VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION:AN OVERVIEW OF ITS CONTENTS AND FUTURE ACTION
Dimitri Vlassis＊

I. INTRODUCTION
Barely two decades ago, corruption was only whispered about and largely accepted as inevitable,
pretty much as an incurable disease and as “part of doing business.” For international organizations, it
was the “C” word, which could not be uttered or included in programmes and debates, as it was deemed
politically too sensitive. At the time, there were quite a few “pundits” who were publishing articles about
the positive economic effects of corruption, expounding the theory that money has no color or smell andall that matters is that it be reinvested in the economy.
The situation now is fundamentally different. Corruption is generally recognized as an impediment todevelopment and as an ill that can be cured. It is also recognized as a scourge affecting all societies
globally, regardless of state of development. Therefore, it is now commonly accepted that corruption is
one of those phenomena which require all countries and all societies to work together to find solutions andhelp each other meet the enormous challenges it creates. The ultimate goal is, and must remain, toeradicate corruption. But we must be realistic. This goal is achievable, but will require a generational
shift in attitude, mentality and institutional development, and will demand sustained and ever growing determination. Corruption has been with us since the dawn of history and our generation will not be able towipe it from the face of the earth. We need to have aspirations, plan our work carefully and stay thecourse. We must ensure that future generations are better equipped than ours, so for them saying “no” tocorruption would be the default response. Our efforts and sacrifices (and there are plenty of those aroundthe world) are building blocks. Each one of us is laying a brick on our global edifice. The palace ofintegrity will require efforts as herculean as those that produced the monuments that our civilizations
cherish.
We have come a long way. In a very short time, by any standard, we have laid solid foundations. We
have made the transition from acceptability to constantly decreasing levels of tolerance. We have gonefrom timid exhortations and tentative diatribes to strong international legally binding instruments, which
are shaping policy and spurring the establishment of new normative and institutional frameworks fordomestic action. We have moved from resignation or cynicism to placing action against corruption at the
top of the political agenda around the world.
Getting this far was not easy. It took incredible work by many dedicated and visionary people inpublic service (both national governments and international organizations) and the private sector (including
civil society).
The United Nations focused increased attention on the prevention and control of corruption in 1989,
after the failed attempt of the late 1970s under the rubric of transnational corporations. Under theumbrella of its Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, the UN began building common understanding and bringing countries together around the topic through the gradual development of political
documents and practical tools. Meanwhile, regional or sectoral organizations started putting the issue on
their agenda and developing international conventions. The result of these efforts were the Interamerican
Convention against Corruption (1996)1, the OECD Convention on Bribery in International Commercial
Transactions (1997)2, the Council of Europe Conventions against Corruption (1998 and 1999) 3 and theChief, Corruption and Economic Crime Branch, Division for Treaty Affairs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime(UNODC) and Secretary, Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The views
expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or position of the United Nations.

＊167

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
African Union Convention against Corruption4.
The culmination of efforts against corruption was the successful negotiation in 2003 of the first global
international legally binding instrument, the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Its
negotiation and entry into force in record time were unprecedented and marked a turning point in boththe appreciation of the importance of the issue and the determination of countries around the world to join
forces and take meaningful action.
The new United Nations Convention against Corruption has enormous significance. It offers all
countries a comprehensive set of standards, measures and rules that they can apply to strengthen theirlegal and regulatory regimes to prevent and control corruption.
Negotiating the Convention was not an easy undertaking. There were many complex issues andconcerns from different quarters that the negotiators had to tackle. It was a formidable challenge tomaintain the quality of the new Convention while making sure that all of these concerns were properlyreflected in the final text. Very often compromise was not easy and all countries made concessions. But
the result is a source of pride and was made possible by the flexibility, sensitivity, understanding, andabove all strong political will that all countries displayed.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE CONVENTION
A. General Provisions (Chapter I, Arts. 1-4)
The first article of the Convention states that its purposes are the promotion and strengthening of
measures to prevent and combat corruption more efficiently and effectively; the promotion, facilitation andsupport of international cooperation and technical assistance, including in asset recovery; and thepromotion of integrity, accountability and public management of public affairs and public property.
The Convention then includes an article on the use of terms. In addition to such definitions as“property”, “proceeds of crime” and “confiscation”, the most significant innovation of the new Convention
are the definitions of “public official”, “foreign public official” and “official of a public international organization.”
The Convention contains a broad and comprehensive definition of “public official” that includes any
person holding a legislative, executive, administrative or judicial office and any person performing a public
function, including for a public agency or public enterprise, or providing a public service. The definition
retains the necessary link with national law, as it would be in the context of national law that the determination of who belongs in the categories contained in the definition would be made.
During the negotiation process, significant debate revolved around whether there was a need for a definition of “corruption” and, should the answer to that question be affirmative, what the content of such a
definition would be. In the end, negotiators decided that attempting to define in legal terms, i.e., in terms
that would stand scrutiny in a wide array if legal systems around the world and would add value to therest of the text of the Convention was neither feasible nor desirable. Corruption could easily be allowed
to stand as a word describing conduct that that was broadly understood in a progressively more consistent manner throughout the world. While the term might still be understood in a broader or narrower
fashion depending on national exigencies or traditions, attempting to crystallize in a short legal text
requiring high precision the core of the collective perception of the concept entailed a number of unnecessary risks. There was the risk of limiting the Convention to the current understanding, thus depriving
1 Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, OAS General Assembly resolution AG/res.1398 (XXVI-0/96) of 29 March

