Resolution no. 125 of the National Council of Justice: Commented reading

Resolution no. 125 of the National Council of Justice: Commented reading*

 By Fernanda Levy 1, Helena Mandelbaum 2, Sandra Bayer 3, Tania Almeida 4, Adolfo Braga Neto 5 and Marco Lorencini 6

 Summary: presentation; goals; structure; minimum training programs; implementation and operation of the Centers; Code of Ethics for mediators and conciliators; statistic data.

1.  PRESENTATION

 On November 29, 2010, the National Council of Justice, through Resolution no. 125, instituted the National Judicial Policy for the adequate treatment of conflicts of interest.

The Resolution consists of a set of actions that aim to fulfill the strategic objectives of the Judiciary, that is, operational efficiency, expansion of access to the Justice system and social responsibility, in an effective and harmonious way.

Due to the verification of different modalities of practice of Conciliation and Mediation, in the different States of the Federation, it was perceived the need to standardize the exercise of these practices and to incorporate them into a public policy program, for the spheres of State Justice, Federal and Labor, respecting the peculiarities of each one. Standardization aims to reconcile social beliefs and local specificities, in this country of continental dimensions and vast cultural diversity. It unifies praxis without standardizing it, avoids disparities in guidelines and practices and, at the same time, proposes to ensure the proper execution of this public policy.

The Resolution removes Mediation and Conciliation from the panel of alternative methods and gives them the status of consensual methods of conflict resolution, partners in judicial resolution in the treatment of disagreements and disputes. Consensual means of conflict resolution, such as Mediation and Conciliation, have been gaining ground and recognition on the five continents, not only by sectors linked to justice, but also by the general population, civil society and market agents.

Contemporaneity has brought with it the perception that cooperative and complementary actions between the State and society enable greater effectiveness and agility in meeting people's needs, as well as encouraging a leading role in the search for effective solutions to these needs. Co-participation generates co-responsibility in the results and sustainability of the chosen solutions, in any field of coexistence.

Thus, the Brazilian Judiciary, through the National Council of Justice, comes to meet this emerging request of the contemporary world, also assuring Brazilian citizens the possibility of greater participation in the solution of their conflicts, by means appropriate to their nature and peculiarity. .

All the articles that make up the Resolution, including its Annexes, are focused on the concept of proper handling of conflicts. The availability of consensual means of resolving disputes makes it possible to choose the appropriate instrument for the case, thus contemplating what is currently understood by access to fair legal order, that is, the offer of adequate, timely and effective methods for the different demands that come to the Judiciary.

This commented reading is intended to serve as a guide for anyone interested in knowing and reflecting on the rules laid down by the National Council of Justice, through Resolution 125.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESOLUTION

The National Council of Justice, through the Resolution in question, aims to consolidate a permanent policy to encourage and improve consensual dispute resolution mechanisms, and not just specific actions. The concept of permanence offers security and a long-term perspective, so that the Courts and their users can develop firm actions and review directions, when required.

The National Council of Justice directs to strategic objectives of the Judiciary and its operational efficiency, terminology that points to the adoption of management techniques, considering that managing the judiciary is also one of the resources for offering access to fair legal order.

3. Asset

The Resolution is composed of 19 articles distributed in four chapters that deal with the public policy of adequate treatment of conflicts of interest (chapter I), the attributions of the National Council of Justice (chapter II), the attributions of the Courts (chapter III) and of the Conciliation Portal (chapter IV).

3.1 National judicial policy for the adequate treatment of conflicts of interest

Chapter I of Resolution 125 is composed of three articles. The first article deals with the creation of a national judicial policy for the adequate treatment of interests, with the objective of assuring everyone the right to resolve conflicts, according to their nature and peculiarity. Pursuant to its sole paragraph, the judiciary bodies are responsible, in addition to the solution awarded by means of a judgment, to offer other dispute settlement mechanisms, in particular mediation and conciliation.

In order for services and the dissemination of a culture of pacification to have a good quality, the implementation of the National Judicial Policy, under the terms of article 2, is based on three pillars: the centralization of judicial structures, adequate education and training of civil servants, conciliators and mediators and specific statistical monitoring.

The centralization of judicial structures aims at the harmonious implementation and conduct of services and is part of the way chosen for the national management of the program.

