1. The question of judicial independence in the Republic of Macedonia is complex and requires complementary approach through the Judicial Reform Strategy, by setting clear directions in the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia , and for all other laws that regulate the work, the position, way of functioning and organization of the judiciary.

2. All courts should resolutely apply the LCIP regulation for paying court taxes, a step will make citizens equal, as prescribed by the Law. The courts that do not follow resolutely the regulation for paying court taxes, should be reminded to do so.

3. The request for exemption should be submitted even after the main hearing has started, since there is a possibility the circumstances causing doubts in the impartiality of the judge or the juror to be revealed during the process. On the other hand and having in mind that the main hearing is in progress, the law should also assign short time limits for deciding on the exemption request.

4. With an aim to prevent misuse of the possibility to demand exemption of judges only with an aim to prolong the procedure, it would be useful to legislatively prevent repeated request for suspension of the same judge, under the same conditions as stated within the prior exemption request that was considered as groundless.

5. The impartiality should be constantly monitored through the Institute for exemption of judges and jurors, the methods used for allocation of cases between the judges, making it urgent to find a way and enact special Law for organising the judiciary which should follow and add up the Law on Courts.

6. The LCIP regulations related to relevance of the value of the dispute issue for a case to be tried by judge individual should be changed and the value of the dispute issue tried by judge individual should be increased (as well as for the cases related to legal property requests in a regular procedure and economy trials).

7. The courts should be informed about the high percentage of cases having no dispute issue value as to require appropriate and thorough application of legal regulations since these occurrences can lead to serious misuses regarding paying court taxes.

8. To be able to set aside all possible doubts for any kind of influences over the independence of the judicial function, some measures should be undertaken related also to the prospects of changing the regulations, defining the process and defining mechanisms for election and suspension judges.

9. The LCIP should also include the time frame during which the President of the Court will reach the decision regarding judges' exemption.

10. For the cases with multiple accomplices a decision to separate the procedure should be reached, if the judge confirms the necessity of such a step, instead of going for trial in absence.

11. To endow general publicity presence in the courts, they should resolve one technical issue – how can information on the day/hour concerning a particular trial be available in time to those expressing interest to be present at the event. The courts thus, should be computerized – this is to be done as soon as possible since it will provide the possibility for timely trial information, and data on the progress of different cases. This way also the communication will be easier, both with the parties within the proceedings, and with the defense and other interested persons.

12. Having in mind the nature of the criminal cases, there should be additional endeavor (even to insist) the trials to be held in the courtrooms, and not at the judges' offices where there are no conditions for normal judicial process – for presence of all interested persons, conducting additional procedural activities such as hearing of witnesses, experts etc.

13. Concerning the judges' overwork with cases sometimes also effected by the frequent renewal of the main hearing due to 30 days deadline omission, we propose to review and accept other comparative solutions where the time limits are two months, but no more than three months.

14. It is also useful to have written order for expert testimonies stating time limits for the expertise examination to be concluded. Stated time limits can be prolonged on the expert's request with an aim to continue with successful assessment. This way we will avoid suspensions of the main hearings for an indefinite time giving the expert greater freedom, and the problems related to timely delivery of completed expert testimonies due to unresolved money requests between the institution conducting the expert testimony and the court.

15. Numerous trial postponements connected to one and the same issue should not be allowed to happen and solutions should be sought leading to changes and annexations of the LCIP.

16. There should be also changes in LCIP regarding replies on legal suits and preparatory trials so they could be anticipated as obligatory phases of the procedure.

17. The courts should make an effort so that the trials should be on time.

18. LCIP regulations for stay of the procedure should be abolished.

19. According to the regulations related to the use of languages in criminal procedures, each court should have a list of authorized judicial translators from the relevant languages as the judge could be timely secured with quality and experienced interpreter. Securing no interpreter should not be tolerated as a reason for delay in trial. This is as the judge did not prepare well for the process.

20. Computerization of the judicial activities should advance the efficiency of the judges and all related procedural activities, as well as processing, evidencing and filing the files (computer files). Using this possibility, the judge can always have an access to the file, to use it while preparing for work, or while directly working on a particular case. The files that are processed through the computer system assist the judges and allow them to have full view in what is happening and who is using them, and for what aims, acquiring high degree of security for the files.

21. Through and detailed approach to the Law on Courts might be necessary as to clarify the questions related to the discipline responsibility of the judges.

22. It is also necessary to undertake urgent activities for preparing the sub-legal acts and methodology for preparation and realization of the court budget. In parallel to this, it is necessary to prepare Programme for establishing fund gathering the means collected from the judiciary individual resources which are to be used for advancing the court conditions in all areas: facilities, technique, technology, promoting methods for scientific and research work, etc. Finally, the question related to the preparing nd enacting the Law of salaries for judges should be resolved as well.