Citizen Survey	Q601
	If you something bad happened to you, do you think you would get justice?	Women	N	Men	N
	Yes	77.2%	606	69.7%	594
	Citizen Survey	Q602
	Where would you go to get justice if something bad happened to you?	Traditional Local arbiters	State Distict	Traditional Local arbiters	None	State Upazilla	Traditional Local arbiters		Sponsored Local arbiters
		respected member of the community	Courts	UP Chair	Nowhere	Police	Shalish	elected representative (not including UP Chair)	Village court, NGO, Other	N
	Women	10.6%	22.1%	30.0%	11.6%	5.3%	.2	17.9%	.3	606
	Men	27.6%	16.2%	27.1%	16.2%	3.5%	.5	7.2%	.2	594
	Citizen Survey	Q501	Q301	Q201
	Have never used	Formal court	Village court	Shalish
					N
	Women	0.974	0.998	98%	606
	Men	0.825	0.987	79%	594
	Practitioner Survey
	Most common attitudes among people attending court:	insufficient data
	Practitioner survey
	Characterisation of judicial process from 10 males under 16 in court holding cell	9 held in holding cell at police for 24 hours	all first met lawyer at court
	Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (CJM) Case Processing (2012)
	Cases carried over from previous year	New cases	Total carried over and new cases	Convictions	Acquittals	Other	Guilty plea	Total cases disposed	Cases carried forward into next year	Pending caseload growth rate
	9409	3513	12922	67	887	2307	95	3356	9566	1.7%
	Age of (CJM) Pending Cases (2012)
	Year of case filing		1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	% of cases pending more than 5 years
	Number of cases		0	1	2	8	15	44	50	99	131	199		672	835	851	1505	1413	1433	1451	23.6%
	District Sessions Court (DSC) Case Processing (2012)											Breakdown Rangpur DS court case processing 2012
	Cases carried over from previous year	New cases	Total carried over and new cases	Convictions	Acquittals	Other	Guilty pleas	Total cases disposed	Cases carried forward into next year	Pending caseload growth rate		COURT	Cases carried forward from previous year	New Cases	Disposed				Cases carried forward to next year	Data Note
	3773	508	4281	29	235	801	12	1077	3204	-15.1%					Conviction	Acquittal	Other	Guilty Pleas		Not including the Special Court. Data was presented for Session Judge Court  in two ways. One was presented as total figures for all of the DS Courts. However, while the Carried forward from previous year and into following year as well as the Acquittal categories appear to represent overall figures, the Conviction and Other categories appear more consistent with individual court figures. Therefore the totals relied upon here present the totals recorded by each individual court. The number for new cases is very small since it will be seen that this is presented as the same as the total figures number and so it was not possible to include a number for this category from the Session Judge Court.
	Civil Cases carried over from previous year	New Civil cases	Total carried over and new cases	Convictions	Acquittals	Other		Total cases disposed	Cases carried forward into next year	Pending caseload growth rate		Session judge Court  - figures presented as total for all 6 DS courts	3593	2552	137	1794	103		4199		4199 is the figure reported, however, cases carried forward plus new cases in, less cases disposed in fact equals 4111.
	No data											Session Judge Court, Rangpur	692	2552	12	33	740	12	898
	Total DSC cases carried over from previous year	Total DSC New cases	Total Criminal and Civil carried over and new cases									Joint Session J-3	511	190	7	80	0	0	614
	No data											Joint Session J-2	792	0	0	0	55	0	737
	Note About Data											Joint Session J-1	682	123	0	32	1		772
												Assistant Session J -1	480	178	8	78	0	0	572
	Data is aggregated from six additional and joint sessions courts. Criminal case processing data from the Supreme Court confirms overall numbers of cases facing the court and unresolved cases carried forward.											Assistant Session J -2	616	17	2	12	5	0	614
												TOTAL for 6 courts	3773	508	29	235	801	12	4207	Data Note	The original figure (4207) exceeds the total cases coming into court. The figure presented (3204) is reached using a deductive method (total in: 4281 less total disposed: 1077).