1996, annex.

2 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, OECD

document DAFFE/IME/BR(97)20.

3 European Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, 1998, European Treaty Series #173, European Civil Law Convention on

Corruption, 1999, European Treat Series #174.

4 African Union Convention on Preventing and Combatting Corruption, Maputo Mozambique, 11 July 2000, available fromthe AU on-line at: http://www.africa-union.org/Official_documents/Treaties_%20Conventions_ %20Protocols/Treaties_ Conventions_&_Protocols.htm.

168

19TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
the instrument from the dynamism necessary for it to remain relevant to national efforts and international
cooperation in the future. There was also the risk of capturing in the definition only some aspects of thephenomenon, thus inhibiting broader action against corruption that countries might have already taken or
might be contemplating. In deciding not to include a definition of “corruption” in the final text. the negotiators were inspired to a large extent by the similar approach taken by the United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime5, which does not define “transnational organized crime” but,instead, contains a definition of “organized criminal group”.
The Chapter contains an article on the scope of application, which states that for the purposes of implementing the Convention, it will not be necessary, except as otherwise provided in the Convention, forthe offences set forth in it to result in damage or harm to state property. This provision has particularimportance for international cooperation and asset recovery.
Finally, the chapter contains an article on protection of sovereignty, an issue which figures prominently
in the concerns of Member States, especially in view of the jurisdictional provisions that are later found in
the Convention. The article was inspired and follows the formulation of a similar article in the United
Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
B. Preventive Measures (Chapter II, Arts. 5-14)
The Convention contains a compendium of preventive measures which goes far beyond those ofprevious instruments in both scope and detail, reflecting the importance of prevention and the wide rangeof specific measures which have been identified by experts in recent years. More specifically, the Convention contains provisions on policies and practices, preventive anti-corruption bodies; specific measures forthe public sector, including measures to enhance transparency in the funding of candidatures for electedpublic office and the funding of political parties; comprehensive measures to ensure the existence of appropriate systems of procurement, based on transparency, competition and objective criteria in decision-making; measures related to the judiciary and prosecution services; measures to prevent corruption involving
the private sector; participation of society; and measures to prevent money laundering. The chapter on
prevention has been structured in a way that would establish the principle of what needs to be put inplace, but allow for the flexibility necessary for implementation, in recognition of the different approaches
that countries can take or their individual capacities.
The provisions on preventive measures are regarded as forming an integral part of the mechanismsthat the Convention is asking States to put in place. It is the one side of the coin, the other being thecriminalization of a variety of manifestations of corruption. It is important to note that the prevention
chapter covers all those measures that the international community collectively considers necessary forthe establishment of a comprehensive and efficient response to corruption at all levels.
C. Criminalization and Law Enforcement (Chapter III, Arts. 15-44)
While the development of the Convention reflects the recognition that efforts to control corruption
must go beyond the criminal law, criminal justice measures are still clearly a major element of the
package. The Convention would oblige States Parties to establish as criminal offences bribery of national
public officials; active bribery of foreign public officials; embezzlement, misappropriation or other diversion
of property by a public official; money laundering; and obstruction of justice. Further, States Parties would
establish the civil, administrative or criminal liability of legal persons.
In recognition of the fact that there may be other criminal offences which some countries may havealready established in their domestic law, or may find their establishment useful in fighting corruption, theConvention includes a number of provisions asking States Parties to consider establishing as criminal
offences such forms of conduct as trading in influence, concealment, abuse of functions, illicit enrichment,or bribery in the private sector.
The final formulation of the criminalization chapter, with the inclusion of both “mandatory” and “discretional” offences, created a quandary for negotiators as to how to deal with international cooperation, moresignificantly certain principles such as dual criminality, which normally govern such forms of international
5 GA/RES/55/25, annex.

