United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

The Egyptian judicial system is based on European, primarily French, legal concepts and methods. The Egyptian Judicial Organization comprises the following main bodies:

• Judicial main Authorities:
 Constitutional Judiciary represented by the Supreme Constitutional Court
 Administrative Judiciary represented by the State Council
 Criminal & Civil Judiciary (District Courts, First Instance Courts, Appeal Courts, Cassation Courts)
 General Prosecution Authorities
 Administrative Prosecution Authorities

• Supporting Authorities:
 Experts Authority
 Forensic Medicine Authority
 Publicity & Notarization Authority

In spite of the great efforts exerted by the Egyptian Government for developing public services, there still exist many difficulties facing the judicial procedures and services.

The judicial system main problems and obstacles can be summarized up as follows:
• Lengthy and complex procedures (some cases can take years to reach a judgment/verdict)
• Ambiguous (as perceived by the public), ineffective and inefficient procedures
• Lack of monitoring and control of internal processes
• Low - quality service delivery to beneficiary community
• Need to process an ever growing large number of cases, large size of backlog (dating back to 20 years in some cases)
• Difficulty to follow up the execution of rulings
• Inappropriate allocation of human and physical resources

Following are some statistics, carried out by the Judicial Information center (JIC), highlighting the situation of the judicial system before introducing the initiative:
• Total number of yearly registered cases for all courts reaches 1.2 million cases (800 thousand at first instance courts, 300 thousand at appeal courts, 100 thousand at cassation courts)
• Total number of cases to be handled yearly for all courts is about 15 millions, as a result of the backlog large volume. The backlog was continuously growing due to the shortage in ruling capacity which does not exceed 800 thousand cases
• Capacity of collected claims resulting from fines and contraventions is about 20% of overall claims
• Number of cases at the Experts Authority continuously increasing
The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of State for Administrative Development (MSAD) recognized the need for an initiative for the development of judicial systems in collaboration and with the support of all concerned stakeholders. The initiative’s strategic objectives are, in brief, to reach an efficient and powerful judicial system and relieve the public dealing with the courts systems from all obstacles and complicated procedures. This, of course, has to be boosted by a powerful ruling execution capacity.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
The initiative objectives can be summarized as follows: increasing efficiency and effectiveness of judicial systems at all levels by revising and streamlining all procedures while securing monitoring and control tools; offering quality services through multiple delivery channels to all stakeholders including citizens; enforcing legislations by increasing the rulings execution capacity; and linking the judicial cases database to rulings execution authorities. Reengineering and streamlining judicial services’ processes were key achievements that led to a considerable time reduction in service delivery: as an example, time elapsed to initiate a case in first instance court has been reduced from 3 days to 13 minutes. Automation of judicial main authorities together with their internal supporting departments (such as archiving, financial, summons services, transcripts issuance …etc) was performed; in addition to external supporting authorities (experts, forensic medicine and publicity and notarization). Case management systems were developed for different categories and levels of courts (over 10 different systems) covering the registration of the case lifecycle starting from its initiation down to the final ruling. Systems were integrated with electronic archiving for related documents. These systems were deployed, since initiative started in 2008, in 38 different courts and their satellites, and 23 family prosecution offices (total target is 42 courts – 59 satellite courts – 113 family prosecution offices and supporting authorities). The impact of the automation is being clearly perceived by all beneficiaries of the service, at both front and back ends. On the front end, quality and accessibility of service has greatly improved. New service delivery channels have been introduced. Various court services can be accessed online through www.egypt.gov.eg , Egypt’s Government Services portal. Some mobile-services are available on the national WAP portal. Services are also provided through over 500 kiosks available at rural areas. Privacy and security of information access are ensured through the use of PIN codes, generated by the system, for both plaintiff and defendant. Although uptake of online services wasn’t as high as expected (250,000 requests/year), due to a relatively low internet and PC penetration rates, those who have used them were the most impressed. Through 92 online transactional services, they were able to enquire about case status and pending issues, acquire e-documents and request transcripts for rulings or various certificates/documents. Such documents were usually delivered at the court within 15 days of application. Now, using the Egyptian Post for shipping and the innovative payment model of cash-on-delivery or the online payment, requested document is delivered within 72 hours to the address specified by the beneficiary. Another key achievement to mention is promoting transparency through availing one-stop-shops at courts to separate between the service acquirer (citizens, businesses and foreign investors) and the service provider (civil servant). Replacing manual systems by automated ones leaves very little space for illegally fixing a court date or tampering with case documents. On the back end, for the first time in the last 50 years, there were no accumulated cases for the judicial year 2008-2009. Moreover, some of the backlog was even settled within the same year.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
Initiative was introduced by the Ministry of State for Administrative Development (MSAD), as the government entity responsible for the implementation of e-Government program in Egypt, since late 2004. Internal processes and services within the judicial procedures development are owned by their respective entities. That includes all different levels of courts involved, as well as supporting authorities (experts, forensic medicine and publicity and notarization), in addition to the Prosecution Authorities. All these entities are overseen by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). However, the courts and prosecution authorities do not report to the Minister of Justice: prosecution authorities report to the Attorney General, while Courts report to the Supreme Justice Council. The implementation of the initiative was carried out through a cooperation protocol between the MOJ (as the Ministry overseeing judicial public services and support authorities) and MSAD (as the Ministry responsible for e-Government). A special high-level committee formed of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of State for Administrative Development, and their deputies and other relevant personnel, was set up to follow-up the implementation of the project. MSAD plays a crucial role as the solution architect, and the main coordinator between the different stakeholders involved; In addition, MSAD acts as the Technical Project Manager through its multinational partners and their local private-sector partners, as being the expertise responsible for the development and implementation of the automated systems. The Judicial Information Center (JIC) represents the main data center for the Judicial Procedures Development initiative. It is the central hub which hosts all the related information from the courts and other relevant bodies with the exception of data related to supporting authorities that do not offer public services (such as the Experts Authority and Forensic Medicine Authority). These authorities host their own applications and databases.