thematic compilation of relevant information submitted in relation to

THEMATIC COMPILATION OF RELEVANT INFORMATION SUBMITTED
IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
AGAINST CORRUPTION
PREVENTIVE ANTI-CORRUPTION BODY OR BODIES
AUSTRIA (SECOND MEETING)
The Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption of the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior
(.BAK) provides the following information on Austrian activities/"good practices" in the
prevention of corruption:
Since the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption (BAK) on 1 January
2010, which is based on a new law, prevention of corruption has been one of the Bureau's
main focuses, Prevention is an essential element in the fight against corruption.
Experiences of anti-corruption authorities show that there is a strong need for more
operationally-oriented training opportunities. Therefore, the European Anti-Corruption
Training (EACT), based on an Austrian initiative, is carried out from 2011 to 2013
together with anticorruption authorities of Slovenia and Slovakia in order to enhance the
practical skills in fighting and preventing corruption. Under the slogan "Practice Meets
Practice", EACT offers an innovative, multistage approach to develop good practices by
the exchange of experience between European countries.
EACT is a platform for representatives of anti-corruption institutions as well as police
and judicial authorities (public prosecutor's offices and public prosecutor's offices against
corruption) of European Countries that would like to provide their experience and/or gain
new insights into the field of anti-corruption by exchanging information with their
counterparts in other countries.
For further information, please visit http://www.bak.dv.at or contact EACT©bak.ay.at.
ALGERIA (FIFTH MEETING)
I. MANDATS DE L’ORGANE DE PREVENTION DE LA CORRUPTION
(ARTICLE 6 DE LA CNUCC)
Le cadre juridique de la lutte contre la corruption en Algérie
Les missions de l’Organe
Les moyens d’action de l’Organe
Indépendance de l’Organe
Approche méthodologique adoptée par l’Organe
Résultats obtenus
Le cadre juridique de la lutte contre la corruption :
La politique nationale algérienne anti-corruption est basée sur une législation en
conformité avec les dispositions de la Convention Onusienne anti-corruption de 2003,
ratifiée par l’Algérie le 19 avril 2004. Cette législation comprend notamment :
La loi 06-01 du 20 février 2006, relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la
corruption qui comprend précisément une transposition des dispositions de la
Convention onusienne, et qui consacre la création de l’Organe national de
prévention et de lutte contre la corruption. (Cf à l’article 6 de la Convention)
L’ordonnance 10-05 du 26 Aout 2010, complétant la loi 06-01 suscitée, qui
prévoit la création de l’Office central de répression de la corruption (Cf à
l’article 36 de la Convention) sous tutelle du ministère des finances.
La loi 05-01 du 06 février 2005, relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre le
blanchiment d’argent et le financement du terrorisme qui prévoit la création
d’un organisme spécialisé « Cellule de traitement du renseignement
financier » membre du GAFIMOAN, membre associé du GAFI.
L’ordonnance 07-01 du 1er mars 2007 relative aux incompatibilités et aux
obligations particulières attachées à certains emplois et fonctions, et qui
charge l’ONPLC de son application.
Les missions de l’Organe :
L’Organe National de Prévention et de Lutte contre la Corruption (ONPLC), créé par la
loi anticorruption de 2006, et qui a démarré ses activités en 2012 après révision et
parachèvement du dispositif organisationnel et statutaire ; c’est une autorité
administrative indépendante placée auprès du président de la république et jouissant de
l’autonomie financière. Son organisation consacre son indépendance, par l’intégration
d’un Conseil de Veille d’Evaluation composé de personnalités indépendantes au nombre
de sept, désignées par le Président de la République pour un mandat de cinq ans
renouvelable une fois, et qui chapeaute l’ensemble des activités de l’Organe.
Les missions de l’Organe sont de type transversal et concernent l’ensemble des
secteurs.Elles sont mises en oeuvre par des structures administratives opérationnelles
dirigées par des hauts fonctionnaires, actuellement au nombre de six (le décret de création
de l’Organe en prévoit quinze) nommés par le Président de la République, et ces missions
sont constituées principalement par :
L’information et la sensibilisation : formation, conduite de conférences,
séminaires et autres manifestations, programmes scolaires et universitaires,
documentation destinée au public, études et recherches ;
La transparence et la moralisation de la vie publique : recueil et traitement des
déclarations de patrimoine et déclarations d’incompatibilité des agents
publics, élaboration de codes de conduite, traitement et suivi des requêtes des
citoyens … ;
La coordination et la coopération internationale : mise en oeuvre de la
Convention des Nations Unies contre la corruption, relation avec les
organisations à vocation similaires, études et enquêtes, statistiques (dont celles
du ministère de la justice), sondages, analyses et estimation de l’indice de
perception, introduction de nouvelles normes, échange d’expériences et de
bonnes pratiques.
Par ailleurs, la loi 06-01, dans son article 24 charge l’Organe d’adresser : « au Président
de la République un rapport annuel d'évaluation des activités liées à la prévention et à la
lutte contre la corruption, les insuffisances constatées en la matière, et les
recommandations proposées »
Les moyens d’action de l’Organe :
Les moyens juridiques :
La loi 06-01 suscitée attribue à l’Organe d’importants moyens d’action et d’intervention
contenus notamment dans les trois articles suivants :
Article 20-7 : « l’Organe peut recourir au ministère public en vue de rassembler les
preuves et de faire procéder à des enquêtes sur les faits de corruption » ;
Article 21 : « Dans le cadre de l'exercice de ses missions, l'Organe peut demander
aux administrations, institutions et organismes publics ou privés ou toute personne
physique ou morale de lui communiquer tout document ou information qu'il juge
utile pour la détection des faits de corruption.
Le refus délibéré et injustifié de communiquer à l'Organe des éléments
d'information et/ou des documents requis constitue une infraction d'entrave à la
justice au sens de la présente loi ».
Article 22 : « lorsque l’Organe conclut à des faits susceptibles de constituer une
infraction à la loi pénale, il transmet le dossier au Ministre de la Justice Garde des
Sceaux qui saisit le procureur général compétent aux fins de mettre en mouvement
l’action publique, le cas échéant ».
Une structure de l’Organe est dédiée à cette fonction conformément à l’article 13
du Décret Présidentiel n°06-413 du 22.11.2006, modifié et complété en 2012, relatif
à l’organisation et au fonctionnement de l’Organe.
Les moyens administratifs :
Désignation par une instruction du premier ministre de points focaux de l’Organe :
le Secrétaire Général de ministère est chargé d’appliquer toutes les mesures
préventives et plus globalement, de relier au sein de leur administration respective
la politique préventives adoptée ;
Les inspections de services de l’ensemble des ministères seront chargées, dans le
cadre de leurs attributions, d’exercer le contrôle sur leurs administrations
respectives selon les objectifs et les recommandations dictés par l’Organe dans la
perspective de la démarche préventive, et constitueront ainsi les « unités de
contact » et « lanceurs d’alertes ».
Recours aux organes et institutions de contrôle : (Cour des comptes, IGF,
inspection des services fiscaux, inspection des Douanes ainsi que la Direction
générale de la lutte contre la fraude du ministère du commerce, etc) pour la prise
en compte et l’examen dans le cadre de leurs programmes respectifs des
préoccupations de l’Organe vis-à-vis notamment de l’état et de l’efficacité du
contrôle interne dans le secteur public.
Autres moyens en usage :
La voie conventionnelle ou contractuelle constitue également un moyen d’action de
l’Organe dans le cadre notamment du développement de projets communs avec les
centres d’études et de recherches et les administrations telles que les ministères de
l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de l’intérieur et des collectivités
locales.
Convention également avec l’institut supérieur de gestion et de planification pour
dispenser des cycles de formation anti-corruption destinés aux agents publics.
Ce moyen est plus généralement utilisé dans la relation avec les organismes publics ou
privés, et les consultants et experts pour les travaux d’études, d’enquêtes sociologiques
et de formation.
Indépendance de l’Organe :
La loi anticorruption de 2006 qui confère à l’Organe la mission d’élaboration de la
politique nationale de prévention de la corruption et sa mise en oeuvre, lui confère
également une capacité d’action et d’intervention importante, en vertu notamment des
dispositions précitées :
- actionner le ministère public pour les enquêtes paraissant nécessaires ;
- saisir le ministre de la justice, garde des sceaux, pour les actes de corruption avérés ;
- la latitude d’avoir toute information en relation avec ses missions auprès de toutes
personnes publiques ou privées, morales ou physiques ; le refus de communiquer est
assimilé par la loi à une entrave à la justice.
Il est important de mettre ces caractéristiques ou ces facultés en parallèle avec le
niveau de rattachement institutionnel de l’Organe, le Président de la République, ce
qui constitue une garantie supplémentaire contre toute influence indue.
L’Organe est autonome dans ses décisions ainsi que dans sa gestion administrative et
financière.
Approche méthodologique adoptée par l’Organe :
Cette approche méthodologique se manifeste à travers les choix opérés par son
programme, les axes d’action privilégiés et la démarche adoptée.
L’Organe privilégie, à travers son programme pluriannuel 2012-2015, quatre (4) axes
d’action :
1. Premier axe : les risques financiers
Un intérêt particulier est accordé aux risques financiers, dans les domaines suivants :
Les dépenses publiques : compte tenu du volume de la dépense budgétaire,
notamment en matière d’investissement (grands projets publics) et les transferts
sociaux et aides de l’Etat, de la complexité des procédures et de la diversité des
intervenants ;
Les mécanismes bancaires : notamment lorsqu’ils sont impliqués dans des
dispositifs de politique publique.
Les ressources budgétaires : les administrations en charge de collecter la
ressource publique, relevant pour l’essentiel du ministère des finances,
concernées par les actes déviants et la bureaucratie (fraudes fiscale et douanière,
avantages indus …)
2. Deuxième axe : les prérogatives de puissance publique
Les actions en direction des administrations disposant de prérogatives de puissance
publique, où l’on retrouve également les administrations du ministère des finances,
auxquelles s’ajoutent celles du commerce, des mines et celles en relation avec le grand
public, telles que le ministère de la justice et le ministère de l’intérieur et des collectivités
locales.
3. Troisième axe : la transparence de la vie publique, la sensibilisation et l’éthique
Les efforts déployés visent notamment :
- Le développement des politiques et instruments relatifs à l’éthique, la
transparence de la vie publique et la bonne conduite des agents publics.
- Mobilisation de la société civile autour de projets communs ;
- L’action de sensibilisation en direction de la jeunesse et de l’école en
particulier, par le biais de programmes anti-corruption développés conjointement
avec l’Education Nationale ;
- L’introduction de modules spécifiques dans les programmes de l’enseignement
supérieur ;
- L’action de formation et de sensibilisation des agents publics, par l’organisation de
séminaires et de sessions de formation continue ;
4. Quatrième axe : la connaissance sur le phénomène
- Incitation à la recherche universitaire ;
- Etudes et recherches sur le phénomène, enquêtes et sondages auprès de
différentes catégories de la population, travaux statistiques en collaboration avec
les experts nationaux et étrangers ;
- Développement des relations avec les organisations étrangères et internationales
et échange des expériences et des bonnes pratiques dans le domaine.
Une base de données, destinée à recueillir et traiter toute information pertinente de
nature économique, financière ou administrative, devra être réalisée dans le cadre de
l’exécution du programme.
Résultats obtenus :
L’ONPLC a engagé l’ensemble de ces procédés, dont les résultats, tant par rapport au
dispositif de contrôle que pour les autres actions convenues, devront commencer à
parvenir courant 2014 et 2015.
Convention avec le ministère de l’Education Nationale pour le développement
de programmes destinés aux enfants scolarisés (écoles, lycées et collèges);
Convention avec le ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche
Scientifique pour le développement d’unités d’enseignement destinés aux
étudiants et dédiées à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption dans de
nombreuses disciplines (économie, finances et banques, commerce, droit,
sociologie, psychologie, etc.) ainsi que l’encouragement de la recherche sur le
phénomène dans les travaux de thèses ou de mémoires de fin de cycle
d’études et ceux des équipes scientifiques universitaires.
Convention avec le ministère de l’intérieur et des collectivités locales qui a
permis la collecte de 22.000 déclarations de patrimoine des élus locaux,
lesquelles sont en cours de traitement.
Un projet de déclaration en ligne est en cours d’études avancée pour les
autres catégories d’assujettis, représentées par les hauts fonctionnaires et les
agents publics occupant des postes sensibles (le projet sera finalisé courant
2014).
« Enquête sur la perception de la corruption en Algérie » auprès du grand
public, travaux menés en partenariat avec le Centre de Recherches en
Anthropologie Sociale et Culturelle (CRASC) établissement de réputation
internationale.
« Enquête en cours sur la perception de la corruption et de la bureaucratie »
auprès des agents publics en vue de la généralisation de codes de conduite ;
Intégration des perspectives de prévention et de lutte contre la corruption
auprès des inspections de services et des grands corps de contrôle en liaison
avec l’Organe ; le premier thème abordé est « l’évaluation du contrôle interne
dans les administrations et le secteur public économique » ;
Un texte réglementaire doit être soumis par l’Organe aux autorités
compétentes afin d’amender les missions des inspecteurs généraux de
ministères dans le sens de leur intégration au dispositif de prévention et
d’alerte.
Convention avec un institut supérieur de gestion, pour le développement du
« Programme National de Formation et de Sensibilisation Anti-corruption »,
destiné aux agents publics, et notamment ceux chargés des inspections et
contrôles ainsi que des enseignants de l’Education Nationale ; cette initiative
d’envergure doit également déboucher sur l’émergence d’une académie anticorruption
;
Elaboration d’une fiche de profil des postes particulièrement exposés aux
risques de corruption, à assujettir à la déclaration de patrimoine destinée à la
Direction Générale de la Fonction Publique;
Elaboration d’un modèle de code de conduite des agents publics chargés de la
passation des marches.
ARGENTINA (FIFTH MEETING)
En la República Argentina el principal “órgano encargado de prevenir la corrupción”
(artículo 6 de la Convención) en la Administración Pública Nacionales es la Oficina
Anticorrupción (OA). A continuación se describirá el marco jurídico y las principales
características de la Oficina Anticorrupción,cuya Dirección de Planificación de Políticas
de Transparencia tiene por misión específica lo dispuesto por el artículo 6 de la
Convención.
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – CREACIÓN
La Oficina Anticorrupción (OA) fue creada por el artículo 13º de la Ley de Ministerios
(Ley Nº 25.233, Sancionada y Promulgada el 10 de diciembre de 1999, Publicada en el
Boletín Oficial Nº 29.292, del 14/12/1999): “Créase la Oficina Anticorrupción en el
ámbito del Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos, la que tendrá a su cargo la
elaboración y coordinación de programas de lucha contra la corrupción en el sector
público nacional y, en forma concurrente con la Fiscalía de Investigaciones
Administrativas, gozará de las competencias y atribuciones establecidas en los artículos
26, 45 y 50 de la Ley Nº 24.946”.
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – ESTRUCTURA
La Oficina Anticorrupción está a cargo de un Fiscal de Control Administrativo, con rango
y jerarquía de Secretario de Estado, designado y removido por el Presidente de la Nación
a propuesta del Ministro de Justicia y Derechos Humanos. Por debajo del Fiscal se
encuentran las Direcciones de Investigaciones (DIOA) y de Planificación de Políticas de
Transparencia (DPPT), que están a cargo de funcionarios que poseen rango y jerarquía de
Subsecretarios de Estado, y son designados y removidos por el Presidente de la Nación a
propuesta del Ministro de Justicia y Derechos Humanos. En mayo de 2007 (por Decreto
Nº 466/2007) se aprobó la estructura organizativa del primer nivel operativo de la OA, y
se crearon los cargos de Subdirectores de Investigaciones y de Planificación de Políticas
de Transparencia, que tienen como misión asistir a sus respectivos Directores y
reemplazarlos en caso de ausencia (artículos 2 y 3 del Decreto Nº 466/07). Asimismo, por
el artículo 4 de la citada norma, se faculta al Ministro de Justicia y Derechos Humanos a
crear un cargo de conducción de nivel coordinación, que llevará adelante el área
institucional. Esta Coordinación fue efectivamente creada mediante Resolución
Ministerial Nº 969/07. Conforme los considerandos del Decreto 466/07, “la creación de
las unidades Subdirección y la Coordinación aludida no implica una mayor erogación
presupuestaria ni el incremento de los cargos asignados a la Oficina Anticorrupción, toda
vez que se utilizarán para ello cargos existentes en la referida Oficina”. Estructura
organizativa de primer nivel operativo de la Oficina Anticorrupción, conforme el Decreto
466/2007 (Anexo I):
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – COMPETENCIAS Y FUNCIONESOFICINA
ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – COMPETENCIAS Y FUNCIONES
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN
COMPETENCIAS Y FUNCIONES DE LA OA CONFORME LA LEY Nº 25.233:
Conforme el artículo 13º de la citada Ley de Ministerios (Ley Nº 25.233) de diciembre de
1999, la OA “tendrá a su cargo la elaboración y coordinación de programas de lucha
contra la corrupción en el sector público nacional y, en forma concurrente con la Fiscalía
de Investigaciones Administrativas, gozará de las competencias y atribuciones
establecidas en los artículos 26, 45 y 50 de la Ley Nº 24.946”.
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN
COMPETENCIAS Y FUNCIONES DE LA OA CONFORME EL DECRETO 102/1999:
Artículo 1º — La OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN funcionará en el ámbito del
MINISTERIO DE JUSTICIA Y DERECHOS HUMANOS, como organismo encargado
de velar por la prevención e investigación de aquellas conductas que dentro del ámbito
fijado por esta reglamentación se consideren comprendidas en la Convención
Interamericana contra la Corrupción aprobada por Ley Nº 24.759. Su ámbito de
aplicación comprende a la Administración Pública Nacional centralizada y
descentralizada, empresas, sociedades y todo otro ente público o privado con
participación del Estado o que tenga como principal fuente de recursos el aporte estatal.
Art. 2º — La OFICINA ANTICORRUPCION tiene competencia para:
a) Recibir denuncias que hicieran particulares o agentes públicos que se relacionen con su
objeto;
b) Investigar preliminarmente a los agentes a los que se atribuya la comisión de alguno de
los hechos indicados en el inciso anterior. En todos los supuestos, las investigaciones se
realizarán por el solo impulso de la OFICINA ANTICORRUPCION y sin necesidad de
que otra autoridad estatal lo disponga;
c) Investigar preliminarmente a toda Institución o Asociación que tenga como principal
fuente de recursos el aporte estatal, ya sea prestado en forma directa o indirecta, en caso
de sospecha razonable sobre irregularidades en la administración de los mencionados
recursos;
d) Denunciar ante la justicia competente, los hechos que, como consecuencia de las
investigaciones practicadas, pudieren constituir delitos;
e) Constituirse en parte querellante en los procesos en que se encuentre afectado el
patrimonio del Estado, dentro del ámbito de su competencia;
f) Llevar el registro de las declaraciones juradas de los agentes públicos;
g) Evaluar y controlar el contenido de las declaraciones juradas de los agentes públicos y
las situaciones que pudieran constituir enriquecimiento ilícito o incompatibilidad en el
ejercicio de la función;
h) Elaborar programas de prevención de la corrupción y de promoción de la transparencia
en la gestión pública;
i) Asesorar a los organismos del Estado para implementar políticas o programas
preventivos de hechos de corrupción.
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN
COMPETENCIAS Y FUNCIONES DE LA OA CONFORME EL DECRETO 466/2007
(Anexo II):
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCION - OBJETIVOS
1. Elaborar y coordinar programas de prevención y lucha contra la corrupción en el
Sector Público
Nacional.
2. Velar por el cumplimiento de las Convenciones Internacionales de lucha contra la
corrupción ratificadas por el Estado Nacional.
3. Promover de oficio o por denuncia, las investigaciones que resulten pertinentes
respecto de las
conductas de los agentes públicos, para determinar la existencia de hechos o situaciones
presuntamente ilícitas o irregulares de los que pudieren derivar perjuicios para el
patrimonio estatal.
4. Realizar investigaciones a fin de controlar a toda institución o asociación que tenga
como principal
fuente de recursos el aporte estatal, en caso de indicios sobre irregular manejo de tales
recursos.
5. Realizar presentaciones ante las autoridades administrativas o judiciales que
correspondan a fin de impulsar las acciones a que dieren lugar los resultados de sus
investigaciones, ejerciendo las facultades que le acuerdan las leyes y reglamentos en
vigor.
6. Llevar el registro de declaraciones juradas de los agentes públicos y efectuar el análisis
de su contenido en orden a determinar la existencia de situaciones que puedan configurar
presunto enriquecimiento o incompatibilidad en el ejercicio de la función.
7. Asesorar a los organismos del Sector Público Nacional para implementar políticas o
programas de prevención y lucha contra la corrupción.
8. Elaborar los informes que establece la reglamentación.
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN
COMPETENCIAS Y ATRIBUCIONES CONCURRENTES CON LA FISCALÍA DE
INVESTIGACIONES ADMINISTRATIVAS (FIA) (Ley Nº 24.946 – Ley Orgánica del
Ministerio Público – artículos 26, 45 y 50):
Las competencias y atribuciones que la OA goza en forma concurrente con la Fiscalía de
Investigaciones Administrativas, establecidas por la citada Ley Nº 24.946 (Ley Orgánica
del Ministerio Público) son las
siguientes:
REQUERIMIENTO DE COLABORACION
ARTICULO 26. — Los integrantes del Ministerio Público, en cualquiera de sus niveles,
podrán — para el mejor cumplimiento de sus funciones — requerir informes a los
organismos nacionales, provinciales, comunales; a los organismos privados; y a los
particulares cuando corresponda, así como recabar la colaboración de las autoridades
policiales, para realizar diligencias y citar personas a sus despachos, al solo efecto de
prestar declaración testimonial. Los organismos policiales y de seguridad deberán prestar
la colaboración que les sea requerida, adecuándose a las directivas impartidas por los
miembros del Ministerio Público y destinando a tal fin el personal y los medios
necesarios a su alcance. Los fiscales ante la justicia penal, anoticiados de la perpetración
de un hecho ilícito — ya fuere por la comunicación prevista en el artículo 186 del Código
Procesal Penal de la Nación o por cualquier otro medio — sin perjuicio de las directivas
que el juez competente imparta a la policía o fuerza de seguridad interviniente, deberán
requerir de estas el cumplimiento de las disposiciones que tutelan el procedimiento y
ordenar la práctica de toda diligencia que estimen pertinente y útil para lograr el
desarrollo efectivo de la acción penal. A este respecto la prevención actuara bajo su
dirección inmediata.
FISCAL NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES ADMINISTRATIVAS
ARTICULO 45. — El Fiscal Nacional de Investigaciones Administrativas tendrá los
siguientes deberes y facultades:
a) Promover la investigación de la conducta administrativa de los agentes integrantes de
la administración nacional centralizada y descentralizada, y de las empresas, sociedades y
todo otro ente en que el Estado tenga participación. En todos los supuestos, las
investigaciones se realizarán por el solo impulso de la Fiscalía de Investigaciones
Administrativas y sin necesidad de que otra autoridad estatal lo disponga, sin perjuicio de
ajustar su proceder a las instrucciones generales que imparta el Procurador General de la
Nación.
b) Efectuar investigaciones en toda institución o asociación que tenga como principal
fuente de recursos el aporte estatal, ya sea prestado en forma directa o indirecta, en caso
de sospecha razonable sobre irregularidades en la inversión dada a los mencionados
recursos.
c) Denunciar ante la justicia competente, los hechos que, como consecuencia de las
investigaciones practicadas, sean considerados delitos. En tales casos, las investigaciones
de la Fiscalía tendrán el valor de prevención sumaria. El ejercicio de la acción pública
quedará a cargo de los fiscales competentes ante el tribunal donde quede radicada la
denuncia y, en su caso, ante las Cámaras de Apelación y Casación con la intervención
necesaria del Fiscal nacional de Investigaciones Administrativas o de los magistrados que
éste determine, quienes actuarán en los términos del artículo 33 inciso t). La Fiscalía de
Investigaciones Administrativas podrá asumir, en cualquier estado de la causa, el
ejercicio directo de la acción pública, cuando los fiscales competentes antes mencionados
tuvieren un criterio contrario a la prosecución de la acción.
d) Asignar a los fiscales Generales, Fiscales Generales Adjuntos y Fiscales, las
investigaciones que resolviera no efectuar personalmente.
e) Someter a la aprobación del Procurador General de la Nación el reglamento interno de
la Fiscalía de Investigaciones Administrativas.
f) Ejercer la superintendencia sobre los magistrados, funcionarios y empleados que de el
dependen e impartirles instrucciones, en el marco de la presente ley y de la
reglamentación que dicte el Procurador General.
g) Proponer al Procurador General de la Nación la creación, modificación o supresión de
cargos de funcionarios, empleados administrativos y personal de servicio y de maestranza
que se desempeñen en la Fiscalía, cuando resulte conveniente para el cumplimiento de los
fines previstos en esta ley.
h) Elevar al Procurador General un informe anual sobre la gestión de la Fiscalía de
Investigaciones Administrativas, a su cargo.
i) Imponer las sanciones disciplinarias a los magistrados, funcionarios y empleadas que
de él dependan, en los casos y formas establecidos en la ley y su reglamentación.
j) Ejecutar todos sus cometidos ajustándolos a la política criminal y de persecución penal
del Ministerio Público Fiscal.
COMPETENCIAS ESPECIALES
ARTICULO 50. — Además de las previstas en el artículo 26 de esta ley, los magistrados
de la Fiscalía de Investigaciones Administrativas estarán investidos de las siguientes
facultades de investigación:
a) Disponer exámenes periciales, a cuyo fin podrán requerir de las reparticiones o
funcionarios públicos la colaboración necesaria, que éstos estarán obligados a prestar.
Cuando la índole de la peritación lo requiera, estarán facultados a designar peritos ad hoc.
b) Informar al Procurador General de la Nación cuando estimen que la permanencia en
funciones de un Ministro, Secretario de estado o funcionario con jerarquía equivalente o
inferior, pueda obstaculizar gravemente la investigación.
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – FUNCIONARIOS
DESIGNACIÓN, REMOCIÓN Y REQUISITOS
JERÁRQUICOS
FISCAL DE CONTROL ADMINISTRATIVO
DESIGNACIÓN, REMOCIÓN Y REQUISITOS PARA EL DESEMPEÑO DEL
CARGO:
La OFICINA ANTICORRUPCION está a cargo de un Fiscal de Control Administrativo,
con rango y
jerarquía de Secretario, designado y removido por el PRESIDENTE DE LA NACIÓN a
propuesta del Ministro de Justicia y Derechos Humanos (artículo 6º, Decreto 102/99).
Son requisitos para el desempeño del cargo de Fiscal de Control Administrativo (Conf.
artículo 7º, Decreto 102/99):
a) Ser ciudadano argentino;
b) Tener no menos de TREINTA (30) años de edad;
c) Tener no menos de SEIS (6) años en el ejercicio de la profesión de abogado o idéntica
antigüedad profesional en el Ministerio Público o en el Poder Judicial.
DIRECTOR DE PLANIFICACIÓN DE POLÍTICAS DE TRANSPARENCIA
DESIGNACIÓN Y REMOCIÓN:
La Dirección de Planificación de Políticas de Transparencia está a cargo de un
funcionario que tiene rango y jerarquía de Subsecretario, designado y removido por el
Presidente de la Nación a propuesta del Ministro de Justicia y Derechos Humanos
(artículo 10, Decreto 102/1999).
DIRECTOR DE INVESTIGACIONES
DESIGNACIÓN Y REMOCIÓN:
La Dirección de Investigaciones está a cargo de un funcionario que tiene rango y
jerarquía de
Subsecretario, designado y removido por el Presidente de la Nación a propuesta del
Ministro de Justicia y Derechos Humanos (artículo 10, Decreto 102/1999).
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – RECURSOS HUMANOS – SELECCIÓN
El régimen de selección, designación, promoción y remoción de los funcionarios de
carrera de la OA – así como todos los agentes de la Administración Pública Nacional – se
encuentra regulado en diversos aspectos por la Ley Nº 25.164 (Ley Marco de Regulación
de Empleo Público Nacional) y su Decreto Reglamentario Nº 1421/2002 (08/08/2002).
Ley
Nº
25.164:
http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/6000064999/60458/norma.htm
Decr
1421/2002:
79999/76700/norma.htm
http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/75000-
Respecto del régimen de selección del personal de la OA, se encuentra regulado por la
Resolución 39/2010 de la Secretaría de la Gestión Pública – “Apruébase el Régimen de
Selección de Personal para el Sistema Nacional de Empleo Público” – (Boletín Oficial
31.870, del 25 de marzo de 2010), que se encuentra disponible en el siguiente enlace:
http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/165000-169999/165490/norma.htm
Asimismo, el procedimiento de incorporación de personal permanente comprendido en
otros escalafones en el Sistema Nacional de Empleo Público se regula por la Resolución
Nº 38/2010 de la Secretaría de la Gestión Pública – “Apruébase el Procedimiento para la
incorporación de personal permanente comprendido en otros escalafones en el Sistema
Nacional de Empleo Público” – (Boletín Oficial 31.868 del 22 de marzo de 2010), que se
encuentra accesible en:
http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/165000-169999/165407/texact.htm
Por otro lado, el régimen completo de carrera administrativa de la Administración
Pública se encuentra regulado por el Convenio Colectivo de Trabajo Sectorial del
personal del Sistema Nacional de Empleo Público (SINEP), homologado por el Decreto
2098/2008 (Boletín Oficial: 05/12/2008), accesible en:
http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/145000-149999/148090/texact.htm
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – RECURSOS HUMANOS – CAPACITACIÓN
Respecto de la capacitación de los recursos humanos de la OA, cabe destacar en primer
