JUST JUSTICE - SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING JUDICIAL SYSTEMS Innovation in the Certification of Judicial Centers, Courts and Prosecutor Entities in terms of their Operation and Administration in conformity with International Standards This disclosure relates generally to systems, models, methodologies and methods of the Just Justice system (JJS) for evaluating, rating, and certifying centers of justice, including courts, legal systems, tribunals, prosecutor entities and any other bodies that exercise judicial power (in this document together referred to as 'judicial systems'). Judicial systems are exceptionally diverse between jurisdictions throughout the world. Such judicial systems may be embodied, for instance, in various letters, statutes, codes, treaties, guidelines, documents, guides, manuals, practices, precepts, protocols, recommendations, rules, reports, and resolutions between and amongst hundreds of government entities, both formal and informal, recognized and unrecognized. Lacking, however, is an unbiased and impartial, methodologically rigorous, independent body to evaluate and certify judicial systems. This innovative solution recognizes the experience of multiple forums and programs, and the participation of experts and specialists that have formulated letters, codes, decalogues, guidelines, documents on good practices, guides, manuals, statutes, precepts, protocols, recommendations, rules, reports, and resolutions across the globe, which include but are not limited to best practices in the field of justice. Its outstanding level of innovation is based on the following: Independence of the evaluation: The certification program is operated and executed by third parties who adjust the terminology and apply the model, methodology and method of the JJS independent of the jurisdiction that the judicial system to be certified belongs to, rather than an evaluation based on the self-assessment currently used by most forums and regional programs. Consideration of the jurisdiction : The jurisdiction is seen as a base element that interacts with different government powers,, specifically with the users of the judicial system, being the focus point of the JJS. Working with independent institutions: The operational implementation and deployment of the certification is supported by an independent theoretical framework with methodological criteria and empirical data for the application of the international standards to be considered in order to obtain a certificate of compliance. Universality: The JJS model integrates previously established standards and knowledge of international forums and programs in order to implement them as internationally recognized experience. Standards, metrics, indicators and evidence: In each standard, the JJS incorporates metrics, indicators and factual evidences, in order to certify judicial systems in a quantitative and qualitative manner. Incorporation of evidence in compliance with the standard: The JJS methodology gathers different information that demonstrates compliance or the occurrence of best practices in the Administration of Justice by providing additional features such as analytical investigation, official documents, photographs and inspection reports. Mathematical determination of a Certification Level: For each jurisdiction, the Level of Certification, as well as its commitment to maintain or improve it, is determined using a mathematical expression which defines the percentage of compliance of recognized international standards. Simultaneous control of the Certification Processes: The Certification Processes are controlled and monitored by tracking each relevant activity within the implementation, in real-time, with independence of the judicial system or jurisdiction. Systematization of the step-by-step process: The JJS organizes the actions in the previous, during, and after stages of the Certification Process. The objective of the follow-up is to systematize the processes and activities within the Certification Process among various jurisdictions. This system will structure the information of any process by: activities, milestones, issues, risks and components of the task; notifying the person responsible of the situation of the aforementioned elements. These notifications will be channeled through different electronic mediums in real-time. The system also measures and evaluates the performance of each component in the Certification Process, allowing the project manager of the certification to understand which phase of the certification presents a problem. It will simultaneously perform quality assessments of the Certification Process and its performance in all the different jurisdictions in progress. Embodiments of a system or methodology may be acknowledged as international best practices. Judicial best practices can be attained utilizing the experience of judicial systems and elements agreed upon by prestigious international forums, as well as experts and experienced officers of judicial authority. Systems disclosed herein may operate to establish an unbiased and impartial, methodologically rigorous, independent body to evaluate and certify judicial systems from a global, best-practices perspective, using a mathematical formulation, to track and encourage the jurisdiction's achievement, maintenance and improvement of its adherence to international best practices. Furthermore, embodiments herein may allow real-time monitoring and control of the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal. Judicial systems, as those terms used herein, may refer to any body or a part of a body that exercises judicial power, including courts, legal systems, tribunals, prosecutor entities and other similar. JUST JUSTICE SYSTEM The Just Justice System (JJS) is a solution that includes a