To meet the established goals, the National Council of Justice is available to assist the Courts in the organization of services, including encouraging the natural partnerships that are already taking place with public and private educational institutions in much of Brazil.

3.2 Duties of the National Council of Justice

Chapter II establishes that the CNJ is responsible for organizing the program and its actions (article 4) with the participation of all bodies of the Judiciary and partner entities, expressly citing universities and educational institutions (article 5).

the art. 6th lists the actions to encourage the self-composition of disputes and pacification Social, predicting which o drawing do SCHEDULE e its guidelines stay a position of the CNJ, as well as the development of the minimum program content and actions aimed at training and preparing the code of ethics for mediators, conciliators and other facilitators.

It is also up to the CNJ to provide for the inclusion of activities related to the program, so that they are considered as a deserving factor in the promotions and removals of magistrates.

The CNJ is also responsible for articulating with the various sectors of society, in the sense of inclusion and appreciation of the prevention and friendly conduct of conflicts. Thus, the Resolution provides for the CNJ's dialogue with various actors in the legal scenario, such as the Brazilian Bar Association, Public Defenders, Prosecutor's Office and Public Ministry, with the public sector, entities, companies and regulatory agencies, and, in the area of ​​education , with public and private institutions and Magistrates Schools.

3.3 Duties of the Courts

Chapter III provides for the attributions of the Courts subdivided into four sections: the creation of permanent centers of consensual methods of conflict resolution (Section I), the Judicial Centers for Conflict Resolution and Citizenship (Section II), the regulation of admission requirements of conciliators and mediators in the aforementioned centers (Section III), and the creation of the statistical database (Section IV).

3.4 Cores

Each Court of Justice of the Federation must create its Permanent Nucleus of Consensual Methods of Conflict Resolution. The Nuclei will develop the National Judicial Policy for the adequate treatment of conflicts of interest, and must also plan, implement, maintain and improve actions focused on compliance (article 7, items I and II).

The Permanent Centers for Consensual Methods of Conflict Resolution are composed of active or retired magistrates and civil servants, preferably working in the area. for your creation, a period of 30 (thirty) days was foreseen, demonstrating its urgency and priority (art. 7).

The Nuclei are the managing bodies of the program and, to achieve this purpose, they will act on four axes: a) establishment of goals and actions; b) dialogue with other Courts and establishment of agreements with the network of partners; c) installation of the Judicial Conflict Resolution and Citizenship Centers and d) management of admission, training, registration and regulation of the remuneration of conciliators and mediators.

The Nuclei will create the Judicial Centers for Conflict Resolution and Citizenship, which will be units of the Judiciary, to be installed where there is more than one Court, Court or Court (article 8 caput and paragraph 2).

3.5 The Centers

The Judicial Centers for Conflict Resolution and Citizenship are units of the Judiciary which are responsible for concentrating and holding conciliation and mediation meetings, as well as providing assistance and guidance to citizens.

The Centers will work with the Courts, Courts or Courts with competence in the civil, treasury, social security, family or Special Civil and Treasury Courts and will be installed where there is more than one Court, Court or Court with at least one of these competences (art. 8th). Exceptionally, they may extend the services to units located in annex buildings and Regional Forums, subject to the local judicial organization.

Each unit must, mandatorily, cover the pre-procedural dispute resolution sector (before the action is distributed and dispatched by the magistrate), the procedural dispute resolution sector (processes already distributed and dispatched by the magistrate) and the citizenship sector, being allowed to adoption of the suggestion provided for in Annex II (art. 10).

The Centers will be managed by a coordinating judge, with the possibility of exclusive dedication to the direction of those with high demand and, when necessary, by an assistant coordinating judge, both appointed by the President of each Court, among those who underwent training, under the terms provided for by the Resolution (art. 9).

Public defenders, prosecutors and/or lawyers may act in the Centers that are members of the Public Ministry (art. 11).

Two deadlines were established for the creation of the Centers: four months for the Districts of the Capitals of the States and in the headquarters of the Sections and Judicial Regions, Subsections and Judicial Regions with greater forensic movement and twelve months for the others.

The training, qualification and recycling of those involved in the Program, according to the guidelines outlined by the Resolution, are highlighted in several points of the Resolution: they arise as a requirement for the appointment of the coordinating judge (art. 9 and its paragraph 1), as essential criterion for the admission of mediators and conciliators (art. 12).

