# Challenges When Using Jurimetrics in Brazil--A Survey of Courts
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Access Information Procedure Survey
#### 4.2.2 Analysis of Information Access Request Responses  
Once the deadline for the responses to the information access requests passed, analysis started including (i) response rate, (ii) response time, and (iii) quality of the answers. For each court surveyed, five requests for access to information were sent, totaling 145 requests, all sent from the same citizen, through the internet, using the most relevant system in each court dedicated to the AIP [3]: Ombudsman, Contact Us form, email, or any other mean available identified in their respective websites. The results were summarized on Table 2.  
In terms of response rate, from a quantitative perspective, only 53 of the 145 requests were answered, which means that 63.4% of requests were unanswered. Of the 29 courts surveyed, only nine of them answered the five requests, and two courts responded to four of the five requests. The response rate found in this study concurs with the Transparency in the Brazilian State Study [27], which found similar numbers of unanswered requests (61%). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Court Name** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Respected** \\ **Deadline** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **E-mail** \\ **Notification** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Requested Deadline** \\ **Extension** \\ \end{tabular} & **Justified** & **Allows Appeal** \\ \hline TJ do Acre & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ de Alagoas & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ TJ do Amapaña & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ do Amazonas & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ da Bahia & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ TJ do Ceará & No & No & No & - & No \\ TJ do Distortion Federal e & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ Território & & No & No & - & - \\ TJ do Espirito Santo & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ de Goisa & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ do Marahano & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ do Mato Grosso & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ TJ do Mato Grosso do Sul & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ de Minas Gerais & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ do Paraí & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ da Paraiba & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ do Paranaí & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ de Pernamúo & Not Yet 1 & Not Yet 1 & Yes & No & - \\ TJ do Piaí & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ do Rio de Janeiro & Partial Answer & No & No & - & No \\ TJ do Rio Grande do Norte & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ do Rio Grande do Sul & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ TJ de Rondonia & No & No & No & - & No \\ TJ de Roraima & No & No & No & - & - \\ TJ de Santa Catarina & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ TJ de São Paulo & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ TJ de Sergipe & Partial Answer & Yes & No & - & No \\ TJ de Tocantins & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ Superior Tribunal de Justica & Not Yet 1 & Not Yet 1 & Yes & Yes & - \\ Supreme Tribunal Federal & Yes & Yes & No & - & No \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* These courts requested an10-day extension, as provided by the FIA [3].  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Information access request responses. It was noted also that the courts surveyed did not take advantage of requesting an extension to reply, which allowed than to extend their deadline by 10 days, as stated in the paragraph 1, Article 11 of the FIA [3]. Only two courts requested an extension: the Court of the State of Pernambuco (TJPE) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). However, only the Superior Court of Justice offered the mandatory justification for the request for an extension. Thus, the fact that only two courts requested the extension shows that most of the courts either ignore that is possible to extend the deadline or do not care about complying with the FIA [3]. It also reinforces the fact that, on average, two in every three requests for information have been completely ignored and that, after two years of development of the Transparency in the Brazilian State study [27], nothing has changed. Furthermore, paragraph 4 of article 11 of the FIA [3] establishes the possibility of requesting an appeal in case of the denial of access to the request made by the Court, which remains impaired, since 92 requests went unanswered.