set of components and elements to innovate in judicial administration, based on International Standards to assess their performance and operation with regard to the Rule of Law. JJS is based on plans, programs, projects, information technology and communication tools to carry out the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal of judicial systems in a dynamic, comprehensive and unlimited manner. The JJS model intends to improve access, independence, efficiency and transparency of judicial systems, increase the level of trust from the user and citizen regarding the Administration of Justice, improve the competitiveness and the viability of investments in each country, state or region and seek the Rule of Law, by institutionalizing a solution to research, update, incorporate, promote, implement, maintain, monitor and follow-up on the best practices in the field of Administration of Justice. Courts can offer an important participation in the establishment of a strong government. The main components, participants and members of the JJS are individuals and legal entities with a high level of experience and expertise on best practices in the Administration of Justice, strategic planning, systematization and automation of processes and activities, science, disciplines and subjects that deal directly or indirectly with the procurement of a better Rule of Law. An essential part of the JJS model are those specialized institutes, academies, research centers, law firms, offices, companies, international cooperation organizations, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) specialized in certification, civil society organizations, states (country, state, region, canton), jurisdictions, courts, legal systems, tribunals, prosecutor entities and the individual as an essential purpose of the Administration of Justice. MODEL The model integrates and interrelates a set of elements, components, processes and actors involved in the JJS. It incorporates a methodology and a method to certify judicial systems with independence and objectivity, based on empirical and epistemological information, conducting analysis and research with methodological rigor within a theoretical framework avoiding self-evaluations, findings and assumptions directly or indirectly involved in the Administration of Justice in any Jurisdiction. The Certification Process incorporated in this model allows for its implementation in any judicial system of any jurisdiction in the world, because it incorporates and reinforces the use of regional methodologies and provides evidence on the results that can be used to position the operation or performance in the Administration of Justice of any judicial system. The model also favors the control, monitoring and management of the Certification Process in real-time milestones, events, or stages, with the use of advanced technologies and platforms, while also considering the use of traditional media. The JJS controls and monitors the implementation of the model, methodology, and method of each and every component of the Certification Process in parallel, systematically integrating a white paper as documentary evidence of compliance with the Certification Process tasks, honoring transparency in itself. The actors in the model are the following: Copromoter-Operator: Works in conjunction in the preparation and presentation of the JJS to the jurisdiction. They collect and process all the information of each judicial system in order to diagnose them. PR Agency: Designs the strategic communication and media plan for the JJS in the different stages of the Certification Process. Follow-up: Performs real-time monitoring and reporting of the state of the situation of the main processes in all jurisdictions. Trust: Allocates the resources on behalf of the jurisdiction and specifies the obligations for the participants in the Certification Process. Liaisons: Takes the lead in the relationship between the jurisdiction and the actors of the JJS that allows obtaining the decision and application of the resources. Rating Agencies: Recognizes and assigns value to the certification of the JJS and applies a quantitative value through objective and balanced opinions, research and data that affects the competitive level of a country and the attractiveness of foreign investment. Cooperating Agencies: Promotes and sponsors the JJS in different countries, states and regions with the purpose to achieve a better Rule of Law. NGO's: Participates, sponsors and promotes the JJS to improve the Administration of Justice. Certification Agencies: Builds on the JJS to provide a guarantee that the jurisdiction applied the certification methodology according to the JJS guidelines. Quality Assurance: Assures the quality of the Certification Processes, Improvement Programs and Certification Renewals by systematically reviewing them based on the JJS guidelines. Citizens and Users: Individuals who have direct contact with the judicial systems and the population corresponding to each jurisdiction. METHODOLOGY The methodology is the sum of metrics, evidences, algorithms, formulas, factors, equivalences and elements that permits obtaining an accurate measurement of a judicial system with the compliance of the applicable international standards. The JJS methodology has five (5) major branches: Universe of Standards, Certification Process, Algorithm, Positioning of a Jurisdiction, and Jurisdictional Assessment. Universe of Standards: The Universe of Standards is gathered and carefully selected from existing standards, parameters and indicators of several international bodies and organizations aimed at the improvement of the Administration of Justice, including among others: Forums and their specific self assessment measurement systems: International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Ibero-American