	Age of (DSC) Pending Cases (2012)
	Year of case filing		1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	% of cases pending more than 5 years
	Number of cases		1	1	1	1	0	1	3	7	16	45	100	163	305	306	575	451	617	591	20.2%
	Nari-o-Shishu Court Case Processing (2012)
	Cases carried over from previous year	New cases	Total carried over and new cases	Convictions	Acquittals	Other	Guilty pleas	Total cases disposed	Cases carried forward into next year	Pending caseload growth rate	Data note
	3993	771	4764		312			312	4452	11.5%	SC figures suggest 22%
	Note About Data
	Supreme Court data confirms cases carried over from previous year (3,994) but not as concerns new cases (1,582) and disposed cases (701). Cases carried forward (end year 2012): 4,875.
	Age of NOS Pending Cases (2012)
	Year of case filing		1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	% of cases pending more than 5 years
	Number of cases		0	1	0	0	2	17	59	175	150	893	350	205	315	280	310	450	550	455	47.5%
	Practitioner Survey					N  1
	Most common characterization of formal justice processes from practitioners at CJM courts PS: Courts, Bar, Prosecution	Av no. adjournments per case	Main reason for adjournments	Av time to complete trial	Proportion of trials ending in a guilty plea	Proportion of offences compounded	proportion accused rep by lawyer	any pre-trial review to expdite case disposal	local co-ordination mechanism for justice actors to meet regularly to discuss local justice situation	proportion of accused who are women	most common crimes of which women accused	N
		between 10 and 50	witness not present	wide range from 18 months to 10 years	very few	2 to 3%	all	unclear	some practitioners indicated that there is such a mechanism	between 5% and 10%	narcotics	5
	Practitioner Survey
	Most common characterization of formal justice processes from practitioners at DS courts	Av no. adjournments per case	Main reason for adjournments	Av time to complete trial	Proportion of trials ending in a guilty plea	Proportion of offences compounded	proportion accused rep by lawyer	any pre-trial review to expdite case disposal	local co-ordination mechanism for justice actors to meet regularly to discuss local justice situation	proportion of accused who are women	most common crimes of which women accused	N
		Between 10 and 25	witness not present	up to 3 years	very few	none	all	unclear	some practitioners indicated that there is such a mechanism	5 - 10%	narcotics	7
	Citizen Survey	Q507
	Single most important reason for having the crime against you dealt with through the formal court (top 4 responses):	Will get justice	Told it is the right place to go	Quickest process	Neutral	N
	Women	40.0%	60.0%	0.0%	0.0%	5
	Men	35.3%	17.6%	5.9%	25.5%	17
	Citizen Survey	Q204
	Single most important reason for having the crime against you dealt with by Shalish (top 4 responses):	Will get justice	Told it is the right place to go	Quickest process	Easy to get to	N
	Women	57.7%	2.2%	13.3%	13.3%	45
	Men	26.3%	8.4%	27.4%	13.7%	95
	Village Court (VC) Case Processing (2012)
		New cases			Cases appealed	Cases implemented
		Women	Men	Total
	See list of individual Village Courts in Infrastructure tab	No data	No data	No data	No data	No data
	Practitioner Survey
	Most common characterization of cases and processes from Interviews of UP member (Gangachora) + VCAs at UPs Kolkond and Lokhkhita:  union parishads:	% applicants women	Main complaints	Case disposed of in	Proportion of  cases appealed to the CJM	Average monthly caseload	Court proceedings are held	N
	Data note: Lakshmitari is assumed to be Lokhkhita since it is not possible to find it in HHS data	more than 50%	assault, and quarrels over property	1-2 hrs	None	5 to 6	once  or twice a week	3
						Data note
	Interview Responses					Data from register of VC administrators in 2 VCs
	Most common attitudes of Village Court users	No data
	Shalish Case Processing
	Practitioner Survey
	Most common characterization of cases and processes from 2 Shalishkar practitioners:	% applicants women	Top 3 main complaints	Average monthly caseload	Cases resolved  each month	Refer cases to police	settlement agreed to in Shalish maintained	Main challenge faced with police	most common resolution	N
		50%	quarrels and land	15 - 16	14 - 15	those outside shalish jurisdiction	100%	bribery	Compensation	2
	Citizen Survey	Q208a, 207, 208d					Data note
		Case resolution was reached	Case was resolved in under one month	Issue had a fair hearing	N		Data suggests negative framing of question caused confusion (in translation). High rates of compliance appear to be recorded. Here, the answer: 'it did not happen' (that people did not comply with the shalishkars decision)
	Women	75.5%	92.5%	94.3%	53
	Men	84.6%	77.2%	94.3%	123