lugar que cuarenta y ocho agentes del organismo cuentan con títulos universitarios de
diversas especialidades, ejerciendo muchos de estos profesionales la docencia
universitaria en materias y cursos de grado y posgrado relacionados con las temáticas que
son competencia de esta repartición. Asimismo, muchos de estos profesionales asisten –
ya sea como participantes o como expositores – a cursos, seminarios, jornadas de
actualización y encuentros nacionales e internacionales en los cuales se analizan y
debaten los temas propios de la Oficina. La descripción detallada de estas participaciones
se encuentra accesible en el Capítulo E de los respectivos informes semestrales y anuales
de gestión de la OA, disponibles en nuestro sitio Web, en el enlace:
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/gestion.asp.
A mero modo de ejemplo, agentes de esta Oficina participan habitualmente presentando
ponencias y como expositores en los congresos organizados por el Centro
Latinoamericano de Administración para el Desarrollo (CLAD), o como conferencistas o
asesores invitados, entre otros, por la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), la
Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), la Organización para la Cooperación y el
Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE), el Banco Mundial (BM), el Banco Interamericano de
Desarrollo (BID), instituciones académicas, Organizaciones No Gubernamentales y por
numerosos gobiernos extranjeros. Por otro lado, son frecuentes los talleres internos de
capacitación e intercambio de ideas sobre temas relacionados con las competencias de la
OA, como en los numerosos casos en que se han debatidos proyectos normativos o se
elaboraron materiales para divulgación (sobre materias tales como acceso a la
información pública, gestión de intereses, servicios de inteligencia, lavado y recupero de
activos producto de actos de corrupción, convenciones internacionales de lucha contra la
corrupción, conflictos de intereses, normas de ética en la función pública, declaraciones
juradas patrimoniales de funcionarios públicos, agencias estatales de lucha contra la
corrupción, educación en valores, compras y contrataciones del Estado, etc.). Estos
materiales se encuentran disponibles en el sitio Web de la OA, ingresando en
“publicaciones de la OA” (http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_08.asp) y en
“políticas
anticorrupción”
/
“proyectos
normativos”
(http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_02.asp). Otro ejemplo en la materia es el
evento organizado en Buenos Aires a mediados del año 2011 por la Secretaría General de
la OEA, a través del Departamento de Cooperación Jurídica de la Secretaría de Asuntos
Jurídicos, para debatir un proyecto de ley modelo para la región en materia de
declaraciones juradas patrimoniales y de intereses de quienes desempeñan funciones
públicas. Cabe destacar que, conforme expresa la nota de invitación enviada por la
Secretaría General de la OEA (Nota verbal OEA/2.2/24/11, del 31/03/11), dicha
Organización optó por realizar el debate en la Argentina debido a “los importantes
desarrollos con los que cuenta el país en la materia, tales como su Sistema de
Declaraciones Juradas Patrimoniales Integrales, así como la posibilidad de contar con
la participación de un mayor número de expertos nacionales en el tema, cuyos
conocimientos técnicos y jurídicos permitirían establecer el proyecto de ley modelo”.
La OA ha desarrollado además, en el marco del Proyecto de Fortalecimiento Institucional
de la Oficina Anticorrupción – auspiciado por el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para
el Desarrollo (PNUD) – el denominado Sistema de Capacitación en Ética Pública
(SICEP), que tiene por finalidad brindar entrenamiento a distancia a los funcionarios
públicos en temas de Ética y Transparencia. Para cumplir con este objetivo, los agentes
de la Oficina se han a su vez capacitado para el ejercicio de la tutoría de los cursos, así
como para la elaboración del material de lectura. En este sentido, durante la primera etapa
del SICEP se redactó el libro “SICEP – Sistema de Capacitación a distancia en Ética
Pública”, y durante su segunda etapa se publicó “Ética, Transparencia y Lucha contra la
Corrupción en la Administración Pública”. Ambos materiales se encuentran disponibles
en el sitio Web de la OA:
www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar, ingresando en la opción “publicaciones de la OA”.
También como parte del Proyecto de Fortalecimiento Institucional de la OA, en el
contexto del módulo “Educación en Valores”, se capacitó a funcionarios de la Oficina en
la utilización de las herramientas pedagógicas elaboradas en el marco del proyecto, con el
fin de que éstos puedan actuar a su vez como capacitadores y como agentes de difusión.
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – INFORMES DE GESTIÓN – RENDICIÓN DE
CUENTAS
INFORMES DE LA OA
CONFORME DECRETO 102/1999
CAPITULO IV
DE LOS INFORMES
Art. 16. — La OFICINA ANTICORRUPCION deberá elevar al Ministro de Justicia y
Derechos Humanos un informe final de cada investigación que realice.
Art. 17. — La OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN también deberá elevar al Ministro de
Justicia y Derechos Humanos un informe semestral y una memoria anual sobre su gestión
que contenga especialmente las recomendaciones sobre reformas administrativas o de
gestión que eviten que se reiteren ilícitos o irregularidades administrativas.
Art. 18. — Los informes previstos en el artículo anterior serán públicos y podrán ser
consultados
personalmente o por Internet. El Ministro de Justicia y Derechos Humanos dispondrá,
además, su
publicidad por los medios de comunicación social que considere necesarios.
INFORMES DE LA OA
CONFORME REGLAMENTO INTERNO DE LA OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN
((RESOLUCIÓN MINISTERIO DE JUSTICIA, SEGURIDAD Y DERECHOS
HUMANOS Nº 1316/2008. ANEXO III –
DISPOSICIONES COMUNES)
Capítulo II: Informes.
ARTICULO 4º.- Los informes que prevé el artículo 17 del Decreto Nº 102/99 tendrán el
siguiente
contenido:
a) El informe semestral de la Oficina será elaborado con los reportes respectivos de los
Directores de Investigaciones y de Planificación de Políticas de Transparencia. El
Director de Investigaciones deberá elevar un breve reporte estadístico sobre las
actividades desarrolladas en su ámbito. El Fiscal de Control Administrativo elevará
ambos reportes al señor Ministro de Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos Humanos con las
observaciones que considere pertinentes, si así lo estimare.
b) La memoria anual de la Oficina consistirá en un resumen elaborado por cada Director
respecto de las actividades desarrolladas en sus respectivos ámbitos, tanto sobre la base
de parámetros estadísticos como descriptivos. Con ellos, el Fiscal de Control
Administrativo elaborará un comentario respecto de la actividad general de la Oficina, en
el que expondrá aquellos puntos que considere sobresalientes o dignos de destacar, así
como también aquellas dificultades con las que se ha enfrentado y propondrá, de ser
posible, las posibles soluciones para la cuestión. Asimismo evaluará la evolución en el
cumplimiento de los objetivos fijados en el Plan de Acción y, si lo considera necesario, la
posibilidad de reformarlo, extenderlo o reducirlo, exponiendo los fundamentos de esta
sugerencia.
PUBLICIDAD DE LOS INFORMES DE LA OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN:
Los informes semestrales y las memorias anuales de la Oficina Anticorrupción desde su
creación a la actualidad, se encuentran publicados en su totalidad en el sitio de Internet de
la OA
(www.anticorrupcion.gov,ar) ingresando en la solapa “informes de gestión”, o a través
del vínculo: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/gestion.asp
La información completa de gestión de la OA en cuanto a actuaciones de la Dirección de
Investigaciones, número de casos de conflictos de intereses, estadísticas de la Unidad de
Control y Seguimiento de Declaraciones Juradas y tratamiento de denuncias por
incumplimiento del Decreto 1172/03 se encuentran asimismo disponibles en informes
semestrales y las memorias anuales de la Oficina Anticorrupción, publicados en el sitio
Web de la OA (www.anticorrupcion.gov,ar) ingresando en la solapa “informes de
gestión”, o a través del vínculo:
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/gestion.asp
BOLETÍN DIGITAL DE LA OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN:
El 12 de abril de 2011 la Oficina Anticorrupción difundió el primer número de su Boletín
Digital, una
publicación electrónica distribuida a través del e-mail y la página web de la OA que
informa sobre las actividades realizadas por la DIOA y la DPPT. Este boletín, que tiene
una frecuencia mensual, tiene como objetivo mejorar la comunicación con los diversos
actores de la sociedad que tengan interés en la labor estatal en materia de transparencia y
lucha contra la corrupción.
El Boletín Digital llega a más de 1.000 destinatarios a través del correo electrónico. Entre
ellos hay
periodistas, integrantes de ONGs, funcionarios públicos relacionados a la tarea de la OA,
miembros del Poder Judicial y del Ministerio Público y representantes de organismos
internacionales, entre otros sectores.
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN (OA) – RELACIÓN CON LA CIUDADANÍA
INFORMACIÓN, ATENCIÓN, ORIENTACIÓN Y PRESENTACIÓN DE
DENUNCIAS
Sitio Web de la Oficina Anticorrupción:
La Oficina Anticorrupción dispone de un sitio Web con amplia y variada información de
diversa índole, que se encuentra accesible a cualquier interesado.
La dirección de ese sitio es: www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar
Entre otros temas, en esta Página puede encontrarse la siguiente información:
Normativa de la OA: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/quees_normativa.asp
Informes de Gestión: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/gestion.asp
Transparencia
en
organismos
públicos:
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_01.asp
Proyectos normativos: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_02.asp
Resoluciones
sobre
conflictos
de
intereses:
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_03.asp
Resoluciones
sobre
incompatibilidades:
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_04.asp
Contrataciones públicas: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_05.asp
Cooperación y asistencia técnica: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_06.asp
ONG y sector privado: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_07.asp
Actuación internacional: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/internacional_default.asp
Declaraciones Juradas de Funcionarios Públicos (DDJJ):
Solicitud de DDJJ: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/oac/cgi/register.htm
Sitio de DDJJ (para declarantes): http://www.ddjjonline.gov.ar/
Funcionarios
Cumplidores
e
Incumplidores:
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/declaraciones_04.asp
Efectuar Denuncias: http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/denuncias_01.asp
Denuncias:
Presentación de denuncias:
La Oficina Anticorrupción realiza investigaciones sobre actos de corrupción que
involucran a funcionarios públicos nacionales. Las investigaciones se basan en denuncias
realizadas por la ciudadanía, los medios de comunicación, otros organismos públicos, o
por el propio impulso de la OA. En aquellos casos en que se verifican los hechos y se
cumple con los requisitos determinados, se realiza la correspondiente denuncia ante la
Justicia. Las investigaciones preliminares que realiza la DIOA, tienen carácter reservado.
Sin embargo, se han previsto distintas modalidades de denuncia para que -en que caso
que el denunciante prefiera reservar su identidad - pueda hacer llegar la información de
que dispone.
Tipos de denuncias a presentar en la OA:
Denuncia Anónima:
Es la denuncia que se recibe por cualquier medio sin que su autor indique datos que
permitan
individualizarlo. Esto hace que resulte imposible ampliar la información brindada en la
denuncia, en caso de ser necesario.
Denuncia con identidad reservada:
Es la denuncia presentada por una persona que se identifica pero solicita a la Oficina que
mantenga su identidad en sobre cerrado, dato que por lo tanto sólo le será revelado al
Juez en el momento en que lo solicite (luego de presentada una denuncia o querella). Esto
permite que durante la investigación, la identidad del denunciante no sea conocida por los
imputados, pero sí se los pueda consultar en caso de resultar necesario ampliar la
información que aportara oportunamente.
Denuncia identificada:
Es la denuncia que hace una persona aportando datos personales mínimos que permiten
su
individualización y ubicación posterior, facilitando la investigación en la medida en que
resulta posible consultarla/o en caso de resultar necesario ampliar la información que
aportara oportunamente.Tales previsiones están contempladas en las siguientes normas:
- Decreto 102/99 (Oficina Anticorrupción. Objeto y ámbito de aplicación. Competencias
y funciones. Estructura y organización), Art. 3º.
- Resolución del Ministerio de Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos Humanos Nº 1316/08
(Reglamento
Interno de la Dirección de Investigaciones -DIOA-, de la Dirección de Planificación de
Políticas de
Transparencia -DPPT- y disposiciones comunes a ambos reglamentos), ANEXO I
(Reglamento
Interno de la Dirección de Investigaciones de la Oficina Anticorrupción), Arts. 1º, 4º y
13º, y
ANEXO II (Reglamento Interno de la Dirección de Planificación de Políticas de
Transparencia de la
Oficina Anticorrupción), Artículo 1º inciso a).
Canales disponibles para realizar denuncias:
Vía telefónica, a los nros: (54 11) 5167-6400
Vía mail, a la dirección: [email protected]
Personalmente o vía postal: Oficina Anticorrupción; Tucumán 394, C1049 AAH, Ciudad
Autónoma de Buenos Aires
Nuevo canal de denuncias telefónicas:
Recientemente la Oficina Anticorrupción habilitó una línea telefónica “0-800”, de
carácter gratuito y
atención personalizada para realizar denuncias (0800-444-4462)
DIRECCIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN DE POLÍTICAS DE TRANSPARENCIA DE LA
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN COMPETENCIAS Y FUNCIONES
DIRECCIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN DE POLÍTICAS DE TRANSPARENCIA
FUNCIONES (CONFORME DECRETO 102/1999):
La Dirección de Planificación de Políticas de Transparencia es la responsable de la
elaboración de
políticas estatales contra la corrupción en el sector público nacional (artículo 9º, Decreto
102/99).
La Dirección de Planificación de Políticas de Transparencia tendrá las siguientes
funciones (artículo 12º, Decreto 102/99):
a) Elaborar y proponer al Fiscal de Control Administrativo un plan de acción y los
criterios para determinar los casos de significación institucional, social o económica;
b) Realizar estudios respecto de los hechos de corrupción administrativa y sobre sus
causas, planificando las políticas y programas de prevención y represión correspondiente;
c) Recomendar y asesorar a los organismos del Estado la implementación de políticas o
programas
preventivos;
El Plan de Acción contendrá las áreas críticas, por materias u organismos, y los criterios
de significación institucional -impacto sobre la credibilidad de las instituciones-, social bienes sociales y población afectada- y económico –monto del presunto perjuicio-. El
Plan de Acción deberá publicarse en el Boletín Oficial y difundirse por Internet (artículo
13º, Decreto 102/99).
La Dirección de Planificación de Políticas de Transparencia, en ejercicio de sus
funciones, podrá realizar encuestas y entrevistas, requerir a los agentes públicos
documentación e informes, relevar las denuncias formuladas ante los organismos de
control estatal, el PODER JUDICIAL o el MINISTERIO PUBLICO y solicitar a centros
de estudios, universidades, o cualquier otra organización con fines académicos, toda
información que fuese de su interés. (artículo 14º, Decreto 102/99)
DIRECCIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN DE POLÍTICAS DE TRANSPARENCIA (DPPT)
FUNCIONES (CONFORME DECRETO 466/2007, ANEXO III):
RESPONSABILIDAD PRIMARIA:
Asistir al Fiscal de Control Administrativo en la elaboración de políticas de transparencia
contra la
corrupción en el Sector Público Nacional.
ACCIONES:
1. Elaborar y proponer al Fiscal de Control Administrativo un Plan de Acción y los
criterios para determinar los casos de significación institucional, social o económica.
2. Realizar estudios e investigaciones acerca de los hechos ilícitos o irregulares así como
de las causas de los mismos.
3. Diseñar políticas y programas de prevención y realizar recomendaciones sobre
políticas de represión de hechos ilícitos o irregulares.
4. Proponer modificaciones a los regímenes o procesos administrativos u
organizacionales en el ámbito del Sector Público Nacional, a los efectos de evitar hechos
ilícitos o irregulares y coordinar su actividad con las áreas pertinentes de la JEFATURA
DE GABINETE DE MINISTROS.
5. Asesorar a los organismos del Estado Nacional para implementar políticas o programas
preventivos.
6. Efectuar el control y seguimiento de las declaraciones juradas de los agentes públicos y
analizar su contenido en orden a determinar la existencia de situaciones que puedan
configurar presunto enriquecimiento o incompatibilidad en el ejercicio de la función.
DIRECCIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN DEPRINCIPALES ÁREAS DE TRABAJO
a) POLÍTICAS DE TRANSPARENCIA Y PARTICIPACIÓN CIUDADANA
Recomienda y asesora a los organismos del Estado para el diseño, promoción e
implementación de programas y políticas de transparencia y participación ciudadana.
Algunos links de interés respecto de las actividades desarrolladas por la OA en materia de
políticas de transparencia y participación ciudadana:
Publicación “Elaboración Participada de Normas. Un espacio abierto para el debate de
las
decisiones públicas”. (Buenos Aires, Oficina Anticorrupción. 1ª edición: junio de 2004.
2ª edición:
enero de 2007).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/Documentos/Libro%20Elab%20Partic%20%202ed.pdf
Sitio Web de la OA: www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar, ingresando en “políticas
anticorrupción”
/
ONG’s
y
sector
privado”.
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_07.asp
b) DECLARACIONES JURADAS DE FUNCIONARIOS PÚBLICOS
Entre las competencias asignadas a la Oficina Anticorrupción por el Decreto Nº 164 del
23 de diciembre de 1999, se encuentra la de llevar el registro de las declaraciones juradas
(DDJJ) de los agentes públicos y evaluar y controlar el contenido de las mismas y las
situaciones que pudieran constituir enriquecimiento ilícito o incompatibilidades en el
ejercicio de la función pública. De acuerdo con la estructura organizativa de la Oficina
Anticorrupción, aprobada por el Decreto Nº 466/07, corresponde a la Dirección de
Planificación de Políticas de Transparencia (DPPT) desarrollar las acciones requeridas
para el efectivo ejercicio de dichas competencias. En tal sentido, entre las actividades que
la Unidad de Control y Seguimiento de Declaraciones Juradas (UDJ) de la citada
Dirección desarrolla en forma permanente, pueden mencionarse:
Procesamiento de la información enviada por las jurisdicciones y organismos referida a
los
funcionarios obligados a presentar Declaración Jurada Patrimonial Integral (DJPI) por
alta, baja y
actualización anual, así como de la información sobre cumplimiento de las presentaciones
de
DJPI.
Registro, control y conservación de las DDJJ de los funcionarios comprendidos en el
artículo 5º de la Res. MJyDH Nº 1000/00 -aquellas cuyo archivo y custodia corresponde
a la OA-.
Control de DJPI de funcionarios cuyos sobres no son remitidos a la OA.
Control de cumplimiento de las presentaciones por parte de la totalidad de los
funcionarios
obligados.
Respuestas a las consultas realizadas por responsables de las áreas de recursos
humanos y por
funcionarios obligados.
Atención de solicitudes de consulta de Declaraciones Juradas.
Seguimiento de las designaciones y ceses de funcionarios de los niveles superiores.
Asesoramiento a los responsables de las áreas de recursos humanos de las
jurisdicciones y
organismos sobre cómo completar la declaración y criterios a seguir para la
determinación de los
funcionarios obligados.
Detección de eventuales incrementos patrimoniales y de situaciones de posibles
incompatibilidades o conflictos de intereses.
Solicitud de aclaraciones a los funcionarios, obtención de información de fuentes
adicionales y
cruce de datos.
Confección de informes sobre las situaciones detectadas.
Algunos links de interés respecto de las actividades desarrolladas por la OA en materia de
declaraciones juradas de funcionarios públicos:
Publicación “Declaraciones Juradas de Funcionarios Públicos. Una herramienta para la
prevención y control de la corrupción. Tecnología informática y gestión pública”.
(Buenos Aires, Oficina Anticorrupción, octubre de 2004).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Libro%20DDJJ%202ed.pdf
Sitio Web de la Oficina Anticorrupción para la consulta pública de declaraciones
juradas
patrimoniales de funcionarios públicos.
https://www2.jus.gov.ar/consultaddjj
c) CONFLICTOS DE INTERESES E INCOMPATIBILIDADES
Analiza situaciones de conflictos de intereses de los funcionarios públicos en el marco de
la Ley de Ética Pública y colabora en la detección de situaciones de incompatibilidad por
acumulación de cargos. Desde el año 2000, la Dirección de Planificación de Políticas de
Transparencia analiza, de oficio o por denuncia, situaciones que puedan configurar
conflictos de intereses o incompatibilidades en el ejercicio de la función pública. Esto ha
permitido la recopilación de una jurisprudencia respecto a esta temática que permite
orientar a cualquier funcionario público sobre cuáles podrían llegar a ser los límites de su
actuación ante un caso de conflicto.
Algunos links de interés respecto de las actividades desarrolladas por la OA en materia de
conflictos de intereses e Incompatibilidades:
Publicación “Conflictos de Intereses. Disyuntivas entre lo público y lo privado y
prevención de la corrupción” (Buenos Aires, Oficina Anticorrupción, 2009)
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/ConflictoDeIntereses.pdf
Resoluciones de la OA sobre conflictos de intereses
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_03.asp
Resoluciones de la OA sobre incompatibilidades
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_04.asp
d) COMPRAS Y CONTRATACIONES
Propone políticas generales para mejorar la transparencia en los procesos de compras
públicas. Cuando una contratación está en curso, y se tienen sospechas de falta de
transparencia, puede realizarse una denuncia mediante correo electrónico a la dirección:
[email protected]
Para mayor información recomendamos consultar los informes de gestión de la Oficina
Anticorrupción, disponibles en www.anticorrupción.gov.ar ingresando en “informes de
gestión”.
Algunos links de interés respecto de las actividades desarrolladas por la OA en materia de
compras y contrataciones:
Publicación “El Estado de las Contrataciones. Mapa de Condiciones de Transparencia
y
Accesibilidad en las Contrataciones Públicas.
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/2008EstContrataciones.pdf
Publicación “El Estado de las Contrataciones 2. Estudio en profundidad de
contrataciones
públicas.
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Libro%20Mapa%202da%20parte.pdf
e) PROYECTOS NORMATIVOS
Elabora proyectos de normas y realiza recomendaciones acerca de posibles reformas
legislativas, con el fin de mejorar las herramientas de prevención, investigación y sanción
de la corrupción.
Algunos links de interés respecto de las actividades desarrolladas por la OA en materia de
proyectos normativos:
Sitio Web de la OA: www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar, ingresando en “políticas
anticorrupción” /
“proyectos normativos”.
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_02.asp
f) ACCIÓN INTERNACIONAL
La OA trabaja en el escenario internacional en diversos ámbitos vinculados con la lucha
contra la
corrupción (ONU, OEA, OCDE) entre otros. El Decreto 466/07 estableció entre los
objetivos de la Oficina Anticorrupción que debe “Velar por el cumplimiento de las
Convenciones Internacionales de lucha contra la corrupción ratificadas por el Estado
Nacional” En este sentido, la DPPT participa activamente en organismos, foros y
programas internacionales y desarrolla acciones y elabora proyectos de cooperación
internacional, velando por el efectivo cumplimiento e implementación de las
Convenciones y Acuerdos Internacionales.
Algunos links de interés respecto de las actividades desarrolladas por la OA en materia de
acción
internacional:
Publicación “Convención Interamericana contra la Corrupción. Implementación de un
eficaz
instrumento internacional de lucha contra la corrupción”. (Buenos Aires, Oficina
Anticorrupción. 1ª
edición: octubre de 2004. 2ª edición actualizada: enero de 2007).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/Documentos/Libro%20CICC%202ed.pdf
Publicación “Convención de las Naciones Unidas contra la Corrupción. Nuevos
paradigmas para la
prevención y combate de la corrupción en el escenario global”. (Buenos Aires, Oficina
Anticorrupción. 1ª edición: octubre de 2004. 2ª edición actualizada: agosto de 2007).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Libro%20CNUCC%202ed.pdf
Publicación “Bases para Proyecto de Plan de Acción para la Implementación de la
Convención
Interamericana contra la Corrupción”. (Buenos Aires, Oficina Anticorrupción, 2006).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/Documentos/Plan%20acci%C3%B3n%20CICC%20co
mpleto.pdf
Sitio Web de la OA: www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar, ingresando en “actuación
internacional”.
Informes de gestión de la OA en el sitio web: www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar, ingresando
en “informes de gestión”.
g) Programas en Provincias y Municipios:
La DPPT impulsa un plan de difusión e instalación de políticas y mecanismos para la
prevención y control de la corrupción y transferencia de capacidades en los niveles
provinciales y municipales. Este plan está diseñado en base a la participación de
múltiples actores locales: funcionarios públicos, Organizaciones No Gubernamentales,
academia y medios de comunicación.
Algunos links de interés respecto de las actividades desarrolladas por la OA en materia de
acción con Gobiernos subnacionales:
Sitio Web de la OA: www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar, ingresando en “Plan Provincias”.
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/politicas_09.asp
h) Capacitación y Difusión
Diseña, implementa y promueve actividades de capacitación y campañas de difusión en
temas de ética pública, tanto para funcionarios públicos como para la ciudadanía en
general.
Un detalle pormenorizado de las actividades de capacitación desarrolladas puede ser
consultado en los diversos informes de gestión disponibles en nuestra página web
(www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar).
Algunos links de interés respecto de las actividades desarrolladas por la OA en materia de
capacitación y difusión:
Publicación “Ética, Transparencia y Lucha contra la Corrupción en la Administración
Pública”. (Buenos Aires, Oficina Anticorrupción, Programa de las Naciones Unidas para
el Desarrollo – PNUD – y Embajada Británica en Buenos Aires, 2009).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Libro%20SICEP%202da%20parte.pdf
Publicación “Organismos de Lucha Contra la Corrupción. Informe sobre agencias
estatales de lucha contra la corrupción en el continente americano”. (Buenos Aires,
Oficina Anticorrupción. Junio de 2009).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Oas%20anticorrupci%C3%B3n.pdf
Publicación “¿Y vos qué?. Herramienta pedagógica para los contenidos transversales
de Formación Ética y Ciudadana. Guía para el Docente”. (Buenos Aires, Oficina
Anticorrupción, Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo – PNUD – y
Embajada Británica en Buenos Aires, 2009).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Guia%20cuadernillo%20docente.pdf
Publicación “Resetear la sociedad. Ideas de los jóvenes sobre la corrupción”. (Buenos
Aires, Oficina Anticorrupción, Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo –
PNUD – y Embajada Británica
en Buenos Aires, 2007).
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Resetear2009.pdf
BROCHURE CON LÍNEAS DIRECTRICES SOBRE TEMAS DE TRABAJO DE LA
DIRECCIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN DE POLÍTICAS DE TRANSPARENCIA DE LA
OFICINA ANTICORRUPCIÓN:
Herramientas para la Transparencia en la Gestión. Guía Nº1: CONFLICTOS DE
INTERESES
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Confl%20de%20intereses%20Guidelines
%20(1).pdf
Herramientas para la Transparencia en la Gestión. Guía Nº2: DECLARACIONES
JURADAS
http://www.anticorrupcion.gov.ar/documentos/Declaraciones%20juradas%20guidelines%
20(2).pdf
Herramientas para la Transparencia en la Gestión. Guía Nº3: PARTICIPACIÓN
AZERBAIJAN (SECOND MEETING)
Commission is a specialized agency for anti-corruption issues and functions with the
structure composed of 15 members. Commission is composed of 15 members: 5
members are appointed by each branch of power. The CCC Charter was approved by the
CCC (Charter) ACT 2005. Commission coordinates the anticorruption activities
throughout the country and operates in parallel with the Cabinet of Ministers, and reports
regularly to the President and the Parliament.
Commission has numerous preventive character duties which include, participation in
formulation of state anti-corruption policies; coordination of different stakeholders
related to the area; analysis, oversight and evaluation of state and efficiency of
implemented measures; collection of asset declarations from public officials; and
development of recommendations and etc. The Commission on Combating Corruption,
while overseeing implementation of National Strategy, also monitors and evaluates
corruption prevention measures.
Anticorruption Department with the Prosecutor General’s Office, specialized agency in
the area of detection and criminal [pre-trial] investigation of corruption offences, is also
involved and contributes significantly into implementation of preventive measures along
with the Commission. In order to secure the specialization in the field of prevention,
Preventive and Analysis Division and Organizational and Information Division were
instituted within the structure of the Department in 2011.
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (FIFTH MEETING)
I Information requested from States parties in relation to mandates of anti-corruption
body or bodies in respect of prevention (art.6)
1. The adoption of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the
Fight against Corruption in December 2009. is implemented separate body
specialized in combating corruption, provided with an Article 20 of the Criminal
Law Convention on Corruption of the Council of Europe and Article 6 of the UN
Convention against Corruption. These Conventions require that the Agency will
first need to be independent, both politically and financially, and to have
knowledgeable and professional staff to effectively combat corruption.
LAW ON THE AGENCY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION AND
THE COORDINATION OF THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION
Article 10
(Responsibilities of the Agency)
The Agency shall be responsible to:
a)
Develop the Anti-Corruption Strategy, and develop the Corruption
Prevention Action Plan;
b)
Coordinate and monitor the implementation of the Strategy and the Action
Plan, and provide opinions and guidelines on the matter of implementation of the
Strategy and the Action Plan;
c)
Coordinate the work of the public institutions in preventing corruption and