Judicial Summit (CJI) Statute of the Ibero-American Judge Regulations regarding access to justice for persons on condition of vulnerability (known as "Rules of Brasilia") Bill of Rights of Persons before the Ibero-American judicial justice field Minimum Rules for legal security in the lberoamerican field Ibero-American Code of judicial ethics Principles, Rules and Best Practices on the relation between the judicial authorities and the media Ibero-American Decalogue for quality justice Ibero-American Charter of Victims Rights Programs by the National Center for State Courts (USA): Global Measures of Court Performance CourTools Standards Metering Systems: Those created in the Jurisdiction, now applied by the JJS to reveal its competitive index: CourTools, and related programs: Global Measures of Court Performance (International version of CourTools) International Framework for Court Excellence (wider version of Global Measures) Independent self-Assessment per Country or State (Custommade) Ibero-American Judicial Summit (Results and Products) European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), by the Council of Europe, through the Evaluation Report on European Judicial Systems, which gathers data, statistics and a few surveys but doesn´t apply an evaluation. Those created by the indicators of the level of competitiveness to reveal what they conceive as Rule of Law or Judiciary Performance , now guided by the JJS for a more objective and useful measurement in the Administration of Justice for Users and Rating Agencies. European Union Justice Scoreboard, by the European Commission, focused on practical functioning, financial aspects and rights of Court users. It is a compilation of information from the World Bank, CEPEJ and the World Justice Project. World Economic Forum, since 1979, through the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) in 144 countries. Evaluates the Rule of Law as one of the main pillars, focusing on administrative aspects with a business oriented perspective. World Justice Project, since 2006, through the Rule Of Law Index in 98 countries. World Bank, since 1996, through the Worldwide Governance Indicators in 215 Countries. One out of six aspects measured is Rule of Law, understood as compromise contract enforcement, police, judiciary, absence of crime and violence. Data is gathered by surveys to NGOs, institutes and private companies. The methodology of the Universe of Standards was developed based on the abovementioned forums, programs and standards metering systems. It offers innovative and precise dimensions by integrating: Categories, sub-categories, topics, sub-topics and concepts from 1 to n, correlating with the 487 universal International Standards; Indicators from 1 to n that are correlated with the categories, sub-categories, topics, sub-topics and concepts; Evidences from 1 to n such as citations, codes, data, documents, files, guidelines, inspections, investigations, laws, plans, policies, procedures, programs, protocols, questionnaires, records, regulations, reports, reviews, statements, statutes, studies, surveys, and as well as similar or related evidence which confirms the occurrence or non-occurrence of compliance of any indicator. There are four (4) main categories, correlating with standards, indicators and evidences that, taken together, allow to carry out a multi-dimensional, quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the condition or the situation in which the Administration of Justice in any judicial system is found. The disclosed concepts respect the existing measurement systems that currently exist to every precept of individualized systems, which have been agreed and accepted by all members of certain communities like IFCE, CourTools, Global Measures, and those countries that are members of the European Parliament, which have accepted CEPEJ methodology, leaving the precepts of the Ibero-American Summit of Presidents of Supreme Courts aside, and incorporating a theoretical framework that also complies with the Judicial community members and users of that specific justice system (CJI). The four (4) main categories of the Universe of Standards are: Access: Access to Justice encompasses all indicators that provide information regarding how effective and easily anyone may become part in a trial. Independence: Independence standards measure the objectivity, impartiality, trustworthiness and independence of those appointed to adjudicate cases. Efficiency & Effectiveness: Efficiency & Effectiveness indicators provide information regarding if a decision has been reached, hence the judicial system is efficacious and whether the outcome of a trial is reached in an efficient manner. Transparency: Transparency and Data Personal Protection measures indicate whether society acts as a witness of fairness and objective execution provided by judicial authority. These four categories may be applied regardless of which legal tradition a particular jurisdiction belongs to. They have been selected due to the fact that they enable the founding basis for objective evaluation considering both empirical and normative data of any given judicial system around the world, no matter its level, scope or specialty. The evidence of the standards included in the Universe of Standards has to be analyzed carefully, in order to judge if the judicial system is complying with the indicator(s). The evaluation of the judicial system in terms of the Administration of Justice, is determined by: The perception and index of inhibition of the citizen regarding the Judiciary. The perceptions and indicators of users of a judicial system: User: Any person who could use the judicial system. The Judiciary as part of the Government of the People, was created to the serve citizens and foreigners, actual