U4 ISSUE 2009:3
Assessing implementations of anti-corruption conventions
WWW.U4.NO
driven by the States Parties’ obligation to submit annexed documents that contain descriptions of their laws and regulatory procedures. It is also supported by the fact that the Committee of Experts may take into account the alternative reports submitted by CSOs and/or may consult other sources of information, which allows for a cross-check control of each area reviewed. However, despite the rules established, the quality of the information received by the Committee of Experts has taken on different nuances. This is particularly true with regard to the quality of the information describing the objective results achieved in the implementation of the provisions of the IACAC. While a majority of the States Parties have indeed submitted information on objective results, a good part of this information remains incomplete and unconnected. This thereby undermines the integrity of the information that the Committee of Experts should have. The situation is further compounded by what is not a minor issue: the frequent omission of the sources and methods used to collect the data. The comparative table below illustrates in an exploratory manner the current difficulty faced by States Parties to the MESICIC in producing and presenting quantitative information on objective results. The table details the submission of information on objective results in a specific area by a sample of States Parties. 40 The States Party submits data on the implementation of transparent, equitable and efficient public procurement systems Shows results of some Shows results in every Cites verifiable sources kind associated with the area of the government for the information objectives of where the procurement submitted transparency, equity and system should be efficiency applicable
Countries reviewed
Argentina Paraguay Nicaragua Uruguay Ecuador Honduras YES
NO
On balance, only a few of those countries participating in MESICIC have submitted statistical or objective data that could be considered sufficient in a specific thematic area reviewed. 41 While it is true that most states have submitted legal or procedural information, statistical data or indicators, not one has submitted sufficient information on objective results in every area reviewed in any given round. Finally, it is also a fact that the information about objective results submitted to the MESICIC does not normally allow the evolution of country processes throughout a series of years to be verified. 42
refer to a period that varies between two and five years prior to the date of a State Party’s response to the questionnaire, depending on the subject matter reviewed. OA/MESICIC (2006a). 40 The table shows the submission of information on objective results in the implementation of transparent, equitable and efficient public procurement systems (item 5 of article III of the IACAC) in the first six countries reviewed in the second round. 41 For example, Canada, and to a lesser extent Mexico, in the area of public contracting, in the second round. 42 In the majority of questionnaires completed by the States Parties during the second round, the objective and statistical information used was not compatible or comparable with the information submitted during the first round. Even reports from Canada and the United States, countries with great information gathering and processing capacities, can in some cases be classified as partially complete with respect to the data and indicators of results.
21