To which extent have the reforms of the judicial system in Russia been Essay

To which extent have the reforms of the judicial system in Russia been successful - Essay Example The sovereignty and self-government of the Russian Federation and the initiation of judicial reforms was announced. On the orders of President Boris Yeltsin, in 1991, the highest ranking body in the Russian nation, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, accepted the idea of reform for the Russia’s judicial system. The Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation in 1993 ratified the Law on Jury Trial despite the resistance that was staged by the Prosecutor General. All major court cases that the local courts came under the jurisdiction of the jury trials. This system of jury trial was realised in 9 areas of the Soviet Russia. Since then, the practice of jury trials has become normality. In the year 2000 alone, judges in Russia had tried about 900,000 legal cases, with 1,300,000 defendants, and 450,000 appeals. This number pales in comparison with the numbers of court cases that the judges before the introduction of jury trials were forced to cope with. Though even after the reforms of the nineties many Soviet residents were forced to deal with lengthy procedures in order to get justice, it was a considerable improvement from the days when residents could not possibly hope for their cases to be tried due to the backlog of cases in the court. In 1996, further reforms were summarily stopped. This was because the Russian authorities realised that the reforms were not affecting the most critical of institutions. For example, law enforcement establishments, and institutions such as the public prosecutors and the militia were not inspired to implement change. Russian society had long accepted the reality that the only way through which people could be coerced to tell the truth in some circumstances was through the use of torture. This was an accepted practice that even had supporters among the members of the Russian public. Another reason why the reforms of the early nineties period were not far reaching is because there were not enough finances to implement the reforms in all areas. For example, Russian judges were given measly salaries that left them open to being bribed. In Russia, the highest courts have their requirements provided by the President's Administration. For this reason, there are many verdicts of the Russian Federation’s Supreme Court which are divergent (Hoffman 2011). Though often democratic in theory, the decisions of the Constitutional Court can actually end up intensifying the real situation. Following the verdict of the Constitutional Court, the legal right of defendants to come before the jury began to be viewed as a provision that was specially authorised by the president’s administration. However, this remained something that could only be practiced in the highest court. Other lower level courts continued the practice of accepting money as well as gifts from the regional governors. This is outlawed by the Russian Constitution; nevertheless the courts had no choice but to take bribes. If they refu sed to accept such gifts, they would be forced to stop all operations because of outstanding bills, and the lack of amenities such as chairs, and paper. Even the buildings in which court cases were tried were decrepit and in serious need of repairs. The regional courts situated in Saint-Petersburg and Moscow were some of those involved in the most cases of bribery. Therefore, the mayor of Moscow tended to win in all