and potential users exist, but both appreciations are important for the perception of the Rule of Law that prevails in the jurisdiction. Rating: It's a dictum that focuses on the results of the evaluation that will be submitted to the judicial system and the Certification Level obtained based on an algorithm contained in this document that grants the corresponding certification. Perception of the general population of the jurisdictions, on the way justice is administered therein. Qualitative and quantitative techniques are employed in the analysis of the above. Displays an overview of categories, sub-categories and the amount of standards, indicators and type of evidence to be analyzed: Universe of Standards - Overview of categories, sub-categories and the amount of standards, indicators and type of evidence to be analyzed The complete Universe of Standards can be found in Appendix 1 Certification Process: The Certification Process integrates a set of steps, stages, actions and activities to demonstrate the compliance, or incompliance, with International Standards. The certification process may be evaluated, assessed and accredited by NGO´s, individuals or other entities that provide a suitably prestigious and methodologically rigorous evaluation criteria. The disclosed concepts contemplate that the JJS could grant three (3) different levels of certification criteria, which will be awarded based on the assessment and qualification resulting from the application of the mathematical expression (algorithm) to the results. The algorithm considers the differences between jurisdictions and adjusts, as it determines the applicable standards to a particular jurisdiction. The different Certification Levels are the following: Certification Level A: The maximum level at which a judicial system can be certified. The granted Certification Level A may carry the plus(+) or minus(-) sign depending on the grade of compliance and/or complexity which is determined by the Just Justice System. Certification Level A has the following logo: Certification Level A Certification Level B: The intermediate level at which a judicial system can be certified. The granted Certification Level B may carry the plus(+) or minus(-) sign depending on the grade of compliance and/or complexity which is determined by the Just Justice System. Certification Level B has the following logo: Certification Level C: The minimum level at which a judicial system can be certified. The granted Certification Level C may carry the plus(+) or minus(-) sign depending on the grade of compliance and/or complexity which is determined by the Just Justice System. Certification Level C has the following logo: The general goal of the certification process is to integrate a set of steps, stages, actions and activities to demonstrate the occurrence of the application of the best practices in the international field of Administration of Justice, and to evaluate the appropriate certification based on an algorithm. Algorithm: The algorithm for the evaluation of countries, states or regions establishes the relationship between the Certification Levels developed in accordance with Rating Agencies. It defines the degree of compliance of a judicial system with the Universe of Standards. The mathematical calculation of the levels of certification of a justice system may be evaluated as discussed below. The relationship between the elements of the model involves the development of manuals, guidelines, contracts, and agreements, among others, developed harmoniously for the best performance of the model as a whole. The following shall apply to ensure proper implementation of the model for the certification of a judicial system: Optional Positioning of a Jurisdiction: The certification status criteria of a jurisdiction are based on one of the following four (4) situations: If the jurisdiction has a certification plan agreement; If the jurisdiction has certified 50% of its entities at any level and there is the compromise to certify the other entities. If the jurisdiction has certified 95% of its entities at any level and there is the compromise to certify the other entities and improve the level of certification of entities certified on Level B or C. If the jurisdiction has Improvement Programs to upgrade the Levels B and C to Level A in 95% of its entities. Jurisdiction Assessment: Literature studies, bibliographical essays, in-depth interviews, focus groups of representatives of certain segments of the jurisdiction, surveys and assessments of judges and the administrative personnel of judicial systems are realized in order to establish hypotheses and evaluate the state of the jurisdiction and the effects it has in the community. The jurisdiction assessment will be the base for determining the certification plan of the jurisdiction. METHOD The method of the disclosed concept describes the stages and activities undertaken in the certification process, via a set of integrated activities carried out in three stages and 20 tasks, supported by a follow-up system, that are set forth below. Pre-Certification The first stage is the Pre-Certification, and includes the following six (6) tasks: Liaison, Preliminary Agreement, Jurisdiction Assessment, Certification Plan, Budget and Resources and Commitment. At this stage the tasks may be assigned by the JJS to third parties as liaisons or copromoters-operators within the jurisdiction to be certified. Those third parties are set to obtain a preliminary legal understanding, which leads to a certification plan, budget, jurisdiction assessment and commitment of the parties involved. Liaison. The JJS through its intelligence agent on the jurisdiction by demarcation, amount or matter, that will be carried out in the country, state, region, county, province, municipality, town and village with the