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The most important strategy followed was to align all relevant stakeholders to achieve the unified vision, and relevant objectives. A high-level committee was formed of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of State for Administrative Development, their deputies and other relevant personnel for continuous support and follow-up for the initiative’s implementation. The Judicial Procedures Development Initiative’s main vision can be elaborated as follows: an efficient and powerful judicial system, relieving the public dealing with the courts systems from all hindrances and complicated procedures, and offering them state-of-the art services; increasing the case handling capacity at all courts levels and clearing all queues and backlogs; as well as enhancement of the rulings execution capacity by the introduction of appropriate mechanisms and simple procedures. Among the most important strategies was the adoption of business process reengineering as a tool for simplifying courts processes. These processes represent services to attorneys, citizens and other plaintiffs, defendants and their representatives. Processes were scrutinized by administrative burden reduction experts, and unnecessary steps were removed and/or optimized. Several other strategies were followed in the implementation of the project. Among them was securing top management’s support at all relevant bodies, ensuring smooth and timely implementation of the project. Another main strategy followed was capacity building of civil servants, as being the users for the new IT applications. Most of them were computer-illiterates at the beginning of the project. Continuous training turned them to positive elements and promoted their sense of ownership. Outsourcing and utilizing the expertise of multinational and private-sector ICT and institutional development partners was yet another cornerstone strategy. The IT part of the project was carried out through a rebate agreement between the government and multinational partners to finance the development and consulting services activities as a percentage of the cost of software licenses purchased. These strategies have been established through: compilation and documentation of all judicial procedures; co-ordination between all participating entities; implementation of state-of-the art automated procedures through the adoption of information and communication technologies (workflow, electronic archiving, computerized hearings); linking the judicial procedures and rulings to the citizen’ national ID number; provision of service-offering bureaus and outlets; human resources development through continuous training; development of the work environment; outsourcing most activities to specialized firms.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
MSAD approached the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with an offer to introduce ICT to their processes and services, including supporting authorities, to achieve much needed prompt and speedy justice. Both the MOJ and the SJC welcomed the initiative. A cooperation framework was signed in February 2008. This cooperation created a high-level committee formed of both Ministers and other relevant members, to run the implementation. Scope of work was clearly defined covering all types and levels of courts, prosecution offices, supporting authorities and other relevant bodies. System automation scope was set to include a case management system and an internal workflow automation system, to integrate all relevant judicial/supporting bodies and to establish a link to the National ID Database for accurate personal information for both plaintiffs and defendants. Availing services through new channels like the Internet (www.egypt.gov.eg) and setting up service provision outlets (one- stop shop) within courts instead of in-office services was also considered. In order to implement the initiative, the scope of work had to be carried out through two parallel tracks. The first track aimed at: • Developing judicial procedures in courts and general prosecution authority • Developing systems and procedures in supporting authorities and departments within the MOJ • Enforcing control, transparency and accessibility procedures and systems • Developing new channels for judicial services • Rolling out and deploying new systems • Creating the national judicial case database • Developing highly qualified human resources capable of managing the new system • Improving the work environment. The second track aimed at: • Enforcing ruling execution procedures • Securing the link of all executive bodies within the country to the national judicial case database The first step of implementation was through institutional development experts who went on to analyze business processes at all judicial bodies and then introduced necessary and appropriate enhancements ahead of information systems deployment. Different methodologies were followed including shadowing and mystery shopping. Institutional development experts delivered their reports, and their recommendations were implemented. In parallel, extensive training courses started for civil servants in different judicial authorities. MSAD’s strategic technology multinational partners, as part of the rebate agreement between them and the Egyptian Government, were brought in to select and oversee local development partners, as well as to finance the development activities. Next, these development partners came in and developed their respective components of the required systems. The Judicial Information Center (JIC) JIC was appointed as the central hub for all judicial applications, including the Judicial Case Database, integrating with courts, prosecutions offices and supporting authorities. The project is currently completed in 38 different courts (of different types and levels) and their satellites, and 23 family prosecution offices as well as in some of the supporting authorities. The total target, planned to be covered by mid 2012, is 42 courts, 59 satellite courts, 113 family prosecution offices and supporting authorities.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
The project faced several obstacles that challenged its success. Most importantly, were the cultural ones represented in the digital divide, computer illiteracy and resistance of civil servants to change, who felt threatened by such development. Some even thought they were going to be replaced by younger, computer-literate civil servants. This was overcome by developing and providing extensive IT training courses, over a relatively long period of time (up to 2 months). On the other hand, those civil servants were engaged in requirements’ gathering and design phases of the case management systems in order to promote their sense of ownership and belonging. At the end of the implementation they were the most keen to make it a success. Another strategic challenge was the lack of IT qualified and skilled personnel, within judicial offices structures, to maintain information systems. Top management support was sought to secure budget for hiring qualified personnel and/or creating service contracts with private sector partners to provide periodic updates and maintenance for the systems. From a technical perspective, interoperability and multiple service delivery channels represented another challenge, as the information systems were to be integrated with other authorities. This was overcome by making use of our technical consultants for the project, in setting interoperability and multi-model standards for the local development partners, in order to ensure smooth future operation. From infrastructure perspective, unreliable electricity and internet connections at some remote judicial offices and weak infrastructure at remote areas were unforeseen obstacles. Again strong high-level government support came in action to develop infrastructure at those locations. Yet another challenge was the huge size of backlog that needed to be entered into the new information systems. Old records were paper-based, which meant millions of records needed to be entered manually. This was previously faced in many government’s projects and was overcome by setting up a data entry unit for such cases. All backlogs were entered by making use of this unit in addition to the trained civil servants. Unsuitable work environment was a further hindrance to the implementation of the project, which was addressed by setting aside part of the budget for work place development. Finally, the large number of stakeholders involved in the project in addition to the IT partners, was another challenge. Aligning vision had to be ensured, as well as building a sense of ownership within all relevant stakeholders. Extra effort was put into strengthening co-ordination, improving collaboration, as well as providing leadership at many levels. A special high-level committee was formed to ensure commitment and follow-up of all initiative‘s activities.

