In the following interview, researcher and legal expert at the Intellectual Innovation NGO P.Battulga shared his perspective on how court decisions are implemented in practice, the systemic distortions affecting the judiciary, and the broader question of judicial independence. He is the author of more than 20 academic reports, articles and research papers on administrative law and judicial power.

The Law on Courts defines a court as a body established under the Constitution to hear and resolve cases and disputes. Why, then, do some high-ranking officials fail to comply with court decisions that are legally binding?

The process of issuing a court decision is governed by the Law on Judicial Procedure, and such decisions are formally delivered in written form. Once a ruling is made, however, its enforcement is handled not by the court itself but by a separate body, typically a government agency. In practice, it is not always clear whether courts treat high-ranking officials differently, or what kinds of errors and shortcomings may arise in the enforcement process. What is clear, however, is that a court decision must not remain merely on paper, it must be carried out in reality.

Concerns about weak or inconsistent enforcement are frequently raised. The judicial process does not end when a ruling is issued. For those directly involved in a case, what matters most is whether the decision is actually implemented, whether damages are paid, salaries are compensated, or individuals are reinstated to their jobs or positions. Effective enforcement is essential to building public trust in the judiciary. When decisions are left unimplemented, citizens are left with the impression that the courts are not functioning and that justice is not being delivered. For this reason, improving the enforcement of court decisions remains a pressing priority. In response, the Ministry of Justice and Internal Affairs is currently working to revise the Law on the Enforcement of Court Decisions.

The Judicial Index shows a slight increase from 51.9 in 2021 to 53.2 in 2023. Given that this is a limited improvement, how do you interpret these results?

The Intellectual Innovation NGO, in collaboration with the Open Society Forum, has published the Mongolian Court Index for 2021 and 2023, and is currently preparing the 2025 edition. One of the key indicators used in the Index is the extent to which court decisions are enforced, as well as the speed of their implementation. Findings from both 2021 and 2023 show a relatively positive perception that more than 50 percent of respondents in public opinion surveys, and over 60 percent of experts and legal professionals, believed that court decisions are generally enforced. Official data from the court decision enforcement agency presents a more nuanced picture. According to these figures, more than 60 percent of enforceable decisions in criminal cases are implemented, compared with around 50 percent in civil cases and just over 40 percent in administrative cases. As for 2025, preliminary data suggests that enforcement rates have not significantly improved and remain at roughly 50 percent on average.

For instance, in 2025, the enforcement agency collected only 38 percent of monetary payments due in civil proceedings, 10.8 percent in criminal cases, and 11.7 percent in administrative cases. Ideally, enforcement rates should reach at least 70 to 80 percent. Achieving full, 100 percent enforcement is not always realistic, as it often depends on the financial capacity of individuals or entities ordered to pay damages. Moreover, enforcement proceedings are widely criticized for being slow. This is partly due to gaps in the legal framework. During the enforcement process, certain actions taken by the enforcement agency can be challenged by the parties involved, which may lead to the suspension of proceedings. For example, disputes over the valuation of property during auction processes can halt enforcement, sometimes resulting in delays of several years after a court decision has been issued. In administrative cases, there are also frequent instances where rulings, particularly those ordering reinstatement, are not carried out. This points to a lack of accountability among public institutions and officials who fail to comply with court decisions.

Let me return to the question raised at the outset. If a three-tier court has already­ issued a final judgment against MP D.Tsogtbaatar, does the continued passage or application of laws in this context amount to disregarding a court decision? In such a situation, what actions should be taken within the framework of the law?

This is ultimately a matter that must be resolved in accordance with the Constitution. Section 29.3 clearly states that if a court determines that a member of Parliament has committed a crime, that individual shall be removed from office. In this case, the court has already issued its decision. Following such a ruling, the issue of removal should be addressed in line with th Act of Parliament and the Law on Parliamentary Procedure. However, the problem, as I see it, is that this matter is not being formally discussed or acted upon.

Is there any legal mechanism to return to court after a final decision has been issued by a three-tier court?

In a three-tier court system, there is no automatic right to further appeal once all levels have issued a decision. In fact, not every case needs to go through all three levels. Many disputes can be fully resolved at the trial and appellate stages. If the parties do not file an appeal as required by law, the decision of these courts becomes final. That said, the law does provide a mechanism to review court decisions that have already entered into force. One such mechanism is a review based on newly discovered circumstances. This allows a final decision to be reconsidered if, for example, new evidence emerges that was not available to the parties during the original proceedings, if previously submitted evidence is later proven to be false, or if criminal wrongdoing is established on the part of those involved in the case, such as the judge, prosecutor, investigator, witness, or expert.

With judges increasingly overloaded and cases taking longer to resolve—often at significant cost to citizens’ time, finances, and reputation—how would you evaluate the current situation within the judiciary?

One of the key indicators in the judicial index is the workload of judges. In the capital, particularly in the six central district courts, judicial workloads have exceeded acceptable levels several times over. This situation has developed over time and has not been effectively addressed. A study commissioned by the Judiciary General Council sought to determine how many cases a judge should reasonably handle in a year. In civil matters, while workloads are relatively manageable in rural areas, judges in the six central districts of Ulaanbaatar handle more than 400 cases each annually. Recent reforms under the Law on the Establishment of Courts created a first-instance district court to deal with simpler criminal and civil cases. However, in 2025 alone, this court handled more than 1,500 civil cases, well beyond a normal workload. As a result, the system is struggling to meet its objective of resolving smaller claims quickly and efficiently. High caseloads, combined with the relatively low monetary value of many disputes, make it difficult for judges to  work effectively and deliver timely justice.