169

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
cooperation as mutual legal assistance. The solution found, which is explained below under “international
cooperation”, is another innovative feature of the Convention, adding significantly to its value for the international community.
Other measures found in Chapter III are similar to those of the Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime. These include the establishment of jurisdiction to prosecute (Art.42), the seizing,
freezing and confiscation of proceeds or other property (Art.31), protection of witnesses, experts andvictims and cooperating persons (Art.32-33) and other matters relating to investigations and prosecutions(Art.36-41).
Elements of the provisions dealing with money-laundering and the subject of the sharing or return ofcorruption proceeds are significantly expanded from earlier treaties (see Chapter V), reflecting the greater
importance attached to the return of corruption proceeds, particularly in so-called “grand corruption”
cases, in which very large amounts of money have been systematically looted by government insiders
from State treasuries or assets and are pursued by subsequent governments.
D. International Cooperation (Chapter IV, Arts. 43-49)
Chapter IV contains a series of measures which deal with international cooperation in general, but itshould be noted that a number of additional and more specific cooperation provisions can also be found in
Chapters dealing with other subject-matters, such as asset recovery (particularly Art. 54-56) and technicalassistance (Art.60-62). The core material in Chapter IV deals with the same basic areas of cooperation asprevious instruments, including the extradition of offenders, mutual legal assistance and less-formal formsof cooperation in the course of investigations and other law-enforcement activities.
A key issue in developing the international cooperation requirements arose with respect to the scopeor range of offences to which they would apply. The broad range of corruption problems faced by many
countries resulted in proposals to criminalise a wide range of conduct. This in turn confronted many
countries with conduct they could not criminalise (as with the illicit enrichment offence discussed in theprevious segment) and which were made optional as a result. Many delegations were willing to accept
that others could not criminalise specific acts of corruption for constitutional or other fundamental reasons,but still wanted to ensure that countries which did not criminalise such conduct would be obliged tocooperate with other States which had done so. The result of this process was a compromise, in which
dual criminality requirements were narrowed as much as possible within the fundamental legal requirements of the States which cannot criminalise some of the offences established by the Convention.
This is reflected in several different principles. Offenders may be extradited without dual criminality
where this is permitted by the law of the requested State Party.6 Mutual legal assistance may be refusedin the absence of dual criminality, but only if the assistance requested involves some form of coercive
action, such as arrest, search or seizure, and States Parties are encouraged to allow a wider scope of assistance without dual criminality where possible.7 The underlying rule, applicable to all forms of cooperation,is that where dual-criminality is required, it must be based on the fact that the relevant States Parties
have criminalised the conduct underlying an offence, and not whether the actual offence provisions
coincide.8 Various provisions dealing with civil recovery9 are formulated so as to allow one State Party toseek civil recovery in another irrespective of criminalization, and States Parties are encouraged to assist
one another in civil matters in the same way as is the case for criminal matters.10
E. Asset Recovery (Chapter V, Arts. 51-59)
As noted above, the development of a legal basis for cooperation in the return of assets derived fromor associated in some way with corruption was a major concern and a key component of the mandate of
the Ad Hoc Committee. To assist delegations, a technical workshop featuring expert presentations on
6 Art. 44, para.2.
7 Art. 46, para.9.
8 Art. 43, para.2.