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
It is expected that with such a huge project the resources utilized are numerous. From the Human Resources perspective, MSAD led the project with a senior project manager, reporting to the high-level committee formed of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of State for Administrative Development, their deputies and other relevant personnel to follow-up the initiative’s implementation. Respective contact persons were identified within all participating judicial authorities. Those were all in direct contact with the appointed project managers from MSAD. From the technical perspective, Institutional development experts were brought to review and reengineer the internal processes and public services offered by judicial entities. The main technological consultancy was provided through MSAD’s multinational partners, who brought in their local private-sector development partners, through the strategic rebate agreement between them and the Egyptian Government. On top of that, The Ministry of Justice offered the services of its Judicial Information Center’s ICT team. The financial resources were mobilized in two phases. The first phase total cost was around 35 million Egyptian Pounds (around US$6.5M). This covered the costs for all hardware (servers, PCs’, etc..), software licenses (which in turn cover development costs, as per agreement with partners), communication lines, training and human resources development, workplace development, in addition to project management costs. It covered also developing all modules for the case management systems, as well as deploying at least one of each type of courts, or other relevant bodies. The second phase, which is currently running, covers the deployment/roll-out of case management and other information systems at all remaining judicial entities. Its cost is estimated at 100 million Egyptian Pounds (around US$18 million).

