Journalist raises questions about Delina Fico's project: Are they privatizing the judicial system?

Journalist Klodian Tomorri has commented on the project funded by USAID through Delina Fico's institute, which is related to reducing the stock at the Supreme Court.

In a comment made on Facebook, Tomorri writes that it is unclear how the experts who helped the Supreme Court judges to "scrub" the remaining stock files were selected.

Tomorri questions whether this is being done with the aim of privatizing the judicial system.

POSTING:

I was looking at this project to reduce the backlog of files at the Supreme Court, funded by USAID through Delina Fico's East-West Institute.

What was the project?

They had hired a group of experts, mostly women, who helped the judges prepare the cases that were being tried. It is not very clear who did the selection and recruitment. Was it the institute or the court itself?

What they were doing specifically is still not very clear, but it is about administrative assistance.

I mean, they took the files from the drawers, sorted them out, and brought them to the judges' table to make decisions? Boo. Or they prepared the reports and wrote the decision for the judge.

Yes.

They had even made a promo for the institute to justify the project. "They have helped us a lot," said Sadushi, "they have made our work easier." The files have been there for years, but that's another story.

Now the question is, what status did these have in the Court? Legal advisor - it is said up and down. But what does this mean?

If these people have the attributes to guide the court's decisions, without having the appropriate training, it falls to them, like Inter's warehouseman, or the one who collects the balls behind the goal, to make the team's formation and transfer market.

Now Rubio and Trump have been accused of cutting off their taps. And it seems to me that they are making laws to employ them in the Court.

But the problem is this: Should the decision-making of the judiciary be influenced by private experts outside the system?

Which basically goes here. Is this privatization of the judiciary? These are interesting experiments.