What are the negative effects of excessive judicial workload? There is growing criticism that judges may not have sufficient time to thoroughly review case files, and that some decisions may rely on incomplete or biased evidence.

Excessive judicial workloads have a number of negative consequences. For citizens, delays in resolving cases and disputes can undermine confidence in the courts. When judges are overburdened, the quality of decisions may also suffer, with less time available to produce well-reasoned rulings and a greater risk of errors. High workloads also take a toll on judges themselves, affecting both their health and their overall productivity. For these reasons, it is essential to ensure that judicial workloads are kept at a reasonable and sustainable level.

It is often observed that similar cases can result in significantly different outcomes. In corruption and bribery cases, for instance, penalties may range from minor fines to lengthy prison sentences. How do you explain these disparities, and what impact do they have on public confidence in the judiciary?

Such criticisms arise from time to time, and it cannot be denied that some court decisions are perceived this way by the public. However, those outside the judicial process often do not see the full basis on which a judge determines a sentence. Courts take into account a wide range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, whether multiple individuals were involved, whether the crime was repeated, and whether the defendant has admitted guilt. An admission of guilt and the payment of damages, for example, may serve as grounds for mitigating a sentence. That said, any reduction in punishment must remain within the limits set by the Criminal Code. It is also important to consider the role of the prosecutor, specifically, what kind of sentence the state prosecutor recommends to the court. In corruption and public office-related cases, this raises the question of whether prosecutors are seeking sufficiently severe penalties, or whether the proposed sentences are too lenient given the scale of the offense.

The Court Index addresses a related concern by asking whether judges are unlikely to impose different sentences for similar crimes or to decide comparable cases differently. The findings show that while more than 40 percent of the public agree with this statement, only a little over 30 percent of legal professionals do. In other words, a significant share of respondents believe that inconsistency in judicial decisions remains a concern. This brings us to the purpose of a three-tier court system. Its primary aim is to ensure that cases are resolved fairly and in accordance with the law to minimize errors, avoid unjust outcomes, and protect the innocent. Within this framework, it is not necessary for courts at different levels to issue identical decisions in every case. If appellate courts had no authority to amend or overturn lower court rulings, there would be little reason to maintain a multi-tiered system. That is why cases at the first instance are typically decided by a single judge, appeals are heard by panels of three judges, and higher-level review courts may involve five judges. As cases move up the hierarchy, the number of judges increases to strengthen the accuracy and fairness of decisions. At the same time, similar cases  should not be treated differently under the law. The same legal principles should apply equally to all individuals. To promote consistency in judicial practice, the Supreme Court has, since 2021, implemented a supervisory review mechanism aimed at ensuring the uniform application of the law across cases.

With the rise of social media, public narratives around high-profile cases are often driven by incomplete or misleading information. Does this phenomenon of “trial by social media” have any influence on judicial decision-making?

It cannot be denied that information shared on social media can, at times, influence judicial decision-making. This is something that has been observed. However, it is inappropriate for individuals to post commentary on ongoing cases, intentionally or not, and present themselves as arbiters of justice. In criminal matters, the determination of guilt or innocence must rest solely with the court, following procedures established by law and based on evidence. This is a fundamental constitutional principle: only the court has the authority to make a final determination of guilt. When a court has issued its decision and imposed a lawful sentence, claims such as “I am innocent” become a matter of personal belief or opinion. Regardless of differing views, it is essential to ensure that no individual is subjected to undue pressure or mistreatment.

Could the court’s decision be considered unjust or overly harsh?

Let us assume that a final court decision has already been issued. If it is later established that the actions of those involved in the case, such as a judge, prosecutor, or investigator, were criminal, for example through the use of torture or reliance on falsified evidence, then the decision may be subject to review, as noted earlier. However, in the absence of such findings, it is difficult to conclude outright that an individual has been “repressed” based solely on public claims or discussion.

So who holds the courts accountable? Should courts be judged only by other courts?

Courts are ultimately reviewed by other courts. As mentioned earlier, decisions of the first-instance court can be reviewed by the appellate court, and appellate decisions may in turn be examined by a higher review court. This layered system ensures that judicial decisions are assessed within the judiciary itself. If authority to judge the courts were given to another body, it would undermine the very concept of judicial power and the independence of the courts. In addition, there are mechanisms in place to hold judges accountable for ethical and disciplinary violations. The Judicial Disciplinary Commission reviews complaints from citizens and officials and, where appropriate, imposes sanctions. However, if political actors are given control over the courts, it is ultimately the public that will suffer. Judicial authority does not rest on force, but on public confidence in its legitimacy and fairness. Without that trust, laws cannot be effectively enforced and justice cannot be upheld. When public trust erodes, the judiciary becomes weak and ineffective. In such circumstances, people may begin to seek justice outside the legal system. This creates space for illegitimate forces, such as corruption, violence, personal revenge, online outrage, and narrow political interests, to take hold. In such an environment, power begins to matter more than justice. Politicians may resort to populism, claiming to deliver justice, but in doing so they risk undermining judicial independence and turning the courts into instruments of political influence.

Can the appointment of judges truly be independent of political influence?

Under the Constitution, the Judicial General Council is responsible for selecting and recommending candidates for judicial appointments from among qualified lawyers and judges, and submitting those nominations to the President of Mongolia. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court itself, while courts at other levels elect their own chief judges from among their members. The Council is composed of 10 members: five are nominated by judges nationwide, and five are selected through an open process and appointed by Parliament. At present, however, two of the parliamentary appointees have yet to be confirmed, meaning the Council is operating with only eight members. Civil society organizations have called on the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice to expedite these appointments so that the Council can function at full capacity. There have also been a number of instances in which the President has declined to appoint recommended judicial candidates.