corresponding liaison with the authorities of the judiciary, the executive branch and any other one that needs to intervene to ensure the adoption of the best practices and/or international agreements for the Administration of Justice in the jurisdiction. Preliminary Agreement. Once the initial liaison with local authorities has been done, the JJS's agents may formalize such agreements with a contract or other instrument giving judicial certainty to the different actors and participants in the process of certification of the judicial system in the corresponding jurisdiction. Jurisdiction Assessment. This is the benchmark to assess the state of affairs of the Administration of Justice in the relevant jurisdiction and to measure the variation and the effects obtained from the certification of the judicial system. Certification Plan. The Certification Plan establishes the basic plan for the certification process, including the number of judicial systems to be certified, the basic information, scope and bounds of each, and each center's location, responsible authority, the time in which certification is to be carried out, and other such logistical consideration. Budget and Resources. Based on the Certification Program, an estimated budget and identification of all recourses that will be needed is developed and established in this stage. Commitment. Once the earlier steps have been completed, a formal contract for professional services between the judicial system and the JJS and/or the agent is signed. Upon its execution, the Certification Process can begin. Certification Process The second stage of the method are the eight (8) activities during the Certification Process, which include: Methodology Application, Work Program, Diagnose and Identification of Opportunities, Improvement Programs, Solutions Portfolio, Implementation of Solutions Certification Event and Diffusion and Report to Rating Agencies. These activities may be adapted or adjusted to the specific needs of the certification in progress as needed. Methodology Application. The JJS through its liaison and/or copromoter-operator adapts and applies the methodology to a judicial system that has completed all the preliminary tasks described above for the pre-certification stage. The methodologies may be adjusted and modified by taking into account the existing legal framework of the jurisdiction and making appropriate adjustments to each of the centers to be evaluated. Besides, the jurisdiction and its separate entities will have their own specific selected set of categories or sub-categories to be certified on. Work Program. The methodology and its topics, categories and metrics are apportioned and applied in the Certification Process to evaluate activities, responsible authorities, deliverables and execution time breakdown for the Certification Process. Upload of Data to Information System. Information gathered from the judicial system in the different steps of the method may be stored and preserved in the technology platform. The technology platform may include clients, servers, remote devices (including smart phones, tablets and the like), monitors, printers, network connections, modems, and any other computing devices that may be used to provide input to the technology platform or receive output from same. The technology platform preferably includes a web site, which may have a graphical user interface allowing data to be input and output in an easy, user-friendly fashion. The technology platform may be present and used during each of the stages of the Certification Process, to facilitate communication, data entry, information sharing, information control and processing, and may continue to remain available after the Certification Process for additional research, data-mining or follow-up evaluations and recertification. Supervision and Follow-up. Agents may continue monitoring the Certification Process and developments in the various criteria tracked thereunder by the technological platform that meets the standards mandated by the JJS. Such platform may allow queries and display results in real-time, as well as the status of the situation, saved the milestones, and monitoring information with the highest level of detail. The platform may allow the monitoring and sharing of the requested information to the judicial system and other actors involved in the process via email, electronic communication or other methods currently known (including allowing such users direct or indirect access to the database where such information is kept). Diagnosis and identification of opportunities. The Certification Process allows for the diagnosis of the Administration of Justice within the jurisdiction by applying the methodology and evaluation of data collected by the agent. Analysis of this data may help to identify specific areas of opportunity within the judicial system where changes or improvements can be made to improve the system as a whole. Improvement programs. If any given judicial system in a jurisdiction on its initial assessment appears unable to reach a certification level, there is an option to enroll in an improvement program specifically tailored to strengthen the non-qualifying areas or processes, and undertake specific workshops and training programs in order to achieve a Certification Level in the future. Solutions Portfolio. Once such opportunities are identified, solutions may be proposed to take advantage of the opportunities. Accordingly, the step of incorporating solutions into the judicial system is added to the work program to implement the improvements identified by the agent in agreement and cooperation with the judicial system. In this manner the Certification Process can respond to the opportunity areas identified in the judicial system. Implementation of Solutions. A preliminary