VISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSRESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89
THE CURRENT ISSUES CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION: WHAT IS
BEING DISCUSSED AT THE CONFERENCE OF THE STATES PARTIES?
Dimitri Vlassis*

I. Introduction
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) was developed as a collective responseof the international community to corruption and its effective implementation by States Parties is of
key importance for rendering anti-corruption measures more efficient and robust, both in the context ofdomestic criminal justice and law enforcement systems and in the field of international cooperation.
The mechanism which was put in place in 2009 to review the implementation of the UNCAC has acentral role to play in the response to corruption and can further promote mutual trust and collaboration
among States Parties to the Convention. The identification of technical assistance needs and thecoordination and joint work for the effective delivery of technical assistance to overcome legal, operationalor other barriers to effective action against corruption are integral components of the mechanism and arepivotal to the successful and consistent implementation of the Convention.
This paper focuses on the procedural framework of the Implementation Review Group, a subsidiary
body of the Conference of the States Parties to the UNCAC with a specific mandate to have an overview
of the overall review process and the manner in which the mechanism for the review of implementationof the Convention functions. In addition, it includes an extensive summary of the preliminary findings andconclusions of substantive nature on the implementation of chapters III and IV of the Convention during
the first and second years of the first cycle of the mechanism. It further includes information on the work of
UNODC in the field of promotion and implementation of the UNCAC, especially through technical assistancecovering all substantive aspects of the Convention.

II. The Implementation Review Mechanism of the UNCAC:
an overview of its procedural framework
At its third session in Doha in November 2009, the Conference of States Parties to the UNCAC adopted
landmark resolution 3/1 on the review of the implementation of the Convention. In that resolution, theConference recalled article 63 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, especially paragraph 7,
according to which the Conference should establish, if it deemed it necessary, any appropriate mechanism orbody to assist in the effective implementation of the Convention.
In the same resolution — annexed to it — the Conference adopted the terms of reference of the
Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and thedraft guidelines for governmental experts and the secretariat in the conduct of country reviews and the draft
blueprint for country review reports, contained in the appendix to the annex, which were later finalized by the
Implementation Review Group.
The established review mechanism aims at assisting countries to meet the objectives of the Convention
through a peer review process. Under the mechanism, which has been fully operational since 2010, all States* 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 Mr. Dimosthenis Chrysikos whose assistance was indispensable to this article.

8615TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Parties are reviewed on the fulfillment of their obligations under the Convention. This further enhances
the potential of the Convention, by providing the means for countries to assess how they perform in
implementation, identify potential gaps in national anti-corruption laws and practices, and develop action plans
to strengthen the implementation of the Convention domestically. There are two review cycles of five years
each: The ongoing first cycle addresses the implementation of the Chapters III and IV of the Convention on
criminalization and law enforcement and international cooperation in criminal matters respectively. The second
cycle, starting in 2015, will then focus on Chapters II and V of the UNCAC on preventive measures and asset
recovery respectively.
Reviews are based on responses to the self-assessment checklist submitted by countries under review.
Each State Party is reviewed by two other States Parties in the context of a peer review process. Countries
do not have to wait until they are up for review; neither do they have to limit themselves to the chapterson criminalization and law enforcement and international cooperation, which are under review during thecurrent review cycle. The self-assessment checklist also covers the chapters on preventive measuresand asset recovery. Some States Parties have started, on a voluntarily basis, a comprehensive assessment
and gap analysis, in accordance with the Guidance note on UNCAC self-assessments “Going beyond theminimum”, developed jointly by UNDP and UNODC, along with a number of other partners.

III. The Implementation Review Mechanism as the maininterface for the identification of technicalassistance needs and the delivery of technicalassistance in the anti-corruption field
An area that has been integrally linked to the review process is that of technical assistance. Already,the Convention 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.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the terms of reference, one of the goals of the Review Mechanism is tohelp States Parties to identify and substantiate specific needs for technical assistance and to promote andfacilitate the provision of technical assistance. Pursuant to paragraph 44 of the terms of reference, theImplementation Review Group is to consider technical assistance requirements in order to ensure effective
implementation of the Convention.
Functioning in this capacity, the Implementation Review Mechanism is meant to become the main interface
for identifying technical assistance needs and facilitating the delivery of technical assistance in the field of anticorruption, with a great potential in measuring the impact of assistance provided.
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 the Implementation Review
Group and to potential technical assistance providers.
The key role of the Implementation Review Group can be clearly delineated within the concept of provisionof technical assistance as “a three-step process” and is tightly linked to the first step of this process. This firststep is an analysis of the requirements that need to be met to ensure compliance. Under the Implementation
Review Mechanism, this involves a peer review of anti-corruption laws, regulations and measures in relation to
the articles of the Convention, and their institutional functionality. The self-assessment checklist developed by
the Secretariat provides a broad and consultative tool, based on a country-led process, to assess what is in place
and to allow the country to determine whether its legislative and institutional frameworks are in compliancewith the articles of the Convention. The second step involves the identification of priorities for adapting
laws and administrative procedures to the requirements of the Convention, and thereafter putting theminto effect. This involves both a legislative and a capacity-building component to ensure the compatibility ofskills and mechanisms to achieve such results. The final step is to address the technical assistance needs
identified by a given State Party to make the applicable legislative and institutional framework operational in
the fight against corruption.

