Myanmar: Legal aid service providers and the communities they serve
Langhendries, Bruno;et.al.
(2018) , 29 p. pages
Files
No attached file found for this publication.
Details
Authors
Langhendries, BrunoUSL-B
Author
et. al.
Abstract
Since the establishment of the ROLCs in 2014 in Yangon, Mandalay, Taunggyi and Myitkyina, the Centres have provided specialized legal training and pursued community outreach and dialogue initiatives to increase trust and cooperation between justice providers and the communities they serve. While the ROLCs do not provide direct legal assistance to the community, members of the public have on occasion attended the Centres seeking legal assistance, assuming that direct legal services were available in light of the ROLCs’ reputation as a hub for rule of law and justice sector activities. While legal assistance services fall outside the scope of the ROLCs’ mandate, the need for affordable legal services in communities across Myanmar is clear, as is the corresponding need to bridge the divide between justice seekers and suitable LASPs in their communities. The ROLCs commissioned ASF to conduct a mapping of LASPs in and around Mandalay, Myitkyina, Taunggyi and Yangon (the Survey).3 The Survey was undertaken in March, May and December 2016 in an effort to provide appropriate and sustainable ways of addressing justice needs across Myanmar. In addition, in the absence of a formal and operational legal aid system, the Survey was intended to provide insight into how legal aid initiatives – meaning legal advice, assistance, information and/or representation offered at little or no cost to the persons receiving it4 – were being carried out. The purpose of the Survey was twofold: first, to develop a Legal Referral System to link justice seekers who cannot afford to pay for legal services to legal practitioners in their communities offering legal aid or pro bono services; and second, to better understand the perceptions and practices of LASPs and justice seekers, to enable an analysis of (i) the effectiveness and efficiency of the initiatives implemented; and (ii) individuals’ levels of trust in the services available to them