estimate of assessment and impact of proposed solutions, in view of the existing conditions in the judicial system, is prepared to estimate the rating that may be achieved by the judicial system. Certification Event and Diffusion. This task involves the public disclosure of the certification of the judicial system to the general public. The results obtained by the judicial system may be expressed in a certificate delineating the certification issued by the JJS, may have an annual renewal and supports the implementation of standards and best practices outlined in the methodology by the JJS. Report to Rating Agencies. In this activity the JJS will proceed to give recognition to the granting of the certificate to the judicial system certifying the rating that has been achieved by the judicial system. Post-Certification The final stage is Post-Certification, to be completed after the Certification Process. This stage includes the following six (6) tasks: Renewal Program, Verification of Periodical Reports, Verification of Implemented Solutions, Quarterly Jurisdiction Renewal Evaluation, Semiannual Evaluation of the Courts, Annual Renewal. Renewal Program. Fine tuning applicable standards to the certification. Subsequent to the certification, tasks and considerations used by the methodology during the Certification Process may be incorporated into the judicial system's practices, such as providing online activities through multi-way interactive media, allowing tracking multiple management processes in real-time, and continuing periodic evaluations of the topics required for the judicial system to improve its certification rating. Verification of Periodical Reports. Subsequent to the certification, the JJS may reevaluate its selection and application of the required standards, the identification of topics, relationships between entities and previous activities described in this method in order to continue to develop and improve the Certification Process. Such improvements may be communicated to the judicial system for incorporation into its practices and evaluated in Periodical Reports. Verification of Implemented Solutions. The JJS or its agents may recognize and identify relevant events that may symbolize an important achievement in mainstreaming methodology and research tasks or the improvement of the judicial system's Administration of Justice under international best practices. These milestones may be identified and shared with the judicial system and the general public, and may form part of cross-jurisdictional studies and research and evaluated in Verification of Implemented Solutions. Quarterly Jurisdiction Renewal Evaluation. Revaluation after certification, may be performed quarterly at different levels of the jurisdiction, and may consider the social and economic impact of the certification granted to the judicial system. As part of these evaluations, the perception of the judicial system may also be measured at either or both of the levels of the citizen and population at large Semiannual Evaluation of the Courts. Revaluation after certification, performed semiannually at all the Courts of the jurisdiction, and may consider the social and economic impact of the certification granted to the judicial system. As part of these continuing evaluations, the perception of the judicial system may also be measured at either or both of the levels of the citizen and population at large. Annual Renewal. This task involves the public disclosure of the certification renewal of the judicial system to the general public. The results obtained by the judicial system may be expressed in a certificate delineating the certification renewal issued by the JJS. Follow-up: System for controlling and monitoring the Certification Process, Improvement Program and Certification Renewal The follow-up system will be based on management tools of recognized projects in the market and allow a transversal view of the status of the processes, which may be configured to one's assigned access, and be adapted according to the certification plans. The follow-up system may include a status subsystem to monitor the progress of the Certification Processes, Improvement Programs and Certification Renewals that have been developed, which may be maintained in real-time, and may display information in various formats known regarding the stages of the project, progress, incidents, requested changes, risks, knowledge based and lessons learned relating to the Certification Processes, Improvement Programs or Certification Renewal of the judicial system. Such events may include reports or occurrences on topics related to the Certification Processes, Improvement Programs or Certification Renewal, reports on the level of compliance or non-compliance to the International Standards and other such factors. Information entered into the system may be categorized based on the topics and/or issues it relates to and then be displayed via the status subsystem. It will be noted that persons of ordinary skill will understand that the embodiment and subsystems disclosed herein are exemplary and that the disclosed concepts may be implemented depending on design decisions, using variations of these subsystems which may be implemented as separate subsystems or combined into multi-faceted subsystems within the scope of the disclosed concepts. The status subsystem may include a global status system which may be capable of displaying progress reports of any jurisdiction subject to the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal, and may also be capable of identifying, reporting and/or displaying jurisdiction or Certification Processes, Improvement Programs or Certification Renewals which may be in a situation of potential bias, risk, failure or other such deviation. The system may also include a measurement and