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

Various priority areas of global technical assistance have emerged from the country reviews of the firstand second year of the ongoing review cycle. These include, among others, summaries of good practices
and lessons learned; model legislation and model treaties, arrangements or agreements; on-site assistanceby an anti-corruption or relevant expert; legislative drafting and legal advice; the development of an action
plan for implementation; and other assistance in the form of capacity-building through networks and informalinteractions.
Based on the preliminary analysis on technical assistance needs, and on the recommendations of the
Implementation Review Group, it appears that meeting the technical assistance needs of States in connection
with the implementation of chapters III and IV might be accomplished through a three-tiered 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 theendorsement by the Conference of a country-led and country-based technical assistance strategy, while taking
into full account global and regional trends that require a broader perspective.

IV. An overview of the basic findings of completed reviews
Based on the information regarding the implementation of chapters III (Criminalization and law enforcement)
and IV (International cooperation) of the UNCAC by States Parties under review in the first and second yearsof the first cycle of the Review Mechanism, some preliminary conclusions and findings have been drawn which
are grouped and presented below. These findings emerge from the review reports of nineteen States Parties
that had been completed, or were close to completion, upon expiration of the second year of the ongoing review
cycle.

A. Chapter III (Criminalization and Law Enforcement)• All reviewed States Parties have adopted measures to criminalize both active and passive briberyof domestic public officials. Nonetheless, a number of common issues were observed concerning
the implementation of these offences. In several States Parties, cases of a “promise” of an undue
advantage were not explicitly covered or were indirectly covered under related concepts. Several
States have additionally adopted a “conduct-based” approach whereby only the actual exchange was
the subject of the offence, while an offer of bribery was not explicitly covered, although in some ofthese cases the offer could be prosecuted as an attempted crime or incomplete crime.

88•

In several cases, there were gaps as to third parties, such as the coverage of indirect bribery
involving intermediaries or the accrual of benefits to third parties.

•

In a few cases, the legislation contained specific exemptions or limitations, for example regarding
bribery below certain threshold amounts, a defence of “reasonable excuse”, or immunity fromprosecution for persons who reported the act of bribery.

•

Regarding the “undue advantage” in bribery offences, it was noted in concrete cases that a “valuebased” approach was followed, whereby bribery is punished only when it involves material
advantages.

•

A number of States Parties have not adopted specific measures to criminalize both active and passive
bribery of foreign public officials and officials of public international organizations. Common challenges
related to the inadequacy of normative measures and limited capacity.

•

While all reviewed States Parties had established measures to criminalize the embezzlement ofpublic funds, issues were encountered in some cases as to the scope of the property (movable
v. immovable) which was the subject of the offence. In other cases, there were limitations or
discrepancies concerning the accrual of benefits to third parties.

•

Trading in influence has not been established as a criminal offence in several States Parties. Where
relevant legislation was in place, there were certain deviations from the scope of the Convention(additional purpose of economic benefit; abuse of “supposed” influence not covered).

•

Most States Parties have adopted measures to criminalize the abuse of functions by public officials,
though a separate offence was not always explicitly recognized and there were some deviations in
the description of the offence.

15TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

Illicit enrichment has not been established as a criminal offence in the majority of States Parties, butlegislation was pending in several cases. Objections to enacting relevant legislation commonly related
to the constitutionality of such legislation. Where illicit enrichment has not been criminalized, a similareffect was achieved by way of asset and income declaration requirements.

•

Less than half of the reviewed States Parties have adopted measures to fully criminalize bribery in
the private sector. All States Parties have adopted measures to criminalize embezzlement in theprivate sector. However, in two cases the provision only indirectly covered various elements of suchcriminal conduct. In three cases, immovable assets were excluded from the scope of the national law.

•

There was some variation among the reviewed States Parties with regard to the criminalization ofmoney-laundering. While most States Parties have taken measures towards establishing moneylaundering as a criminal offence, in several cases there were significant gaps in the implementing
law, which covered only part of the conduct described in article 23 of the UNCAC.

•

Several States Parties have adopted an “all crime approach” that did not restrict application of themoney-laundering offence to specific predicate offences or categories of predicate offences, whileothers applied the law to “serious offences”, though the applicable thresholds differed. However,in several cases, issues were encountered with respect to the coverage of predicate offences
committed outside the territory of the State Party.

•

Obstruction of justice has been established as a criminal offence in most States Parties, with variations
as to the scope of relevant domestic offences.

•

Most States Parties have adopted measures to establish the liability of legal persons for offences
covered by the Convention, though a general liability provision did not always exist and there wasconsiderable variation concerning the type and scope of such liability. Common challenges related
to the inadequacy of existing normative measures and specificities in national legal systems. Thus,
a number of States Parties have established some form of criminal liability of legal persons forcorruption offences, with certain exceptions or limitations in some cases. In some cases, the liability
was limited to certain offences or conduct, such as money-laundering or bribery of national andforeign officials, with a further restriction that the offences in question must have been committed
directly and immediately in the interest of the corporate body. Sanctions generally varied, ranging
from administrative penalties, including blacklisting for certain violations, to monetary penalties anda combination of sanctions including confiscation and dissolution in two others.