conflict of interest, and make analyses of the final decisions of the competent
authorities in charge of processing conflicts of interest in order to look into the
instances of corruptive practices, inform the competent institutions about the
situation detected, as well as take all necessary measures as provided by law;
d)
Monitor the instances of conflict of interest, provide recommendations for
the strategy of managing the conflict of interest on a case-to-case basis, and issue
the guidelines for the policy of managing the conflict of interest in government
institutions;
e)
Prescribe a uniform methodology for collection of the data about financial
situation of public servants;
f)
In coordination with the competent authorities, analyze the delivered data
in order to detect the instances of corrupt practices, and take necessary measures
as provided by law.
g)
Collect and analyze statistics and other data, and inform all relevant stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina of the results of the inquiry;
h)
Take action upon receiving the submissions that contain indications of a
corruptive conduct pursuant to the applicable regulations;
i)
Coordinate the work of the institutions with public authorities in
combating corruption;
j)
Monitor the effects of laws and bylaws aimed at preventing corruption and
provide opinions and guidelines on the issue of their implementation, initiate
activities in relation to amending the current legislative arrangements and
harmonize them;
k)
Cooperate with the national scientific and professional organizations,
public media, and NGOs on the issue of corruption prevention;
l)
Cooperate with international organizations, institutions, initiatives and
bodies;
m)
Establish and maintain the database containing the data collected in
accordance with this Law;
n)
Develop educational programs on the issue of prevention of corruption
and fight against corruption, and monitor their implementation;
o)
Issue publications to inform the public about the corruption situation;
p)
Inform the competent institutions and the public of the obligations
contained in international legal acts and give recommendations for their
realization in relation to corruption prevention;
q)
Prescribe a uniform methodology and guidelines for making integrity
plans and providing assistance to all public institutions in their implementation;
and
r)
Perform other activities relating to corruption prevention.
www.apik.ba
2.
It can be said that some progress in the implementation of the Action Plan of the
Strategy has made, and it relates to the fulfillment of the provisions on which all
institutions at all levels of government should prepare its own action plan against
corruption.
In May 2012. was adopted General Plan of the fight against corruption in the
Federation of BiH, which contains very specific tasks and measures to be taken in
the next two years. Also, the Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina in
February 2012. adopted its Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for
the Fight against Corruption (2009 - 2014). A number of institutions also have
their own plans to combat corruption or working on their adoption.
Also one of the measures of the Action Plan was implemented in July 2012.,
when the Council of Ministers gave its approval to the proposal of the Agency's
Code of Conduct, the Council of Ministers adopted a Codeof ethics for civil
servants in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was also one of the measures of the
Action Plan. Since March 2012. became available web page of Agency for the
Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption, where
one can find all the information on its establishment, mandate and work.
Therefore Implementation of the Integrity plans in all institutions at the state
level, creating Integrity Plan for all state institutions, online ethics training for all
civil servants on the website: www.apik.ba., in Republic of Srpska assignment of
Decisions for the company's work within 3 days, with no initial capital. It is in
force from 01.12.2013. as a set of three laws. In January this year was entered into
force the Law on the Protection of whistleblowers in the institutions of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, which was unanimously adopted by the Parliamentary
Assembly, referring to the state institutions and legal entities who establishes
institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc.
BRAZIL (FIFTH MEETING)
Prevention Measures, Polices and Practices and Agencies for Combating Corruption
Article 5th and Article 6th of UNAC establish that each State-Party shall create
bodies in charge of preventing corruption besides formulating and applying polices
against corruption that promote the society's participation and reflect the principles of
the Rule of Law, the proper management of the public assets, integrity,
transparency and the duty of accountability. Through the International Law, on adhering
to UNAC, Brazil, through the Union, undertook such commitments. Brazil is a
Federative State, which means that the State power is shared among several political
institutions endowed with autonomy and competences established by the Constitution.
That means that the compliance with this obligation is not solely dependent of the
Union's volition, which is divided among the States and Municipalities.
With regard to the Union, the Executive Branch has the Office of the
Comptroller General, CGU, established by Law No.10.638 of MAY 28,2003,which is an
agency with the competency of internal control, public audit, corrective and disciplinary
measures, corruption prevention and combat, as well as acting as an agency of
ombudsman's activities and federal public management transparency. The CGU inspects
and detects frauds and deviations in the use of the federal public money, and is also in
charge of developing mechanisms for prevention against corruption. With this purpose,
the CGU performs events intended of incenting social participation and control in
combating corruption such as, the 1st National Conference on Transparency and Social
Control - 1st CONSOCIAL, instituted by presidential Decree of December 8 ,2010,
which had the participation of approximately 150 thousand citizens in its preparatory
phase held from July 2011 to April 2012. These citizens were represented by one
thousand and 200 delegates in its national meeting held in Brasilia in May 2012.
In the scope of external control, the Union count on the Audit Court,
which is an agency established by Art. 71 of the Constitution as an institution in
charge of assisting the National Congress in the evaluation and control of budget
execution by the public Administration. In this role the TCU audits the hiring of
public services and works as well as expenses made by the agencies of the three
branches of the Federal Public Administration, detecting incoherencies in the
accountability and deviations in the use of the federal public money . In its role of an
auditing agency, the TCU holds the power to prevent the progression of works and
services that do not comply with the legal guidelines, as well as holding the parties
administratively accountable for irregular expenses. Additionally, the audits
performed by the TCU are intended to evaluate the public management performance and
results.
Besides the CGU and the TCU, the Union counts on the Office of the
Prosecutor General (MPF), which is an autonomous agency endowed with constitutional
competency of holding accountable the responsible parties for acts of corruption and
deviation of public money under the civil, administrative and criminal law code. In this
role, it is MPF's competency investigating both in the penal and civil level, acts of
corruption and bad management of public assets. Although MPF's role is predominately
repressive, MPF's joint action with CGU and TCU has resulted in important
contributions to public assets' management and the population's awareness in combating
corruption. For this purpose, MPF constantly performs Public Hearings with the
participation of the society and experts in different areas, aiming at establishing and
adopting measures intended to prevent deviation of public money and acts of corruption
such as, drawing up a budget model for public works intended to prevent overbilling,
and, consequently, diversion of public funds. Additionally, MPF has authority to release
recommendations aiming to alter or cease harmful practices to public coffers and require
higher transparency and publicity of public management acts, implying the
accountability of the public officials identified as the responsible parties for such acts.
Among the three agencies of the federal government, the MPF and the
TCU have autonomy guaranteed by the Constitutional provisions, which attributes
independence acting to their members. As for the CGU, it is the agency directly linked to
the Presidency of the Republic, which confers autonomy in relation to the other agencies
of the Federal Public Administration. Despite that, it is possible to detect in the recent
Brazilian history, attempts to hinder the actions of these agencies through projects of
amendments of the Brazilian legislation or weakening in the budget allotment of these
agencies. Such attempts have been repealed by pressure from the society and the nongovernmental organizations.
The acting of these agencies in preventing and combating corruption is
coordinated through the National Strategy for Combating Corruption and Money
Laundering (ENCCLA). ENCLLA consists of articulating the agencies from
the three Prosecutor as well as preventing branches of the Republic, the Office of the
General and the Offices of the Attorneys General the public society that act, even
indirectly, in corruption and money laundering. Among the agencies composing it, are
not only the agencies from the three branches, such as the Senate, the Office of the
Prosecutor General, Judiciary Branch, CGU and TCU, but also intelligence agencies,
such as ABIN, and institutions that compose and inspect the financial system, such as the
Securities Commission (Comissao de Valores Mobiliarios CVM), Financial Control
Board (Conselho de Controle de Atividades Financeiras- COAF), Complementary
Pension Regulator (Superintendencia Nacional de Previdencia Complementar-PREVIC),
SUSEP, Central Bank (Banco Central do Brasil-BACEN) as representatives of more
varied associations, such as the Brazilian Federation of Banks FEBRABAN. ENCCLA4
is responsible for outlining action strategies, inspecting strategies' execution through its
roughly 60 members as well as evaluating the success of implemented measures.
The federal model is repeated, to some extent, in the State and Municipal
level, which count on State Audit Courts and, in some cities, such as Rio de Janeiro and
sao Paulo, Municipal Audit Courts whose assignments are identical to the TCU's, but
limited to the State and Municipal inspection.The States also have Offices of District
Attorneys (State Public Ministry) performing assignments, within the territory scope of
each federate, that are similar to the ones of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The
CGU model, however, is only mirrored, for while, in few cities, such as sao Paulo, which
is the biggest of the country. The Offices of the District Attorneys and representatives of
State Judges, also compose ENCCLA, thus coordinating the prevention and combat
against nasty corruption in the States and Cities with that performed in the federal level.
Among the activities performed by the nominated agencies is the
propagation in the media of educational campaigns aiming to raise the population's
awareness of its role in fighting corruption. Thus, Public Ministry's entities launched in
2008, the campaign "What do you have to do with corruption?", which is repeated every
year and in 2010, it had the motto "Filthy past promotes no future. Have a Clean Vote"
and sought to demonstrate the role and responsibility the civil society has in combating
corruption
when
participating
in
the
election
process
(http://www.cnmp.mp.br/portal/images/stories/cpcom/bancosde
ideias/campanhasexternas/corrupcao/release-delancamento.pdf). More recently, the CGU, through social media, performed the campaign "Small
Corruption Acts- Say No", seeking to arise the Brazilian people's awareness of the fact that small illicit or
anti-ethical acts performed daily by each citizen, such as, stealing the cable TV sign, end up reverberating
on a larger scale on the public officials' conduct.
CAMBODIA (SECOND MEETING)
The RGC established several mechanisms and institutions with a concerted effort to fight against
corruptions:
1. The Anti-Corruption Institution established by ACL, comprising 2 bodies, namely: the
National Anti-Corruption Council to play an important role to fight against corruptions and is
responsible to set forth the Strategic Planning for 5-Year Term (2011-2015) in which it is a
guideline for the country political platform and the Anti-Corruption Unit which is
responsible to formulate Action Plan for 2-Year Term (2011-2012) and it is an executive body
with special authority or power to independently carries out day-to-day services.
2. The National Audit Authority (NAA)
3. Ministry of National Assembly and Senate Relation and Inspection
4. Financial Inspection Committee (FIC) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the
Ministry of Economy and Finance Inspection Committees existing in the National Assembly,
Senate and in all line Ministries and Institutions.
In general, the Anti-Corruption Unit needs to build up capacity building and all fundamental ground for
work necessary in order to resume duties in full capacity to tackle corruptions. Up to date, the 3 SubDecrees have been adopted:
1- Sub-Decree for the Organizing and Functioning of the ACU
2- Sub-Decree on the establishment of Logo and stamps for National Anti-Corruption
Council and for the Anti-Corruption Unit.
3- Sub-Decree on Annual Budget and its management and utilities
Within the short period following its establishment, the ACU investigation officers were actively engaged in
monitoring the timber bidding at 9 provinces and will continue to follow up the remaining bidding sessions
as well as any irregularities of corrupt offences through out the country. Recently, the investigation was
launched at the Office of the Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation at the 24 provinces and city
by the officials of the Anti-CorruptionUnit.
As a result, one prosecutor in Pursat province and his 2 assistants, 02 Police Commissioners, one 3 Star
Police General in charge of anti-drug committee and his associates were arrested and were all transferred to
the court for its mandate. Also other 30 tax officers were put in administrative sanctions for their malpractices.Concerning the Pilot Project to set up the Preah Monivong Boulevard in Phnom Penh City as a
clean street ( Corruption Free), in which the survey took a few months to study feasibility and expect to
have it completed soon. The 06 White Boxes for complaints are also installed along the route.
At the same time, the ACU has successfully come to the end in receipt of the Asset and Liability
Declarations which opened from 01 January, 2011 till 07 April, 2011. The officials from the 38 Ministries,
Institutions including the National Assembly and Senate of Cambodia, whose obligations required to declare
their assets are totally 23,976 persons. The operation to handle this work has been produced satisfactory
result, despite it is our first task.
CHILE (FIFTH MEETING)
Artículo 6
Órgano u órganos de prevención de la corrupción
1.
Cada Estado Parte, de conformidad con los principios fundamentales de su ordenamiento jurídico,
garantizará la existencia de un órgano u órganos, según proceda, encargados de prevenir la corrupción con
medidas tales como:
a) La aplicación de las políticas a que se hace alusión en el artículo 5 de la presente Convención y, cuando
proceda, la supervisión y coordinación de la puesta en práctica de esas políticas;
b) El aumento y la difusión de los conocimientos en materia de prevención de la corrupción.
2. Cada Estado Parte otorgará al órgano o a los órganos mencionados en el párrafo 1 del presente artículo la
independencia necesaria, de conformidad con los principios fundamentales de su ordenamiento jurídico,
para que puedan desempeñar sus funciones de manera eficaz y sin ninguna influencia indebida. Deben
proporcionárseles los recursos materiales y el personal especializado que sean necesarios, así como la
capacitación que dicho personal pueda requerir para el desempeño de sus funciones.
3. Cada Estado Parte comunicará al Secretario General de las Naciones
Unidas el nombre y la dirección de la autoridad o las autoridades que puedan ayudar a otros Estados Parte a
formular y aplicar medidas concretas de prevención de la corrupción.
Descripción: Este artículo establece la creación o mantenimiento de un órgano u órganos, independiente
(s) encargado (s) de prevenir la corrupción de acuerdo al ordenamiento jurídico del país. Se debe
promover la participación de la sociedad y concienciarla de la existencia de la entidad o entidades que
luchan contra la corrupción. Igualmente, la(s) institución (es) debe (n) contar con recursos económicos
para llevar a cabo capacitaciones del personal especializado en prevención y combate de la corrupción.
Finalmente, el/los organismos debe (n) supervisar y coordinar las medidas que se implementen en la
prevención contra la corrupción.
Situación Chile:
Chile ha optado por la coordinación entre los distintos órganos que tienen potestades en la lucha
contra la corrupción y los esfuerzos se han centrado en ella. Al mismo tiempo, se ha privilegiado la cercanía
de la ciudadanía en estos temas, según dan cuentas las iniciativas comentadas a continuación.
Aspectos profundizados en el último tiempo:
- Instauración de un módulo en el sitio web de ChileCompra para formular denuncias por irregularidades en
procesos de adquisiciones que permite al Órgano Contralor1 tener acceso directo a ellas2.
-Establecimiento del Portal Anticorrupción3 que permite acceder a información de la Contraloría General de
la República, Ministerio Público y Consejo de Defensa del Estado. El Portal Anticorrupción es un sitio web
que busca facilitar el acceso de los ciudadanos a información sobre la investigación de hechos que pudiesen
ser constitutivos de corrupción y el resultado de dicha investigación, considerando las limitaciones legales
sobre publicidad que rigen en la materia.
En su creación han trabajado la Contraloría General de la República, el Ministerio Público y el Consejo de
Defensa del Estado, instituciones que se han unido para poner a disposición de las personas y
organizaciones esta ventanilla virtual, donde es posible conocer cómo se hacen las denuncias de casos de
corrupción en estas instituciones y, según corresponda, dar seguimiento a las denuncias que hayan
efectuado.
Asimismo, contiene información relevante en la materia y noticias de cada una de estas instituciones
relacionadas con la lucha contra la corrupción.
Este sitio combina los esfuerzos de estos organismos en la lucha contra la corrupción, cada uno desde su rol
específico, permitiendo a los ciudadanos interesados acceder, en un solo sitio, a información de las tres
entidades.
- Portal Contraloría y Ciudadano4. Es un portal que permite realizar en línea denuncias y sugerencias de
fiscalización, lo que facilita el vínculo con la Sociedad Civil, ya que no necesariamente deben concurrir de
manera presencial al organismo, pudiendo ponerse a disposición de este Órgano de Control una variedad de
antecedentes en distintos formatos (Word, Excel, PDF, entre otros).
Asimismo, es posible realizar denuncias con reserva de identidad con el propósito de resguardar la
información brindada por los usuarios y dar seguridad a éstos de que no se verán amenazados sus derechos
por el conocimiento de sus identidades.
Por otra parte, tiene un apartado con preguntas frecuentes que permite al ciudadano conocer del organismo
de control y de temas relacionados.
-La implementación del “Portal de Transparencia del Estado de Chile” a cargo del Consejo para la
Transparencia en el sector municipal que a la fecha deriva en que 209 municipios de los 345 del país, usan
dicha plataforma para gestionar las solicitudes de información que les formulan los ciudadanos. Esta
herramienta asegura la posibilidad de seguimiento ciudadano a sus demandas de información, sin barreras
de acceso, como lo demuestran los procesos de fiscalización en este sector.
1
Contraloría General de la República 2
https://www.mercadopublico.cl/Portal/Modules/Site/Reclamos/IngresoReclamo.aspx
3
http://www.anticorrupcion.cl/web_site/appmanager/portal/main#&panel1‐1 4
http://www.contraloria.cl/NewPortal2/portal2/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Sitios/Ciudadano/Inicio También en el ámbito municipal el Consejo ha implementado un “Modelo de Gestión en Transparencia
Municipal” que consiste en un conjunto de herramientas de gestión que definen estándares y adopción de
buenas prácticas para la implementación de los procesos de transparencia al interior de dichas entidades. A
la fecha ya son 265 los municipios que se encuentran adoptando este modelo, lo que se ha visto reflejado en
mejores niveles de cumplimiento de la ley y en una formalización de procedimientos y roles con un impacto
directo en el fortalecimiento de las capacidades institucionales del sector.
Se ha implementado para todos los usuarios del sistema de transparencia la posibilidad de interponer
Reclamos en línea, con una plataforma tecnológica que permite recibir amparos ciudadanos frente a
denegaciones de acceso a la información, eliminando barreras de acceso y favoreciendo la exigibilidad de
este derecho.
Fundamentalmente destinado a los funcionarios públicos, pero también abierto a la comunidad en general, el
Consejo imparte capacitaciones en un portal educativo denominado “Educa Transparencia”, con un
promedio de 800 inscripciones mensuales y un índice de aprobación del 51%. El curso más demandado es el
relacionado con “transparencia y probidad”.
CHINA (SECOND MEETING)
As a whole, The trend of China’s corruption prevention work develops from special prevention for
individual corruption to prevention in key areas focusing on administrative examination and approval,
financial management and cadre and personnel system reform, then to all-round prevention marked with
the establishment and improvement of corruption punishment and prevention system. Currently, China’s
corruption prevention work has entered the new phase of all-round deployment, promotion as a whole and
coordinative development. On September 13, 2007, China established the National Bureau of Corruption
Prevention to coordinate the work of corruption prevention in various aspects and pragmatically
implement Article 6 “Each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal
system, ensure the existence of a body or bodies, as appropriate, that prevent corruption...” of UN
Convention against Corruption.
(...)
In China, the competent departments of anti-corruption mainly include the CPC departments on discipline
inspection, judicial departments, government supervision departments, audit departments and the special
organization of corruption prevention. Meanwhile, other departments and organizations such as public
security and finance also undertake related work of corruption prevention within their jurisdiction according
to law. The above-mentioned organizations with different functions jointly shoulder the important
responsibility of combating corruption and building a clean government construction as well as maintaining
social equality and justice. In the work of combating corruption and building a clean government, the above
organizations with different functions are independent in performing their duties and, at the same time,
coordinate and collaborate with one another.
The National Bureau of Corruption Prevention of China is an organ that the Chinese government has
specially set up to take overall responsibility for the work of corruption prevention. Its major responsibilities
are to organize and coordinate the national work of corruption prevention, make overall plans in this regard,
formulate relevant policies, examine and direct the work, coordinate and direct the work of corruption
prevention in enterprises, public institutions, social groups, intermediate agencies and other social
organizations, and take charge of international cooperation and technical assistance in this regard. Some
provinces and municipalities have also established corruption prevention bureaus.
CHINA (FIFTH MEETING)
Establishing a Sound System for Punishing and Preventing Corruption
The Work Plan (2013-2017)
This work plan has been drawn up to implement the decisions and plans of the Party’s 18th National
Congress and the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, to strengthen the mechanism
for punishing and preventing corruption, and to promote sound Party conduct, political integrity and the
fight against corruption.
I
Goals
The Party’s 18th National Congress laid out overall plans for promoting socialism with Chinese
characteristics, and put forward the new task of improving Party building with a scientific approach. Under
the new circumstances, the Party is challenged in its capacity to govern, reform and open up, develop the
market economy and respond to the outer environment, as well as by the dangers of laxity in belief and
conviction, incompetence in governance, isolation from the people, and corruption and other misconduct.
To promote the modernization of state governance and enhance our capacity to do so, to realize the “two
centenary goals”5 and the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and to ensure that
our Party remains the core of leadership of socialism with Chinese characteristics, we must uphold the
principle that the Party should supervise its own conduct and run itself with strict discipline, further improve
Party conduct and political integrity, resolutely continue the combat against corruption, and preserve the
Party’s advanced nature and purity.
Comprehensively establishing a mechanism to punish and prevent corruption is a major political task of the
Party and the common responsibility of all members of society. Under the strong leadership of the CPC
Central Committee, the Party committees and governments at all levels are making great efforts to promote
the building of a corruption prevention and punishment institution, and have made remarkable progress in
improving Party conduct, clean governance and the fight against corruption. As corruption is still rampant
5
“Complete the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects when the Communist Party of China celebrates its centenary and turn China into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious when the People’s Republic of China marks its centennial,” — two goals set at the CPC’s 18th National Congress. and the seedbed for breeding graft continues to exist, our fight against corruption remains a serious
challenge at a time when the Party’s image is gravely tarnished by formalism, bureaucracy, hedonism and
extravagance. If we fail to handle these issues, it could prove fatal to the Party, and even cause the collapse
of the Party and the fall of the state. The whole Party must keep vigilant and pay equal attention to the
prevention and punishment of corruption, and continue the efforts to improve Party conduct, political
integrity and the fight against corruption.
We must guide our building of the corruption prevention and punishment mechanism with Deng Xiaoping
Theory, the Important Theory of the Three Represents and the Scientific Outlook on Development,
thoroughly implement the decisions and plans made at the Party’s 18th National Congress and the Third
Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee and follow the guidance of President Xi Jinping as
reflected in a series of his important talks. We must act in accordance with the Party’s Constitution, focus on
pressing ahead with the great cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the great new undertaking
of Party building, and focus on carrying out the overall plan for comprehensively deepening reform. We
must persist in combating corruption in an integrated way, addressing both its symptoms and root causes,
and combining punishment with prevention, with emphasis on the latter. We must strengthen the innovation
of the anti-corruption institution and mechanism to ensure that it functions efficiently through reform,
unswervingly improve our conduct, fight corruption and promote political integrity, and see to it that
officials are honest, the government is clean, and political integrity is upheld and the goals set at the Party’s
18th National Congress are fulfilled.
It is our resolve that, with five years of tireless efforts from now on, we will be able to curb corruption and
make satisfactory progress and achievements. We will make sure that the Party’s conduct continues to be
improved, that the ills of formalism, bureaucracy, hedonism and extravagance are properly dealt with, and
that new progress is made in promoting Party conduct, political integrity, the people’s morality and social
ethics. We will further strengthen the efforts to punish corruption, and let disciplines and the law function
effectively to guard against corruption. We will consolidate our work of corruption prevention, and see to it
that Party members and officials perform better in upholding integrity, practicing self-discipline and
warding off degeneration and corruption.
II
Making Unremitting Efforts to Improve Party Conduct
Malpractices are the breeding ground for corruption, and improving Party conduct is a fundamental solution
to corruption. We should thoroughly implement the 8-point Code of Conduct put forth by the Party Central
Committee, establish the image of Party members and officials as practical and honest servants of the
people, and maintain the close ties between the Party and the people.
1. Party organizations must follow strict discipline and vigorously promote the good traditions and
working styles of the Party
Party organizations at all levels must supervise and discipline themselves to fulfill their primary
responsibilities and basic tasks, and make steady headway in improving Party conduct. They must bear in
mind the “two musts”6 principle, apply theories in practice, maintain close ties with the people, carry out
criticism and self-criticism, and continue the hard-working, truth-seeking and practical style of work. We
must strictly discipline, educate, manage and supervise Party members and officials, implement an
accountability mechanism for monitoring Party conduct, in which Party organizations at the next-higher
level supervise those at the next-lower level and set good examples for them. Leading officials at all levels
must display Party spirit, allow no leeway in matters of principle, be honest in office and maintain the
political integrity of Communists.
2. Party organizations must persevere in carrying out the 8-point Code of Conduct of the Party Central
Committee, and further improve their conduct
Party organizations should spare no effort in implementing the 8-point Code of Conduct of the Party Central
Committee, curb and remove the ills of formalism, bureaucracy, hedonism and extravagance with resolution
and determination, and strive to improve the current practices of theoretical study, meetings and official
documents. To implement the 8-point Code of Conduct of the Party Central Committee, we must make sure
that they are implemented and consolidated in a way that each reinforces the other and that progress is made
steadily and firmly. We should start with the small and concrete things before exploring more difficult and
complex issues, and proceed in an orderly fashion step by step and from one task to another. We must
establish a sound regulating system and reinforce institutional checks to enhance our ability to shoulder the
