, we have learnt that to facilitate and promote deliberation and participation online, we need to put citizens at the centre, from the design to the collection of data and feedback

Saying that most judicial systems across the globe desperately need to innovate their service delivery is stating the obvious, as many studies indicate that judiciaries in Latin America are often perceived as disengaged and distant.

An open justice perspective is desperately needed to tackle the challenges ahead and help build fairer societies for the future. In practice, it means the judicial must provide reliable and secure judicial data and offer citizens and stakeholders meaningful opportunities to participate and collaborate, bringing perspectives from different fields and strengthening accountability.

Based on the experience at Criminal Court №10 of the City of Buenos Aires led by Judge Casas, this article explores how the use of digital tools within the courts and justice system can enhance transparency and collaboration with civil society and citizens to improve public trust and narrow the gap between them.

Information as a first step towards an open justice

For more than four years we have been collecting, publishing, and sharing information and data produced by our court, using a twitter account as our main communication channel. We publish every decision and ruling issued as well as other relevant information accessible on our open data repository. We extract from rulings any sensitive data that could help identify the people involved in each case in order to protect personal data and respect the right to privacy.

This ambitious transparency initiative has allowed us to leverage information and open data to encourage different forms of civil society and citizen participation. For example, we were approached via twitter by a web developer looking for opportunities to participate in open justice projects. He decided to contribute by making our data more visible and comprehensible through an open code dashboard. In addition, we believe that sharing information about the judiciary process is essential to allow people to participate and learn first-hand about the decisions taken at their local Tribunal. For that reason, we have been sharing for years the complete calendar of the Court.

The co-created open data dashboard

We will continue publishing information and data as this is essential to increase trust and narrow the gap between citizens and the justice system, but we acknowledge that this is just an initial step towards more interaction and collaboration. The COVID19 crisis offered an opportunity to broaden our openness and engage with the public in different and novel ways.

Bringing citizens into the courts

We continuously publicise the upcoming hearings and invite people to participate and observe the proceedings. Since the beginning of the COVID19, the public increased considerably due to the possibility of watching hearings from their homes through digital tools. It is important to highlight that to conduct an effective virtual hearing you need an accessible but secure infrastructure. Participants should be able to join the videoconference via their web browser and without the need to pay for or install any software. We recommend to contact participants in advance, to make sure they have the necessary elements and information, as well as to provide simple instructions on how to connect.

These hearings are an excellent way to open our courts and include citizens, which in turn enhances our accountability and provides us with feedback to improve how we deliver justice. For instance, we regularly ask participants to assess the Judge’s use of plain language during the hearings. As a result of this feedback and in collaboration with other stakeholders, we published a plain language and style guide to write clearer and more accessible Court documents.

It is evident that more and more jurisdictions will be adopting virtual hearings and services going forward, even after the pandemic. It is crucial to ensure that the approach used is working for citizens too. We think that all institutions putting in place participatory spaces (virtual or in-person) should establish feedback mechanisms to understand if the process is accessible and useful for citizens. This is necessary to improve how we integrate citizens and ensure that they will actually participate in future opportunities.

The importance of citizens’ feedback

The use of virtual hearings, especially for criminal cases, demands a robust and informed debate. It is therefore crucial to incorporate feedback from the different stakeholders involved (citizens, litigants, defendants, interested parties, and public) to ensure that the virtual process remains fair and accessible. In collaboration with Democracia en Red, an NGO that creates digital solutions for citizen participation, we implemented an online poll to evaluate the accessibility and satisfaction of hearings held at our virtual courtroom.

A good example is the recently published evaluation of the UK´s HM Courts & Tribunals video hearings service. As Pathfinders argue, “use justice systems strategically, collaborating with other sectors and making them a platform for rebuilding and renewing economies.” All institutions moving towards virtual spaces for participation should include feedback and data on citizens’ experiences in order to adjust the use of technology accordingly. This is true for virtual courts in the justice system, but also for Parliamentarian committees, local councils or citizen assemblies.

The paradigm is changing: all branches of the State are seeking more inclusive ways of governance. The road towards an open state should be paved with access to public information and participation opportunities. The open justice movement can provide a model by providing public information in an open data format, giving access to the courts through virtual hearings and allowing for participation and collaboration through digital tools. The SDG Goal 16, specifically target 16.7 states that Governments must ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. We are convinced that the judiciary can and should be fully invested in achieving this goal.

Through our journey promoting conscious uses of digital technologies in favour of open justice, we have learnt that to facilitate and promote deliberation and participation online, we need to put citizens at the centre, from the design to the collection of data and feedback to constantly improve those spaces.

Pablo Hilaire is Secretary at Criminal Court №10 of the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina (@jpcyf10), a pioneer Tribunal in the open justice movement. He aims to bring justice closer to communities and transform justice institutions so they are more open and serve people. He is on Twitter at @pablohilaire.

Are you a practitioner delivering a representative deliberative process fully or partially online? The OECD has put together this survey for practitioners about what they are doing, how, and why. Answers are publicly available from the moment they are submitted in this viewable Airtable database (except for the name, job title and email of the individual filling out the form).

This post is part of the Digital for Deliberation series. Read the other articles:

Digital for deliberation: Catching the deliberative wave

We are opening a discussion on the use of digital tools for deliberative processes, in collaboration with our colleagues working on digital government and public sector innovation.

How can digital tools support deliberation? Join the conversation!

The series will focus on three overarching questions: (1) How can digital tools support representative deliberative processes? (2) What are the limits of using digital tools for representative deliberative processes? (3) In what other contexts could these learnings be applied?

Designing an online citizens’ assembly: A practitioner perspective

One of the core elements of a citizens’ assembly is to create the space for people to meet face-to-face. That is where the magic of citizens’ assemblies lies. Why go online then? Marcin Gerwin offers some ideas.

Engineering for deliberative democracy

Just as the architecture of a meeting hall affects whose voice can be heard, the design of our digital tools provides and forecloses certain political possibilities. Jessica Feldman outlines where engineering decisions need to be made.

Designing text-based tools for digital deliberation

Understanding and measuring the influence of certain features on the quality of online text-based deliberations can help us make better design decisions

Online deliberation: Opportunities and challenges

Lyn Carson in conversation with Graham Smith about what we know and don’t know about transferring face-to-face deliberations to an online environment.

The digital participatory process that fed into the French Climate Assembly

The online contributions from the wider public on the Decidim platform enriched the work of the in-person assembly, writes Eloïse Gabadou

Digital solutions can complement real world participation — but mustn’t exclude

After public meetings can resume, digital participation will likely grow as a complement to offline events. This will broaden citizen engagement — but we have to be careful it doesn’t freeze people out.

Digital parliaments: Adapting democratic institutions to 21st century realities

The coronavirus crisis should be a catalyst for institutionalising the use of digital tools in parliament, argues French MP Paula Forteza

Public discussions on Covid-19 lockdown in Scotland

Reflections from government on the challenges of digital engagement by Niamh Webster.

Please note that this is a moderated forum that is subject to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy of the OECD website. The views expressed and arguments employed herein are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OECD or its member countries. The Organisation cannot be held responsible for possible violations of copyright resulting from the posting of any written material on this website. Your comments to posts are valuable; please contribute in a civil and constructive way. OECD reserves the right to delete or edit any comments before they are published. The OECD Secretariat will not respond systematically to each contribution. Note that the views expressed can be personal views.