| Summary: | Working with local researchers, World
Bank staff recently analyzed a random sample of cases filed
in the first instance courts of Argentina and Mexico. (First
instance or trial courts make the initial rulings on cases
based on both facts and law. Higher instance or appeals
courts are often restricted to questions of law and so may
not reconsider the facts of a case.) The Mexico study was
conducted in the Federal District, the largest of
Mexico's 32 local and state jurisdictions, and reviewed
464 debt collection cases brought under a special procedure
that provides for rapid dispute resolution. In Argentina a
stratified sample of criminal, civil, and labor cases was
drawn from trial courts in the national capital, Buenos
Aires (600 cases), and in the province of Santa Fe (450
cases). In both countries the identities of the parties, the
nature of the cases, the amounts at issue, the times to
disposition, and other data from the case files were coded
and analyzed. Aggregate statistics kept by the judiciary and
information from interviews and focus groups were used to
help interpret the case file findings. Both studies revealed
that when it comes to the operation of Latin American
justice systems, much of what experts "know" is
incorrect. Because this conventional wisdom often informs
judicial reform projects, it can encourage changes aimed at
solving nonexistent problems-while ignoring real ones.
|
|---|