•

There was considerable variation among the reviewed States Parties with regard to the lengthand application of the statute of limitations for offences established under the Convention.
Recommendations on extension of the statute were issued depending on the threshold prescribedin domestic laws, as well as the possibility of prolongation or suspension of the statute and its
application in practice.

B. Chapter IV (International Cooperation)
1. Extradition• All reviewed States Parties regulated extradition in their domestic legal systems, most of them intheir Criminal Procedure Code or special laws on international cooperation. Not all States Parties,
however, regulated extradition with the same level of detail. While some States relied heavily on
treaties, others mentioned the importance that non-binding arrangements had in their extradition
practice. Despite the fact that the majority of States Parties did not require a treaty as a basis for
extradition, in practice they all relied to a greater or lesser extent on treaties (whether bilateral orregional).
•

A significant difference among States Parties stemmed from their belonging to different legal systems:
whereas the Constitution of some allowed for the direct application of duly ratified international
treaties, other States Parties could only enforce treaties by enacting enabling legislation. Accordingly,
most States Parties belonging to the first category did not need to adopt detailed implementing
legislation by virtue of the fact that the extradition-related provisions of the Convention had become an
integral part of their domestic legal system.

•

The majority of States Parties considered as “extraditable offences” only those punished by deprivationof liberty for a period of at least one year or a more severe penalty. As a result, whenever Conventionbased offences were punishable by a lesser penalty, extradition would not be possible. It was noted

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

that this situation might be addressed by increasing the applicable penalties to ensure that all conductcriminalized in accordance with the Convention become extraditable.
•

Dual criminality appeared invariably as a standard condition for granting extradition. Only Member
States of the European Union stated that the surrender of fugitives in execution of the European
Arrest Warrant would not be subject to this requirement. The majority of States Parties set out thedual criminality principle explicitly in their domestic legislation. The dual criminality principle wasusually interpreted in a flexible manner, in accordance with art. 43 para. 2 of the Convention whichdeems it fulfilled regardless of the terminology used to denominate the offence in question.

•

Most reviewed States Parties had an exhaustive list of grounds for refusal in their legislation. Several
States Parties reported that they could not extradite their own nationals unless this possibility was
explicitly envisaged in applicable treaties. Most States Parties specified that any refusal to grant
extradition based on these grounds would trigger a domestic prosecution, in accordance with article
44(11) of the Convention.

•

Most States Parties confirmed that the Convention could be used as a basis for extradition. Overall,however, it emerged that the Convention was not widely utilised in practice for this purpose.

•

As to the average duration of extradition proceedings, the information provided pointed to substantial
differences among States Parties, ranging from two to three months to twelve to eighteen months.
Individual countries also reported differences in their ability to extradite depending on thecircumstances in which the request had been submitted.

•

Lack of uniformity was also recorded in terms of the evidentiary threshold prescribed by domestic
laws in order to grant extradition. While some States Parties did not require any evidence about thecommission of the offence, others set a number of standards. These were expressed in terms of“probable cause” or “prima facie case”. Recommendations were made to the latter States Parties tointroduce a lower burden of proof in extradition proceedings to make it easier for requesting States
to formulate an extradition request with higher chances of it being granted. Half of the reviewed
States Parties provided for a simplified extradition proceeding based on the sought person’s consent
to be transferred.

2. Mutual Legal Assistance90•

The extent and scope of regimes of mutual legal assistance in the States Parties under review
varied significantly. Several States have adopted specific domestic legal provisions, either as
distinct laws or forming part of broader pieces of legislation such as the Penal Code or the Criminal
Procedure Code. Most of those States Parties have also concluded international treaties regulatinginternational cooperation in criminal matters. A number of States Parties reported that, in the absenceof comprehensive domestic legislation on the matter, mutual legal assistance was provided on the basisof multilateral and bilateral treaties. In some cases, it was noted that mutual legal assistance could beafforded even in the absence of treaties, based on principles such as reciprocity.

•

Like in the case of extradition, mutual legal assistance frameworks were influenced by the nature of
the legal system of each State. In States where the direct application of treaties was permitted, theself-executing provisions of the Convention would apply without the need for specific implementing
legislation. In States where implementing legislation was required to enact international treaties, theprovisions of the Convention would not be applicable without the adoption of enabling laws.

•

The majority of States Parties were able to grant assistance in relation to offences for which legal
persons may be held liable, but only a small number of States provided examples of actual cases
where assistance had been provided in such a case.

•

Spontaneous transmission of information to foreign authorities and the modalities thereof, envisaged
in art. 46(4) and 46(5) of the Convention were not specifically regulated in the domestic legislationof the majority of States Parties under review. Several States Parties reported, however, that even
if not foreseen, spontaneous transmission was possible to the extent that it was not explicitly
prohibited, and noted that such transmission occurred frequently through informal channels ofcommunication available to law enforcement authorities.

