GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Judicial Reform in Latin America: An Assessment

Judicial Reform in Latin America: An Assessment

Library
Peter DeShazo, Juan Enrique Vargas
2006

Summary

How effective have judicial reform efforts in Latin America proven to be? This article, published in the Policy Papers on the Americas series by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, reviews the substantial number of recent projects aimed at strengthening judicial institutions. Although neither obvious nor easily measured, the decade-long reform push has led to progress in some countries, with Chile leading the way.

Despite some progress, however, the overall record is disappointing given the high expectations of many stakeholders. The new systems have functioned slowly, with little transparency, and without developing an independent decision-making voice – Venezuela has provided the most notable example of such failures.

Summarising a conference where six case studies were presented by legal experts from each country, this paper suggests new directions for judicial reform in Latin America. Covering Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Guatemala and Venezuela, the case studies indicate recent improvements in protecting human and civil rights, but little progress on personal security. Ongoing reform efforts can be substantially broadened and should include key stakeholders such as those served by the system, state actors outside the justice system, the media and civil society.

An overall assessment of the case studies, undertaken by an independent panel of experts, yielded a number of general conclusions:

  • Many in Latin America share a general disappointment with the sluggish progress of judicial reform, highlighting a need for better metrics and empirical evidence.
  • The state must play a central role in spurring and seeing through the judicial reform process, as in Chile, where the central government drove the initiative from the outset.
  • Changes in the judiciary cannot be easily separated from reform of the justice system as a whole. The people of Latin America would prefer to see criminal justice reform, as opposed to more technical judiciary reforms. Reductions in violent crime, punishment for offenders and honesty and efficiency are their top priorities.
  • The support of civil society and the media in the judicial reform process has not been effectively cultivated or utilised.

From these broad case study results, numerous recommendations emerge that are relevant to the ongoing judicial reform process in Latin America and in similar situations elsewhere:

  • Generate political support for long-term policies that will sustain and develop judicial reform, especially during political crises when judicial authority tends to weaken. The exchange of relevant experiences and information across borders can allow for benchmarking among judicial systems as a way of encouraging change.
  • Promote a unified reform process that transforms judicial institutions in an integrated manner. One technique is to conduct a comprehensive review of the justice sector. From this review, policymakers can then develop strategies for long, medium and short-term reform and prioritise their scare resources in the best way possible.
  • Enhance the efficiency of the judicial sector and increase transparency. Only with reliable and timely information on all aspects of the justice sector can officials plan, set benchmarks, analyse current policies and measure results. Improved public access to this knowledge, as part of a national information plan, will strengthen confidence in judicial reform.

Source

Deshazo, P. and Vargas, J., 2006, ‘Judicial Reform in Latin America: An Assessment’, Policy Papers on the Americas Volume XVII, Study 2, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington

Related Content

Donor Support for the Human Rights of LGBT+
Helpdesk Report
2021
Interventions to Address Discrimination against LGBTQi Persons
Helpdesk Report
2021
Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief
Helpdesk Report
2021
Gender, countering violent extremism and women, peace and security in Kenya
Helpdesk Report
2020

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".