Kyrgyzstan vs Sri Lanka: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) over time
- Kyrgyzstan
- Sri Lanka
How they compare
Kyrgyzstan currently reports 1 DB16-20 methodology against 1 DB16-20 methodology in Sri Lanka, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Sri Lanka has been ahead every year.
Kyrgyzstan ranks 115th and Sri Lanka ranks 115th of 190 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Kyrgyzstan or Sri Lanka?
- Kyrgyzstan, at 1 DB16-20 methodology against 1 DB16-20 methodology in Sri Lanka as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Kyrgyzstan and Sri Lanka?
- 0 DB16-20 methodology, with Kyrgyzstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kyrgyzstan and Sri Lanka?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Kyrgyzstan and Sri Lanka rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Kyrgyzstan ranks 115th and Sri Lanka ranks 115th of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a pretrial conference is available; (v) whether an electronic case management system for judges is available; and (vi) whether an electronic case management system for lawyers is available. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.