•

In States where direct application of treaties was not permitted, legislation was required to ensurethat mutual legal assistance provisions of the Convention were applied. In most States, requests forlegal assistance could not be declined on the ground of bank secrecy, although in some cases access15TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

to bank records had to be duly authorized by prosecuting or judicial authorities.
•

The majority of States Parties provided that dual criminality was not a requirement for granting
mutual legal assistance. In three cases, in the absence of dual criminality, assistance would not
be rendered for coercive measures. In some States Parties the absence of dual criminality was an
optional ground to refuse assistance.

•

Almost all States Parties have designated central authorities to receive requests for mutual legal
assistance. In most countries, the central authority was the Ministry of Justice.

•

Several States Parties required that requests for mutual legal assistance be submitted throughdiplomatic channels. Most States Parties reported that, in urgent circumstances, requests addressed
through INTERPOL were acceptable, even though in some cases subsequent submission throughofficial channels was required.

•

The majority of States Parties confirmed that they would endeavour to satisfy conditions or follow
procedures stipulated by the requesting States, in particular regarding compliance with evidentiary
requirements, insofar as such requirements were not in conflict with domestic legislation orconstitutional principles.

•

Most States Parties had legislation in place which did not provide for grounds for refusal other thanthose listed in the Convention. However, in some States domestic law contained grounds for refusal
not envisaged in the Convention, such as the prejudice to an ongoing investigation in the requested
country, the excessive burden imposed on domestic resources, and the political nature or the
insufficient gravity of the offence.

•

Most States Parties indicated that a mutual legal assistance request would not be refused on the soleground that the offence also involved fiscal matters.

•

The average time needed for a response to a mutual legal assistance request ranged from one to six
months. However, several States stressed that the time required to execute requests would dependon the complexity of the matter; it was noted that, in some cases, the processing of the request could
take over one year. On the other hand, some States Parties reported that where the requesting State
indicated the need to address the matter urgently, the request would be responded to within a few
days. It was generally accepted that requests submitted by States sharing the same legal, political orcultural background as the requested State were responded to more rapidly.

3. Law Enforcement Cooperation•

Channels of communication between competent anti-corruption authorities and services were reported
to be more frequent at the regional level under the regulatory framework of regional internationalorganizations, or within regional networks. In the context of regional cooperation, tools such as securedatabases for the sharing of information among law enforcement authorities had been developed.

•

Membership to INTERPOL was generally regarded as a condition to facilitate law enforcement
cooperation at the broader international level. However, it was noted by reviewers that INTERPOL
could not replace direct channels of communication between law enforcement authorities, agencies
and services of other States; the scarcity of such channels beyond the regional context was acommon feature among States Parties under review.

•

The exchange of information appeared to be a common feature among Financial Intelligence Units(FIUs), mainly through conclusion of Memoranda of Understanding or membership to the EgmontGroup.

4. Joint Investigations•

Only a few States Parties were parties to bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangementsallowing for the establishment of joint investigative bodies. Other States Parties reported that theirlegal systems and practice allowed requesting and conducting joint investigations on a case-by-casebasis, and confirmed that they had done so on a number of occasions.

5. Special Investigative Techniques•

Special investigative techniques and their admissibility in court were regulated in the legislation of mostof the States Parties under review. Most commonly used techniques included controlled deliveries,

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

interception of telephone communications and undercover operations.
•International agreements or arrangements for the conduct of special investigative techniques werereported to be concluded by a number of countries, usually involving counterparts in the same
region or members of the same regional organization.

•

In some States Parties, special investigative techniques can be used in the absence of relevantinternational agreements and on a case-by-case basis in seven States. Among those, there wereStates indicating that they would use such techniques only on the condition of reciprocity.

V. Technical assistance in support of the promotion andimplementation of the UNCAC
A. Facilitation of Technical Assistance through the Database of Anti-Corruption Experts
In order to respond to the technical assistance needs identified by States Parties, a database of anticorruption expertise for the delivery of technical assistance was created pursuant to resolution 3/4, entitled“Technical assistance to implement the United Nations Convention against Corruption”, in which theConference of the States Parties encouraged States Parties and signatories to the Convention to continue toidentify and communicate to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime the relevant information aboutanti-corruption experts, in particular those with experience in providing technical assistance to implement
the Convention, so that the Office can include those experts in its database of anti-corruption expertise forthe delivery of technical assistance, as recommended by the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Groupon Technical Assistance.
To date, 205 anti-corruption experts have been nominated by States Parties from the following geographic
areas: 18 (Asia), 54 (Africa), 22 (North Africa and the Middle East), 36 (Latin America and the Caribbean), and75 (Europe).
States Parties and signatories to the Convention can submit information regarding national anticorruption experts via the UNODC website for inclusion in the database that allows States to add or modify
relevant details of their experts’ information online. Only the Secretariat has access to all information
provided through that mechanism; thus, confidentiality is ensured. The database provides an overview ofthe profiles of experts that enables their areas of expertise to be identified and categorized. The long-termsustainability of the database of anti-corruption experts will depend on the commitment of States Parties
to providing accurate and updated information on available experts, thus allowing the database to remain auseful tool.