9 See, for example, Arts. 34, 35 and 53.

10 Article 43, paragraph 1 makes cooperation in criminal matters mandatory and calls upon States Parties to consider coop-eration in civil and administrative matters.

170

19TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
asset recovery was held in conjunction with the second session of the Ad Hoc Committee,11 and the subject-matter was discussed extensively during the proceedings of the Committee.
Generally, countries seeking assets sought to establish presumptions which would make clear theirownership of the assets and give priority for return over other means of disposal. Countries from which
return was likely to be sought, on the other hand, had concerns about the incorporation of language whichmight have compromised basic human rights and procedural protections associated with criminal liability
and the freezing, seizure, forfeiture and return of such assets. From a practical standpoint, there werealso efforts to make the process of asset recovery as straightforward as possible, provided that basic safeguards were not compromised, as well as some concerns about the potential for overlap or inconsistencies
with anti-money-laundering and related provisions elsewhere in the Convention and in other instruments
The provisions of the Convention dealing with asset recovery begin with the statement that the returnof assets is a “fundamental principle” of the Convention, with annotation in the travaux preparatoires tothe effect that this does not have legal consequences for the more specific provisions dealing withrecovery.12 The substantive provisions then set out a series of mechanisms, including both civil andcriminal recovery procedures, whereby assets can be traced, frozen, seized, forfeited and returned. A
further issue was the question of whether assets should be returned to requesting State Parties ordirectly to individual victims if these could be identified or were pursuing claims. The result was a seriesof provisions which favour return to the requesting State Party, depending on how closely the assets werelinked to it in the first place. Thus, funds embezzled from the State are returned to it, even if subsequently laundered,13 and proceeds of other offences covered by the Convention are to be returned to the requesting State Party if it establishes ownership or damages recognised by the requested State Party as abasis for return.14 In other cases assets may be returned to the requesting State Party or a prior legitimate owner, or used in some way for compensating victims.15 The chapter also provides mechanisms for
direct recovery in civil or other proceedings (Art.53) and a comprehensive framework for international cooperation (Art.54-55) which incorporates the more general mutual legal assistance requirements, mutatis
mutandis. Recognizing that recovering assets once transferred and concealed is an exceedingly costly,complex, and all-too-often unsuccessful process, the chapter also incorporates elements intended to prevent
illicit transfers and generate records which can be used should illicit transfers eventually have to be
traced, frozen, seized and confiscated (Art.52). The identification of experts who can assist developing
countries in this process is also included as a form of technical assistance (Art.60, para.5).
F. Technical Assistance and Information Exchange (Chapter VI, Arts. 60-62)
The provisions for research, analysis, training, technical assistance and economic development andtechnical assistance are similar to those contained in the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime, modified to take account of the broader and more extensive nature of corruption and to
exclude some areas of research or analysis seen as specific to organized crime. Generally, the forms oftechnical assistance under the Convention against Corruption will include established criminal justiceelements such as investigations, punishments and the use of mutual legal assistance, but also institutionbuilding and the development of strategic anti-corruption policies.16 Also called for is work through international and regional organizations (many of who already have established anti-corruption programmes),
research efforts, and the contribution of financial resources both directly to developing countries andcountries with economies in transition and to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,17 which is
expected to support pre-ratification assistance and to provide secretariat services to the Ad Hoc
Committee and Conference of States Parties as the Convention proceeds through the ratification process
and enters into force.18

