This indicator measures the extent to which project activities/outputs contributed to strengthening the institutional guarantees that protect judicial independence. It assesses project-level contribution across four critical dimensions:

1. Merit-based and transparent judicial appointments. Examples of evidence include: introduction/improvement of merit-based, transparent selection procedures; clear eligibility criteria and public vacancy announcements; and reduced discretionary appointments

2. Security of tenure and legal protections for judges. Examples of evidence: strengthened legal protections for tenure and non-removal; alignment with international standards on term length and retirement; and reduced irregular transfers or reassignment

3. Fair, transparent, and effective disciplinary mechanisms. Examples of evidence include: transparent, fair, rules-based disciplinary procedures; publication of decisions with reasoning; and safeguards preventing misuse of discipline for exerting pressure

4. Adequate budget autonomy of the judiciary. Examples of evidence include: increased control of the judiciary over its budget; adoption of transparent budgeting processes; and adequate and stable judicial remuneration frameworks

The indicator evaluates the degree to which project-supported reforms, capacity-building, technical assistance, or tools lead to verifiable improvements in the legal framework, institutional practices, and governance mechanisms safeguarding independence.

MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY

Scoring framework: Use the same 1-5 scale for the four dimensions. All projects are assessed separately on independence, accountability, and effectiveness using the following contribution scale:

1 – None: No observable contribution; project activities/outputs had no relevance or effect.

2 – Minimal: Activities/outputs were relevant but produced only small, localized, or early-stage outputs with negligible system-level effect.

3 – Moderate: Clear outputs delivered and some evidence of contribution to institutional or procedural improvements; early signs of change.

4 – Substantial: Strong contribution with documented improvements in practices, processes, or institutional functioning; evidence suggests meaningful system-level changes.

5 – Transformative: Projects made a major, well-documented contribution to significant reforms, systemic improvements, or marked performance changes.

The PO/FO or external experts document evidence for each dimension and assign a score (1–5).

Project-level indicator score: Each project receives four sub-scores (appointments, security tenure, displicinary mechanisms, and budget autonomy).

Programme-level indicator score: After scoring all projects, calculate the programme-level score as the average of all project scores.

Programme score = Average of all project scores

The PO/FO is encouraged to provide a brief narrative justification for each score, referencing objective and verifiable evidence. This narrative should accompany the numeric scoring submitted to the FMO/Donors.