B. Delivery of Legislative and Capacity-Building Technical Assistance
UNODC has provided technical assistance to countries upon request, both through tailored legislativeand capacity-building activities and through the development of tools that facilitate assistance delivery
on the ground. The assistance provided relates to issues covered in Chapter III and Chapter IV of theConvention, currently under review, but also to the Chapters on preventive measures and asset recovery.
The assistance was provided within the framework of the Thematic Programme on Action against
Corruption and Economic Crime, based on the relevant elements of the UNODC Strategy for the period
2010-2011. This thematic programme also refers to the anti-corruption activities carried out within theframework of the respective regional programmes.
During 2010-2012, numerous technical assistance needs to counter corruption have been — andcontinue to be — addressed through the Global Programme, “Towards an Effective Global Regime against
Corruption”, that enables UNODC to provide professional guidance, advice and expertise upon the requestof States Parties to the Convention.
From July 2011 to March 2012, UNODC provided expertise and technical assistance in line with theConvention to Afghanistan, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, the Commonwealthof Dominica, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Myanmar,
Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Thailand, TimorLeste, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam. Technical assistance was also provided at the92

15TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

regional level for the Middle East and North Africa; Eastern, Central and Southern Africa; and Latin America.
From July 2011 to March 2012 seven countries which had received pre-ratification assistance became
State Parties to the Convention, namely the Cook Islands, Ireland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Saint
Lucia, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.
Since 2006, under the framework of the Anti-Corruption Mentors Programme, advisers had been placedin Bolivia, Cape Verde, Jordan, Kenya, Tajikistan, Thailand and Southern Sudan. They had provided a broad
range of policy and technical advice and day-to-day support for the implementation of the Convention, suchas conducting gap assessments, establishing anti-corruption institutions and policies, providing training ininvestigation and prosecution of corruption, offering legislative guidance and advising on asset recovery
strategies.
The Mentors Programme was re-launched in summer 2011 through the placement of an adviser in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and the additional placement of advisers with regional responsibilities
in Bangkok (South-East Asia), Kenya (East Africa) and Panama (Central America). This network of AntiCorruption Mentors has been providing rapidly deployable, professional expertise at both the country andregional levels to facilitate delivery of on-site guidance and advice to States Parties requesting assistancein strengthening legislation and institutions in furtherance of the implementation of the Convention against
Corruption and has participated in numerous anti-corruption events, training workshops and conferences
promoted by other technical assistance providers.
Comprehensive on-the-ground capacity-building programmes, which usually also include activities related
to preventive measures and asset recovery, were carried out in a number of countries, such as Afghanistan,Brazil, Bolivia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Nicaragua and Nigeria.

C. Development of Knowledge Tools Facilitating Assistance Delivery on the GroundOn 1 September 2011, UNODC launched the anti-corruption portal TRACK (Tools and Resources for AntiCorruption Knowledge, http://www.track.unodc.org) as a tool for fostering information-sharing and providing anaccessible anti-corruption resource. TRACK is a web-based platform containing the UNCAC Legal Library,
an electronic repository of legislation, jurisprudence, anti-corruption strategies and institutional data from
178 States. Administered by UNODC and supported by the StAR Initiative and its partner organizations, theLegal Library collects this legal information and disseminates it, indexed and searchable according to each
UNCAC provision, and thus provides a detailed analytical breakdown of how States have implemented theConvention. The TRACK portal is also a search engine that enables States, the anti-corruption community,
the general public and the private sector to access the anti-corruption knowledge generated by UNODC andits partner organizations, including case studies, best practices and policy analyses, in one central location.
Recognizing the challenges inherent in cross-border communication among practitioners, TRACK also
provides a community of practice for registered members of anti-corruption authorities, central authorities
for mutual legal assistance and asset recovery focal points.
In 2011, UNODC published the Resource Guide on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Capacity. The
purpose of the guide is to support and inform those who are tasked with reforming and strengthening thejustice systems of their countries, as well as development partners, international organizations and otherproviders of technical assistance who provide support to this process. Work on this guide began following
ECOSOC Resolution 2006/23, which endorsed the Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct and requested
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to develop a technical guide on approaches to the provisionof technical assistance aimed at strengthening judicial integrity and capacity. The guide draws together
ideas, recommendations and strategies developed by contemporary experts on judicial and legal reform, andincludes reference to successful measures taken in a range of countries to address particular challenges instrengthening the justice system. Ultimately, the guide aims to provide practical information on how to build
and maintain an independent, impartial, transparent, effective, efficient and service-oriented justice systemthat enjoys the confidence of the public and lives up to the expectations contained in relevant international
legal instruments, standards and norms.

