Alghorithm of evaluation


Step 1: Formulation of recommendations 
The recommendations developed in the 3 spheres: constitutional reform, judicial reform, reform of the prosecution service. The sources of these recommendations are the recommendations of respected European institutions such as Venice commission, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, ECHR, Consultative Council of European Judges and others.
Step 2: Evaluation of the importance of recommendations
The level of importance of recommendations will be taken into account by using objective and subjective criteria.
The objective criteria will be based on authoritativeness of the institution issuing the recommendation. 
For example in the areas of judicial reform an reform of the prosecution service the recommendations of Venice commission, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, ECHR will have the coefficient 2 (as more respected authorities), while the recommendations of Consultative Council of European Judges and Consultative Council of European Prosecutors will have the coefficient 1 (as less respected authorities).
The subjective criteria will be based on level of importance of the recommendation according to the expert’s opinion. Expert may rate the recommendations with the coefficient 1 or 2 and could not change the rating after the beginning of monitor process.
The total level of importance of the recommendations will be measured using the summation of the objective and subjective criteria.
Step 3: Assessment of the implementation of recommendations
Assessment of the implementation of recommendations will be based on 200 points scale, where 100 means that recommendation is totally implemented, while -100 means that Parliament (President or other institution) adopted decision, which have significant negative impact on realization of the recommendation.
The rating scale:
89-100 Full implementation of the recommendation;
76-88 Adoption of the decision that made significant positive impact on implementation of the recommendation;
64-75 Adoption of the decision which partially performs the recommendation;
51-63 Adoption of the decision (first reading) which performs the recommendation;
39-50 Adoption of the decision (first reading) which partially performs the recommendation;
26-38 Initiation of the decision which performs the recommendation;
14-25 Initiation of the decision which partially performs the recommendation;
1-13 Public promise of authoritative body (President, Prime Minister and so on) to implement the recommendation;
0 – No decisions which improve or worsen the implementation of recommendation has been adopted;
(-1) - (-13) – Initiation of the decision that slightly worsens the performing of recommendation;
(-14) - (-25) - Initiation of the decision that could make significant negative impact on performing of recommendation;
(-26) - (-38) – Adoption of the decision (first reading) that slightly worsens the performing of recommendation;
(-39) - (-50) - Adoption of the decision (first reading) that could make significant negative impact on performing of recommendation;
(-51) - (-63) - Adoption of the decision that slightly worsens the performing of recommendation
(-64) - (-75) - Adoption of the decision that could make significant negative impact on performing of recommendation
(-76) - (-88) – Implementation of the decision that slightly worsens the performing of recommendation
(-89) - (-100) – Implementation of the decision that could make significant negative impact on performing of recommendation
Absorption of points
In case, when there will be factors that affect on recommendation both negatively and positively, only stronger factor will be taken into consideration. For instance, if there will be public promise of authoritative body to implement the recommendation and in the same time the parliament adopt the decision that slightly worsens the performing of recommendation the point will be from (-51) to (-63)
In case, when negative and positive factors are equivalent, only positive factor will be taken into consideration.
Step 4: Developing a general mathematical formula of evaluation
The mathematical formula of evaluation is:
Recommendation 1 * (objective criteria + subjective criteria) + Recommendation 2 (objective criteria + subjective criteria) + Recommendation 3 (objective criteria + subjective criteria)…/ sum of all objective and subjective criteria of all recommendations
Step 5: Filling the data
Experts fill the data about implementing of recommendations in the beginning of monitoring process and updating the data not less than once a month after the monitoring begins.
Step 6: Data visualization
The data visualization process consists of:
1) Construction of diagram that will show the process of implementation of each recommendation;
2) Construction of diagram for each sphere;
3) Construction of speedometer that will show the dynamic of changes.