THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEPARTICIPANTS’PAPERSVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSISSUES CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSCONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Dimitri Vlassis*

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is the guardian of the United Nations
Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), the first legally binding global anti-corruption instrument. The
Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 58/4 of 31 October
2003. It entered into force in record time on 14 December 2005, ninety days after the date of deposit of thethirtieth instrument of ratification, pursuant to article 68 of the Convention.
UNCAC obliges States that have ratified or acceded to it to prevent and criminalize corruption, promote
law enforcement and international cooperation, cooperate for the recovery of stolen assets, and enhance
technical assistance and information exchange. UNODC facilitates the ratification or accession, andimplementation of the Convention, as well as supports States parties in devising coherent responses toprevent and combat corruption in accordance with UNCAC. To date, the Convention has 154 States parties.
The last country to accede was Vanuatu on 12 July 2011.
The Conference of the States Parties to UNCAC was established, pursuant to article 63 of theConvention, to improve the capacity of and cooperation between States parties to achieve the objectivesof the Convention, and to promote and review its implementation. The Conference now meets every twoyears. Its first session was held in Amman, Jordan in December 2006; the second in Nusa Dua, Indonesia
in January 2008; and the third in Doha, Qatar in November 2009. The fourth session has just taken place inMarrakesh, Morocco from 24 to 28 October 2011. The Rules of Procedure provide for the manner in which
the Conference is to be carried out (i.e. representation of States parties, Secretariat, languages, conduct ofbusiness, decision-making). UNODC is the Secretariat of the Conference whose functions are specified inarticle 64 of the Convention.
Already at its first session, the Conference of the States Parties to UNCAC decided on the necessity toestablish a mechanism or mechanisms to assist the Conference in reviewing the implementation of UNCAC.
In order to determine the terms of reference for such a body, an Open-ended Intergovernmental Working
Group on Review of the Implementation of UNCAC was established and held five meetings between 2007 and2009. In its landmark resolution 3/1, the Conference adopted the Terms of Reference of the Mechanism for
the Review of Implementation of UNCAC (UNCAC Review Mechanism). The Mechanism was establishedin accordance with article 63, paragraphs 1 and 7 of the Convention, which, inter alia , give a mandate to theConference to promote and review the implementation of the Convention, and allow for the establishment of, ifnecessary, any appropriate mechanism or body to assist in such effective implementation.
The Implementation Review Group was established to have an overview of the review process in order toidentify challenges and good practices, and to consider technical assistance requirements in order to ensure
effective implementation of the Convention. At its first session, from 28 June to 2 July 2010, the Implementation
Review Group adopted the Guidelines for Governmental Experts and the Secretariat in the Conduct of Country
Reviews (Guidelines), including the Blueprint for Country Review Reports and Executive Summaries.
Pursuant to article 4, paragraph 1 of UNCAC, States parties are to carry out their obligations underthe Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of* Chief, Corruption and Economic Crime Branch, Division for Treaty Affairs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,Vienna. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the United Nations. I
would like to express my gratitude to Mrs. Brigitte Strobel-Shaw and Ms. Annika Wythes whose assistance was indispensable
to this article.