tasks, and strengthen operational supervision and correct misconduct such as underperformance and
circumvention in an effort to prevent the reoccurrence of malpractices. Leading officials at all levels should
apply the 8-point Code of Conduct in judging themselves, review their work and life, renew their conviction
and take the lead in implementing the regulations. Organs of discipline inspection and administrative
6
The comrades must be taught to remain modest, sensible, and free from arrogance and rashness in their style of work. The comrades must be taught to sustain the style of plain living and hard struggle. — Mao Zedong supervision at all levels should strengthen supervision, ensure that problems are spotted promptly and
handled properly with strict law enforcement, and impartially look into, report and publicize violations of
laws and regulations.
3. Party organizations must firmly carry out the Party’s mass line with education and practice, and
establish a long-term mechanism for improving Party conduct
Party organizations at all levels should follow the principle of “looking into the mirror, grooming oneself,
taking a bath and seeking remedies," and thoroughly carry out the Party’s mass line through education and
practice. Party members should comprehensively study the important documents issued by the Party Central
Committee, and gain a good understanding of the Committee’s decisions and plans for carrying out the mass
line and improving Party conduct, renew their dedication to Communism and uphold the fundamental
purpose of the Party, and more consciously carry out the Party’s mass line. Party organizations should, with
due consideration of the actual conditions of their regions, departments and units, thoroughly check matters
of formalism, bureaucracy, hedonism and extravagance, and carry out criticism and self-criticism resolutely
to rectify the malpractices of divorcing oneself from the people and isolating oneself from reality. They
should summarize positive experiences and measures, enhance the mechanism by which leading officials
take the lead to improve work conduct and visit grassroots units to do investigation and research, improve
the system whereby Party members and officials maintain direct contact with the people and serve the
people, and open more channels for the people to make complaints and report malpractices. They should
also reform the system for evaluating official performance, and constantly improve their style of work and
retain close ties with the people.
4. Party organizations must strictly enforce the Party’s disciplines to ensure that the campaign of
improving Party conduct is carried out effectively
Party organizations at all levels and Party members and officials should more consciously study the Party
Constitution, abide by and apply it, and safeguard its integrity, more consciously stand against all tendencies
to seek and hang on to privileges, and more consciously follow the Party’s organizational principles and
guiding principles for political activities with firm conviction and strict self-discipline. Party organizations
should strictly enforce the Party’s political, organizational and financial and economic disciplines, and the
disciplines governing work and life, vigorously strengthen organization and avoid laxity in discipline,
maintain a high degree of unity theoretically, politically and in action with the Party’s central leadership
with President Xi Jinping as the General Secretary, and actively safeguard the Party’s unity and integrity.
We will never allow anyone to take countermeasures against or disregard the Party Central Committee’s
decisions, and never allow local governments and departments to act on their own free will or feign
compliance while acting in opposition. We will strengthen supervision and inspection, take stern actions
against violations of Party discipline, and ensure that the Party Central Committee’s plan to improve Party
conduct is carried out effectively.
III
Combating Corruption Resolutely
To comprehensively push forward the building of a corruption prevention and punishment mechanism, we
must focus on the important task of resolutely halting the momentum of extensive corruption and maintain a
tough position in cracking down on corruption.
1. Intensifying efforts to investigate and handle violations of Party discipline and the law, and letting
punishment play its role to the full in deterring corruption
We must fight both the “tigers” and “flies,” conducting thorough investigations into corruption cases
involving leading officials and working hard to resolve problems of corruption that directly affect the
people. We must make no exception when it comes to Party discipline and state laws, and ensure that all
those who violate Party discipline and state laws, whoever they are and whatever power or official positions
they have, be resolutely brought to justice. The Party will rigorously investigate and handle violations of
Party discipline and the laws by Party members and officials, and take stern actions to investigate cases
involving leading officials suspected of graft and bribe-taking, power-for-money trade, corruption and
degeneration, and dereliction of duty, cases where members of law-enforcement and the judiciary
manipulate the law for personal gain, abuse the law to give wrong verdicts and seek benefits through the
court, cases that seriously violate disciplinary rules, cases of corruption behind mass incidents and major
accidents due to failure to carry out one’s responsibilities, and cases of commercial bribery, and give more
severe punishment to bribers. We will improve the coordination system in investigation, ensure that reports
of crimes and malpractices get through to the authorities effectively, strictly follow the procedure of case
investigation, firmly abide by the disciplines during investigations, conduct investigations in accordance
with rules and laws, and improve the quality and efficiency of case handling. We must let the investigations
play the fundamental role of rectifying misdeeds, learn from the lessons of investigated cases and plug
loopholes in our work. We will also strengthen international cooperation in combating corruption.
We must act early and nip corruption in the bud, and cure the disease to save the patient. We must bear in
mind our responsibility for the Party’s cause and the officials, and ensure that the problems of the Party
members and officials are discovered early, that they are educated at the early stage and any wrongdoings
are investigated in a timely manner. We must prevent small ills from escalating into big problems. Reported
malpractices should be investigated and verified by meeting and talking with the persons involved or
conducting investigation through correspondence with the organizations the reported persons belong to, and
Party organizations should educate and admonish officials with potential problems. Party organizations and
leading officials neglecting their duty of monitoring their subordinates, which has led to serious violations
of Party discipline and the law conducted by members of the organizations’ leadership or subordinates
directly under an official’s supervision, will be held responsible and punished accordingly.
2. Taking stern action against corruption in the appointment of officials, and rectifying malpractices in
selecting and appointing officials
Party committees at all levels must uphold the principle that the Party supervises its officials, is impartial in
appointing officials and selects the right persons for different positions. We will never tolerate any
violations of the Party’s discipline on personnel management, but take resolute actions against such
malpractices as gaining official positions by bribery. We will never tolerate acts of corruption such as
bribing voters and buying or selling official positions, and any such practice will be duly looked into and
resolutely handled. Violations of related regulations during official appointment will be looked into and
dealt with in a timely manner, and all the individuals involved will be held liable. We will improve the casespecific supervision system, investigate reported malpractices and corruption cases during the appointment
and selection of officials, and deliver punishments in accordance with Party discipline and the law. We must
ensure that lax and devious officials are openly criticized and punished, so that only upright and able
persons are selected, and are appointed to the right positions.
3. Resolutely investigating and correcting unhealthy practices, and striving to solve the pressing problems
of keen concern to the people
We will resolutely correct unhealthy practices that harm the interests of the people, and deal with the
pressing problems of keen concern to the people’s livelihood such as social security, education and medical
care, low-income housing, land expropriation and resident resettlement, and environmental protection. We
will resolutely investigate and punish abuses of power that affect the immediate interests of the people, and
put an end to unauthorized fee-charging, fine-imposing, task-apportioning and such unjustified acts as
officials accepting invitations to extravagant dinners, accepting bribes, creating obstacles for others in order
to seek benefits, and demanding bribes. We will make earnest efforts to ensure that leading officials
discipline themselves and uphold integrity, and resolutely rectify the malpractices of accepting and giving
cash gifts, securities, membership cards and prepaid cards. We will also improve the long-term mechanism
for the investigation and correction of unhealthy practices.
IV
Preventing Corruption Scientifically and Effectively
We will strengthen our efforts to prevent corruption, enhance education about our ideals and convictions,
and uphold the aims of our Party so that leading officials utterly reject corruption. We will strengthen
institutional and structural innovations and improve our systemic functions, improve supervision and
administration, and stiffen Party discipline so that leading officials do not have a chance to engage in
corruption. We will punish all corrupt individuals and resolutely deal with all corruption cases so that
leading officials dare not even attempt corruption.
1. Deepening education in Party conduct and political integrity, and fortifying the defenses against
corruption and degeneration
We will deepen education in socialism with Chinese characteristics and the Chinese Dream, and also in our
ideals and convictions, the aims of our Party and the socialist core values. We will strengthen education in
Party discipline and state laws, and the regulations on upholding integrity and political ethics, and
incorporate it into the building of the Party organizations that keep learning. The central groups of Party
committees (Party groups) should hold annual study sessions on enhancing political integrity, and all Party
schools, colleges of administration and other educational and training institutes for officials at all levels
should include education in integrity in their compulsory courses. Party members and officials should learn
from the models who exemplify political integrity, and the good examples should be publicized for this
purpose. Violations of Party discipline and the law should be thoroughly analyzed to serve as warnings, and
leading officials with potential problems should be admonished and educated.
We will promote the culture of upholding integrity. Learning from the Chinese tradition of honoring
political integrity, we will include the cultivation of integrity in the education of the people, as well as in our
efforts to promote cultural progress and the rule of law. Cultural centers, memorial halls and educational
bases for promoting political integrity will be given a greater role, and more quality cultural projects that
publicize clean governance will be set up. We will strengthen our efforts to laud the true and despise the
false, praise the good and suppress the bad, and uphold the virtuous and eliminate the vicious to ensure
healthy social morality and ethics.
We will strengthen our efforts to publicize and guide public opinion about promoting political integrity and
clean governance. We will make sure that improving Party conduct, upholding integrity and publicity and
education concerning combating corruption are included in the Party’s overall publicity and education plans
and annual agendas, and make proactive efforts to make known to the public the Party’s policies, guidelines,
plans, measures and achievements of its campaign to promote clean governance and combat corruption. The
Party’s newspapers and publications, radio and television stations, and key news portals should carry feature
reports of the campaign. We must uphold the correct orientation of public opinion, and improve the
mechanism for soliciting online public opinion on combating corruption and upholding integrity. We will
improve institutionalized press releases, strictly enforce discipline for journalists and strengthen
international publicity.
2. Improving the laws and regulations on combating corruption and promoting integrity, and putting power
under institutional checks
We should learn to combat corruption within the rule of law, and ensure that the legal system runs
independently. We will formulate rules that help improve Party conduct on a regular basis, and strictly
implement the Regulations on Practicing Thrift and Fighting Waste for Party and Government Organs, as
well as the rules that regulate short outbound business visits of regular employees of state organs, the
management of domestic business receptions, and the construction of office buildings and other facilities, as
well as the return of offices that exceed official standards for Party and government organs. We will
improve the management of automobile use for official business purposes, strictly implement the
regulations on authorizing benefits for the life and work of leading officials, and make earnest efforts to deal
with violations of related regulations and the exceeding of set standards. We will improve Party regulations
on combating corruption and upholding integrity, amend the Regulations on Intra-Party Supervision of the
Communist Party of China (Trial), and ensure that leading officials make honest reports on items related to
personal information. We will carry out pilot runs to publicize selected information for newly appointed
officials, and work out regulations to manage state functionaries whose spouses have already moved to live
outside the country. We will continue to improve legislation on punishing and preventing corruption,
improve the laws and regulations on punishing corruption, bribery, dereliction of duty, infringement of
rights and related crimes, and develop and improve the laws and regulations that apply to the acts of state
employees while in office.
3. Strengthening checks and monitoring concerning the exercise of power, and ensuring that power is
properly exercised
We will enhance intra-Party supervision, and reinforce inspection and supervision over the implementation
of democratic centralism. We will take concrete measures to ensure that Party and government organs are
run by group leadership with divided responsibilities, important information is notified to lower levels and
reported to higher levels, and that officials report on their work and how they have upheld integrity while in
office. Party organizations will hold regular meetings to discuss issues democratically, and make sure that
petition letters and visits are responded to, officials with potential problems are admonished and educated,
members of the standing committees of the people’s congresses can question the work of the government.
We will strengthen and improve checks and monitoring of the exercise of power by leading officials. The
persons in charge of central and state organs and the Party committees and governments of provinces,
autonomous regions and municipalities must file annual reports with the Party Central Committee on how
they have upheld integrity while in office. We will intensify legal supervision, support the people’s
congresses and their standing committees to strengthen supervision of the government, the courts and the
procuratorates and the implementation of the law, ensure that judicial bodies independently and impartially
exercise their powers pursuant to law, and improve procuratorial organs’ monitoring over the registration
and investigation of cases, trials and execution of court orders. We will fortify administrative supervision of
functional government departments to ensure they properly exercise monitoring and administration,
strengthen the monitoring of administrative supervision and audit supervision, and reinforce the
administrative accountability system. We will strengthen democratic supervision, and listen to the opinions,
suggestions and criticisms of the people’s political consultative conferences, non-communist parties,
federations of industry and commerce, and public figures without party affiliation. We will bring into full
play the supervision role of people’s organizations such as trade unions, the Chinese Communist Youth
League and the Women’s Federations, and support and guarantee the people’s right of supervision. We will
attach importance to and strengthen supervision by public opinion, and apply and regulate Internet
supervision. We will introduce a list of the power of local governments and their working departments at all
levels, and make known to the public the power-exercising processes in accordance with the law. We will
continue to promote information disclosure in Party, government, the judiciary and other fields, raise the
degree of information disclosure of financial budgets and final accounts, department budgets and final
accounts, key projects and social and public welfare undertakings, and promote e-government to ensure that
power is exercised in a transparent manner. We will prevent and defuse risks that may undermine clean
governance, and improve our work efficiency. We will strengthen the supervision of state-owned enterprises
and financial institutions concerning their implementation of the “three keys and one large”7 system, and
improve the systems of execution, accountability and economic audit. We must use set rules and regulations
to manage power, matters and people and ensure that the powers of decision, execution and supervision
check and balance each other, and that state organs exercise their power in accordance with the statutory
authority and procedures.
4. Deepening reform and transforming government functions, and eliminating defects in our systems that
give rise to corruption
We will thoroughly carry out the plans on comprehensively deepening reform set at the Third Plenary
Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee. We will deepen reform of the administrative approval system,
further transform government functions, let the market play the decisive role in allocating resources, and
ensure that the government performs its functions better. We will cancel all administrative approval
procedures for economic activities under the effective regulation of the market mechanism, handle matters
that require administrative approval with standard management and high efficiency, and strengthen followup supervision of cancelled matters that previously require administrative approval to avoid absence of
administrative function, misplaced function or partially performed function. We will deepen the reform of
the management of officials and personnel, and increase public trust in the appointees. We will deepen
reform of the judicial system, and solve deep-seated problems that hamper judicial justice. We will deepen
reform of the administrative law-enforcement system, and promote strict, standardized, fair and civilized
law enforcement. We will deepen reform to make public resources trading more market-oriented, and
promote reform in finance and taxation, banking, the investment system and SOEs to prevent corruption.
We will continue to explore the channels for preventing corruption and learn from past experiences in this
regard.
V
Strengthening the Party’s Unified Leadership over the Work of Improving Party Conduct,
Upholding Integrity and Combating Corruption
7
Key decisions, the appointment and dismissal of key officials, the arrangement of key projects, and the decision on the use of large sums of money must be made after group discussion. To further improve Party conduct and uphold integrity and deepen our fight against corruption, we must
unite under the strong leadership of the Party Central Committee and wage the campaign throughout the
Party and society.
1. Party committees at all levels should take the core responsibility for improving Party conduct, upholding
integrity and combating corruption
We will improve the leadership system and working mechanism to combat corruption, implement the
system of accountability for improving Party conduct and upholding integrity under which the Party
committees shoulder the major responsibility, and the Party commission for discipline inspection is
responsible for supervision. We should reform and improve the functions of anti-corruption coordination
groups at all levels, and let the Party committees’ leading groups for inspection play their role fully. Party
committees and governments at all levels should include this work plan in their prioritized agendas, adopt
measures for its implementation and examine their progress along with plans for promoting economic and
social development. We will support the work of discipline inspection commissions, and ensure that they
perform their duties faithfully, so that Party discipline is strictly followed. Persons in charge of the main
leading bodies at all levels must take primary responsibility for improving Party conduct, upholding
integrity and combating corruption, and make sure that they personally tend to the planning of key tasks,
look into key issues, coordinate key links, and supervise the investigation of key cases. Other members of
the leading bodies should perform dual duties in their posts, and strive to improve Party conduct, uphold
integrity and combat corruption in their respective areas of responsibility. Party organizations at all levels
should mobilize and organize the people to participate in the work in an orderly manner, and let all related
sectors of society play a positive role.
2. Being more innovative in creating mechanisms and institutions to combat corruption, and reforming the
Party’s discipline-inspection system
Party commissions for discipline inspection at all levels should assist Party committees in strengthening
Party building, and organizing and coordinating anti-corruption work. We will comprehensively adopt the
practice of dispatching resident discipline inspection offices by the Central Commission for Discipline
Inspection to central-level Party and government organs, which will have the same name and be put under
unified management. The discipline inspection offices will exercise their duty of supervision and report to
the agency that dispatched them, and the Party and government organs with resident discipline inspection
offices should willingly accept supervision and provide assistance to the work of the offices. We will
improve the discipline inspector system at both the central and the local levels, and amend the Regulations
of the Communist Party of China on Discipline Inspection (trial). We will make sure that the system covers
all regions, all sectors and all enterprises and public institutions so that problems are spotted and persons
with corrupt tendencies are warned. We will promote the Party’s discipline inspection work in such a way
that it is put under dual leadership, and is specific, procedure-based and institutional, and enhance the
leadership of Party commissions for discipline inspection of higher levels over the ones of lower levels.
When it comes to investigation of corruption cases, we should leave this mainly to Party commissions for
discipline inspection of higher levels, and the related investigation and handling process should be reported
simultaneously to the Party committee at the same level and the Party commission for discipline inspection
at the next-higher level. Nomination and assessment of secretaries and deputy secretaries of Party
commissions for discipline inspection at all levels will be conducted mainly by a Party commission for
discipline inspection of a higher level together with the organizational department. We will further clarify
the positioning of the work of discipline inspection and supervision, and strengthen the supervision of
supervisors. The discipline inspection and supervision departments should improve their functions and
methods and style of work, and hand over the work of coordination which is not their responsibility to the
related departments so that they themselves can focus on improving Party conduct, upholding integrity and
combating corruption. Commissions for discipline inspection at all levels should strengthen supervision
over Party committees at the same level and particularly over the standing committee members, so as to
better play their role as intra-Party supervision departments. We will strengthen and improve administrative
supervision. Party commissions for discipline inspection and supervision at all levels should improve their
own organizations, and strive to press ahead, take opportunities promptly, always bear in mind their
responsibilities and tasks, and perform their duties well. Discipline inspection and supervision commissions
must “sweep before their own doors” before conducting supervision of others, and they must subject
themselves to higher standards and stricter discipline. They must improve their basic functions, adhere to
and improve the admonishment mechanism, and serve the people with honesty, reliability, integrity and
impartiality.
3. Strengthening joint forces for developing the system of punishing and preventing corruption
All regions and departments should strengthen guidance according to their specific conditions, arrange for
each organization to implement the set plans, and promote Party conduct and the punishment and prevention
of corruption with a holistic approach. The leading bodies and supporting units of the corruption punishment
and prevention effort should have a good understanding of their respective responsibilities, and support each
other’s work. Organizational departments should carry out management and supervision of officials on a
regular basis, and resolutely correct all unhealthy practices in the selection and appointment of officials.
Publicity departments should enhance publicity about the Party’s effort to improve conduct, uphold integrity
and fight corruption, and strengthen the guidance of public opinion. Commissions for discipline inspection
and supervision and organs of the judiciary and administrative law-enforcement should fully perform their
duties to discipline the Party members, punish lawbreakers, issue economic penalties, regulate the market
and govern with a scientific approach. With the aid of multiple measures, we will make holistic progress in
the campaign to improve Party conduct, uphold integrity and combat corruption.
4. Wholeheartedly implementing the set tasks
All regions and departments should appropriately break down their tasks and assign them to different units,
and fulfill the set tasks under their jurisdiction with focus and in different stages. Tasks to be completed in
different stages should be finished satisfactorily within the set schedule, work that will continue over a
period of time should be firmly promoted and enhanced giving consideration emerging situations and
problems, and tasks that need to be reoriented in light of new situations and requirements should be given
prompt consideration and due arrangements will be made. We will establish a system to record work
progress, and improve the information management system of punishing and preventing corruption. We will
improve the examination and evaluation system, conduct annual inspection and assessment of the work
progress, reflect on the drawbacks in our work and make sure that the tasks are implemented. We will work
out and implement a feasible accountability system, and the leading officials responsible for the inefficiency
of their departments in promoting Party conduct, upholding integrity and combating corruption, which has
led to adverse effects, will be strictly punished.
All regions and departments should work out measures to implement this work plan in light of their actual
conditions. The Central Military Commission will formulate the measures for implementation in the
Chinese People’s Liberation Army and the Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, with reference to this
work plan.
CYPRUS (SECOND MEETING)
In 2006, the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints was established
under the Law 9(I)/2006, in an attempt to improve and further increase the monitoring and investigative
environment towards the Police through a competent body completely independent of the Police. The
Authority investigates allegations and complaints regarding actions of members of the Police either upon an
allegation or complaint or on its own accord.
CZECH REPUBLIC (FIFTH MEETING)
I – Information requested from States parties in relation to mandates of anticorruption body or bodies in
respect of prevention
1.
Convention
Please describe the measures you have taken to implement art. 6 of the
There are several institutions in the Czech Republic involved in the fight against corruption. Most of those
bodies (law enforcement authorities) carry on investigating activities. Certain elements of political
coordination and partly also preventive and educational activities within the meaning of Art. 6 of the
Convention are carried out by the Anticorruption Unit, which is a part of The Conception of Legislation and
State Department of the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic (hereinafter also the “AU”).
The most significant progress in the determination of a body responsible for the development and
introduction of preventive anti-corruption policies was achieved in 2011 by the establishment of the
Government Anti-Corruption Committee (hereinafter also the “GC”), gathering ministers whose ministries
play a key role in the fight against corruption (the Ministries of the Interior, Justice, Finance, Defence,
Transport, Foreign Affairs and the Ministry for Regional Development). The GC's activities are secured by
the AU, which defines key priorities of the government anti-corruption policy, carries on an active search for
public administration area that are the most risky with regard to the potential corruption space and proposes
measures to remove such risks, monitors and evaluates anti-corruption measures and prepares reports on the
implementation of the Government's Anti-Corruption Strategy. Another body involved in this activity is the
Inter-ministerial Coordination Group for Fight against Corruption, which consists of representatives of all
miniseries and other central administrative authorities and of some key public authorities. At the same time,
each of those representatives is a contact person in the relevant ministry, who deals with the issues of anticorruption fight at that ministry. Those persons also usually deal with reports sent (particularly by citizens)
to anti-corruption e-mail addresses or telephone lines, which have been established at most ministries.
They key document setting out the Government's anti-corruption policy of the Government is the
Government's Anti-Corruption Strategy, currently the Government's Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Years
2013 and 2014 (hereinafter the “Strategy”), which contains a total of 49 measures divided to 73 tasks. The
Strategy is divided into two parts – the analytical and the strategic part. The analytical part consists of three
sections:

perception of corruption,

qualitative analysis of the economic context of corruption,

uncovering and investigating corruption.
The strategic part defines basic strategic directions, which should become a focus for any government
notwithstanding its political composition. Such strategic directives are as follows:

professionalization of the state administration,

administration of public resources,

improving the anti-corruption tools in public sector,

strengthening of the political system and increasing transparency of political parties,

uncovering, investigation and prosecution of corruption,

improving the anti-corruption climate in the Czech society,
Creating capacities for monitoring of corruption, formulation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy and its
monitoring and coordination of individual steps; strengthening of the resources for implementation of the
Anti-Corruption Strategy,

improving the transparency of the public sector.
The strategic part of the Strategy defines 10 priority tasks for the Government which are at the top of the list
of tasks to be implemented. These tasks are as follows:

the Public Servants Act

the Conflict of Interest Act

the Act on Free Access to Information

revealing end owners

protection of whistleblowers

financial control and audit

state ownership policy

strategy and methodology of public procurement

the Act on Public Prosecutor's Office

the anti-corruption programme
These priority tasks constitute the basis for further 39 tasks divided into the following five thematic
chapters:

public administration

public procurement

law enforcement authorities

education

other
Each of these areas contains legislative and non-legislative measures, each item has a clearly determined
performance deadline and its sponsor. The implementation of the tasks is carried on a quarterly basis to
ensure full information about the progress and method of implementation of measures defined in the
Strategy. Each progress report is publicly available at www.korupce.cz.
One of the tasks defined in the Strategy was the elaboration of a binding outline of the framework internal
anti-corruption programme, which sets out the minimum framework of internal anti-corruption programmes
of each ministry. Its application in each central state administration authority and other organisation of the
ministries managed by them will provide for a standardized structure and contents of such documents as the
basic documents for anti-corruption fight, corresponding to the current anticorruption documents of the
Government.
The foregoing indicates that the daily coordination role in the Czech Republic is performed by the abovementioned Section or Coordination of the Fight against Corruption of the Office of the Government of the
Czech Republic. Its tasks include, in particular:

organizing the Governmental Committee's activities, evaluation of the problems of fight against
corruption and preparing proposals to adopt measures leading to a reduction of the anti-corruption risks in
public administration activities based on knowledge from this area and increasing transparency of such
activities,

evaluation of materials concerning assessment of corruption risks (CIA) presented to the
Government,

the implementation, coordination and control of the implementation of tasks resulting from the
Government's Anticorruption Strategy,

the implementation of tasks arising from the Open Government Partnership incentive,

dealing with reports of citizens regarding corruption (but not the review of specific notifications of
crime),

cooperation with non.-state non-profit organisations involved in anti-corruption fight,

providing comments on legislation and documents presented at Government sessions,

dealing with the issues of lobbing, whistleblowing, conflict of interests, effective repentance, codes
of ethics,

surveys, monitoring and analysis of statistical and other data,

internal ministerial anti-corruption programmes,

educational activities.
The following institutions involved in analytical and investigation activities operate in the Czech Republic:
1. Police of the Czech Republic: Review and investigation activities in most serious corruption cases
are carried out primarily by the highly specialised unit of the Police of the Czech Republic – Unit for
Detection of Corruption and Financial Crime of the Bureau of Criminal Police and Investigation
Service, which executes its powers throughout the territory of the Czech Republic and investigates
most serious forms of crime, dealing with economic, financial and corruption-related criminal
activities, Furthermore, this Unit seizes proceeds of crime and perpetrators' assets for the purpose of
payment of damages and forfeiture of assets or things. It also fulfils the tasks of the Office for
Retrieval of Assets Originating from Crime.
Anti-Corruption fight is also one of the tasks of an executive branch of the Bureau of Criminal
Police and Investigation Service operating throughout the territory of the Czech Republic, called
“Organized Crime Unit of the Bureau of Criminal Police and Investigation Service, which performs
coordination, guidance and controlling activities. By detecting and investigating organized crime,
this Unit participates in the preservation of internal order and security. In accordance with the predefined subordination, it also participates in the resolution of tasks entrusted to the Police Presidium
of the Czech Republic and to the Ministry of the Interior.
2. General Inspection of Security Forces: Investigation of corruption also falls within the powers of the
General Inspection of Security Forces in cases where a corruption act has been committed by an
officer of the Police of the Czech Republic a customs official, employee of the Prison Service of the
Czech Republic, an employee of the Inspection, an employee of the Czech Republic who has been
assigned work in the
Police of the Czech Republic or in the Inspection or an employee of the Czech Republic who has been
assigned work in the Customs Administration or in the Prison Service of the Czech Republic, if the crime
has been committed in connection with the performance of such person's work tasks.
3. Public Prosecutor's Office: According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the State Prosecutor's Office
is a law enforcement authority. It represents public prosecution in criminal proceeding and as a law
enforcement authority, it may investigate all crimes, including corruption. Of course, a certain level
of specialisation exists even at the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office and at High Public
Prosecutor's Offices, which have specialised departments dealing with serious economic and
financial crimes. Each public prosecutor's office and each of its prosecutors has its own
specialisation (a total of 19 specialisations), but corruption is not listed separately among them and is
subordinated to one of the general specialisations – economic and property crime. The absence of a
separate corruption-focused specialisation is to be resolved by the new Act on Public Prosecutor's
Office, under which it is intended to establish a special anti-corruption unit.
4. Financial and Analytical Unit of the Ministry of Finance: The Financial and Analytical Unit of the
Ministry of Financial, which is an intelligence unit of the Ministry of Finance, also participates in
the detection of corruption and in the overall improvement of the corruption climate in the Czech
Republic. The principal areas of operation of this unit include legalisation of proceeds of crime
(money laundering), financing of terrorism and international sanctions.
In addition to the foregoing bodies (the Section for Coordination of the Fight against Corruption, the
Government Anti-Corruption Committee, the Inter-ministerial Group for Coordination of the Fight against
Corruption), there are the following institutions performing preventive, educational and coordination
activities:
1. Anti-Corruption Commission of the Police of the Czech Republic: This is an advisory body of the
Police President, charged with the implementation of tasks stipulated by the Government AntiCorruption Programme and in the anti-corruption programme of the Ministry.
2. Ombudsman of the Police of the Czech Republic and of the Fire Brigade Rescue Corps of the Czech
Republic: A unit designated to play the role of a superstructure of the existing bodies and to fill, by
its existence, an empty place in the system of control in the police force and the Fire Brigade
Rescue Corps of the Czech Republic. It resolves solely notifications of policemen and firemen.
3. Public Protection of Rights: Citizens may also address their complaints to the Public Protector of
Rights, who protects rights of persons before the authorities and other institutions listed in the
relevant law, if the conduct of the authorities contradicts the law, does not correspond to the
principles of the democratic rule of law and against inactivity of the authorities, contributing to the
protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
4. 4. Institute for Public Administration Prague: A contributory organisation of the Ministry of the
Interior, which provides methodological guidance and coordinates he area of special professional
competences as a qualification precondition for the execution of state administration in delegated
powers, including testing this competence with an exam. Simultaneously, it offers to public servants
a wide range of training programmes for the proliferation of qualification. Hence, the education in
the area of fight against corruption represents only one of many areas on which the Institute focuses
its activities.
2.
Please provide information demonstrating the impact of the work conducted by
national bodies with mandates in respect of the prevention of corruption
Periodical and ad hoc public opinion polls are conducted in the Czech Republic concerning the perception
of corruption in the country by its own citizens.
One of the most popular surveys in the Czech Republic is conducted by the international n non-profit
organisation Transparency International. This organisation processes, among others, the Corruption
Perception Index (CPI) and the Global Corruption Barometer (GCB). Other institutions that conduct
opinion polls include, for instance, the Public Opinion Research Centre of the Institute of Sociology of the
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, which conducts, among others, a periodical annual survey of
the evaluation of selected areas of life in the Czech Republic, including corruption. A similar citizen
satisfaction survey with the conditions in selected areas of public life is also conducted by the Centre in the
course of the year.
In 2014, the European Commission published its first EU Anti-Corruption Report (hereinafter the “Report”),
which is accompanied with reports on fight against corruption presented by individual Member States of the
European Union. The Report is based on several public opinion polls, such as Eurobarometer 397,
Eurobarometer 374 and Flash Eurobarometer 374.
Most recent information resulting from public opinion polls in the Czech Republic are as follows.
A) Global Corruption Barometer 2013 – this public opinion pool was published by the international nonprofit organisation Transparency International.
The relevant information is as follows:


Respondents in the Czech Republic consider the Government anti-corruption activities primarily as
ineffective (42%). A total of 30% respondents believe that these Government activities are very
ineffective. Close to one quarter of the respondents (24%) were unable to express their opinion and
stated that they do not perceive the Government anti-corruption as effective or ineffective.
Although 72% of the respondents are dissatisfied with the Government anti-corruption activities,
they would prefer not to participate by themselves in an active anticorruption fight – for instance,
66% of the respondents would not participate in a peaceful protest against corruption, 80% of the


respondents would not actively join an organisation striving to reduce corruption, 64% of the
respondents would not disseminate information about corruption problems through social media.
If the respondents wished to report corruption, they would most frequently address a governmental
anti-corruption organisation or the anti-corruption line operated by the Government (37%). On the
second place, the respondents would report corruption directly to the concerned institution (24%).
The police as one of the national authorities promoting prevention of corruption is considered by
54% of the respondents as very or extremely corrupted. Other 34% of the respondents have a neutral
opinion on the level of police corruption.
B) Eurobarometer 397 – this public opinion polls was published by the European Commission in February
2014.
The relevant information is as follows:

The respondents answered affirmatively the question whether giving and receiving bribes and abuse
of power with the aim of satisfying private interests is widespread among the police (55%). 48% of
the respondents responded affirmatively with regard to the existence of widespread corruption at the
courts (courts of justice) (48%) and within the public prosecutor's service (33%).
 If the respondents wished to report corruption, they would turn most frequently to the police (49%),
then to the ombudsman (26%) and to the media or journalists (26%).
C) EU Anti-Corruption Report – published by the European Commission in 2014. The relevant
information is as follows:


Only 12% of the respondents think that the anti-corruption efforts of the Government are effective,
which is far below the average level for the entire European Union (23%).
Only 15% of the respondents think that there is a sufficient number of cases of successful judicial
prosecution in the Czech Republic which deter people from corruption practices (the average for the
European Union is 26%).
The Government is aware that the perception of corruption by the citizens of the Czech Republic is not
positive and that the anti-corruption activities of the Government are not found satisfactory. It is also
depressing that the confidence in national institutions, such as the police, courts, public prosecutors, whose
mission is to strive for prevention of corruption, has been declining in the last years not only in the Czech
Republic but also worldwide.
With regard to the newly constituted Government of the Czech Republic and the contents of its programme
declaration, which deals in a number of aspects with the fight against corruption and with the
implementation of effective anti-corruption measures, it is possible to expect a positive turn in the
perception of corruption by the general public. For this purpose, it appears appropriate to sufficiently
promote primarily the anti-corruption stance of the political representation, which would indirectly
strengthen the anti-corruption climate in the society.
The above-mentioned results of the public opinion polls concerning the effectiveness of the fight against
corruption must be relevant accentuated in the preparation of a new national anticorruption strategy, which
is to be adopted by the end of 2014.
3.
Please outline actions required to strengthen or improve the measures described
above and any specific challenges you might be facing in this respect.
As noted above, the principal body involved in the fight against corruption is the Government AntiCorruption Committee, which is an advisory body of the Government of the Czech Republic. No session of
the Government Committee was held in 2013, principally due to the situation at the Czech political stage
and to the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 28 August
2013. Ji~í Rusnok's government did not show any initiative to convene the session of the Government
Committee. Hence, the performance of tasks arising from the Strategy was coordinated at the time by the
Section of the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic for Coordination of the Fight against
Corruption directly with individual ministries.
The current non-functioning or inactivity of the Government Committee has to be resolved by its
reconstruction, i.e. by the election of a new concept, including the approval of its new statute and rules of
procedure and its staffing. This issue will be resolved within a few weeks, and it seems as most desirable to
expand the Committee by members from among the professional public, the academic community and nonstate non-profit anti-corruption organisations.
As regards the reconstruction of the Government Committee, it will be important to inform the professional
and the general public about such change and to pay continuous attention to the sessions of the Government
Committee at the website www.korupce.cz. It also appears appropriate to organise press conferences after
each session of this committee. In connection with the constitution of the new Government Committee, it
will be necessary to ensure financial funds for its activities, because under the Government Resolution No.
315 of 2011 on the establishment of the Government Anti-Corruption Committee, the funds for its activities
were provided for only until the year 2014 inclusive.
Over two and half year of experience of the AU indicate partial absence of effective institutional anticorruption infrastructure in the Czech Republic, which would be involved in supervision, e.g. of the
financing of political parties, conflict of interests, or illegitimate lobbing. Hence, it may be presumed that
the issue of enhancement of the institutional anticorruption framework would be frequently discussed in the
following months. All arguments against the establishment of new institutions pointed to the urgent
necessity of the implementation of the governmental savings measures.
In reaction to the implementation of the task no 6.2.1. of the current Government Anti-Corruption Strategy –
Internal Anti-Corruption Programmes – it has become evident that, with regard to the scope, importance and
potential benefits, it would be ideal to provide highly qualified professional assistance to ministries and
other affected bodies in the fulfilment of this task. The provision of such methodological support, including
the performance of many other tasks in the implementation of an effective anti-corruption policy of the
state, would have an indisputable impact on the AU's staffing capacities and such fact together with general
budgetary restrictions has to be therefore kept in mind.
4. Do you require technical assistance in relation to the measures described above? If so, please specify the
forms of technical assistance that would be required.
Technical assistance is not required
DENMARK (FIFTH MEETING)
Information requested from State parties in relation to mandates of anti
corruptions body or bodies in respect of prevention (art. 6)
In Denmark the fight against corruption is mainly handled by the Special
Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime (SØIK). The
Special Prosecutor comprises a separate investigation unit as well as
specialized legal staff. Regular meetings are held in a national network
consisting of representatives from SØIK and all police districts in order to
exchange information concerning the fight against economic crime, including
bribery. Moreover, SØIK works closely with other authorities and
organizations, such as the Danish FSA and the Confederation of Danish
Industry.
ECUADOR (FIFTH MEETING)
Información solicitada a los Estados partes sobre los mandatos del órgano o los órganos de lucha
contra la corrupción en lo que respecta a la prevención (Art.6)
I. 1.‐ Señale las medidas que ha adoptado para aplicar el artículo 6 de la Convención:
I.1.1 Se asigna a un órgano u órganos determinados la responsabilidad de elaborar y aplicar políticas
de prevención de la corrupción?
Sí, la Constitución de la República (CRE), vigente desde octubre de 2008 creó una nueva función
del Estado, adicional a las clásicas funciones ejecutiva, legislativa y judicial, la Función de
Trasparencia y Control Social (FTCS), bajo el presupuesto de que el pueblo es el mandante y primer
fiscalizador del poder público, en el ejercicio de su derecho a la participación. Conforme al artículo 204 de
la CRE, la FTCS promueve e impulsa el control de las entidades y organismos del sector público, y de las
personas naturales o jurídicas del sector privado que presten servicios o desarrollen actividades de interés
público; fomenta e incentiva la participación ciudadana; protege el ejercicio y cumplimiento de los
derechos; y previene y combate la corrupción.
La FTCS está formada por el Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, la Defensoría del
Pueblo, la Contraloría General del Estado y las siguientes superintendencias: a) Bancos y Seguros;
b) Compañías; c) Telecomunicaciones; d) Economía Popular y Solidaria; e) Control del Poder del
Mercado; y, f) Información y Telecomunicaciones
El Capítulo Quinto del Título IV de la Constitución de la República, contempla en sus artículos 204,
205 y 206 la normativa general de la FTCS.8
8
Art. 204.- El pueblo es el mandante y primer fiscalizador del poder público, en ejercicio de su derecho a la
participación. La Función de Transparencia y Control Social promoverá e impulsará el control de las
entidades y organismos del sector público, y de las personas naturales o jurídicas del sector privado que
presten servicios o desarrollen actividades de interés público, para que los realicen con responsabilidad,
transparencia y equidad; fomentará e incentivará la participación ciudadana; protegerá el ejercicio y
cumplimiento de los derechos; y prevendrá y combatirá la corrupción. La Función de Transparencia y Control
Social estará formada por el Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, la Defensoría del Pueblo,
la Contraloría General del Estado y las superintendencias. Estas entidades tendrán personalidad jurídica y
Los titulares de estas entidades conforman una “Instancia de Coordinación” que además de la articulación
de sus acciones tiene el mandato de formular políticas públicas de transparencia, control, rendición de
cuentas, promoción de la participación ciudadana y prevención y lucha contra la corrupción, así como
la articulación del Plan Nacional de Lucha contra la Corrupción.(Art. 206 de la CRE)
I.1.2. Políticas nacionales de prevención de la corrupción
El 15 de enero de 2013, la Instancia de Coordinación de la Función de Transparencia y Control Social
(FTCS), en cumplimiento de su mandato constitucional establecido en el artículo 206 de la Constitución de
la República, aprobó el Plan Nacional de Prevención y Lucha contra la Corrupción (PNPLC) 2013‐2017,
con el objetivo de promover la construcción de un “Sistema Nacional de Prevención y Lucha contra la
Corrupción” que articule esfuerzos para la construcción de la política pública anti corrupción en el país.
Los titulares de estas entidades conforman una “Instancia de Coordinación” que además de la articulación
de sus acciones tiene el mandato de formular políticas públicas de transparencia, control, rendición de
cuentas, promoción de la participación ciudadana y prevención y lucha contra la corrupción, así como
la articulación del Plan Nacional de Lucha contra la Corrupción.(Art. 206 de la CRE)
I.1.2. Políticas nacionales de prevención de la corrupción
El 15 de enero de 2013, la Instancia de Coordinación de la Función de Transparencia y Control Social
(FTCS), en cumplimiento de su mandato constitucional establecido en el artículo 206 de la Constitución de
la República, aprobó el Plan Nacional de Prevención y Lucha contra la Corrupción (PNPLC) 2013‐2017,
con el objetivo de promover la construcción de un “Sistema Nacional de Prevención y Lucha contra la
Corrupción” que articule esfuerzos para la construcción de la política pública anti corrupción en el país.
El Plan está fundamentado en los principios del Estado Constitucional de Derechos y Justicia y desarrolla
una propuesta programática articulada al Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir9. Contempla un marco normativo,
conceptual, un análisis de tipologías y un diagnóstico de la corrupción en el país, un direccionamiento
estratégico con alcance y periodo de vigencia, la descripción de los objetivos estratégicos, políticas y
estrategias, con los enfoques de igualdad que persigue la sociedad ecuatoriana. Finalmente contempla
procesos de seguimiento y evaluación para retroalimentar al “Sistema Nacional de Prevención y Lucha
contra la Corrupción”
Art. 205.- Los representantes de las entidades que forman parte de la Función de Transparencia y Control
Social ejercerán sus funciones durante un período de cinco años, tendrán fuero de Corte Nacional y estarán
sujetos al enjuiciamiento político de la Asamblea Nacional. En caso de darse este enjuiciamiento, y de
procederse a la destitución, se deberá realizar un nuevo proceso de designación. En ningún caso la Función
Legislativa podrá designar al reemplazo. Sus máximas autoridades deberán ser ecuatorianas o ecuatorianos
en goce de los derechos políticos y serán seleccionadas mediante concurso público de oposición y méritos
en los casos que proceda, con postulación, veeduría e impugnación ciudadana.
autonomía administrativa, financiera, presupuestaria y organizativa. 9
Resolución No. CNP‐002‐2013, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo del Ecuador, denominado para este período de gobierno “Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir 2013‐2017”, Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo, Senplades, 2013, Quito, Ecuador (primera edición, 11 000 ejemplares), www.buenvivir.gob.ec Art. 206.- Los titulares de las entidades de la Función de Transparencia y Control Social conformarán una
instancia de coordinación, y elegirán de entre ellos, cada año, a la Presidenta o Presidente de la Función.
Serán atribuciones y deberes de la instancia de coordinación, además de los que establezca la ley: 1.
Formular políticas públicas de transparencia, control, rendición de cuentas, promoción de la participación
ciudadana y prevención y lucha contra la corrupción. 2. Coordinar el plan de acción de las entidades de la
Función, sin afectar su autonomía. 3. Articular la formulación del plan nacional de lucha contra la
corrupción. 4. Presentar a la Asamblea Nacional propuestas de reformas legales en el ámbito de sus
competencias. 5. Informar anualmente a la Asamblea Nacional de las actividades relativas al cumplimiento
de sus funciones, o cuando ésta lo requiera.
Como un insumo para el Plan Nacional de Lucha contra la Corrupción, el CPCCS como entidad integrante
de la FTCS formuló con la activa participación de la ciudadanía, ocho políticas en materia de participación
ciudadana, control social, rendición de cuentas, transparencia y lucha contra la corrupción, socializadas con
más de 4.000 ciudadanos y servidores públicos, las cuales fueron presentadas a la Función de Transparencia
y Control Social.
El Plan Nacional de Prevención y Lucha contra la Corrupción, plantea seis políticas que se citan a
continuación, cada una con sus respectivas estrategias, las cuales pueden ser consultadas en el
enlacewww.ftcs.gob.ec/images/stories/plan_lucha_contra_corrupcion_2013_2017.pdf:
Política No. 1.
Fomentar la diversificación de los mecanismos de transparencia, control social y rendición de cuentas para
alcanzar un nivel óptimo de gobernabilidad
Política No. 2
Generar espacios y mecanismos institucionales que promuevan y faciliten el control social en la gestión
pública.
Política No. 3
Incorporar al sector privado en la prevención y lucha contra la corrupción.
Política No. 4
Promover el ejercicio del derecho a la administración de justicia oportuna, eficaz y eficiente, de forma que
se garanticen estos derechos.
Política No. 5
Impulsar y mantener vigentes los procesos de comunicación transversal a la implementación, control,
seguimiento y evaluación del Plan Nacional de Prevención y Lucha contra la Corrupción.
Política No. 6
Fortalecer los mecanismos de seguimiento al cumplimiento de los compromisos internacionales adquiridos
por el Estado en materia de prevención y lucha contra la corrupción.
I.1.2. Se establecen en general la estructura y el criterio institucionales de vigilancia y evaluación de la
estrategia o las políticas nacionales anticorrupción?
El capítulo 6 del PNPLC10 prevé el seguimiento y evaluación al cumplimiento del plan, los principios
básicos concernientes al sistema de seguimiento y evaluación, los responsables de su seguimiento y
evaluación así como la participación ciudadana en los procesos de seguimiento y evaluación, los cuales se
presentan en los siguientes términos:
’Las políticas públicas que presenta el PNPLC, sustentan la voluntad y la decisión de incidir en los
problemas que más afectan al desarrollo armónico de la sociedad a causa de la corrupción y falta de
transparencia, y como tales están sujetas a su ciclo normal; considerándose tres grandes etapas en el ciclo
de las políticas públicas: formulación, implementación (o ejecución), seguimiento y evaluación. “Con la
evaluación, se entregan elementos para el control, reformulación, actualización, terminación o supresión
de una política determinada. En ese sentido, el proceso es continuo y flexible, y permite periódicamente
reiniciar un nuevo ci”11.
Entre los principios básicos concernientes al proceso de seguimiento y evaluación del PNLC, se prevé
incorporar una propuesta “destinada a producir información que permita diagnosticar el avance de la
lucha contra la corrupción, mediante acciones preventivas antes que restrictivas y represivas, con la
aplicación tecnológica y metodológica más adecuada, a fin de evaluar el grado de correspondencia entre el
impacto previsto y el efectivamente alcanzado”12.
En cuanto a los responsables del monitoreo y evaluación del PNLC se incluye a las instancias que forman
parte de la Función de Transparencia y Control Social (las cuales fueron detalladas al inicio), a las demás
funciones del Estado (Funciones Ejecutiva, Judicial y Electoral) e instituciones de la sociedad civil que
participen del proceso.
A la referida institucionalidad pública le corresponden las siguientes funciones en el ámbito de seguimiento
y evaluación del PNLC13:
Monitorear y evaluar la gestión de sus propias competencias;
Realizar el balance general de los niveles de transparencia y corrupción de manera periódica;
Recopilar e informar las alertas generadas por la ciudadanía;
Generar información consolidada que facilite la toma de decisiones al interior de la Función de
Transparencia y Control Social;
Realizar evaluaciones de las políticas y sus resultados en el proceso de prevención y lucha contra la
corrupción;
Generar información consolidada que facilite la toma de decisiones de todos los usuarios del sistema; y,
Remitir sus avances en torno al ejercicio competencial a la FTCS.
10
Plan Nacional de Prevención y Lucha Contra la Corrupción 2013 – 2017, aprobado por la Función de Transparencia y Control Social el 15 de enero de 2013, capítulo 6 “Seguimiento y evaluación al cumplimiento del Plan”, p.48, www.ftcs.gob.ec/images/stories/plan_lucha_contra_corrupcion_2013_2017.pdf 11
SENPLADES, Guía para la Formulación de Políticas Públicas Sectoriales, Subsecretaría de Planificación Nacional, Territorial y Políticas Públicas 12
Ídem, apartado “6. Seguimiento y evaluación al cumplimiento del plan”, p. 49. 13
Ídem, apartado “6. Seguimiento y evaluación al cumplimiento del plan”, p. 49 El sistema de seguimiento y evaluación del Plan tiene entre sus principios básicos el de participación; por lo
cual prevé que a la sociedad civil le corresponde, reportar alertas y quejas sobre visos de corrupción o
manejos sospechosos de los recursos, bienes y servicios que brindan todos los niveles de gobierno en los
territorios; y, sobre indicios de actos de corrupción generados en el sector privado.
I.1.3. Se señala el alcance del mandato de los órganos de prevención de la corrupción?
Como ya se indicó, la Función de Trasparencia y Control Social, reúne y organiza a todas las instituciones
comprometidas por mandato constitucional en la lucha contra la corrupción de manera general, pero en
cuanto al tema específico de prevención de la corrupción, la Constitución de la República asigna un rol
protagónico al Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, señalando competencias puntuales
para esta entidad en el artículo 208 que a continuación transcribimos en sus partes pertinentes:
“Art. 208.‐ Serán deberes y atribuciones del Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, además
de los previstos en la ley:
1.Promover la participación ciudadana, estimular procesos de deliberación pública y propiciar la
formación en ciudadanía, valores, transparencia y lucha contra la corrupción.
2.Establecer mecanismos de rendición de cuentas de las instituciones y entidades del sector público, y
coadyuvar procesos de veeduría ciudadana y control social.
3.Instar a las demás entidades de la Función para que actúen de forma obligatoria sobre los asuntos que
ameriten intervención a criterio del Consejo.
4.Investigar denuncias sobre actos u omisiones que afecten a la participación ciudadana o generen
corrupción.
5.Emitir informes que determinen la existencia de indicios de responsabilidad, formular las
recomendaciones necesarias e impulsar las acciones legales que correspondan.
6.Actuar como parte procesal en las causas que se instauren como consecuencia de sus investigaciones.
Cuando en sentencia se determine que en la comisión del delito existió apropiación indebida de recursos, la
autoridad competente procederá al decomiso de los bienes del patrimonio personal del sentenciado.
7.Coadyuvar a la protección de las personas que denuncien actos de corrupción.
8.Solicitar a cualquier entidad o funcionario de las instituciones del Estado la información que considere
necesaria para sus investigaciones o procesos. Las personas e instituciones colaborarán con el Consejo y
quienes se nieguen a hacerlo serán sancionados de acuerdo con la ley. …” (Las negrillas nos pertenecen)
Las atribuciones constitucionales otorgadas al CPCCS, se desarrollan en la Ley Orgánica del Consejo de
Participación Ciudadana y Control Social (LOCPCCS)14, norma que asigna a esta entidad atribuciones y
14
Publicada en el Registro Oficial Suplemento 22 de 9 de septiembre de 2009. deberes específicos en materia de prevención de la corrupción, con énfasis en la promoción de la
participación de la ciudadanía en el control a la gestión de lo público.
En el marco constitucional y legal descrito, cabe indicar que todas las políticas y acciones en materia de
transparencia y lucha contra la corrupción, se articulan permanentemente con las políticas y acciones en
materia de participación ciudadana, que es otra de las líneas estratégicas de trabajo del CPCCS. Los
procesos de rendición de cuentas y control social, se conciben como mecanismos de participación ciudadana
en la gestión de lo público y de combate a la corrupción.
A continuación se detallan estas atribuciones:
“Art. 5.‐ Atribuciones generales.‐ Al Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social le compete:
1.Promover la participación ciudadana, estimular procesos de deliberación pública y propiciar la formación
en ciudadanía, valores, transparencia y lucha contra la corrupción.
2.Establecer mecanismos de rendición de cuentas de las instituciones y entidades del sector público, y las
personas jurídicas del sector privado que presten servicios públicos, desarrollen actividades de interés
público o manejen recursos públicos.
3. Instar a las demás entidades de la función para que actúen de forma obligatoria sobre los asuntos que
ameriten intervención a criterio del Consejo. …
Art. 6.‐ Atribuciones en la promoción de la participación.‐ Al Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control
Social en la promoción de la participación ciudadana le corresponde:
1.Promover iniciativas de participación ciudadana de ecuatorianas y ecuatorianos en el país y en el exterior
que garanticen el ejercicio de los derechos y del buen vivir; así como velar por el cumplimiento del derecho
de la ciudadanía a participar en todas las fases de la gestión de lo público, en las diferentes funciones del
Estado y los niveles de gobierno, por medio de los mecanismos previstos en la Constitución de la República
y la ley.
2.Proponer a las diferentes instancias públicas, la adopción de políticas, planes, programas y proyectos
destinados a fomentar la participación ciudadana en todos los niveles de gobierno, en coordinación con la
ciudadanía y las organizaciones sociales.
3.Proponer, promover y facilitar procesos de debate y deliberación pública sobre temas de interés
ciudadano, sea que hayan nacido de su seno o de la iniciativa autónoma de la sociedad. Deberá, además,
sistematizar los resultados de los debates, difundirlos ampliamente y remitirlos a las entidades competentes.
4.Propiciar la formación en ciudadanía, derechos humanos, transparencia, participación social y combate a
la corrupción para fortalecer la cultura democrática de las personas, comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades
indígenas, afroecuatorianos y montubios, así como estimular las capacidades para el ejercicio y exigibilidad
de derechos de las y los ciudadanos residentes en el país, como ecuatorianos y ecuatorianas en el exterior.
5.Promover la formación en ciudadanía, derechos humanos, transparencia, participación ciudadana y
combate a la corrupción en los funcionarios de las entidades y organismos del sector público y de las
personas naturales o jurídicas del sector privado que presten servicios o desarrollen actividades de interés
público.
6.Propiciar la recuperación de la memoria histórica, tradiciones organizativas, culturales y experiencias de
participación democrática del Ecuador.
7.Monitorear la gestión participativa de las instituciones que conforman el sector público y difundir
informes al respecto, los mismos que serán enviados al órgano competente.
Art. 8.‐ Atribuciones frente al control social.‐ Son atribuciones del Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y
Control Social en lo relativo al control social lo siguiente:
1.Promover y estimular las iniciativas de control social sobre el desempeño de las políticas públicas para el
cumplimiento de los derechos establecidos en la Constitución, y sobre las entidades del sector público y de
las personas naturales o jurídicas del sector privado que presten servicios públicos, manejen recursos
públicos o desarrollen actividades de interés público.
2.Apoyar técnica y metodológicamente las iniciativas de veeduría, observatorios y demás espacios de
control social, que así lo demanden, para exigir cuentas de la gestión de lo público, en el marco de los
derechos constitucionales.
3.Las veedurías ciudadanas podrán vigilar el ciclo de la política pública con énfasis en los procesos de
planeación, presupuesto y ejecución del gasto público; la ejecución de planes, programas, proyectos, obras y
servicios públicos, así como las actuaciones de las y los servidores públicos en general. Si en el informe de
la veeduría, se observare que existen indicios de responsabilidad, el Consejo enviará a la autoridad
competente copia del informe para su conocimiento y tratamiento de forma obligatoria.
4.Actuar como enlace entre el Estado y la ciudadanía dentro de los procesos que se generen de las
iniciativas ciudadanas e instar para que las solicitudes y quejas ciudadanas sean atendidas.
5.Requerir del Consejo Nacional Electoral la debida atención a las peticiones presentadas por la ciudadanía
para revocatoria del mandato a las autoridades de elección popular y para convocatoria a consulta popular
en los términos prescritos en la Constitución.
Art. 9.‐ Rendición de cuentas.‐ Es atribución del Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social
establecer mecanismos para someter a evaluación de la sociedad, las acciones del Estado y de las personas
jurídicas del sector privado que presten servicios públicos, manejen recursos públicos o desarrollen
actividades de interés público; con atención al enfoque de derechos, a los resultados esperados y obtenidos,
a los recursos financieros empleados y a los métodos utilizados sobre su gestión.
La rendición de cuentas será un proceso participativo, periódico, oportuno, claro y veraz, con información
precisa, suficiente y con lenguaje asequible. La rendición de cuentas se realizará al menos una vez al año y
su convocatoria será amplia, a todos los sectores de la sociedad relacionados y debidamente publicitada.
Art. 10.‐ Contenido de la rendición de cuentas.‐ El proceso de rendición de cuentas deberá contener al
menos lo siguiente:
1. Cumplimiento de políticas, planes, programas y proyectos.
2.Ejecución del presupuesto institucional.
3.Cumplimiento de los objetivos y el plan estratégico de la entidad.
4.Procesos de contratación pública.
5.Cumplimiento de recomendaciones o pronunciamientos emanados por las entidades de la Función de
Transparencia y Control Social y la Procuraduría General del Estado.
6.Cumplimiento del plan de trabajo presentado ante el Consejo Nacional Electoral, en el caso de las
autoridades de elección popular.
7.En el caso de las empresas públicas y de las personas jurídicas del sector privado que presten servicios
públicos, manejen recursos públicos o desarrollen actividades de interés público deberán presentar balances
anuales y niveles de cumplimiento de obligaciones laborales, tributarias y cumplimiento de objetivos.
8.Las demás que sean de trascendencia para el interés colectivo.
Art. 11.‐ Obligados a rendir cuentas.‐ Tienen la obligación de rendir cuentas las autoridades del Estado
electas o de libre remoción, representantes legales de empresas públicas o personas jurídicas del sector
privado que manejen fondos públicos o desarrollen actividades de interés público, sin perjuicio de la
responsabilidad que tienen las y los servidores públicos sobre sus actos u omisiones.
En caso de incumplimiento por parte de las instituciones y entidades del sector público, el Consejo de
Participación Ciudadana y Control Social remitirá la queja a la Contraloría General del Estado para que
inicie el proceso de investigación sobre la gestión de las autoridades obligadas, sin perjuicio de las
sanciones previstas en la Ley Orgánica de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública por la negación
de información.
Art. 12.‐ Monitoreo a la rendición de cuentas.‐ El Consejo deberá realizar acciones de monitoreo y
seguimiento periódico a los procesos de rendición de cuentas concertados con las instituciones y la
ciudadanía; analizar los métodos utilizados, la calidad de la información obtenida y formular
recomendaciones.
Los informes de rendición de cuentas de las instituciones y entidades del sector público, serán remitidos al
Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social en el plazo de treinta días posteriores a la fecha de
presentación del informe, a fin de que se verifique el cumplimiento de la obligación y también se difunda a
través de los mecanismos de los que dispone el Consejo. (Las negrillas nos pertenecen)
I.1.4. Se protege la independencia de los órganos de lucha contra la corrupción, se les permite realizar
eficazmente su labor y se evita que sufran influencias indebidas?
La independencia es una característica que cobija a todos los órganos que conforman la Función de
Trasparencia y Control Social y que no sólo se establece en el ámbito normativo, sino que alcanza también
al tema presupuestario que coadyuva en gran medida la independencia de cada institución. Es así que de
conformidad con lo previsto en el artículo 204 de la Constitución de la República, la Contraloría General del
Estado, el Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, la Defensoría del Pueblo y las
Superintendencias, gozan de autonomía administrativa, financiera, presupuestaria y organizativa, la
misma que además se consagra en las siguientes leyes:
LEY ORGÁNICA DEL CONSEJO DE PARTICIPACIÓN CIUDANA Y CONTROL SOCIAL
(Registro Oficial No. 22 Suplemento del 9 de septiembre de 2009)
Art. 3.‐ Naturaleza.‐ El Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social es un organismo de derecho
público, con personalidad jurídica propia, autonomía administrativa, financiera, presupuestaria y
organizativa. Forma parte de la Función de Transparencia y Control Social.
Art. 54.‐ Fuentes de recursos.‐ El Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, se financiará con:
Recursos del Presupuesto General del Estado; los mismos que serán suficientes para garantizar el pleno
funcionamiento y ejecución de las atribuciones conferidas a este organismo.
Los recursos provenientes de convenios con organismos nacionales o internacionales públicos o privados
que trabajen temas relativos a la participación ciudadana, control social, transparencia y lucha contra la
corrupción, previo informe de la Procuraduría General del Estado.
Los demás recursos que le corresponda de acuerdo con la ley.
LEY ORGÁNICA DE LA CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DEL ESTADO
(Registro Oficial Suplemento 595 de 12 de Junio del 2002)
Art. 29.‐ De la Contraloría General del Estado.‐ La Contraloría General del Estado, como Organismo
Técnico Superior de Control, es una persona jurídica de derecho público, con autonomía administrativa,
presupuestaria y financiera, dirigida representada legalmente por el Contralor.
Art. 30.‐ Presupuesto.‐ La proforma del presupuesto anual de la Contraloría General del Estado, se remitirá
oportunamente al Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas para su ulterior aprobación por el Congreso Nacional,
conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 211, 258 y 259 de la Constitución Política de la República.
El presupuesto de la Contraloría General del Estado se financiará con:
a)La transferencia del cinco por mil de los ingresos presupuestados, de todas las instituciones del Estado y,
en la parte proporcional de las personas jurídicas de derecho privado, cuyo capital social, patrimonio, fondo
o participación tributaria esté integrado, con recursos públicos, y que de conformidad con esta Ley, se
encuentran sometidas al control de la Contraloría General del Estado. Exceptúense del cobro de este aporte
exclusivamente los ingresos provenientes de empréstitos internos y externos, los saldos iniciales de caja, los
fondos recaudados a favor de otras entidades y que deben ser transferidos a aquellas; y, las recaudaciones y
recuperaciones de la AGD destinadas a pagar a los perjudicados por la banca cerrada, los de: la Junta de
Beneficencia de Guayaquil, Cruz Roja Ecuatoriana, Sociedad de la Lucha Contra el Cáncer (SOLCA), y