It is expressed the duty of the Courts to ensure that servers work with exclusive dedication in the Centers, all trained in consensual methods and, at least one, also trained for the screening and appropriate referral of cases. (art. 9, paragraph 2).

The activities of each Center will be compiled by the CNJ and, for this purpose, statistical databases will be created, pursuant to Annex IV. (arts. 13 and 14).

3.6 Conciliation Portal

Chapter IV of the Resolution creates the Conciliation Portal, on the CNJ website – www.cnj.jus.br, attitude that denotes its commitment to maintain an open communication channel with society, to share good practices, projects and research and to fulfill its duty of information and transparency, through the publication of training guidelines and code of ethics for mediators and conciliators and program management reports (art. 15).

3.7 Final Provisions

The Final Provisions deal with the continuity of the programs in progress, the general coordination of the program and its attributions, the binding of the annexes and the immediate validity of the Resolution.

Similar programs already in operation may be maintained and, if applicable, must be adapted to the terms of the Resolution (art. 16).

O Conciliation Steering Committee, established, regulated and chaired by the Presidency of the National Council of Justice, with the support of the Commission for Access to the Justice and Social Responsibility System, it is responsible for implementing and monitoring the measures provided for in this Resolution, as provided for in his article 17, in comment.

The presidency of the CNJ will coordinate the activities of the Judiciary Policy, with the support of the Commission for Access to the Justice and Social Responsibility System, being responsible for chairing the Conciliation Management Committee, responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the measures provided for in the aforementioned Resolution (art. 17).

Four annexes accompany the Resolution: the first provides for mandatory training and improvement courses, the second, non-binding annex, suggests the procedure to be adopted in the Judicial Centers for Conflict Resolution and Citizenship, the third provides for the code of ethics for mediators and the judicial conciliators and, finally, the fourth annex provides for the collection and management of statistical data.

4. MINIMUM TRAINING PROGRAMS (ANNEXED I)

The structure of the Training and Improvement Courses has six parts, namely: the justification; the module I course program, aimed at servers, conciliators and mediators; the module II program, aimed at conciliators and mediators; the module III program of the course, specifically for mediators; the program of a module especially aimed at magistrates; and, finally, the program of a module dedicated to servers, who will work in the Centers.

The programs, created for the training of all professionals who will be directly linked to the Judicial Centers for Conflict Resolution and Citizenship, aim to guarantee the quality and seriousness of the service provided to the jurisdiction. This service has already been provided in several Brazilian states, voluntarily or not, but always with different characteristics in its provision. Therefore, the creation of a minimum standard of training: so that the population can enjoy an equally adequate service throughout o National territory. Thus, it was a matter of delimiting a minimum, basic training for these providers of the conciliation and mediation service, which is possible and feasible everywhere in a country as heterogeneous as the our.

The training, however, must be permanent, which is clear in article 12, § 2 of the Resolution, which establishes that “all conciliators, mediators and other specialists in consensual methods of conflict resolution must submit to permanent recycling and user evaluation”. This need is also mentioned in the Code of Ethics for conciliators and judicial mediators, in § 2 of article 1, which establishes the duty of competence, whereby the professional must “have qualifications that enable him to act in court, with training in the form of this Resolution, observed the mandatory periodic recycling for continuing education.”

The responsibility for promoting the qualification, training and permanent updating of all those linked to the service lies with the Permanent Nucleus of Consensual Methods for Conflict Resolution, of each Court, as provided for in item V. do Article 7 of the Resolution. The Nuclei will be able to count on the partnership of public institutions, such as the Schools of the Judiciary and the Public Ministry, and also the Sections of the OAB, as well as with private institutions, which already work in the training of conciliators and mediators.

The coordinating judge of each Center will monitor this training in the same way as the work of professionals. To do so, he himself must be previously trained so that he can take care of and coordinate the service, with due knowledge of the matter.

It is worth mentioning that the Resolution remembered the conciliators and mediators who have already carried out some form of training and work in the courts. According to §1 of art. 12 of the Resolution, they may be exempted from the requirement of a certificate of completion of the training course, provided that they undergo a training and improvement course, as set out in Annex 1, in order to understand the new Resolution and the implementation of the Judicial Solution Centers of Conflicts and Citizenship.