D. Technical Assistance in the Field of Asset Recovery
The joint UNODC-World Bank Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative continues to develop practical93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

tools and policy studies on asset recovery, including through supporting the development of TRACK (alsosee paragraph 34). With regard to policy studies issued in 2011, “Barriers to Asset Recovery” analyses key
barriers that impede the recovery of stolen assets; “Illicit Enrichment” examines the legal and policy issues
relating to illicit enrichment; and “The puppet masters: how the corrupt use legal structures to hide stolen
assets and what to do about it” describes how legal structures are used to conceal ownership and control ofassets. Two publications have been developed in cooperation with the OECD: “Tracking Anti-Corruption
and Asset Recovery Commitments” examines the implementation of the commitments set out in the
Accra Agenda for Action by 30 donor countries; and “The Identification and Quantification of Proceeds ofBribery” shows how financial gains from bribery can be calculated and confiscated. A study on the impact ofsettlements on international cooperation in asset recovery is currently under preparation.
The Asset Recovery Focal Point Database, established by the StAR Initiative in partnership with
INTERPOL, contained at the date of reporting focal points from 102 countries. The second meeting of the
focal points in Lyon from 11 to 13 July 2011 was attended by 113 participants from 55 countries.
Within the framework of the StAR Initiative, technical assistance in the various stages of asset recovery
proceedings has been provided at the request of States. The aim of such assistance is to help States tocollect and analyse information that will facilitate progress in asset recovery efforts and inform the decisionmaking of national authorities and to assist in making international cooperation, in particular mutual legal
assistance, more effective. Examples of such assistance include the sponsoring of meetings and workshopsthat bring together relevant parties at the national, regional and international levels and the provision ofadvisory services to support the preparation of analytical reports, legal research, assistance with audits andfinancial analysis or to support the preparation and analysis of mutual legal assistance requests or otherforms of international cooperation.
The requests to which StAR has responded related to mutual legal assistance in ongoing cases; support
to the work of countries as an honest broker, in cooperation with financial centres; and the development
and launch of asset recovery programmes. The nature of the assistance offered varies and is fully tailored tothe specific needs of the requesting State: in some cases, assistance is geared towards policy dialogue andfacilitation of contacts between national authorities and financial centres, while in others, it is focused on
capacity-building activities and the provision of advisory services to support specific asset recovery cases.
Obviously, the type of assistance provided in the context of a specific asset recovery case may differ fromthat envisaged at the gap analysis stage.
A number of asset recovery training courses have been conducted jointly with the StAR Initiative,
including regional events in the Pacific Islands, the Middle East and North Africa, South and Central
America, Southern and Eastern Europe, East and Southern Africa and in South and East Asia. Training
has been delivered at two levels: introductory workshops aimed at raising awareness about asset recovery
and more advanced training courses to address the technical aspects of asset recovery. The introductory
workshops have generally been held at a regional level in order to allow practitioners to share experiencesand establish contacts, including contacts in regional financial centres, and are designed for higher-level
decision makers who do not need extensive training on hands-on asset recovery techniques and procedures.
In addition, specialized training on specific topics or to specific groups has been provided.
UNODC is developing a digest of asset recovery cases, a compilation and analysis of cases related to
the recovery of proceeds of corruption, building on the experience acquired when preparing the Digestof Terrorist Cases and following the same methodology. In response to the notes verbales issued by
the Secretariat on 30 June 2009 and 22 January 2010 (CU 2009/87 and CU 2010/5), States Parties andsignatories to the Convention have submitted ten cases with an adequate level of detail that were used forthe preparation of the digest of asset recovery cases. This material was treated in a manner that respectedconfidentiality restrictions requested by the States. The analysis contained in the digest also drew on cases
from the Asset Recovery Watch database developed by the StAR Initiative.
An expert group meeting, bringing together experts from all geographic regions and representatives of
the StAR Initiative, was held on 2 and 3 April 2012 in Vienna. The meeting discussed a draft outline of thedigest prepared by UNODC. Participants in the meeting made suggestions on the structure and content
of the digest and provided additional information on recent asset recovery cases. A draft of the digest is94

15TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

expected to be presented at the sixth meeting of the Working Group and disseminated to Member States forcomments.
UNODC is presently upgrading the Mutual Legal Assistance Request Writer Tool in furtherance ofthe mandate given by the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Asset Recovery that at its
second meeting recommended to expand the tool to include ways of appropriately formulating requests for
asset recovery. This user-friendly computer-based tool provides support to national practitioners in the
preparation, transmission and reception of effective requests and useful responses and strongly contributes
to streamlining the process of requesting mutual legal assistance.
A number of existing knowledge products intended to assist asset recovery practitioners are designed
to support the implementation of other provisions of the Convention, in particular the study on illicit
enrichment, the Asset Recovery Handbook and the Good Practices Guide to Income and Asset Declarations
which can be useful in supporting the prosecution of cases of corruption and assisting financial institutions in
identifying politically exposed persons. Also, the Asset Recovery Handbook includes a chapter dedicated totracing assets that emphasizes the importance of securing stolen assets as quickly as possible.