Sociedad Protectora de la Infancia. En el caso de las universidades y escuelas politécnicas, se estará a lo que
dispone la Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior
b)Los ingresos previstos en otras disposiciones legales;
c)Los recursos de autogestión; y,
d)Otros ingresos.
El presupuesto de la Contraloría General del Estado no será afectado por transferencias, aportes ni
deducción alguna.
El Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas o el organismo que haga sus veces, respecto a las instituciones del
Estado que conforman el Gobierno Central, transferirá de manera obligatoria y mensual a través del Banco
Central del Ecuador, el valor del cinco por mil que corresponde a la Contraloría General del Estado.
Para el aporte del cinco por mil de las demás instituciones del Estado y privadas que tengan recursos
públicos, se procederá mediante la retención automática mensual por parte de los bancos depositarios
privados y públicos, en las alícuotas establecidas por la Contraloría General del Estado.
El pago y retención automática de los valores que correspondan a la Contraloría General del Estado, deberá
ser cumplido por los funcionarios y servidores responsables.
La Contraloría General del Estado está facultada para realizar en forma periódica, en la correspondiente
entidad, la liquidación de los valores pagados o adeudados por concepto del cinco por mil, sobre la base de
los ingresos reales.
Si por efecto de la modernización del Estado o cualquier otro motivo la Contraloría General del Estado
dejare de percibir el aporte del cinco por mil, el Gobierno Central asumirá su financiamiento a través del
Presupuesto General del Estado, a partir del siguiente ejercicio fiscal, de conformidad con lo preceptuado en
el inciso cuarto del artículo 259 de la Constitución Política de la República.
El Contralor General expedirá el reglamento para la determinación y recaudación del aporte del cinco por
mil.
LEY DE COMPAÑÍAS
(Registro Oficial No. 312 de 5 de noviembre de 1999)
Art. 430.‐ La Superintendencia de Compañías es el organismo técnico y con autonomía administrativa,
económica y financiera, que vigila y controla la organización, actividades, funcionamiento, disolución y
liquidación de las compañías y otras entidades en las circunstancias y condiciones establecidas por la ley.
Art. 449.‐ Los fondos para atender a los gastos de la Superintendencia de Compañías se obtendrán por
contribuciones señaladas por el Superintendente.
Estas contribuciones se fijarán anualmente, antes del primero de agosto, y se impondrán sobre las diferentes
compañías sujetas a su vigilancia, en relación a los correspondientes activos reales.
Si la compañía obligada a la contribución no hubiere remitido el balance, la Superintendencia podrá emitir
un título de crédito provisional. La contribución anual de cada compañía no excederá del uno por mil de sus
mil de sus activos reales, de acuerdo con las normas que dicte el Superintendente de Compañías.
Pagarán la mitad de la contribución las compañías en las que el cincuenta por ciento o más del capital
estuviere representado por acciones pertenecientes a instituciones del sector público o de derecho privado
con finalidad social o pública.
Fijada la contribución, el Superintendente notificará con los títulos de crédito a las compañías para que la
depositen en los bancos privados o estatales que están debidamente autorizados, hasta el treinta de
septiembre de cada año.
Las compañías contribuyentes remitirán a la Superintendencia de Compañías el comprobante de depósito.
Las compañías que hubieren pagado por lo menos el cincuenta por ciento de la contribución podrán solicitar
al Superintendente autorización para pagar la segunda cuota hasta el treinta y uno de diciembre del mismo
año.
El banco designado para depósitos recibirá las contribuciones de las compañías y las acreditará en una
cuenta denominada "Superintendencia de Compañías" y remitirá al Banco Central del Ecuador, el que
acreditará en la cuenta asignada a la "Superintendencia de Compañías".
El Banco Central del Ecuador anticipará los fondos necesarios para cubrir el presupuesto de la
Superintendencia de conformidad con los cheques que le girará directamente el Superintendente y liquidará
esta cuenta tan pronto como todas las compañías hayan efectuado el correspondiente depósito.
En caso de mora en el pago de contribuciones, las compañías pagarán el máximo interés convencional
permitido de acuerdo con la Ley.
La exoneración de impuestos, tasas y cualesquiera otros gravámenes preceptuados por leyes especiales no
comprenderá las contribuciones a que se refiere estén artículo.
LEY GENERAL DE INSTITUCIONES DEL SISTEMA FINANCIERO
(Registro Oficial No. 250 de 23 de enero de 2001)
Art. 171.‐ La Superintendencia, organismo técnico con autonomía administrativa, económica y financiera y
personería jurídica de derecho público, está dirigida y representada por el Superintendente de Bancos. Tiene
a su cargo la vigilancia y el control de las instituciones del sistema financiero público y privado, así como de
las compañías de seguros y reaseguros, determinadas en la Constitución y en la Ley.
Art. 185.‐ Los fondos para atender los egresos de la Superintendencia se obtendrán de las contribuciones
que ésta fije a todas las instituciones sujetas a su vigilancia y control, de las retenciones que las compañías
de seguros realicen en su favor de control, de las retenciones que las compañías de seguros realicen en su
favor de conformidad con la ley de la materia, así como del rendimiento de sus recursos patrimoniales.
Estas contribuciones se determinarán semestralmente, antes del 15 de febrero y del 15 de agosto de cada
año; calculadas sobre la base de los estados financieros cortados al 31 de diciembre y 30 de junio anteriores,
respectivamente, se notificarán a las instituciones controladas las que deberán depositar el valor
correspondiente dentro de los cinco días siguientes en la cuenta que la Superintendencia mantenga en el
Banco Central del Ecuador. Esta contribución será reliquidada en el semestre posterior.
Las contribuciones se impondrán en proporción al promedio de los activos totales, excepto las cuentas de
orden, de las instituciones controladas según informes presentados al Superintendente durante los seis meses
anteriores. El promedio se computará sobre la base de las cifras mensuales correspondientes a fechas
uniformes para todas las instituciones. La Junta Bancaria fijará el monto de las contribuciones de las
instituciones sujetas a su control y vigilancia.
La Superintendencia dictará las resoluciones y disposiciones correspondientes para la aplicación de este
artículo.
LEY ORGANICA DE ECONOMÍA POPULAR Y SOLIDARIA DEL SISTEMA FINANCIERO
(Registro Oficial 444 de 10 de mayo de 2011)
Art. 146.‐ Superintendencia de Economía Popular y Solidaria.‐ El control de la Economía Popular y
Solidaria y del Sector Financiero Popular y Solidario estará a cargo de la Superintendencia de Economía
Popular y Solidaria, que se crea como organismo técnico, con jurisdicción nacional, personalidad jurídica de
derecho público, patrimonio propio y autonomía administrativa y financiera y con jurisdicción coactiva.
La Superintendencia tendrá la facultad de expedir normas de carácter general en las materias propias de su
competencia, sin que puedan alterar o innovar lasdisposiciones legales.
Art. 149.‐Patrimonio.‐El patrimonio de la Superintendencia se integra por:
a)Las asignaciones que constarán en el Presupuesto General del Estado;
b)Todos los bienes muebles e inmuebles que adquiera a cualquier título;
c)Los legados o donaciones que perciba de personas naturales o jurídicas y,
d)Otros ingresos de autogestión.
LEY ORGÁNICA DE REGULACIÓN Y CONTROL DEL PODER DE MERCADO
(Registro Oficial 555 Suplemento de 13 de octubre de 2011)
Art. 36.‐ Autoridad de Aplicación.‐ Créase la Superintendencia de Control del Poder de Mercado, misma
que pertenece a la Función de Transparencia y Control Social, como un organismo técnico de control, con
capacidad sancionatoria, de administración desconcentrada, con personalidad jurídica, patrimonio propio y
autonomía administrativa, presupuestaria y organizativa; la que contará con amplias atribuciones para hacer
cumplir a los operadores económicos de los sectores público, privado y de la economía popular y solidaria
todo lo dispuesto en la presente Ley. Su domicilio será la ciudad de Quito, sin perjuicio de las oficinas que
pueda establecer el Superintendente en otros lugares del país.
La Superintendencia de Control del Poder de Mercado en su estructura contará con las instancias,
intendencias, unidades, divisiones técnicas, y órganos asesores que se establezcan en la normativa que para
el efecto emita el Superintendente de Control del Poder de Mercado. Se crearán al menos dos órganos
especializados, uno de investigación, y otro de sustanciación y resolutivo de primera instancia.
LEY ORGÁNICA DE COMUNICACIÓN
(Registro Oficial 22, tercer suplemento de martes 25 de junio de 2013)
Art. 55.‐ Superintendencia de la Información y Comunicación.‐ La Superintendencia de la Información y
Comunicación es el organismo técnico de vigilancia, auditoría, intervención y control, con capacidad
sancionatoria, de administración desconcentrada, con personalidad jurídica, patrimonio propio y autonomía
administrativa, presupuestaria y organizativa; que cuenta con amplias atribuciones para hacer cumplir la
normativa de regulación de la Información y Comunicación.
La Superintendencia tendrá en su estructura intendencias, unidades, divisiones técnicas, y órganos asesores
que se establezcan en la normativa que para el efecto emita.
La o el Superintendente será nombrado por el Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social de una
terna que enviará la Presidenta o Presidente de la República de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la
Constitución.
Las resoluciones que emita la Superintendencia en el ámbito de su competencia son de obligatorio
cumplimiento.
I.1.5. Se crean en los ministerios o departamentos de gobierno centros de coordinación o dependencias
encargados de aplicar las políticas anticorrupción?
En el Ecuador, El Presidente Constitucional de la República del Ecuador, mediante Decreto Ejecutivo
151115, ratificó como Política de Estado la declaratoria de lucha contra la corrupción en la administración
pública y creó la extinta Secretaría Nacional de Transparencia de Gestión.
Cinco años después, mediante Decreto Ejecutivo 1522, publicado en el Registro Oficial Suplemento 13 del
12 de junio de 2013, se creó la Secretaría Nacional de la Administración Pública y como parte de la misma
se crea la Subsecretaría General de Transparencia de Gestión. La nueva Subsecretaría conserva las mismas
funciones establecidas en el Decreto 1511, sin embargo ya no posee personalidad jurídica propia y su
ámbito de acción es la Función Ejecutiva a nivel nacional, respecto de las instituciones de la Administración
Pública Central e institucional, inclusive en las instituciones autónomas que forman parte de ellas y de
aquellas en las que las referidas administraciones sean accionistas o socias, así como las demás instituciones
del sector público; y, las corporaciones, fundaciones, sociedades civiles, compañías mercantiles; y,
empresas públicas en las que el Estado tenga participación mayoritaria.
Conforme el Decreto 1511, la Subsecretaría de Transparencia de Gestión tiene las siguientes atribuciones,
en su ámbito de acción:
1.Promover una administración gubernamental transparente, que coadyuve al fortalecimiento de las
instituciones a través de un sistema integral de control de la corrupción.
2.Investigar y denunciar los actos de corrupción cometidos en Administración Pública Central e
Institucional, inclusive en las denominadas autónomas integradas por las antes mencionadas
administraciones; y, de aquellas en las que las referidas administraciones sean accionistas o socias; y poner
15
Publicado en el Registro Oficial Suplemento 498 de 31 de diciembre de 2008, en conocimiento del Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, el resultado de las
investigaciones.
3.Fortalecer la coordinación y cooperación entre las instituciones de gobierno, organismos de control,
entidades judiciales y todos aquellos involucrados en la investigación, juzgamiento y sanción de los actos de
corrupción en su ámbito de acción.
4.Generar instrumentos y manuales operativos para la implantación de los mecanismos de investigación de
las denuncias receptadas en la Secretaría Nacional de Transparencia de Gestión.
5.Vigilar el estricto cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública,
al constituirse como política de Estado, la publicidad, transparencia y rendición de cuentas de las
instituciones comprendidas en el sector público.
6.Dar seguimiento y prosecución de los procesos legales y administrativos instaurados como consecuencia
de las investigaciones realizadas por esta Secretaría, y puestas en conocimiento de las autoridades
competentes.
I.1.6. Se crean estructuras encargadas de atender eficazmente las quejas y reclamaciones de la
ciudadanía, como una comisión anticorrupción, una oficina de ética, la oficina del auditor general,
una oficina del ombudsman, una oficina central de adquisiciones, etc.?
La Constitución de la República del Ecuador, CRE, inlcuye expresamente entre los deberes y
responsabilidades de las ecuatorianas y los ecuatorianos, el “administrar honradamente y con apego
irrestricto a la ley el patrimonio público, y denunciar y combatir los actos de corrupción.” (Art. 83, numeral
8 CRE). Con tal antecedente, la Norma Suprema prevé la siguiente estructura institucional a cargo de recibir
denuncias de actos de corrupción:
I.1.6.1. Función de Transparencia y Control Social
El control a la gestión de lo público cuenta con dos organismos especializados dentro de la FTCS: el
Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, CPCCS y la Contraloría General del Estado, CGE.
Adicionalmente, las Superintendencias (Compañías, Telecomunicaciones, Bancos y Seguros, Economía
Popular y Solidaria, Control del Poder del Mercado y Comunicación e Información), que son organismos
técnicos con funciones de vigilancia, auditoría, intervención y control de las actividades económicas,
sociales, ambientales, y servicios con el propósito de que se sujeten al ordenamiento jurídico y atiendan al
interés general. También forma parte de la FTCS, la Defensoría del Pueblo, a cargo de la protección del
ejercicio y cumplimiento de los derechos.
Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social:
Entre los deberes y atribuciones del CPCCS (Art. 208 CRE y Art. 13, numeral 4 LOCPCCS) está la
investigación de denuncias sobre actos u omisiones que afecten a la participación ciudadana o generen
corrupción y la emisión de informes que determinen la existencia de indicios de responsabilidad
(administrativa, civil o penal) con las recomendaciones correspondientes a las instancias judiciales o
administrativas competentes, para cuyo seguimiento el CPCCS debe impulsar las acciones legales que
correspondan. Correlativamente, el numeral 7 del mismo artículo ha encargado al CPCCS “Coadyuvar a la
protección de las personas que denuncien actos de corrupción.”.
El CPCCS está obligado a receptar, calificar, aceptar a trámite, e investigar de haber mérito suficiente, las
denuncias sobre actos u omisiones que afecten la participación o generen corrupción. (Art. 14 LOCPCCS),
garantizando la reserva y protección de denunciantes.
El CPCCS también puede iniciar investigaciones cuando de los documentos adjuntos a una denuncia se
pueda verificar que las instituciones involucradas han incumplido sus atribuciones o el caso a investigarse
pueda constituir un precedente para las posteriores acciones del Consejo y otras instituciones en el marco de
sus competencias. (Art. 14 LOCPCCS)
Las denuncias pueden presentarse oralmente o por escrito en los idiomas oficiales de relación intercultural.
En caso de hacerse de manera oral se reducirá a escrito, y cuando corresponda,16 se la traducirá al idioma
castellano con el contenido y procedimiento previstos en el Reglamento para trámite de denuncias y pedidos
sobre actos u omisiones que afecten la participación o generen corrupción. (Art. 4) Mayor información
sobre el trámite de investigación de denuncias puede ser consultada en los siguientes
enlaces:http://www.cpccs.gob.ec/docs/normativaDocs/RESOLUCION%20005‐242‐2013.pdf (Reglamento
para trámite de denuncias y pedidos sobre actos u omisiones que afecten la participación o generen
corrupción)
http://www.cpccs.gob.ec/docs/4.1.CPCCS.pdf (Ley Orgánica del CPCCS)
Las denuncias o pedidos de la ciudadanía, incluidos servidores públicos, se reciben en forma personal, en
las oficinas del CPCCS ubicadas en las 24 provincias del país. También se atiende las solicitudes de la
ciudadanía
realizadas
a
través
de
la
página
web
institucional
al
siguiente
link:http://www.cpccs.gob.ec/?mod=transinter&item=1, acompañando a éstas, los documentos de soporte
debidamente escaneados, en caso de que estos existan.
Es importante aclarar que el CPCCS no posee facultad juzgadora ni sancionadora, las investigaciones con
indicios de responsabilidad civil, penal o administrativa, según el caso, se remiten a la Función Judicial
conformada por la Fiscalía General del Estado, Corte Nacional de Justicia, Cortes Provinciales, tribunales y
juzgados; o a las Instancias de control como la Contraloría General del Estado y Superintendencias.
El sitio web institucional: www.cpccs.gob.ec, incluye información relativa a los ejes de acción del CPCCS,
incluyendo una explicación de cómo presentar las denuncias o pedidos, los mecanismos de protección de la
identidad del denunciante y los casos investigados.
Contraloría General del Estado, CGE
En el ámbito de la CGE, la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General del Estado17 (Art. 94) concede acción
popular para denunciar irregularidades en la administración pública y en la Contraloría General del Estado.
El Reglamento para la Recepción y Trámite de Denuncias para la Investigación Administrativa en la
Contraloría General del Estado18, establece los procedimientos para la recepción y trámite de las denuncias
sobre presuntos hechos, actos u operaciones originados en las instituciones del Estado, que revelen por
acción u omisión de sus servidores o terceros relacionados con ella, la indebida ilegal o ineficiente gestión
y/o utilización de recursos y bienes del Estado; así como los actos reñidos con la ética pública cometidos por
16
Publicado en el Registro Oficial 21 de 24 de junio de 2013. Publicada en el Registro Oficial Suplemento 595 de 12 de Junio de 2002. 18
Acuerdo 034‐CG, publicado en el Suplemento del R. O. 50 de 20 de octubre de 2009 17
servidores de la Contraloría General del Estado”. El texto completo del Reglamento referido en este párrafo
puede
ser
consultado
en
el
siguiente
link:
http://www.contraloria.gob.ec/documentos/normatividad/ACUERDO%20034%20CG%202009%20
Denuncias.pdf
Otras fuentes de recepción de denuncias en la Contraloría, son el número 1800‐ÉTICOS, y el correo
electrónico [email protected] , a través de los cuales la ciudadanía en general se convierte en parte
del control, denunciando el uso incorrecto de los bienes públicos, en este caso los vehículos oficiales.
Función Ejecutiva
En el ámbito de la Función Ejecutiva, la Subsecretaría General de Transparencia de Gestión, cuyos detalles
de creación constan en el apartado anterior, tiene las siguientes competencias relacionadas con la pregunta:
‐investigar y denunciar actos de corrupción cometidos en la Función Ejecutiva y poner en conocimiento del
Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, el resultado de sus investigaciones
‐fortalecer la coordinación y cooperación entre las instituciones involucradas en la investigación,
juzgamiento y sanción de los actos de corrupción, en su ámbito de acción.
‐vigilar el estricto cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública.
‐dar seguimiento y prosecución de los procesos legales y administrativos instaurados como consecuencia de
sus investigaciones.
I.2. Suministre información que demuestre la repercusión de la labor de los órganos nacionales con
mandatos relacionados con la prevención de la corrupción
I.2.1. Las conclusiones y recomendaciones principales de los informes preparados por los órganos e
instituciones de lucha contra la corrupción:
La Comisión de Control Cívico de la Corrupción (CCCC)19 en su informe denominado “Una Década de
Prevenir y Combatir la Corrupción” (1997 – 2007), estableció varias conclusiones relevantes, respecto de la
prevención de la corrupción en el período anterior a la expedición de la Constitución de la República de
2008. A continuación se exponen dichas conclusiones junto con un breve análisis sobre la proyección de las
mismas en la realidad jurídica institucional del Ecuador a partir de la vigencia de la nueva Constitución de la
República:
1.‐ Se señaló la necesidad de que la institución especializada en la lucha contra la corrupción, por mandato
legal pueda intervenir como sujeto procesal en los juicios penales por corrupción. Conclusión que coadyuvó
a que, en la Constitución vigente desde octubre de 2008, en su Art. 208, numeral 6, se establezca como
deber y atribución del Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social (entidad que asumió las
19
El Ecuador institucionalizó el control de la corrupción a partir de la creación constitucional de la Comisión de Control Cívico de la Corrupción (CCCC), entidad que en representación de la ciudadanía tenía el mandato de promover la eliminación de la corrupción (Artículo 220 de la Constitución Política de la República del Ecuador, publicada en el Registro Oficial 1 de 11 de Agosto de 1998). Se extinguió con la expedición de la Constitución de la República de 2008, que creó al CPCCS y le dotó de las atribuciones de la extinta CCCC, entre otras previstas en el Art. 208 de la CRE. atribuciones de lucha contra la corrupción de la extinta CCCC) actuar como parte procesal en las causas que
se instauren como consecuencia de sus investigaciones.20
En concordancia con la norma constitucional, en el numeral 6 del Art. 13 de la Ley Orgánica del Consejo de
Participación Ciudadana y Control Social consta como atribución de esta entidad actuar como parte
procesal, en tanto los informes que emite son de trámite obligatorio y tienen validez probatoria, en las
causas que se instauren como consecuencia de sus investigaciones.
2. En el punto 5 del Capítulo 4 del informe21 se concluyó que era necesaria una coordinación
interinstitucional entre las entidades de control a través de alianzas estratégicas en sus dos ejes de trabajo:
prevención e investigación.
La coordinación interinstitucional para la lucha contra la corrupción ha alcanzado rango constitucional al
instituirse la Función de Transparencia y Control Social y su instancia de coordinación prevista en el Art.
206 de la Norma Suprema y desarrollada en la Ley Orgánica de la Función de Transparencia y Control
Social.22 Adicionalmente, el control de la corrupción se articula a la formulación de políticas públicas de
transparencia, control, rendición de cuentas, promoción de la participación ciudadana y prevención y lucha
contra la corrupción, a cargo de la misma función, formulada desde una visión más integrada de control, que
constituye el punto de partida normativo de la articulación entre participación, transparencia y lucha contra
la corrupción.23
3.‐ En las conclusiones 2, 10 y 1124 del informe en cuestión, la Comisión de Control Cívico de la
Corrupción, establece como prioridades lograr que se promulgue la Ley de Control Social, fortalecer la
relación con la sociedad civil y conseguir una verdadera integración con la sociedad civil.
Al respecto, se señala que los tres puntos convergen en la concepción de “estado participativo” previsto de
manera transversal en la Constitución de la República vigente. Del mismo modo el Ecuador cuenta con una
serie de mecanismos orientados a conectar de modo permanente, la acción autónoma de la sociedad civil
con la gestión de las diversas entidades estatales, para el control de lo público y su incorporación en ciclos
completos de políticas públicas, en todos los niveles de gobierno. La legislación ecuatoriana ha desarrollado
numerosos mecanismos para promover la participación ciudadana en la gestión de lo público, los cuales se
presentan en cuatro ámbitos temáticos:
Espacios participativos de deliberación: Audiencias Públicas, Cabildos Populares, Cabildos y Consejos
Consultivos. 18
Mecanismos de vigilancia y control social: Observatorios, Observación electoral, Veedurías ciudadanas,
Rendición de Cuentas, Silla Vacía.25
20
Informe “Una década de prevenir y combatir la corrupción” Comisión de Control Cívico de la Corrupción, Capítulo 4, pág. 228 21
Informe ibídem, p. 229 Publicada en el Registro Oficial Suplemento 53 de 07 de agosto de 2013 23
Los artículos 204 y 206 de la Constitución que crean la Función de Transparencia y Control Social (FTCS), establecen entre sus competencias 22
“…Formular políticas públicas de transparencia, control, rendición de cuentas, promoción de la participación ciudadana y prevención y lucha contra la corrupción.” 24
Informe ibídem, p. 229‐230. Mecanismos participativos a nivel nacional: Agendas públicas de consulta a la ciudadanía, Consejos
Nacionales para la igualdad, Asamblea Ciudadana Plurinacional e Intercultural para el Buen Vivir, Consejos
Ciudadanos Sectoriales, Consejo Nacional de Planificación.26
Mecanismos participativos a nivel local: Asambleas locales, Asambleas en circunscripciones territoriales
indígenas, afroecuatorianas y montubias, Instancias de participación ciudadana a nivel local, Consejos de
Planificación de los Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados, Presupuestos Participativos, Sistemas de
participación ciudadana, Consejos barriales y parroquiales urbanos, Mesa de diálogo, Comisiones
permanentes, técnicas o especiales con participación ciudadana en juntas parroquiales rurales, Consejos
Cantonales para la Protección de Derechos, Agendas de coordinación intersectorial, Consejos sectoriales de
política pública de la Función Ejecutiva, Consejos de cuenca hidrográfica, Juntas administradoras de agua
potable, Juntas de riego, Petición de la ciudadanía para la intervención en la gestión de competencias de los
gobiernos autónomos descentralizados, Comunas.27
I.2.2. Los resultados de encuestas de opinión pública en lo que se refiere a la eficacia y el desempeño
del órgano o los órganos de lucha contra la corrupción y a los resultados de encuestas sobre el grado
de conciencia pública respecto de la labor de prevención de la corrupción
Con el objetivo de recabar información como insumos para conformar un diagnóstico institucional del
CPCCS, en junio del 2013 se realizó un proceso de encuestas a la ciudadanía a nivel nacional para conocer
sus criterios en temas básicos tanto de participación ciudadana y control social como de transparencia y
lucha contra la corrupción (los dos procesos estratégicos del CPCCS).
Este proceso consistió en la aplicación de al menos 20 encuestas en cada una de las ciudades donde el
CPCCS tenía una oficina provincial (en la mayoría de casos coincidía con las capitales de provincia). Si
bien no se dio un peso específico a la información proveniente de las diferentes provincias, la primera
encuesta aplicada puede homologarse a temas de eficacia en la lucha contra la corrupción, y la segunda a
25
Constitución de la República del Ecuador: Art. 61, num. 5, Art. 83, nums. 7, 8, 11, Art. 96; Art. 100; Art. 101; Art. 180 inciso final; Art. 205 inciso final; Art. 208 nums. 2 y 10; Arts. 209, 223 y 395, num. 3. Ley Orgánica de Participación Ciudadana: Arts. 78, 79; Capítulo Segundo, Título IX, Sección Tercera; Capítulo Primero, Título VIII. Ley Orgánica Electoral y de Organizaciones Políticas de la República del Ecuador, Código de la Democracia: Arts. 169 y 170. Ley Orgánica del CPCCS: Art. 5, nums. 5 y 8; Art. 8, nums, 2 y 3; Arts. 34, 35, 55, 63, 68 inciso primero y 72. Reglamento General de Veedurías Ciudadanas. Ley Orgánica del Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social: Arts. 9, 10, 11 y 12. Código Orgánico de Organización Territorial, Autonomía y Descentralización: Art. 311 26
Constitución de la República del Ecuador: Arts. 156, 157 y 279. Ley Orgánica de Participación Ciudadana: Art. 45, 47; Título VI, Capítulo I Sección Segunda; Sección Tercera, Capítulo I, Título IV. Código Orgánico de Planificación Participativa y Finanzas Públicas: Arts. 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 nums. 2 y 14. 27
Constitución de la República del Ecuador: Art. 100. Ley Orgánica de Participación Ciudadana: Art. 59, Sección Primera, Capítulo Segundo, Título VI; Sección Segunda, Capítulo Segundo, Título VI; Sección Tercera, Capítulo Segundo, Título VI, Disposición General Segunda, Título VII. Código Orgánico de Organización Territorial, Autonomía y Descentralización: Arts. 303, inc. quinto. Código Orgánico de Planificación Participativa y Finanzas Públicas: Arts. 8, 11, 14, 21, 28 y 29. Código Orgánico de Organización Territorial, Autonomía y Descentralización: Arts. 132, 146, 158, lit. a., 165, 168, 215, 238, 241, 245, 304, 306, 307, 308, 325, lit. d), Art. 327, inc. Cuarto, Art. 598 temas de prevención de la corrupción. A continuación se presentan los resultados generales de las encuestas
realizadas28:
ENCUESTA RELACIONADA CON LA EFICACIA EN LA LUCHA CONTRA LA CORRUPCIÓN:
PREGUNTAS
VARIABLE
RESULTADOPORCENTAJE
M
288
58%
Género
F
208
42%
MAX
58
Edad
MIN
21
AVG
35
Pertenece o representa a Si
103
28%
algún colectivo social? No
265
72%
Es usted una persona
con
Si
24
6%
discapacidad?
No
400
94%
10
2%
1. Considera Usted que Siempre
Frecuentemente
26
5%
en
el lugar donde vive se
a veces
145
30%
han
investigado los casos de
corrupción presentados? rara vez
Nunca
2. Considera usted que
en
Si
la localidad donde usted
habita existen garantías
y/o condiciones para
No
presentar una denuncia
de
corrupción?
Si su respuesta anterior Temor
fue negativa, cuál de los Desconfianza
siguientes fue el motivo Desconocimiento
que le llevó a no
denunciar?
falta de recursos
3. Cuáles son las
prácticas
Enriquecimiento ilícito
más comunes de
Abuso de poder
corrupción que usted Abuso de bienes públicos
conoce?
Corrupción en justicia
Denunciando actos de
corrupción
Organizando veedurías
4. Como participaría la ciudadanas
28
Memorando No. CPCCS‐PIQ‐084‐2014 de 21 de abril de 2014. 128
27%
173
36%
132
27%
355
129
202
86
73%
27%
43%
18%
56
12%
239
261
216
182
27%
29%
24%
20%
237
23%
169
16%
Recibiendo
para
capacitación
ciudadanía de manera
efectiva en el control de
la
controlar la corrupción
156
Libre
acceso
a
la
corrupción?
información
132
Participación activa de la
ciudadanía
169
Rendición de cuentas
162
6. De lo que Usted
conoce
Excelente
42
y ha percibido del
Consejo
muy buena
120
de Participación
Buena
192
Ciudadana y Control
Regular
88
Social, como considera
el
accionar general de la Inexistente
institución?
20
15%
13%
16%
16%
9%
26%
42%
19%
4%
ENCUESTA RELACIONADA CON TEMAS DE PREVENCIÓN DE LA CORRUPCIÓN:
PREGUNTAS
VARIABLE
RESULTADOPORCENTAJE
M
Género
257
53%
227
47%
F
Max
58
Edad
Min
20
Avg
35
Si
Pertenece o representa a
algún colectivo social?
95
26%
265
74%
No
Es usted una persona Si
con
discapacidad?
No
4%
15
357
96%
Excelente
26
5%
muy buena
77
16%
Buena
161
34%
159
33%
53
11%
1. La participación
Regular
ciudadana que existe en
su localidad es?
inexistente
Conocer la Constitución
267
2. En su criterio, cuáles
son los principales
Conocer
la
Ley
de
elementos que debe
Participación
conocer la ciudadanía
para
Ciudadana
265
mejorar sus niveles de Conocer sobre derechos de
participación? (marque
participación
245
2
opciones)
Conocer sobre liderazgo y
motivación para la
participación ciudadana
183
No
existen
propicios
28%
28%
26%
19%
espacios
208
34%
178
29%
138
23%
87
14%
37
8%
No hay presupuesto para
eventos
No hay tiempo necesario
3. En su criterio que
factores son limitantes
para la participación
Existe
ciudadana
cultural
y/o de género
5. Las autoridades de la Siempre
localidad donde usted
discriminación
vive
frecuentemente
brindan las condiciones
para que la ciudadanía
participe
de
forma a veces
activa
en la realización de
programas, políticas,
proyectos, etc.
rara vez
59
13%
166
36%
136
29%
67
14%
132
19%
182
27%
141
21%
90
13%
Otras entidades públicas
136
20%
Gremios
169
28%
131
22%
185
31%
120
20%
55
12%
78
17%
Nunca
Junta Parroquial
Alcaldía
6. Que organizaciones
públicas promueven y
desarrollan la
Prefectura
participación ciudadana
en
su localidad (escoja al
menos dos opciones)
Ministerios
Movimiento de mujeres
7. Que organizaciones
sociales promueven y
desarrollan la
participación ciudadana Jóvenes
en
su localidad (escoja al
menos dos opciones)
ONG´s
Siempre
8. Las autoridades de la
localidad donde usted Frecuentemente
vive
rinden cuentas de su
accionar
a
ciudadanía?
la a veces
160
34%
rara vez
99
21%
Nunca
76
16%
Si
58
13%
388
87%
9.‐Conoce de algún
mecanismo de control
social implementado por
algún grupo ciudadano
No
en
su localidad?