4.1 Module I

Module I, called “Introduction to Alternative Means of Conflict Resolution”, should be attended by Justice clerks assigned to work in the Centers, as well as by conciliators and mediators. It includes a theoretical program to be taught in 12 hours/50-minute class. Its objectives are knowledge and awareness of public policy for the adequate handling of conflicts, as well as alternative means of conflict resolution and the differences that exist between them. To this end, it also presents the study of conflict and communication, the normative discipline of the theme and national and international experiences. At the end, it contemplates an overview of the ethical aspect of the conciliator and mediator's performance, in the role of third party facilitator.

4.2 Module II

In module II, there is more specific content, aimed at conciliators and mediators. This module has a theoretical program of 16 hours/class and must be followed by a supervised internship of 12 hours. the module focuses on the study of negotiation and conciliation, bringing, at the end of the program, the role of the conciliator and his relationship with those involved.

4.3 Module III

Module III brings the conclusion of this cycle of successive and complementary modules,, exclusively, to the mediators, in a structuring of 16 hours/ theory class, added to another 24 hours of supervised internship. The content of the program includes the study of mediation, its models and its techniques, stages and tools, an overview of its areas of use, the issue of judicial mediation and, finally, the study of the Mediator's Code of Ethics. It is worth mentioning the fact that this training is the starting point for the activity of the mediator, who must, however, be in constant study and training, in order to gradually improve his performance.

4.4 Magistrates Module

The objective of this module is to make known to the magistrates the details of the public policy of adequate handling of conflicts and, also, the importance of consensual methods of conflict resolution. To this end, existing national and international experiences will be reported. Both the functioning of the Judicial Centers for Conflict Resolution and Citizenship, as well as the supervision of the services of conciliators and mediators, will also be studied.

This 8-hour module is theoretical only. This knowledge is necessary for the proper management of the Center's activities, since it is the judge who coordinates, monitors and supervises the service that will be provided there.

So that the judge is appointed by the Nucleus of each Court, as coordinator of the Centers, must have passed this course. To do so, it must know this programmatic content: public policy for the adequate treatment of conflicts; consensual methods of conflict resolution, with their similarities and differences; functioning of the Centers; relationship between magistrate and conciliator/mediator; and citizenship networks. The course is not restricted to the magistrates who will coordinate the Centers, since all will have the opportunity to use the service that will be provided in them, as a way of giving adequate treatment to the conflicts submitted to them.

4.5 Servers Module

This module is intended for civil servants who will have a role to play in the Dispute Resolution Centers, with emphasis on the role of the person responsible for triage and appropriate referral of cases. The objective of the module is the study of the procedures and routines of the Centers. This module consists of 4 hours/class and will be preceded by Module I, also mandatory for these servers.

5. IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF JUDICIAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND CITIZENSHIP CENTERS (ATTACHMENT II)

Each Center will contain 3 (three) Sectors:

5.1 Conflict Resolution Sector Pre-Procedural.

This Sector may receive cases that deal with rights available in civil, Public Treasury, social security, family matters, and within the jurisdiction of the Special Courts (Annex II, nº 1).

In practice, according to Annex II, the interested party goes to the Sector (or sends an email) and reports his complaint and his request, which will not be reduced to term by the server.

This employee, trained for screening, will indicate the most appropriate method for resolving the reported conflict (conciliation, mediation or other available).

Subsequently and in accordance with Annex II, said server will schedule a conciliation or mediation meeting, depending on the case, and will issue an invitation letter to the other member(s) of the conflict, to attend to the Sector, on the designated day and time. This invitation, depending on the location where the Center is installed, will be made by any suitable means of communication.

At the conciliation or mediation meeting, the interested parties may compose themselves, being certain that the agreement will be ratified by sentence, after the manifestation of the Public Ministry, if applicable. The homologation sentence will be registered in the proper book. The Term of Agreement is considered a judicial title, allowing, in case of non-compliance, the injured party to use the aforementioned Term, to enter the Common Justice, with Action for Execution of Judicial Title.

The competent Notary will arrange for the return of the documents to the interested parties, if applicable, as well as the archiving of the agreement, in digital media.

If the interested parties do not reach a consensus, they will be guided to seek a solution to the conflict, either through the Special Courts or through the Common Justice.

In both situations (with or without agreement), interested parties will provide their personal data, such as nationality, profession, marital status, address, Identity Card and Individual or Legal Person Registration numbers, as the case may be, for statistical purposes. .

