The ripple effect of judicial delays

Justice delayed is more than justice denied—along with eroding trust in the justice system, and weakening the social contract, it sets off a chain reaction that affects the mental health of all involved parties.  It is burden for victims, witnesses and defendants, and for society as a whole.

Mental health

Delays in the judicial process create a ripple effect with far-reaching consequences on the human psyche. A study reveals that defendants awaiting trial often exhibit psychosomatic symptoms as a consequence of the delay, including anxiety, feelings of helplessness and pessimism about the future.  In some parts of the world, such as in the Western Balkan region, those in pre-trial detention face harsh conditions such as limited accommodation space and harsher restrictions than in prison, amplifying this mental toll. The deterioration of their health is directly proportionate to the length of their exposure to legal proceedings, the study also finds. In these ways, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is undermined, as defendants endure years of public scrutiny, financial loss, and personal damage – long before any verdict.

In high-profile cases, biased media coverage worsens the situation, with images of handcuffed defendants fuelling social stigmatization. Such delays question the fairness of the justice system and create lasting emotional harm for all involved.

Hindering rehabilitation

The purpose of the judicial system is not only about punishment, but also rehabilitation. Prolonged delays can hinder the ability of defendants to mount an effective defence. Defendants, particularly those enduring lengthy pre-trial detention, are not only subject to legal jeopardy but also to deterioration in their private lives, such as loss of jobs/income, housing, and strained family relations. This can affect their capacity to fully participate in their defence, which raises concerns about the fairness and proportionality of their trial and their eventual reintegration as constructive members of society.

Eroding trust

A system that fails to uphold the presumption of innocence and disproportionately punishes individuals through delays weakens its foundational principles, such as fairness of proceedings and equality. These delays do not only impact individuals, they also erode public trust in the judiciary. When cases drag on, the public may lose faith in the system’s ability to deliver timely justice, fostering cynicism and undermining social cohesion. A justice system that should restore order instead becomes a source of disillusionment. Extended criminal procedures undoubtedly impact victims and defendants, but also indirectly compromise the public perception of the judiciary. After all, delayed justice is usually often regarded as no justice at all. And as the cases persist, the public may perceive the judiciary as incapable of or unwilling to deliver timely and fair outcomes, further eroding overall trust in institutions.  

Regional Trial Monitoring as a step towards justice

The findings of the OSCE Regional Trial Monitoring Project highlight that judicial inefficiencies are not isolated incidents, but are part of broader systemic issues across the Western Balkans.​ Data shows that case processing, particularly in serious and complex organized crime and corruption cases, runs on for years. Indeed, 23% out of a total of 320 cases monitored in the region took five years or more to resolve. Common causes of delays include defendant or defence counsel absences (which is particularly problematic in multi-defendant cases, where delays caused by one defendant adversely impacts the procedure for all), frequent unproductive hearings, rescheduling of hearings, and judgments delivered beyond the legal timeframe.

Key reforms to address judicial inefficiencies, as discussed in detail in the project's most recent public report, include improving case management systems and oversight of practices, increasing judicial resources, and prioritizing backlogged cases. Criteria for prioritization include focusing on longest-pending cases, cases with defendants in custody, and those involving vulnerable groups. Trial monitoring helps identify inefficiencies and advocate for solutions that protect defendants’ rights while restoring trust in the system. What is measured can be managed.

Together, we can push for a justice system that not only delivers efficiently and effectively, but also safeguards the rights of those awaiting their day in court.