11 See A/AC.261/6/Add.1 and A/AC.261/7, Annex I.
12 Art. 51 and A/58/422/Add.1, para.48
13 Art. 57, subpara. 3(a).

14 Art. 57, subpara. 3(b).
15 Art. 57, subpara. 3(c).
16 Art. 60, para.1.

17 Art. 60, paras.3-8.

171

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
G. Mechanisms for Implementation (Chapter VII, Arts. 63-64)
The Convention contains a robust mechanism for its implementation, in the form of a Conference of
the States Parties, with comprehensive terms of reference already specified in the Convention and with asecretariat that would be charged to assist it in the performance of its functions. These provisions are
inspired by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, but go considerably
beyond that instrument, both in terms of scope and detail. The Secretary General is called upon toconvene the first meeting of the Conference within one year of the entry of the Convention into force,19
and the Ad Hoc Committee which produced the Convention is preserved and called upon to meet one final
time to prepare draft rules of procedure for adoption by the Conference, “well before” its first meeting.20
The bribery of officials of public international organizations is dealt with in the Convention only on alimited basis (Art.16), and the General Assembly has also called upon the Conference of States Parties tofurther address criminalization and related issues once it is convened.21
H. Final Provisions (Chapter VIII, Arts. 65-71)
The final provisions are based on templates provided by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs andare similar to those found in other United Nations. treaties. Key provisions include those which ensurethat the Convention requirements are to be interpreted as minimum standards, which States Parties arefree to exceed with measures which are “more strict or severe” than those set out in the specific provisions,22 and the two articles governing signature and ratification and coming into force. The Convention is
open for signature from 9 December 2003 to 9 December 2005, and to accession by States which have notsigned any time after that. It will come into force on the 90th day following the deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification or accession with the Office of Legal Affairs Treaty Section at U.N. Headquarters in
New York.23

III. THE ROAD AHEAD: THE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW MECHANISM
The importance of ensuring that the United Nations Convention against Corruption would be aneffective tool for combating corruption was at the centre of discussions throughout the negotiations on theterms of reference of a mechanism for reviewing the implementation of the Convention. It was consideredessential that the Convention be an instrument that would add value to the efforts of Member States inpreventing and fighting corruption, including by supporting countries through technical assistance,enhanced international cooperation and data collection.
Such discussions had already taken place at the early stages of negotiating the Convention. During themeetings of the Intergovernmental Open-ended Expert Group to Prepare Draft Terms of Reference for
the Negotiation of an International Legal Instrument against Corruption, many delegations emphasized theimportance of effective mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of a new convention. As can bediscerned from the Travaux Préparatoires of the Negotiations for the Elaboration of the United Nations
Convention against Corruption, the discussions on reviewing implementation eventually resulted in article
63 of the Convention, in particular paragraph 7: “Pursuant to paragraphs 4 to 6 of this article, the Conference of the States Parties shall establish, if it deems it necessary, any appropriate mechanism or body toassist in the effective implementation of the Convention”.
From the outset, there was a special focus on establishing a mechanism that would assist States
parties in fully implementing the Convention and would support their efforts in measuring progress
towards that end. In preparation for the discussions on a mechanism and in a bid to support such a
process, several comparisons to other corruption-related implementation review mechanisms were
18 GA/RES/58/4, paras. 8 and 9 and Convention Art.64.

UNODC is already designated as the secretariat for the Ad Hoc
Committee pursuant to GA/RES/55/61, paras, 2 and 8 and GA/RES/56/261, paras. 6 and 13. By convention, the General
Assembly calls on the Secretary General to provide the necessary resources and services, leaving to his discretion the designation of particular U.N. entities and staff to do so.
19 Art. 63, para.2.
20 GA/RES/58/4, para.5.
21 GA/RES/58/4, para.6.
22 Art.65, para.2.
23 Art. 67 (signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession) and 68 (Entry into force) For further information see
the segment on procedural history and footnotes 10 and 11 (sources of assistance), above.