E. Technical Assistance in the Field of Prevention of Corruption
One of the key outcomes of the fourth session of the Conference is the adoption of resolution 4/3
entitled “Marrakech declaration on the prevention of corruption”. In this resolution, the Conference, while
recognizing that the implementation of the Convention is the responsibility of States Parties, reiterated thatthe promotion of a culture of integrity, transparency and accountability is a responsibility to be shared by all
stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. The resolution requested the Secretariat, among
others, to continue to provide technical assistance for the implementation of Chapter II of the Convention.
UNODC is currently implementing an initiative entitled “Promoting the UNCAC as a framework to
mainstream anti-corruption safeguards related to the organization of major public events”. This initiative
focuses on special situations, such as the organization of major sports events, major cultural events andhigh-level political summits, which may enhance the risk of corruption, due to the fact that large amountsof funds and resources are involved and complex logistical arrangements need to be made within very tighttimeframes. The purpose of this project is to identify good practices, based on the UNCAC, for preventing
corruption in connection with major public events, for dissemination and use among relevant stakeholders,both in the public and the private sectors.
As recommended by the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against
Corruption in its resolutions 3/2 and 4/3 as well as by the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on
Prevention at its first session, UNODC has continued its efforts to collect information on good practices forpromoting responsible and professional reporting on corruption for journalists. The Initiative on Promoting
Responsible and Professional Reporting on Corruption on the basis of the United Nations Convention
against Corruption aims to develop a substantive tool on good practices in this regard, for dissemination anduse among relevant stakeholders, in particular public officials and media representatives.
UNODC has a leading role in the Anti-Corruption Academic Initiative (ACAD), a collaborative academic
project which aims to produce a comprehensive anti-corruption academic curriculum composed of a menu
of individual academic modules, syllabi, case studies, educational tools and reference materials that may
be integrated by universities and other academic institutions into their existing academic programmes. A
second meeting of the ACAD expert group was held in Marrakech in October 2011 and a draft outline of the
proposed curriculum to be produced under the Initiative was agreed upon.
Following this meeting, UNODC led a consultation process under which the views of academic experts
presently not involved in the Initiative were sought on the draft curriculum produced. These consultations
also acted as an opportunity to broaden the base of experts involved in the project. Responses received inrelation to the consultation were positive, with a number of those consulted expressing a strong interest incontributing to the project going forward.
UNODC hosted a third meeting of the Initiative in Vienna from 7 to 8 June 2012. At this meeting, experts
resolved to produce a finalized curriculum outline, with annotations and supporting reading materials by

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

September this year. This curriculum outline, in addition to sample courses, will be made available on the
UNODC TRACK website. Contributing experts outlined the individual modules and units that they havealready produced within the framework of the Initiative and those they will be contributing in the future.
As a part of its Outreach and Communication Programme, UNODC is developing a one-semester academic
learning course on the Convention against Corruption and its implications for both the public and private sectors.
It is intended that this course will be embedded in curricula of business, law and public administration
schools. The course will be completed in late 2012 following which UNODC will promote the course to awide range of academic institutions for incorporation into their existing academic programmes. By producing
the learning course, UNODC seeks to support learning institutions which have increasingly come to realizethat they also have a role to play in preparing the next generation of public and business leaders for thechallenge of making right and ethical decisions. An outline of the proposed course was presented at the third
meeting of the ACAD expert group and the course will be made available as a resource under ACAD.

F. Evidence-based Assessments of Corruption Patterns and Modalities
After having reviewed existing methodologies, UNODC developed and improved methods to assess
modalities of corruption and vulnerabilities, focusing on methodologies providing quantitative and experiencebased assessments. The surveys have served as a useful basis for the development of better anti-corruption
policies and the elaboration of tailored anti-corruption technical assistance activities and programmes. In
2011, UNODC completed a programme of surveys on corruption in the western Balkans, covering Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: As
a result, a regional report and country reports were finalized and published during the year. In Afghanistan
and Iraq, UNODC has developed programmes of surveys on corruption jointly with UNDP and in close
collaboration with national authorities. Surveys fieldwork has been completed in both countries andanalytical reports will be published during 2012. Finally, within the framework of a study on crime victims
in Africa, UNODC is offering an analysis of the experience of bribery by the population, thus providing firsthand data on experiences involving corruption in 10 African countries.
G. Assistance to Prevent Corruption in the Private Sector
In 2011, UNODC launched three anti-corruption projects with the support of the Siemens Integrity
Initiative, which focus on the relevance of the Convention for the private sector with activities being
implemented on the global level, as well as in Mexico and India.
The project on Public-Private Partnership for Probity in Public Procurement aims to reduce vulnerabilities
to corruption in public procurement systems while bridging gaps between public procurement administrations
and the private sector. Relevant government anti-corruption and public procurement institutions have been
identified and initial expert group meetings have been held to review current public procurement legislation,
regulations and their practical application in Mexico and India. Initial contact has been made with relevant
private sector entities to ensure their participation and inputs in the project. Plans for the development ofa baseline study to identify both public and private sector challenges and best practices concerning public
procurement are underway.
The project on Incentives for Corporate Integrity and Cooperation in Accordance with UNCAC aims tocreate systems of legal incentives for companies, hence encouraging business to report internal incidentsof corruption. Experts from Mexico and India have been identified and some initial meetings convened
to review existing legislation, policies and practices in relation to article 26 of the UNCAC on liability oflegal persons, 32 on witness protection, 37 on cooperation with law enforcement authorities and 39 oncooperation between national authorities and the private sector. Initial contact has been made with relevant
private sector entities to ensure their participation and inputs in the project. Plans for the development ofa baseline study to identify both public and private sector challenges and best practices concerning legal
incentives are underway.
UNODC has continued to participate actively in the work of the United Nations Global Compact Working
Group on the Tenth Principle/Global Compact Working Group on Anti-Corruption, focusing on the private
sector’s commitment to fighting corruption. The UN Global Compact, in cooperation with UNODC, was oneof the organizers of a “High-Level Forum on UNCAC and Global Competition”, held in the margins of the96

15TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Fourth session of the COSP/UNCAC, offering an opportunity for dialogue between Governments and private
sector representatives on how to use UNCAC to promote a level playing field for global competition andto strengthen private sector participation in its implementation. Additionally, UNODC co-hosted together
with the United Nations Global Compact Office, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations
Children’s Fund, and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, the United Nations System
Private Sector Focal Points Meeting 2012 on “Accelerating UN-Business Partnerships” in Vienna.
A new initiative, the Integrity Initial Public Offering (IPO), was officially launched during the 21st
session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, which took place in Vienna from 23
to 27 April 2012. The IPO offers businesses the chance to help developing countries tackle corruption andstrengthen their ability to fight it. Under the IPO, companies and investors can contribute financially tosupporting developing countries in their efforts to develop anti-corruption legislation and institutions and topromote integrity, giving the private sector the possibility to show their commitment to tackling corruption
and become integrity leaders.
Over the years, a number of regional and international initiatives, standards and principles have beendeveloped to provide guidance for companies on how to fight corruption in their business operations by
upholding enhanced integrity standards. UNODC is striving to enable the private sector to adopt anticorruption policies that are aligned with UNCAC and put in place checks and balances needed to strengthentransparency and accountability. In this regard, UNODC is actively engaged in a multi-stakeholder project,undertaken together with the OECD and the World Bank, and others, aiming at the development of apractical handbook for businesses, that will bring together guidelines and related material on private sectoranti-corruption compliance.

H. Coordination and Cooperation in the Delivery of Technical AssistanceIn order to avoid duplication of efforts and to mutually reinforce the results of technical assistanceprojects and programmes, UNODC is partnering with many United Nations entities (including UNDP, theDepartment for Peacekeeping Operations, the UNGC, the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, the United Nations Children’sFund, the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, etc.), as well as other internationalorganizations (the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development
Assistance Committee Network on Governance). In addition, UNODC engages with several regional
initiatives (e.g., the Asian Development Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment Anti-Corruption Initiative), and regional mechanisms against corruption (e.g. the Groupof States against Corruption, established by the Council of Europe) in order to join efforts to strengthen
coordination in technical assistance among various stakeholders.
In furtherance of a Memorandum of Understanding, signed on 15 December 2008, UNODC and theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have been working closely together with regard to thedelivery of technical assistance in the area of governance and anti-corruption in support of national anticorruption efforts. UNDP and UNODC together with the UN System Staff College (UNSSC) are currently
developing an inter-agency training package on the integration of anti-corruption programming into thenational level United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). The objective of the training
package is to enable United Nations staff to address anti-corruption aspects and the contribution anticorruption efforts can make to national development processes in the dialogue with partner countries, and to
apply anti-corruption programming approaches and principles (e.g. inclusion of anti-corruption in analyticalwork, country analysis and different sectors, assessment of entry points for anti-corruption initiatives,
inclusion in UNDAF strategy and monitoring framework). A training package is currently being developed
for the initial Training of Trainers (ToT) and will establish a roster of resource persons. Collaboration withfurther United Nations agencies during this process is planned.
UNODC has also been actively involved in the establishment of, and is partnering with, internationaland regional anti-corruption academies. The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) wasestablished following a joint initiative by UNODC, Austria, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) andother stakeholders, and became an independent international organization on 8 March 2011. Through “ThePublic-Private Partnerships for Probity in Public Procurement” project, UNODC will cooperate with theInternational Anti-Corruption Academy to develop a module on integrity in public procurement which

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

will be embedded into the academic courses taught at the Academy. The module will aim to address goodpractices and common challenges in ensuring legislation, policies and practices are in place to promotetransparency, integrity and accountability in public procurement systems. In May 2012, representatives of
UNODC participated in a panel discussion and delivered a key note address at a training for private sector
officials from Eastern Europe and Central Asia, entitled “Overcoming the Challenge of Corruption in
Today’s Environment: Lessons for the Private Sector”.
UNODC is also assisting the Government of Panama in the establishment of a regional anti-corruption
academy for Central America and the Caribbean and has supported the development of the training
curriculum.

VI. Epilogue
The first two years of operation of the ongoing review cycle of the UNCAC Review of Implementation
Mechanism have provided a series of very useful indications as to the ways and means that the UNCAC
requirements are transposed into the domestic legal systems of States Parties. A more detailed analysisof the implementation challenges encountered by the national authorities in those States leads to theconformation of the fact that there is a pressing need to ensure timely and efficient delivery of technicalassistance as a result of the country reviews conducted within the institutional framework of themechanism. In its capacity as the guardian of the implementation of the UNCAC and Secretariat of theConference of the States Parties to the Convention, UNODC has devoted resources and continues its
mandated efforts to support the mechanism and further the implementation of the UNCAC, including
through the provision of focused assistance to States Parties, which are tailor-made to their specific anticorruption needs and priorities. In doing so, UNODC is guided by the Conference and its Implementation
Review Group, particularly with regard to the most appropriate modalities for the maximization of existing
resources and the effective implementation of the UNCAC, as well as the coordination and synergies withother technical assistance providers which are active in the anti-corruption field.

98