123

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

States, and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other States. These principles apply, inter alia , to theUNCAC Review Mechanism, whereby it is to be conducted in a non-political and non-selective manner. TheMechanism, an intergovernmental process, is to: (a) be transparent, efficient, non-intrusive, inclusive andimpartial; (b) not produce any form of ranking; (c) provide opportunities to share good practices and challenges;(d) assist States parties in the effective implementation of the Convention; (e) take into account a balanced
geographical approach; (f) be non-adversarial and non-punitive, and to promote universal adherence to theConvention; (g) base its work on clear, established guidelines for the compilation, production and disseminationof information; (h) identify difficulties encountered by States parties in fulfilling their UNCAC obligations
and good practices in implementing the Convention; (i) be of a technical nature and promote constructive
collaboration, inter alia, in preventive measures, asset recovery and international cooperation; and (j)complement existing international and regional review mechanisms. The Mechanism takes into account thelevels of development of States parties, as well as diverse judicial, legal, political, economic and social systems
and differences in legal traditions.
The UNCAC reviews are to be conducted in a spirit of constructive collaboration, dialogue and mutualtrust. The review process is ongoing and gradual, and applicable to all States parties. It consists of 2 review
cycles of five years each. During the first cycle, chapter III (Criminalization and law enforcement) andchapter IV (International cooperation) are to be reviewed, and in the second cycle, to start in 2015, chapter
II (Preventive measures) and chapter V (Asset recovery). The selection of States parties participating in thereview process in a given year of a review cycle is to be carried out by the drawing of lots at the beginning ofeach review cycle. At its first session, from 28 June to 2 July 2010, the Implementation Review Group drew
lots for countries under review for all four years in the first cycle of the UNCAC Review Mechanism in order
to allow countries to plan for their reviews. In conducting the drawing of lots for the States parties underreview, consideration was given to the proportionality of the number of States parties from each regionalgroup participating in the review process in a given year to the size of that regional group and the number of
its members that are States parties to the Convention. A State party selected for review in a given year may,with a reasonable justification, also defer participation to the following year of the review cycle. While in thefirst year of the current cycle of the UNCAC Review Mechanism, there were 27 States under review due to thedecision of several States parties to make use of their right to defer their review, the second year is charged
with 41 States under review.
Each State party is reviewed by two other States parties. The State party under review is to also be actively
involved in the review. The Terms of Reference prescribe that one of the two reviewing States parties be fromthe same geographical region as the State party under review and if possible, to have a similar legal system.
This selection is carried out at the beginning of each year of the review cycle, and by the end of a cycle, eachState party must have undergone its own review and performed a minimum of one review and a maximum of
three reviews. In order to coordinate the review process, each State party is to appoint up to 15 governmental
experts and the State party under review needs to appoint a focal point.
Reviews can be broadly broken down into three phases. The first phase is where a State party under review
is to complete its self assessment checklist (Omnibus software) through broad stakeholder participation.
Rather than using paper-based questionnaires, UNODC developed a user-friendly computer-based application
to gathering information on a country’s implementation of UNCAC. During this initial phase, an introductory
conference call is also organized to introduce the review team and staff of the Secretariat assigned to thereview, agree on a timetable, possible division of labour and the language(s) of the review. This phase concludes
with the submission by the State party under review of their response to the self assessment checklist. Of theStates parties under review in the first year, 26 responses to the checklist were received and one is pending
due to the late confirmation of its readiness to undergo review. From the second year, two complete and one
partial response to the checklist have been received. During the first year, several States indicated that theyrequired longer to complete the checklist for reasons such as technical constraints and the need for interagency coordination. The average length of time required to complete the checklist was 19 weeks, which islonger than the envisaged eight weeks, and the length ranged between 250 and 300 pages.
The second phase starts with the distribution of the self assessment response to the reviewing experts
who are to conduct a desk review. In the first year, many reviewing experts stated that they would need anextension of the foreseen one month to thoroughly review the information received. The average time taken
was from one to two months.

124

THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The third phase is then a phase of active dialogue among the State party under review and the reviewing
experts, including the Secretariat, based on the outcome of the desk review. This dialogue can be carried out invarious ways, through a second conference call, and then either a joint meeting in Vienna or a country visit. In
the first year, 21 country visits and one joint meeting in Vienna were held; one further country visit and three
joint meetings are under consideration. In the second year, out of the 28 reviews where direct dialogue has
been discussed, 21 country visits have been requested, six are under consideration and one State party underreview has requested a joint meeting in Vienna. This phase culminates in an agreement among reviewing
and reviewed States on the country report and executive summary. As of 14 October 2011, seven executivesummaries were available for the Implementation Review Group.
Various UNCAC reviews are carried out in different languages of the United Nations and such language
combinations have proven to be a challenge due to the time associated with translating the necessary
information. In the first year, 13 country pairings were in one language, 13 in two languages and only 1 in threelanguages. In the second year, 15 country pairings are being carried out in one language, 21 in two languages
and 5 in three languages. For example, the time required to translate the self assessment response was: fromtwo to four weeks for 8 country reviews; from four to six weeks for 3; and from six to eight weeks for 2.
Ideally, the agreement of the country reports and executive summaries should be reached at 6 months.
However, due to the delays encountered, as described above, at least within 9 to 10 months would be the ideal
time-frame for the country reviews.
As stipulated in the Terms of Reference of the UNCAC Review Mechanism, the confidentiality of allof the information received is of paramount importance. The executive summaries are available to theImplementation Review Group for information purposes only, and States parties under review are encouraged
to publish their country reports.
The role of the Secretariat in the UNCAC Review Mechanism, as provided for in the Terms of Reference
and Guidelines, is to perform all tasks required for the Mechanism to function efficiently, which can include
providing technical and substantive support as required. The Guidelines further stated that the Secretariat isto also organized training workshops for reviewing and reviewed States parties. In the first year, eight training
workshops were held with over 200 participants, while in the second year, nine training workshops were heldwith also over 200 experts. As mentioned above, staff members of the Secretariat are assigned to each country
review, and the two staff members tend to be selected based on the agreed upon working languages of thereview.
There are various lessons learned from the first year of the UNCAC Review Mechanism, which arehighlighted in a note prepared by the Secretariat, entitled ‘Overview of the review process’ for the fourth
session of the Conference of the States Parties. It touches upon the issues mentioned above, and states that
the Conference may wish to provide guidance to the Implementation Review Group on how to effectively carryout its functions, in particular, in overseeing the review process and within the timeline prescribed by theTerms of Reference and Guidelines, as well as call on States parties involved in the review process to complywith such timelines, as well as prepare for their own reviews.
An area that has been integrally linked to the review process is also that of technical assistance. Already, theConvention in articles 60, 61 and 62 of chapter VI (Technical assistance and information exchange) emphasizes
the crucial importance of technical assistance in order to ensure full implementation of UNCAC. The Termsof Reference of the UNCAC Review Mechanism also specify that it is to help States parties to identify andsubstantiate specific needs for technical assistance, and generally, promote the provision of technical assistanceunder the Convention. Furthermore, the decision of the Conference to merge the functions of the Open-ended
Intergovernmental Working Group on Technical Assistance into the work of the UNCAC Review Mechanism
has set the stage for ensuring that needs identified through the reviews are brought to the attention of theImplementation Review Group and to potential technical assistance providers.
The technical assistance needs identified by States parties under review in the first year, based on their
response to the self assessment checklist were contained in a note prepared by the Secretariat, entitled‘Integrating technical assistance in the review process’ and based on the country reports, in a note, entitled‘Technical assistance needs of Chapters III and IV of the United Nations Convention against Corruption:

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

Statistical data’.
Various priority areas of technical assistance have emerged. For chapter III (Criminalization and lawenforcement), these areas enter around cooperating offenders, witnesses and reporting persons (article 32,33 and 37), foreign bribery and bribery in the private sector (article 16 and 21), prosecution, adjudication andsanctions (article 30), and freezing, seizure and confiscation (article 31). For chapter IV, these are extradition(article 44), mutual legal assistance (article 46) and law enforcement cooperation (article 48).
Of interest were also the global technical assistance needs for both chapters III and IV. In order of priority,
these were: (1) a summary of good practices and lessons learned; (2) model legislation, treaty, arrangement
or agreement; (3) on-site assistance by an anticorruption or relevant expert; (4) legal advice; and (5) thedevelopment of an action plan for implementation. This is highlighted below in the figure. Therefore, anearly conclusion might be that reporting States parties with technical assistance needs require the greatest
assistance with examples (i.e. summary of good practices and lessons learned) and models on how toimplement the chapters under review, which would ideally be supported through the guidance of a relevant
advisor and legal advice that takes into account a long term strategy (i.e. action plan for implementation).
When addressing such technical assistance needs, the approach endorsed by the Conference of theStates Parties to UNCAC in resolution 3/4, entitled ‘Technical assistance to implement the United Nations
Convention against Corruption’ is of importance. The Conference endorsed a country-led and country-based,
integrated and coordinated technical assistance programme of delivery.
Global Technical Assistance Needs for Chapters III and IV
Technologicalassistance1%

Legislative drafting
8%
Legal advice
16%

Development ofan action plan forimplementation
10%
Other assistance4%
Model agreements/
legislation/treaties
17%
On-site assistance by arelevant expert
12%

Summary of goodpractice/lessons
learned19%

Statesrequesting
technicalassistance73%

States not
requesting
technical
assistance27%

Capacity-building
programmes
13%

The Secretariat has sought to provide the Implementation Review Group with guidance on how such needs
might be addressed through a note it prepared on ‘Possible technical assistance activities to respond to needs
identified by States Parties during the first year of the first cycle of the Implementation Review Mechanism’.
This sets out a range of technical assistance initiatives envisaged to meet the needs identified through theUNCAC Review Mechanism. Based on the preliminary analysis on technical assistance needs, and on therecommendations of the Implementation Review Group, it appears that meeting the technical assistance needsof States in connection with the implementation of chapters III and IV might be accomplished through a threetiered approach: at the global level; at the regional level; and at the country level. Such an approach offers
considerable opportunity to maximize impact, effectiveness and coherence in programming. This approach
would be in line with the endorsement by the Conference of a country-led and country-based technicalassistance strategy, while taking into full account global and regional trends that require a broader perspective.
It is further to be noted that the two areas of asset recovery and prevention, for which the reviewof implementation will commence in 2015, are subject to two intergovernmental working groups of theConference of the State Parties to UNCAC. States parties have given a mandate to these working groups tostructure its work in a way which will best allow for the groups to assist States in implementing the chapter II(Preventive measures) and chapter V (Asset recovery), and in preparing the review of these chapters.

126