172

19TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
prepared, both by the Secretariat and by other organizations.
Following extensive deliberations during the first and second sessions of the Conference of the States
Parties to the Convention, resolution 3/1 was adopted at its third session, in November 2009, annexed towhich were the terms of reference of the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the Convention.
In the same resolution the Conference decided that the Implementation Review Group would be established to be in charge of the operation of the Mechanism and report to the Conference of the States
Parties, which remains the supreme body with respect to the implementation of the Convention.
The Review Mechanism commenced its work in July 2010. Owing to the comprehensive nature of theConvention, which covers in four substantive chapters measures to prevent and criminalize corruption, as
well as provisions on international cooperation and asset recovery, it was decided to establish two review
cycles: the first review cycle covers chapters III (Criminalization and law enforcement) and IV (International cooperation), while the second will cover chapters II (Preventive measures) and V (Asset recovery).
The Review Mechanism created renewed momentum for the ratification of and accession to the Convention. While the ratification pace was high from 2003 to 2008, with 140 ratifications, a lull followed in
2009; but then the pace was reinvigorated by the Review Mechanism, when it became operational in 2010.
Since then, another 38 States have ratified or acceded to the Convention, making a total of 178 States
parties out of 193 Member States of the United Nations. This nearly universal participation in the Convention creates an enabling environment allowing for a comprehensive global picture of the state of efforts
against corruption.
The peer review process is aimed at further enhancing the potential of the Convention by providing
the means for countries to assess progress in implementation, identify challenges and develop action plans
to strengthen its implementation domestically. The ability to fund the participation of least developed
countries and developing countries in the review process has proved critical to its success, as it ensuresthat each State party has an equal opportunity to participate both as reviewer and country to be reviewed
and to engage in discussions on an equal footing at the sessions of the Implementation Review Group, thus
creating a sense of ownership and involvement.
The inclusive nature of the Review Mechanism has allowed countries that, because of resource constraints, do not always sit at the same table with other countries to participate actively in the peer
reviews and intergovernmental processes, thus enriching the discussions with their experience andproviding an opportunity to learn from others.
In its resolution 3/1, the Conference decided on the use of a self-assessment checklist (now also
referred to as the omnibus software) as the tool for gathering information for the reviews. National focal
points and governmental experts are trained in the use of the self-assessment checklist, as well as on thesubstantive provisions of the Convention and the procedural aspects of the reviews. Since the launch of
the Mechanism, UNODC has trained over 1,400 anti-corruption practitioners.
Of the growing number of States parties involved in the review process, many, in sharing their experiences as States under review and as reviewing States, have highlighted how useful it was to serve first as
reviewers before undergoing their own review. It was an opportunity to gain understanding of andexpertise on the provisions of the Convention, as well as to analyse another country’s system in that light.
The exercise enabled them to share lessons learned with the other reviewers and with their own colleagues at the national level.
As the same individuals often participate as reviewers in more than one country review, as well as intheir own country review, their enhanced understanding of the Convention is often shared with other anticorruption practitioners nationally, creating a powerful multiplier effect. The comprehensive self-assessment checklist and the training provide the basis for a better and deeper understanding of the provisionsof the Convention.
By the end of its first cycle the Review Mechanism will have reached nearly all States Members of theUnited Nations. The outcomes of the reviews will constitute a knowledge base on anti-corruption173

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
measures in place in all regions. The analysis of the country reports will present a global assessment of
the state of anti-corruption efforts and will provide a global benchmark for trends and progress.
At the time of writing this article, more than 166 States Parties had completed and submitted theirself-assessment checklists for the first cycle of reviews (chapters III and IV of the Convention). The exceptionally high response rate to the self-assessment checklist is proof of the value that States parties
attribute to the Mechanism and to the implementation of the Convention. It is also proof of the fact thatthe professional, respectful and objective operation of the Mechanism has allayed initial hesitation orconcerns that some countries may have harboured regarding the Mechanism. Instead, the abundance ofideas exchanged and information, advice and good practices shared among governmental experts has contributed to opening up the issue of corruption to a frank and constructive global dialogue across regions
and legal systems.
The Review Mechanism has also proved to be an important forum for all States parties to engage onpractical anti-corruption issues in a positive and constructive spirit, both as States parties under review
and reviewing States parties. The transparent, efficient, non-intrusive, inclusive and impartial nature of the
Mechanism, as well as its multilingualism, have emerged as assets of great value in this regard.
The substantive exchange of experiences and the establishment of informal channels of communication
among States have been highlighted as key factors for international cooperation, including direct contacts
between central authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units. Most countries
under review have reported that the dialogue between reviewing experts and focal points in theframework of the Review Mechanism facilitates such informal contacts.
The review exercise has enabled States parties to enhance internal inter-agency dialogue, cooperationand coordination through the establishment of dedicated steering committees and the holding ofworkshops for the validation of the information shared through the self-assessment checklists, country
reports and executive summaries. Institutions involved in reviews have so far included, apart from thededicated anti-corruption agencies, supreme audit institutions, public administration authorities, government departments, law enforcement, the judiciary, and parliaments and their committees. This inclusiveness of the process has facilitated and frequently set in motion an informed national policy dialogue aboutreform requirements.
In many instances, the country reports have been beneficial for efforts to institute domestic reforms
and address implementation challenges at the national level in response to the outcomes of the reviews. In
several cases, a broad national dialogue has taken place to fill the gaps identified during the review
process and to establish action plans. In other cases, specific legislative, institutional and capacity-building
activities have been undertaken to address the recommendations in the review report, with the support of
UNODC and other technical assistance providers on an ad hoc basis.
Through the Review Mechanism and its process States parties have dedicated time and effort to reflecting on the interaction among national stakeholders. This has enabled a comprehensive analysis of deficiencies, gaps and bottlenecks, as well as the identification of good practices, and has in a number ofcountries led to the establishment of new channels of communication among the stakeholders, as well as
the creation of specialized, dedicated anti-corruption bodies and services.
The self-assessment process has offered new opportunities for refining and enhancing national data collection in areas directly relevant to national policy development. Indeed, the self-assessment process
makes use of existing national research, assessments and statistics, while at the same time seeking to
identify how these can be improved and complemented. In cases where data were scattered, there was aclear opportunity to develop a more sustainable data-collection system, in particular with regard to thetime and resources national authorities generally spend on the self-assessment. Some States parties haveconsequently built their continuous data collection on the initial data-collection team that was formed forthe review process, while others (approximately a quarter of States parties to date) have indicateddatabases and tracking systems as a priority technical assistance need. Many States parties have also
indicated that they will use the outcome of the review process as a yardstick against which they willcontinue to measure progress domestically.
174

19TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
UNODC has noted that States parties have found it very useful to receive ad hoc targeted technicalassistance in the form of training or advisory services throughout the Review Mechanism cycle, i.e. notonly in response to the findings of the review but also during the initial preparatory stages, to help gain
momentum. This has shown that there is an increase in trust and confidence in the Mechanism and has
also encouraged State’s parties under review to focus on what they consider to be the most pressing
needs emerging from the review and to address at an early stage lacunae that might otherwise hamper
the success of the review.
Priority actions may include the development of an action plan to meet the needs identified during thereview; training courses on financial investigations; training courses on international cooperation to facilitate extradition and mutual legal assistance in cases of corruption; legal advice to ensure that offences
criminalized in the Convention are incorporated into national legislation (some countries have requested
comments on a draft bill that would address some of the shortcomings identified in current legislation);expert advice for the development of a case management system for the anti-corruption agency; and legal
advice and training on the adoption and use of special investigative techniques. Requests have also been
received regularly on ways to improve the detection of corruption cases, be it through the development of
witness and whistle-blower protection programmes or through advisory services on how to structure
systems of asset and income declaration.
Both the formal training sessions and the hands-on, in situ assistance have contributed to building thecapacities of national authorities to assess their own legislative and institutional framework. As UNODC
has sought to ensure that these processes are country-led, it is expected that the expertise will remain
available beyond the formal review process and will allow States to develop their own capacity to monitor
existing gaps, review progress and reassess compliance with the Convention on a regular basis.
In the margins of the in situ gap-analysis missions, UNODC has been able to advise on pressing
matters such as asset recovery cases and on the structuring and operation of asset declaration and verification systems, most of which are newly established. As a result, not only does the gap analysis serve as
the basis for self-assessment reports and allow countries to make timely submissions, but countries havealso been able to address some needs and gaps prior to the review, thanks to the advice they received
during the gap analysis.
While many countries have already adopted anti-corruption legislation in line with the Convention,
UNODC has continued to receive requests from States seeking to improve their domestic legislation toprevent and fight corruption, in particular on the basis of the challenges identified through the country
reviews. To this end, UNODC has provided legislative assistance mostly to address corruption in a comprehensive manner, but support has also been provided on several pieces of legislation covering specificaspects such as asset declarations, money-laundering, bribery of foreign public officials, mutual legal assistance, access to information, witness protection and corporate liability. In several cases, examples andgood practices from other States were shared with the authorities.
Along the same lines, UNODC has provided wide-ranging support to Member States to improve theircapacity to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute corruption. Assistance has been provided for the development of national anti-corruption strategies, for the establishment and strengthening of relevant institutional frameworks, structures, policies, processes and procedures and for the strengthening of the preventive, investigative and prosecutorial capacities of relevant institutions, through both national andregional activities.
The Review Mechanism allows States parties under review to identify and state their technical assistance needs and requests as part of a broader programme of reform. Donors, many of whom will haveparticipated in the Mechanism, are thus able to view their possible entry points for support as part andparcel of a comprehensive programming and delivery effort that may take several years, thus often
promoting a multi-year and multi-stakeholder engagement.
The chances for identifying strategic priorities and developing an effective prioritized national anti-corruption strategy increase substantially on the basis of findings from a comprehensive review and a contextually relevant understanding of the corruption problem. The strategy benefits from having information
175