When dealing with a case whose jurisdiction falls within the Special Courts, the complaint and request will be reduced to term immediately, and forwarded to the competent Court, preferably by digital means. In this case, a new conciliation hearing will be waived, since it has already been unsuccessful in the Pre-Procedural Conflict Resolution Sector.

5.2 Conflict Resolution Sector procedural

This Sector will be able to receive the processes already distributed and dispatched by the magistrates, who, after analyzing the case, will indicate the method of conflict resolution to be followed. After the completion of the conciliation or mediation work, the processes will return to the sending body, with the news of agreement or non-agreement. In the first case, the process will be dismissed and in the second, the process will follow its normal course.

5.3 Citizenship Sector

This Sector will provide information, legal advice, issuance of documents, psychological and social assistance services to any person, among others. For this purpose, a qualified and trained server will direct the interested party to the appropriate professional.

5.4 Specifics of the Centers

For the proper functioning of the Centers, they will be installed in places where pre-procedural and procedural conciliation and mediation meetings will be held, in charge of conciliators and mediators, only. Exceptionally, conciliation and mediation meetings may be held in the designated Courts, Courts or Courts, but always by conciliators and mediators registered in the respective Court and supervised by the Coordinating Judge of the respective Center.

6. CODE OF ETHICS FOR CONCILIATORS AND JUDICIAL MEDIATORS (ANNEXED I

The Code of Ethics for Conciliators and Judicial Mediators is structured in 3 (three) main axes, namely: 1) Principles and Guarantees of Conciliation and Mediation Courts; 2) Rules of the Judicial Mediation and Conciliation Process and 3) Responsibilities and Sanctions for Judicial Conciliation and Mediation professionals.

6.1 Principles and Guarantees of Conciliation and Mediation Judicial

The First Axis provides for the principles of confidentiality, competence, impartiality, neutrality, independence and autonomy, respect for public order and the laws in force.

The first principle must be understood as the confidential treatment of all information offered or produced in the meetings, throughout one of the processes, unless expressly authorized by the parties, violation of public policy or current laws.

The second deals with the minimum requirement to be able to act as a conciliator or as a judicial mediator, which consists of the training provided for in the annexes of the aforementioned Resolution and must comply with mandatory recycling, as mentioned above.

The third, impartiality, understood as acting in such a way as to avoid favoritism or preferences and, at the same time, not letting personal values ​​interfere with the result of the work.

The fourth, neutrality, understood as the professional's equidistance from the values ​​and beliefs of the parties.

The fifth, independence and autonomy, provides freedom for the professional to act without internal or external pressure, being able to interrupt the process at any time, when he considers that the minimum conditions necessary for the smooth running of the process are non-existent.

The sixth and last establishes that the mediator and conciliator must respect public order and the laws in force, ensuring that the parties also act in the same way in relation to the agreement.

6.2 Rules of the Mediation and Conciliation Process Judicial

Integrated with the principles mentioned above, the Second Axis deals with the rules themselves, to be observed by conciliators and judicial meters, namely: duty of information, duty to preserve the autonomy of the will, absence of obligation of result, of untying the profession of origin and, finally, to promote reflection on the reality between the parties.

The first rule, duty of information, presupposes presenting to those involved, in a clear, precise and complete way, the method to be used and its Code of Ethics.

The second, the duty to preserve the autonomy of the will, deals with respect for voluntariness in accepting the method and in choosing decisions, and may even interrupt it at any time.

The third, absence of obligation of result, it implies developing the method, free from the obligation to obtain an agreement; in the case of conciliation, the possibility of creating options to be analyzed by the parts.

The fourth, separation from the profession of origin, consists of clarifying that their function is not linked to their profession of origin and, if guidance or technical advice is required, a competent professional must be called, with the acceptance of everyone.

The fifth and final rule, reality testing, presupposes the duty of a prior analysis of the feasibility of the agreement and its compliance by all those involved.

6.3 Responsibilities and Sanctions for Conciliation and Mediation Professionals Judicial

The Third Axis refers to the responsibilities and sanctions provided for the conciliator and the mediator, emphasizing the prerequisite of having participated in the minimum training and of observing permanent recycling, in the manner established by Resolution 125/10 in I comment.