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
Initiative sustainability has always been an issue for all previous e-Government projects. It was an issue that was in mind during the planning phase of the project, which led to developing a master plan covering implementation; roll out, financial requirements and sustainability. The project not only reduced public service overall costs for the beneficiaries, it also increased the efficiency within the relevant authorities. Such achievement resulted in more revenues for the service providers. For the purpose of sustainability, an amount of that extra revenue was allocated for the constant upgrade and development of the information systems, as well as the development of the human resources overseeing it. ICT development programs were put in place so that information systems teams would be always up to date with the latest technologies, and able to maintain the applications as well as provide support for systems’ users. Those costs also covered communication line costs. A specialized training unit was set up within the Judicial Information Center (JIC) to provide training for new systems users, as well as further the use of ICT within the judicial authorities. The JIC is also responsible for maintaining the central national judicial database, linking all judicial entities in Egypt together, which is hosted at the JIC’s data center. In addition the JIC is mandated with setting up and overseeing institutional measures (structures and processes) to maintain information systems within the judicial system. Further measures were taken to ensure the sustainability of the national judicial database and other judicial systems, by the setup of a geographically remote disaster recovery site, synchronizing daily with the main site. The system is based on a workflow architecture that does not hardcode any processes within the system. Also, it has been built around the Egyptian laws related to cases management which was the basis for most legislation in many Arab countries. The implementing partner is currently negotiating the deployment of the developed systems in a neighboring Arab country.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The main impact of the Judicial Procedures Development initiative is the improvement of the internal case management within the judicial system and the enhancement of judicial public services delivery. This was obvious in the feedback received from beneficiaries that used new services at service outlets, as well as users of the online services, and also from surveys conducted to measure beneficiary satisfaction with the new services. The case management system, deployed at the courts and supporting authorities, along with the business process reengineering has led to cost savings, and higher efficiency, as well as expediting case handling processes leading to speedy justice. The judicial system hence did not accumulate any backlog from the judicial year 2008/2009 and even tackled some of the accumulated backlog from the past years. The initiative resulted in introducing new service delivery channels (internet, WAP, public service kiosks, etc…); re-engineering the judicial public services’ business processes; improving the level of judicial services and decreasing the service delivery times. The initiative provided several benefits such as : standardization and consequently lower maintenance by unifying the solution for more sectors/services (one system instead of multiple systems); provision of easier, greater and more accurate reporting capabilities utilizing one database while reducing error; increasing efficiency, credibility and accessibility for beneficiaries to their own records. This initiative also provided a good example of cooperation between the public and private sectors for better serving the citizens and reducing the government expenses which can be used in other sectors. The Judicial Procedures Development initiative is the result of the fruitful co-operation between numerous government organizations, as well as those from the private sector. This promotes cooperative and integrated work among them or groups of them in the future. In addition, utilizing several different local development partners within the project contributes to the capacity building of the ICT industry as a development goal. Many of the courts developed applied for the national awards for public services; 3 of them were short-listed in 2009 and one of them actually won an award for distinctive delivery of over-the-counter services. Lessons learned include: the need to align all stakeholders along the same vision; building a sense of ownership within relevant stakeholders is a top priority; a modular approach to roll out such a huge project is best versus going for a big bang approach; responsibilities should be clearly defined and assigned; beneficiary convenience should always be the target when developing a service; centralization of ICT applications can save costs while service delivery should be decentralized.


Institution Name:		Ministry of Justice
Institution Type:		Government Department
Contact Person:		Ahmad Hany
Title:		Head of Judicial Information
Telephone/ Fax:
Institution's / Project's Website:
E-mail:		melalfy@ad.gov.eg
Address:
Postal Code:
City:
State/Province:
Country:		Egypt

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information