evaluation subsystem which may track and display information relating to a comparison of the planned progress of the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal versus the actual, reported progress of it. Such measurement and evaluation system may highlight areas where progress has been in accordance with the planned progress and/or areas that are deficient or delays, and the reasons therefor. The system may allow the evaluation results to be parameterized such that they can be compared across the certification and evaluation of other judicial systems based on these parameters. Any of the parameters that affect the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal may be identified and used to sort or search a database of certification results of all evaluated judicial systems. The system may include a user interface, preferably a graphical user interface, which is intuitive and easy to use. The user interface may feature screens or websites that can display information in different formats (such as signalized, classification tables, impact/complexity matrices, gee-referenced map, technical specifications, requirements, critical events, graphics, agreements, progress reports and any other method known). The information displayed may relate to the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal and its description, start dates, completion dates, days remaining, those responsible, areas in coordination, audio-visual evidence of current status, resources exercised, committed and available budget, process progress and change and trends in public perception and publications, or any other topics relating to the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal. The system may also include a subsystem for the assessment and evaluation of the international standards used in the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal. This includes an evaluation of the international standards applied in each jurisdiction by agents and/or other users specializing in the same study. Approval of such International Standards by such agents and users and the record within the database of the system of such international standards and its evaluation. Similarly, a meeting monitor subsystem may be included in order to help organize and coordinate meetings of all personnel working on the various aspects of the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal. The monitoring subsystem may also provide a method to capture, safekeep or otherwise summarize requirements or critical events discussed at the meeting or any agreements discussed or reached. An alert subsystem may be included to send notifications to personnel working on the various aspects of the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal. Such notifications may be sent, for example, when a component of the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal reports a success, failure or bias. These notifications may be sent via email, recorded messages, voicemail, or any other means of communication. The system may include a database subsystem that maintains all information gathered and relied upon during the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal. A control center subsystem may govern data entry into the database. The control center system will allow agents to enter information relating to such events directly via a computer terminal, mobile phone or any other computing device, via access to a database, website or any other medium known where such information may be entered. The information may be categorized, processed, analyzed and otherwise manipulated through the use of computing devices having access to it. The control center may be a website or a program running locally on a server, or any other suitable solution known which allows users to input information into a database. The control center and database may include search and query tools as well as reporting tools. Support and monitoring subsystems may be included to provide information on agreements, requirements, instructions, milestones, and/or events ongoing or required for effective implementation. This subsystem may also include a notification mechanism to disseminate the status of the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal in real-time via email, recorded messages, voicemail or any other medium known. A control information subsystem may contain data and information on topics, categories and metrics involved in the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal for judicial systems. This subsystem may be part of the control center, or as discussed above more generally, may optionally be implemented as a separate subsystem. The system may be built to support linking of information with the general topics to which it relates. Tracking, searching and analysis of the information related to such topics may be accomplished via the use of such linking information. Similarly, requests for access to public information may be tracked and linked to the related Certification Process, Improvement Program, Certification Renewal, trials, results or other indicators used throughout the process. The system may allow the preparation of reports relating to the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal, and such reports may be generated and/or dynamically updated in real-time based on information contained in the system and/or its database. Such reports may allow users or agents to add notes, comments, conclusions or recommendations to the reports for evaluation by other personnel working on it. The system may dynamically generate requests for information to judicial systems that are in the Certification Process, Improvement Program or Certification Renewal. Such requests may be sent selectively to some such judicial systems, or globally to all such judicial systems.