Court Advisory Institution, June 2004

Major investigated questions: Respondents were asked about they participation in case investigation, opinion about the necessity of the advisory institution in the Lithuanian courts was investigated. Respondents were also asked to identify motives of the necessity and no need to establish the advisory institution: - motives of the necessity to establish the advisory institution: there'll be an opportunity for the society to participate in the justice enforcement; cases would be investigated more objectively, comprehensively, impartially, professionally; this would allow to decrease distrust in courts and protect human rights more efficiently; - motives of no need to establish the advisory institution: too costly establishment; representatives of society - advisors wouldn't have relevant legal background and would not be able to make professional decisions; Lithuania does not have the tradition of the advisory institution.

Also probed were respondents' opinion about the social status of persons to be elected as advisors. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, education, occupation, nationality, monthly income per family member, place of residence, region. The survey data were collected at the request of the Commission for the Implementation of the National Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Republic of Lithuania under the Human Rights Committee of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.