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
from different stakeholder perspectives and from addressing anti-corruption efforts from the perspectiveof a whole government and beyond. A comprehensive and inclusive review process helps to ensure
ownership of the review outcomes and of future reforms, and provides an important benchmark against
which progress can be measured.
Another important dimension is the use of the body of knowledge and information generated throughthe Review Mechanism. It has been noted on several occasions that States parties, as well as their national
and international counterparts, use the information gathered during the reviews as a basis to enhancetheir anti-corruption work. The wealth of information on laws, regulations, cases and statistics gathered
through the Mechanism has been collated and made available online through the UNODC-managed Track
portal.24 The portal hosts several sub-pages, including that of the legal library.
The data is organized by Convention provision and is searchable by country, legal system, government
structure and level of human development. On the basis of the information gathered through the reviews,
the legal library is continuously being updated and validated. This has been useful for States parties in
preparing for the reviews and has been extremely valuable for countries wishing to draw on examples
from other countries.
From September 2011, when the TRACK portal was launched, until August 2016, it had more than
74,500 users, and statistics show that the average time spent per visit has remained steady over the years.
Some 34 per cent of visitors have specifically visited the legal library. While the aforementioned training
activities on the Review Mechanism and the Convention have important advocacy aspects, awareness andunderstanding of the importance of the Convention in anti-corruption efforts is also enhanced through the
TRACK portal.
The Review Mechanism has helped to desensitize and depoliticize the issue of corruption at thenational level, as it has allowed States parties to engage previously unlikely partners, such as civil society
and non-governmental organizations, in one joint effort.
The Review Mechanism has led to the creation of several inter-agency initiatives to support the implementation of the Convention, including work with UNDP on the implementation of the UNODC/UNDP“going beyond the minimum” methodology; the “Partnership for anti-corruption knowledge” initiative;
judicial integrity; programming through United Nations country teams); and work with the World Bank on
the UNODC/World Bank StAR Initiative.
At its sixth session, held in November 2015 in St. Petersburg, the Conference of the States Parties to
the Convention launched the second cycle of the Implementation Review Mechanism, which will coverchapters II on prevention and V on asset recovery. The second cycle became operational in June 2016
with the determination, through drawing of lots, of which States Parties will be under review in each of
the next five years and the drawing of lots of the reviewers for the first 36 States parties, which will be
reviewed from June 2016 until June 2017.

IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS
While the Review Mechanism cannot resolve all issues related to the implementation of the Convention, it has proved to be an important entry point for many dimensions of the fight against corruption andabove all has raised awareness and understanding of the Convention. The peer review aspect of the
Mechanism has embodied the spirit of the United Nations Charter and the Convention against Corruption
not only by opening a dialogue among States parties but also by desensitizing the issue of corruption in
general, by demonstrating that no country is exempt from it.
With the entry into force of the UNCAC, with the number of parties to the Convention growing
rapidly (178 as of August 2016) and with the smooth operation of the Conference of the States Parties andthe Implementation Review Mechanism, the anti-corruption landscape has definitely and unalterablychanged for the better.
24 www.track.unodc.org/Pages/home.aspx.

176

19TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
The adoption in September 2015 of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda25 is another momentous
milestone. Especially important is the inclusion of Goal 16, which states “Promote peaceful and inclusive
societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable andinclusive institutions at all levels”. The targets under this goal include promoting the rule of law at thenational and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all (target 16.3); by 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat
all forms of organized crime (target 16.4); substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms(target 16.5); and develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels (target 16.6). The
achievement of these targets and Goal 16 will be made possible through the full and effective implementation of the Convention and operation of the Implementation Review Mechanism.

25 General Assembly resolution 70/1.

177