It presupposes the duty to respect the rules of this code and the commitments and guidelines of the coordinating judge, under penalty of submitting to administrative and criminal proceedings, which could result in their exclusion from the list of conciliators and mediators, if the reason is serious. Inappropriate conduct can be brought to the coordinating judge by anyone who becomes aware of them, so that the appropriate measures are adopted.

The hypotheses provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding impediment and suspicion of judges apply to conciliators and mediators. In the event of these hypotheses, those involved must be informed about the interruption of the meeting and the replacement of the conciliator or mediator.

Art.134. It is forbidden for the judge to exercise his/her functions in the litigation or voluntary proceedings:

      I – of which it is a party;

2. - in which he intervened as representative of the party, officiated as an expert, worked as an organ of the Public Prosecutor's Office, or gave testimony as witness;

3. - that he knew in the first degree of jurisdiction, having given him a sentence or decision;

4. - when he is applying, as a lawyer for the party, his spouse or any relative, by blood or similar, in a straight line; or in the collateral line until the second grade;

5. - when spouse, relative, consanguineous or similar, of any of the parties, in a straight line or, in the collateral, until the third grade;

6. - when it is a body of direction or administration of legal person, part of the cause.

Single paragraph. In the case of paragraph IV, the impediment is only verified when the lawyer was already exercising the sponsorship of the case; it is, however, forbidden to the lawyer to plead in the process, in order to create the impediment of the judge.

Art. 135. The judge's suspicion of partiality is considered to be founded when: I – a close friend or capital enemy of either party;

     I - close friend or capital enemy of either party

2. - any of the parties is creditor or debtor of the judge, of his/her spouse or of their relatives, in a straight line or in the collateral until the third grade;

3. - heir presumptive, donee or employer of any of the parts;

4. - receive gifts before or after the process begins; advise any of the parties about the object of the case, or provide means to meet the expenses of the litigation;

5. - interested in adjudicating the case in favor of one of the parties. Single paragraph. The judge may also declare himself a suspect for reasons intimate.

Art. 136. When two or more judges are relatives, consanguineous or similar, in a straight line and in the second degree in the collateral line, the first one who hears about the case in the court, prevents the other from participating in the trial; in which case the second will excuse himself, referring the case to his replacement cool.

Art. 137. The reasons for impediment and suspicion apply to judges of all courts. The judge who violates the duty of abstention, or does not declare himself a suspect, may be refused by either party (art. 304).

If the conciliator or mediator is prevented from performing the function for any reason, must inform the person in charge in advance so that his/her replacement.

Acting as a mediator and conciliator prevents the subsequent provision of professional service of any nature, for the same parties involved, for a period of two years.

Failure to comply with the principles and rules of this code and the final conviction, in criminal proceedings, will constitute hypotheses of banning mediators and conciliators from acting as such, as well as their exclusion from the respective register, preventing them from acting in this function at the national level, in any government agency Judiciary.

7. STATISTIC DATA (ANNEX IV)

The Resolution brought the task of the Centers to compile information on the services provided and their performance, for statistical purposes and later electronic publication on the Conciliation Portal.

Annex IV of the Resolution explains the information that each Center must provide, in relation to the following topics: 1) personnel structure; 2) the pre-procedural sector; 3) to the procedural sector; 4) to the citizenship sector and, finally, 5) to the participants.

In relation to the personnel structure, information must be compiled regarding the number of employees with exclusive dedication, servers responsible for screening, employees assigned by partner entities, registered conciliators and registered mediators.

As for the pre-procedural sector, the information to be compiled will concern:

1. Number of complaints received in a given time course;

2. Period of time between the attendance and the date designated for the session of conciliation;

3. Time period between attendance and the date designated for the mediation session;

4. Number of conciliation sessions designated in a given period;

5. Number of designated mediation sessions in a given time course;

6. Number of conciliation sessions held in a given time course;

7. Number of mediation sessions held in a given time course;

8. Number of agreements obtained in conciliation sessions held in a given time course;

9. Number of agreements obtained in mediation sessions held in a given time course;

10. Percentage of agreements obtained in relation to conciliation sessions held in a given time course;

11. Percentage of agreements obtained in relation to mediation sessions held in a given time course;

12. Number of sessions affected by the absence of the claimant;

13. Number of sessions affected by the absence of the claimed;

14. Number of sessions affected by the absence of the claimant and the defendant;

15. Number of complaints sent to bodies judicial;

16. Number of conciliation sessions held in a given period per conciliator registered;

17. Number of mediation sessions held in a given period per mediator registered;

18. Number of agreements obtained in conciliation sessions held in a given period by conciliator registered;

19. Number of agreements obtained in mediation sessions held in a given period by mediator registered;

20. Percentage of agreements reached in relation to conciliation sessions held in a given period by conciliator;

21. Percentage of agreements obtained in relation to mediation sessions held in a given period by mediator;

In relation to the procedural sector, the information to be provided:

1. Number of conciliation sessions designated in a given period;

2. Number of designated mediation sessions in a given time course;

3. Number of conciliation sessions held in a given time course;

4. Number of mediation sessions held in a given time course;

5. Number of agreements obtained in conciliation sessions held in a given time course;

6. Number of agreements obtained in mediation sessions held in a given time course;

7. Percentage of agreements obtained in relation to conciliation sessions held in a given time course;

8. Percentage of agreements obtained in relation to mediation sessions held in a given time course;

9. Number of audiences affected by the absence of the author;

10. Number of audiences affected by the absence of the defendant;

11. Number of audiences affected by the absence of both parts;

12. Period of time between the forwarding of the case to the CENTRO and the date designated for the hearing of conciliation;

13. Period of time between the forwarding of the process to the CENTER and the date designated for the mediation;

14. Number of conciliation sessions held in a given period per conciliator registered;

15. Number of mediation sessions held in a given period per mediator registered;

16. Number of agreements obtained in conciliation sessions held in a given period by conciliator registered;

17. Number of agreements obtained in mediation sessions held in a given period by mediator registered;

18. Percentage of agreements reached in relation to conciliation sessions held in a given period by conciliator;

19. Percentage of agreements obtained in relation to mediation sessions held in a given period by mediator;

Regarding the citizenship sector, data will be compiled on the amount of assistance provided in a given period and the legal guidelines offered in a given period.

With regard to the participants, involving all those who pass through the Centers, the identification of claimants, defendants and parties is requested, with full qualification and CPF or CNPJ; the identification of the 100 (one hundred) largest claimants, defendants, authors and defendants, with their respective CPF's and CNPJ's, in a given period;

It will be up to all the Courts of Justice of the Federation to compile data on the activities of each Center, keeping them permanently updated.

* Text published on the MEDIARE website in 2011.

______________

1. Master and doctoral student in Law at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo. Master's student at Masters Latinoamericana Europea in Mediación – Institut Kurt Bosch from Switzerland. Private mediator certified by the “ADR Group” of London. founding partner do Institute Okay de Fleet de Conflicts. University professor. Lawyer.

2. Lawyer; Master's student in Conflict Mediation at the IUKB-Institut Universitaire Kurt Bosh- Maestría Latinoamericana Europea en Mediación; Coordinator and Mediator of the Forum of Santana's Mediation Sector (SP); Partner at Comte – Business Communication, Mediation and Specialized Training S/S LTDA.; Teacher; Speaker; consultant; Mediator private co-author de several articles, projects e works published

3. Master in Civil Law from the University of São Paulo and in Roman Law from the University of Rome II “Tor Vergata”. Private mediator trained in COGEAE at PUC/SP. Volunteer mediator at the Solidarity League Foundation of São Paulo. Founding partner of the D'Accord Institute for Conflict Management. Lawyer and university professor.

4. Lecturer and Supervisor in Conflict Mediation and Dialogue Facilitation. Doctor. Postgraduate in Neuropsychiatry, Sociology, Psychoanalysis, Business Management and Family Therapy. Director-President of MEDIARE – Dialogues and Processes decision-making. Shorts Term Consultant do Program da America Latina do Banco World.

5. Lawyer, partner at Oliveira Marques Advogados Associados, arbitrator, mediator, professor, consultant at the UN, UNDP, World Bank and the Ministry of Justice of Brazil, Chairman of the Board of Directors of IMAB – Instituto de Mediação e Arbitragem do Brasil. Brazil.

6. Doctor and Master in Civil Procedure from the University of São Paulo – USP (2006 and 2002, respectively). Specialization em Right International (1991) e Undergraduate em Right from University de Are Paulo - USP (1989)