I.2.3. Las conclusiones y recomendaciones principales de los informes de evaluación sobre la eficacia y
el desempeño de los órganos pertinentes de lucha contra la corrupción
El Plan Nacional de Prevención y Lucha contra la Corrupción, citado ut supra, en el Capítulo 2
correspondiente al “Diagnóstico y Problematización”, apartado 2.4., realiza un “Análisis y evaluación
general sobre las propuestas de lucha y prevención de la corrupción en el período 1998 al 201329, a partir de
la institucionalización como política de Estado de la lucha y prevención de la corrupción a través de la
creación de dos instituciones: la Comisión de Control Cívico de la Corrupción (CCCC) desde 1998 hasta
octubre del 2008 y la Secretaría Nacional Anticorrupción, desde el año 2007, creada mediante acuerdo a
través de la función ejecutiva, cuyos antecedentes se han citado ut supra.
El diagnóstico arroja las siguientes conclusiones30:
“Las dos entidades tenían funciones similares diferenciándose sus actividades en la autonomía y
competencia que cada una tenía, ya que la ex CCCC, aprobaba y tramitaba sus denuncias así como la
construcción e implementación de programas de prevención; en cambio la Secretaría Nacional
Anticorrupción al depender de la función ejecutiva sus informes eran expuestos en la Presidencia de la
República para el trámite respectivo.
29
Plan Nacional de Prevención y Lucha Contra la Corrupción 2013 – 2017, p.13,www.ftcs.gob.ec/images/stories/plan_lucha_contra_corrupcion_2013_2017.pdf 30
Plan Nacional de Prevención y Lucha Contra la Corrupción 2013 – 2017, pp. 13 a la 15,www.ftcs.gob.ec/images/stories/plan_lucha_contra_corrupcion_2013_2017.pdf Las dos entidades realizaron sus actividades de manera aislada y en algunos casos con duplicidad de
acciones particularmente en la investigación de denuncias lo que no permitió evidenciar una verdadera
política estatal integrada y sistemática contra la corrupción; además ninguna tenía dentro de sus
competencias la posibilidad de sancionar ni ser parte procesal de los informes del análisis de las denuncias
realizadas.
Por otro lado las instituciones que debían actuar en relación a los informes presentados como la Fiscalía,
Cortes de Justicia, Ministerios, entre otros; en la mayoría de los casos no asumían los informes realizados y
según el caso iniciaban sus propios procesos de investigación, por lo que son escasas las sanciones
derivadas de los procesos de investigación, alargando los tiempos y favoreciendo la impunidad.
En el caso de la ex CCCC uno de los importantes lineamientos fueron sus proyectos de prevención de la
corrupción con la participación de la ciudadanía organizada; ante lo cual se originaron los programas de
veedurías ciudadanas como un mecanismo de control social hacia la vigilancia y control de lo público y
cuyo modelo ha sido tomado actualmente con mayor fuerza e implicación en la exigencia de la ciudadanía
por una gestión pública honesta y transparente; además se implementaron también programas de educación
en ciudadanía responsable, ética y valores, con propuestas de Redes Cívicas y Redes Juveniles
Anticorrupción y formación en ciudadanía dirigida a organizaciones sociales y actores del sector educativo.
También se ejecutó un programa para los gobiernos locales que se le denominó “Municipios Transparentes”
para generar la responsabilidad de rendir cuentas en el ámbito local.”
Adicionalmente, el diagnóstico cita los principales casos de corrupción investigados en el período
mencionado, los cuales hacen alusión a “procesos de alto impacto en la sociedad ecuatoriana, pese a lo cual
no en todos se ha procedido con las sanciones respectivas, debido principalmente a una inadecuada
aplicación de la justicia ecuatoriana, de lo que se deduce que en la lucha contra la corrupción y contra la
impunidad en particular, es urgente la aceleración de la reforma del sistema de justicia ecuatoriano.”,
evidenciándose que “a pesar de contar con instituciones anticorrupción el país no contaba en la práctica con
una verdadera política de Estado en la prevención y lucha contra la corrupción la cual debe ser integrada y
coordinada entre los actores políticos, las instituciones públicas y la sociedad civil; lo que evidencia la gran
importancia que tiene actualmente la Función de Transparencia y Control Social creada por la Constitución
Actual, especialmente para la formulación de políticas públicas y la articulación de un Plan Nacional de
Lucha y Prevención de la Corrupción.”
Finalmente el diagnóstico concluye que “De la experiencia y las consecuencias generadas por la corrupción
es necesario que se implementen con énfasis políticas de educación, capacitación y formación en: ética
pública, rendición de cuentas, participación ciudadana y control social; dirigido a organizaciones sociales,
servidores públicos y actores políticos; con la finalidad de transformar una situación que en algunos casos se
ha normalizado.”
EL SALVADOR (FIFTH MEETING)
El Órgano Ejecutivo, por orden presidencial cuenta con la Subsecretaría de Transparencia y Anticorrupción,
dentro de la Secretaría para Asuntos Estratégicos, desde el año 2009 y dentro de ella con la Oficina de
Fortalecimiento del Control y Auditoría Itnerna según Diario Oficial Tomo No. 391 Número 90, publicado
el 17 de mayo de 2011 y de conformidad mandato conferido en el Art. 53-E letra B) literal h), m) y n) del
Reglamento
Interno
del
Órgano
Ejecutivo.
Entre sus competencias asignadas se encuentran las de promover el acceso a información pública, la
rendición de cuentas, la formación de funcionarios públicos y entes de la sociedad civil, así como el
fortalecimiento del control interno, desde el enfoque de gestión del riesgo y cierre de portillos de
corrupción. Con todo ello se establece el ámbito de la prevención.
En ese sentido, el Reglamento Interno del Órgano Ejecutivo estableció como mandatos los siguientes:
Funciones a realizar: (38)
a) Apoyar al Secretario para Asuntos Estratégicos en la implementación y sistematización de la
transparencia como eje fundamental de la actuación de la Administración Pública; (38)
b) Edificar el Sistema de Transparencia nacional; (38)
c) Fomular los lineamientos, estrategias y acciones para la transparencia de la gestión del Gobierno;
(38)
d) Fomentar y dar seguimiento a la contraloría de la actuación de la Administración Pública; (38)
e) Fortalecer la transparencia y rendición de cuentas, promoviendo el acceso a la información pública;
(38)
f) Garantizar la transparencia a través de la coordinación y el seguimiento de las instancias auditoras en
las instituciones del Gobierno central; (38)
g) Promover la ética como eje transversal en todas las instituciones del Estado; (38)
h) Recibir quejas y avisos de indicios de irregularidades que se estuvieren presentado en las
instituciones del Órgano Ejecutivo, a efecto de hacerlas del conocimiento de las instancias
correspondientes. Para tales efectos, podrá solicitar la colaboración de las referidas instituciones, a
través de sus respectivas Unidades de Auditoría Interna, mismas que constituirán la denominada Red
de Auditores Internos RAI, del Órgano Ejecutivo; (38) (44)
i) Promover la aprobación de la Ley de Libre Acceso a la Información Pública; (38)
j) Generar convenios con instituciones académicas y tanques de pensamiento para la creación de
centros de depósito y acceso de información pública estratégica; (38)
k) Crear un sistema de incentivos a la transparencia y a la participación ciudadana a nivel local
vinculado a las transferencias y ventanillas de financiamiento del Gobierno nacional; y, (38)
l) Garantizar la coordinación de los sitios web para los fines especificados en el marco de la
transparencia. (38)
m) Apoyar a las Instituciones del Órgano Ejecutivo en el diseño, aplicación y seguimiento de medidas
de fomento a la transparencia, la lucha contra la corrupción en procesos de adquisiciones,
contrataciones y coadyuvar en el fortalecimiento a los sistemas de control interno; (44)
Establecer, dentro de la estructura de la Subsecretaría de Transparencia y Anticorrupción una Oficina de
Fortalecimiento al Control Interno y Auditoría, OFCIA, cuya labor, además de colaborar en lo regulado por
los literales h) y m) del presente artículo, será coadyuvar al mejoramiento de las capacidades instaladas y
profesionales de las unidades de Auditoría Interna de las diferentes instituciones del Órgano Ejecutivo,
pudiendo para tales fines proponer a las citadas instituciones la implementación de evaluaciones de calidad
de las labores de las referidas unidades de Auditoría Interna, la adopción de estándares internacionales
aplicables a la materia, entre otras medidas que fueren legales y pertinentes. (44)
FRANCE (FIFTH MEETING)
Le Service Central de Prévention de la Corruption (SCPC),
organe français de prévention de la corruption (art. 6 CNUCC)
Le Service central de prévention de la corruption est un service à composition interministérielle placé auprès
du garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice ; il a été créé par la loi 93-122 du 29 janvier 1993 relative à la
prévention de la corruption et à la transparence de la vie économique et des procédures publiques, et ses
modalités d’application ont été fixées par le décret 93-232 du 22 février 1993.
Il joue un rôle essentiellement préventif, sans pouvoirs d’investigation ni de poursuite, qui sont de la
compétence des organes de poursuite (procureurs de la République).
Il s’agit d’une structure interministérielle autonome, placée auprès du ministre de la justice, dirigée par un
magistrat de l’ordre judiciaire de haut rang, nommé pour 4 ans par décret du président de la République et
irrévocable au cours de son mandat.
Le Service dispose en 2014 d’un effectif d’une quinzaine de personnes, dont environ 10 conseillers
magistrats (des ordres judiciaire, financier et administratif), agents publics (administrateurs civils ou autres
fonctionnaires) provenant de différents ministères (intérieur, finances, mais aussi éducation nationale par
exemple).
Tous les membres du Service sont soumis au secret professionnel.
Si le SCPC bénéficie d’une très large autonomie fonctionnelle (choix de ses priorités d’action, définition de
ses orientations, des propositions de réforme qu’il considère pertinentes, etc.), il ne jouit pas d’une
indépendance financière propre, ses charges (locaux, équipement) étant payées et son budget (déplacements,
documentation, téléphonie, etc.) établi par les services administratifs du ministère de la justice.
MISSIONS DU SCPC :
Le Service central de prévention de la corruption a été conçu comme une cellule d’experts, en matière de
renseignement et d’expertise, au profit des autorités administratives et judiciaires, auxquelles il ne peut
toutefois se substituer en aucun cas.
C’est ainsi que le SCPC est partie prenante dans tous les débats qui, en France, portent sur la corruption au
sens le plus large, et sa prévention en amont (conflits d’intérêts, corruption dans le secteur économique, celui
de la santé, dans les collectivités locale, etc.).
Il est chargé de :
centraliser les informations nécessaires à la détection et à la prévention des faits de corruption active ou
passive et de corruption de directeur ou d’employé d’entreprise privée, de prise illégale d’intérêt, de
concussion, de favoritisme et de trafic d’influence ;
prêter son concours, sur leur demande, aux autorités judiciaires saisies de faits de cette nature ;
donner des avis sur les mesures susceptibles de prévenir de tels faits, à diverses autorités limitativement
énumérées par le décret , qui en font la demande :
–ministres ;
–présidents d’exécutifs locaux (maires, présidents de conseils généraux et régionaux, président de l’exécutif
de Corse, présidents de groupements de collectivités territoriales et des établissements publics des
collectivités territoriales) ;
–chefs de juridictions financières (Cour des comptes, cour de discipline budgétaire, chambres régionales et
territoriales des comptes) ; – certains services administratifs de l’État (préfets, administrateur des finances
publiques, autres comptables publics, présidents et directeurs des établissements publics de l’État) ;
–diverses commissions administratives (commission des comptes de campagne et des financements
politiques, commission relative à la transparence financière de la vie politique, conseil de la concurrence,
autorité des marchés financiers, TRACFIN, mission interministérielle d’enquête sur les marchés) ;
–organismes ou services d’inspection ou de contrôle relevant de l’État ;
–dirigeants des organismes privés chargés d’une mission de service public.
depuis la loi du 6 décembre 2013 relative à la lutte contre la fraude fiscale et la grande délinquance économique
et financière, il est en outre chargé de la protection des lanceurs d’alertes.
Par ailleurs, le SCPC développe une politique de sensibilisation en direction des grandes entreprises des
secteurs public et privé, des collectivités territoriales, notamment dans le cadre de groupes de travail qu’il
anime et qui nourrissent sa réflexion. Il conçoit et met en œuvre des actions de formation en faveur de
divers organismes, grandes écoles et universités.
Enfin, le service assure une mission internationale grandissante dans le domaine de la lutte contre la
corruption, des délits assimilés et de leur prévention :
-soit dans un cadre multilatéral en participant aux réunions de suivi de la mise en œuvre des grandes
conventions internationales et aux différents groupes de travail anticorruption de l’ONU, du Conseil de
l’Europe, de l’OCDE, de l’Union Européenne, du G 20,
-soit dans le cadre de relations bilatérales avec des pays ou des organismes étrangers désireux de
bénéficier de ses compétences en ce domaine.
I) Centraliser les informations nécessaires à la détection et à la prévention des faits de
corruption.
La mission première du Service consiste à centraliser et à exploiter les informations (provenant de sources
ouvertes ou fermées) destinées à la prévention de la corruption. Il travaille, à cette fin, avec l’ensemble des
ministères concernés par la lutte contre la corruption (Justice, Intérieur, Economie et Finances,…).
Dès que les informations recueillies par le Service mettent en évidence des faits susceptibles de constituer
une infraction, il en saisit le procureur de la République compétent, en application des dispositions de
l’article 40 alinéa 2 du code de procédure pénale français qui dispose que «toute autorité constituée, tout
officier public ou fonctionnaire qui, dans l’exercice de ses fonctions, acquiert la connaissance d’un crime ou
d’un délit est tenu d’en donner avis sans délai au procureur de la République et de transmettre à ce
magistrat tous les renseignements,procès-verbaux et actes qui y sont relatifs ».
La synthèse des informations recueillies par le SCPC, leur analyse et la typologie des mécanismes de fraudes
qui en résultent, sont publiées dans le rapport annuel d’activité du Service, adressé au Premier ministre et au
ministre de la justice, puis rendu public et largement diffusé.
Ce document peut également contenir des propositions de réforme adressées au gouvernement, notamment
de réforme législative, en matière de politique de prévention de la corruption.
Parmi les récentes propositions faites par le SCPC, on soulignera :
-la proposition d’autoriser les associations régulièrement déclarées depuis moins de cinq ans à la date des
faits, se proposant dans leurs statuts de combattre les faits de corruption et manquement à la probité, à
exercer les droits reconnus à la partie civile en ce qui concerne les infractions visées ci-dessus ou assimilés
(Rapport 2010 du SCPC).
Cette proposition a été suivie d’effet puisque la loi du 6 décembre 2013 relative à la lutte contre la fraude
fiscale et la grande délinquance économique et financière permet désormais à ces associations d’ester en
justice.
-la proposition d’adopter des dispositions prévoyant de manière explicite la protection du lanceur d’alerte
(Rapport 2011 du SCPC).
A la suite de cette proposition, on note, d’une part, que la loi du 11 octobre 2013 relative à la transparence de
la vie publique protège les lanceurs d’alerte signalant de bonne foi des faits relatifs à une situation de conflit
d’intérêts dont ils ont eu connaissance dans l’exercice de leur fonction ; d’autre part, la loi du 6 décembre
2013, relative à la lutte contre la fraude fiscale et la grande délinquance économique et financière est venue
compléter le dispositif de protection des lanceurs d’alerte en protégeant le lanceur d’alerte qui a « relaté ou
témoigné, de bonne foi, de faits constitutifs d'un délit ou d'un crime dont il aurait eu connaissance dans
l'exercice de ses fonctions ». De plus, la loi du 6 décembre 2013 renverse la charge de la preuve, au profit du
lanceur d’alerte. Ainsi, si celui-ci présente des éléments de fait qui permettent de présumer qu’il a relaté ou
témoigné de bonne foi de faits constitutifs d’un délit ou d’un crime, il incombe à la partie défenderesse de
prouver que sa décision est justifiée par des éléments objectifs étrangers à la déclaration ou au témoignage
de l’intéressé.
II. Assister et conseiller, à leur demande, diverses autorités politiques, administratives ou judiciaires
Outre la collecte d’informations relatives à la corruption, le SCPC :
–prête son concours, sur leur demande, aux autorités judiciaires saisies de faits de corruption, de prise
illégale d’intérêts, de concussion, de favoritisme, de trafic d’influence et de tous cas d’atteinte à la probité au
sens large ;
–donne des avis sur les mesures susceptibles de prévenir de tels faits à diverses autorités limitativement
énumérées qui en font la demande.
Les concours et avis, présentés généralement sous la forme de notes techniques, respectent scrupuleusement
le principe de confidentialité auquel sont soumis les membres du Service. Les délais de réponse sont en
général assez courts, sous réserve de la complexité du dossier. Il arrive parfois que le service ne soit pas en
mesure de rendre un avis à la seule vue des pièces apportées par l’autorité de saisine, ce qui le conduit à
demander que la requête soit complétée. En 2012, le service a été saisi de trente-huit demandes de concours,
deux émanant d’autorités administratives, huit d’autorités judiciaires et vingt-huit de particuliers,
associations et conseillers municipaux.
L’absence de pouvoir propre d’investigation du SCPC relevé plus haut se trouve ainsi partiellement
compensé, la limite principale étant l’absence de pouvoir de saisine d’initiative du SCPC.
III. Conduire des actions de sensibilisation et de formation à la prévention de la corruption
A) Secteur privé
Le SCPC participe à la sensibilisation des acteurs économiques, directement concernés par les risques liés à
la corruption. Le service apporte à ce titre son concours aux entreprises et organisations représentatives du
secteur privé, désireuses d’élaborer des codes déontologiques internes et de mettre en place des systèmes
d’alerte éthique. Dans ce cadre, les domaines d’intervention du SCPC, dans son expertise de prévention de la
corruption, concernent principalement la prévention des risques.
Les actions du SCPC sont menées autour du renforcement des règles de conformité, la mise en place et la
gestion effective des procédures d’alertes, l’aide à l’élaboration de codes déontologiques synthétisant et
explicitant les normes existantes, la mise en place d’échanges de savoir-faire et de bonnes pratiques
professionnelles en matière de détection des faits de corruption internes et externes.
Dans un souci d’accroissement de la visibilité de ce processus de travail, des réunions de travail ou des
rencontres sous différentes formes sont organisées par le SCPC avec ses partenaires institutionnels (MEDEF,
Confédération générale des petites et moyennes entreprises [CGPME], chambre de commerce et d’industrie
[CCI]), ministères intéressés (justice, ministère de l’économie et des finances, ministère des affaires
étrangères).
B) Secteur public
-Le SCPC a également développé des liens avec différentes administrations. On notera notamment les liens
entretenus entre le SCPC et TRACFIN. Ce dernier service du ministère de l’économie et des finances a été
créé en 1990. S’agissant d’une cellule de renseignement financier au sens du GAFI et de l’UE, TRACFIN
chargé de lutter contre les circuits financiers clandestins, en recevant et traitant les déclarations de soupçon
que la loi française impose à une liste de professionnels de la finance ou non (banques et établissements
financiers, mais aussi notaires, avocats,commissaires-priseurs responsables de cercles de jeux, loteries, paris,
etc.) qui relèvent des mouvements financiers suspects, laissant soupçonner un blanchiment de capitaux
provenant d’une infraction pénale punie d’au moins un an d’emprisonnement, et notamment, de la
corruption.
Le SCPC et TRACFIN ont rédigé en 2008 un manuel commun, intitulé « Guide d’aide à la détection des
opérations financières susceptibles d’être liées à la corruption », qui entend informer et former, les
professionnels concernés par les déclarations de soupçons aux risques de blanchiment en France, notamment
par intégration de fonds provenant de la corruption extranationale (en particulier de personnes politiquement
exposées, PPE). Une nouvelle édition, actualisée, de ce manuel est parue en 2014.
-Le SCPC entretient des relations avec les grandes écoles, les universités françaises, les écoles de formation
ou d’application (ENA, ENM, Ecole de Police, universités, etc.) ou par le biais de missions de
sensibilisation, ou d’actions de formation auprès de corps de contrôle ou d’inspections de l’administration,
de services de police spécialisés (IGPN) afin d’établir des cartographies des risques et de mettre en place des
mécanismes de détection et de prévention des fraudes et pratiques de corruption (ministères de la défense, de
l’intérieur, etc.).
-Le SCPC s’intéresse également à la problématique, récurrente, de la prévention de la corruption dans les
collectivités territoriales. Un groupe de travail ad hoc a été constitué pour nourrir la réflexion du SCPC à cet
égard, en s’appuyant notamment sur la connaissance du phénomène par les acteurs de terrain. Le groupe de
travail s’est donné pour mission d’envisager, sur la base d’une analyse participative, des propositions
concrètes en vue de renforcer le dispositif de la prévention de la corruption dans les collectivités territoriales.
IV. L’action internationale du Service central de prévention de la corruption
A) Les actions multilatérales
À la faveur du mouvement qui, à la fin des années 1990, a conduit la communauté internationale à adopter
plusieurs conventions en matière de prévention et de lutte contre la corruption, le SCPC a été amené à
développer des actions internationales, bilatérales ou multilatérales.
En sa qualité de membre de la délégation française, le SCPC participe ainsi activement aux travaux des
principales institutions internationales, aux côtés d’autres partenaires (ministère de la justice, ministère des
affaires étrangères, ministère de l’économie et des finances).
A cet égard, le SCPC est en effet statutairement présent dans plusieurs enceintes internationales, dont les
principales :
-l’ONUDC : en étroite collaboration avec le ministère des affaires étrangères et européennes, le SCPC suit la
mise en œuvre, au sein des groupes intergouvernementaux de travail, du mécanisme de suivi et de la
restitution des avoirs provenant de la corruption qui découlent de la convention contre la corruption de
l’ONU du 31 octobre 2003). Le Service participe, avec ses partenaires institutionnels, aux Conférences et
sessions organisées par l’ONUDC dans le cadre de la lutte contre la corruption.
La France a désigné, dans le corps de cette convention, le SCPC comme autorité française habilitée à assister
techniquement les Etats Parties qui le demandent (art. 6-3 convention) ; le SCPC pouvant être considéré par
ailleurs comme étant l’un des « organes spécialisés dans la lutte contre la corruption par la détection et la
répression » prévu par l’article 36 de la convention, organes qui «se voient accorder l’indépendance
nécessaire, pour pouvoir exercer leurs fonctions efficacement et à l’abri de toute influence indue » ;
-L’OCDE : le SCPC participe activement aux travaux de l’OCDE, et en particulier ceux du groupe
corruption et ceux du comité de la gouvernance publique. Le Service effectue des missions à l’étranger
(évaluation, expertise) dans le cadre du programme SIGMA, programme conjoint entre l’OCDE et l’Union
européenne pour développer des programmes de coopération dans les Balkans ;
-le Conseil de l’Europe : le SCPC fait partie de la délégation française au sein du GRECO, le groupe de
travail chargé de veiller à l’application des conventions pénale et civile du Conseil de l’Europe, dont il est de
plus le point de contact français (réseau d’agences contre la corruption) ;
-Le SCPC est associé aux travaux de la Banque mondiale dans le cadre du projet «StAR », consacré au
recouvrement des avoirs issus, notamment, de la corruption, dont la vocation est de prévenir le blanchiment
des produits provenant d’activités illicites et à accélérer la restitution systématique des avoirs volés ;
-Dans le cadre du G20, le SCPC participe, depuis sa création en 2010, avec des représentants du MINEFI et
du MAEE, au groupe de travail du G20 contre la corruption. Le premier rapport du groupe de travail a été
approuvé par les chefs d’Etats au sommet de Cannes (3- 4/11/2011). Le groupe de travail anticorruption, qui
a élaboré en octobre 2012 un nouveau plan d’action pour les années 2013-2014, se consacre notamment au «
refus d’entrée » sur le territoire d’un Etat des officiels (politiques et hauts fonctionnaires) corrompus; à la
protection des donneurs d’alerte; aux marchés publics; aux déclarations de patrimoine, et conflits d’intérêts;
au recouvrement des avoirs (notamment en l’absence de condamnation); à la coopération internationale; aux
rapports avec le secteur privé (B20); et au développement des autorités anticorruption ;
-Le réseau de lutte contre la corruption (EACN) institué par décision du Conseil de l’Union Européenne du
24 octobre 2008 (groupe EPAC, European Partners Against Corruption) : le SCPC a été désigné en qualité
de point de contact français.
B) Les actions de coopération avec d’autres autorités anticorruption
Le SCPC, qui est l’autorité anticorruption désignée par la France conformément aux dispositions de
l’article 6-3 de la CNUCC, est sollicité par d’autres autorités anticorruption pour conduire des actions de
formation. A cette fin, des protocoles bilatéraux de coopération ont été signés et mis en œuvre entre le SCPC
et différentes autres agences.
A titre d’exemples :
-Dans le cadre du protocole de coopération signé le 13 décembre 2011 entre le SCPC et la Commission
Nationale Anticorruption du Cameroun (CONAC), un conseiller au SCPC a effectué, en 2012, une mission
de formation aux techniques d’investigation à Yaoundé (Cameroun). Plus récemment, en avril 2014, des
membres du SCPC se sont rendus à Douala dans le cadre d’une formation consacrée à l’ « Ethique et lutte
contre la corruption dans les entreprises et les multinationales ».
-Un protocole de coopération avec l’Office Anti-fraude de Catalogne (OAC) a été signé à Barcelone le 14
septembre 2012, pour une durée reconductible de deux ans. Ce protocole a pour objet d’élargir et renforcer
la coopération entre les deux agences anticorruption à travers un partage mutuel de l’information sur les
mesures et bonnes pratiques de prévention de la corruption.
D’autres actions sont également engagées par le SCPC.
A titre d’exemples :
-Dans le cadre de l’appui à l’introduction de règles internes concernant le statut du personnel, le rôle, la
gestion et le traitement interne des dossiers de l’Instance Nationale de Lutte contre la Corruption tunisienne,
ainsi que la garantie de leur confidentialité et sécurité, le Conseil de l’Europe a demandé, en 2013, à un
conseiller au SCPC d’animer auprès de l’Instance cinq ateliers et de fournir une assistance méthodologique
et un accompagnement à la mise en place de l’Instance nationale et de la lutte contre la corruption.
-Dans le cadre d’un séminaire consacré à la « Prévention et répression de la corruption, pour une stratégie
d’actions de la Brigade de Lutte contre la corruption concertée avec les autres acteurs ivoiriens », qui s’est
tenu en Côte d’Ivoire, à Abidjan, en septembre 2013, deux conseillers du SCPC sont intervenus lors des
sessions plénières et ateliers de travail sur, notamment, la prévention et la détection de la corruption.
-A la demande du Gouvernement de la République de Saint-Domingue, l’OCDE a conduit du 1er au 5 juillet
2013 une mission d’évaluation de la fonction publique et des services publics de ce pays. Un conseiller au
SCPC a participé, en qualité d’expert d’un Etat membre de l’OCDE à cette mission qui a abouti à la
rédaction d’un rapport à la fin de l’année 2013.
-Dans le cadre d’un programme de coopération romano-suisse (2013-2015), à l’initiative de l’Institut de
Bâle, consacré au « Renforcement des capacités des juges et procureurs roumains dans la lutte contre la
corruption et la criminalité financière », un conseiller du SCPC intervient régulièrement lors de séminaires
portant, notamment, sur les techniques d’investigation, les techniques spéciales d’enquêtes, ainsi que sur
le cyber-crime financier ; le thème du dernier séminaire qui a eu lieu en avril 2014 portait sur la corruption
dans les marchés publics.
Conclusion
Le SCPC, autorité anticorruption au sens de l’article 6 de la CNUCC, est une structure de prévention
complétant le système plus large de lutte contre la corruption. En ce sens, le SCPC ne nécessite pas
d’assistance technique pour appliquer la CNUCC ; à l’opposé, le SCPC offre aux Etats qui le souhaitent son
expertise et sa coopération pour augmenter l’efficacité des dispositifs internationaux de prévention et de lutte
contre la corruption, qui demeure l’un des objectifs majeurs de la communauté internationale.
GEORGIA (SECOND MEETING)
Institutionally strengthened Anti-Corruption Interagency Council
In 2010 the Law on Conflicts of Interest and Corruption in Public Service was amended and the status of the
Interagency Council for Fight against corruption was defined by the Law. Additionally, in 2010 the
composition and capacity of the Council was broadened by the Decree of President on “the Approval of the
Members of Interagency Anti-Corruption Council and the Regulations of the Council”.
GERMANY (FIFTH MEETING)
I - Information requested from States parties in relation to mandates of anti-corruption body or bodies in
respect of prevention (art. 6)
Each State Party shall ensure the existence of a body or bodies that prevent corruption for example by
implementing the policies referred to in article 5 and, where appropriate, overseeing and coordinating the
implementation of those policies or by increasing and disseminating knowledge about the prevention of
corruption (Article 6 para 1).
At the federal level, application of the Federal Government Directive Concerning the Prevention of
Corruption in the Federal Administration of 30 July 2004 ("the Directive") is binding; the Länder have
adopted similar rules. Pursuant to no. 5.1 of the Directive, a contact person for corruption prevention is to be
appointed in all agencies of the federation based on the tasks and size of such agency. This contact person
can be responsible for more than one agency. Contact persons may be charged with the following tasks:
a) serving as a contact person for agency staff and management, if necessary without having to go through
official channels, along with private persons;
b) advising agency management;
c) keeping staff members informed (e.g. by means of regularly scheduled seminars and presentations);
d) assisting with training;
e) monitoring and assessing any indications of corruption;
f) helping keep the public informed about penalties under public service law and criminal law (preventive
effect) while respecting the privacy rights of those concerned.
Each State Party shall grant the corruption prevention bodies the necessary independence to carry out their
functions effectively and free from any undue influence. The necessary material resources and specialized
staff should be provided (Article 6 para. 2).
No. 5.5 of the Directive provides that, in carrying out their duties of corruption prevention, contact persons
are to be independent of instructions. They are to have the right to report directly to the head of the agency
and may not be subject to discrimination as a result of performing their duties.
Pursuant to Article 6 para. 3, each State Party shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of
the name and address of the authority or authorities that may assist other States Parties in developing and
implementing specific measures for the prevention of corruption.
The authority within the meaning of paragraph 3 at the federal level is the Federal Ministry of the Interior
which has the primary competence on corruption prevention within the Federal Government.
ISRAEL (THIRD MEETING)
Raising awareness to the existing and developing anti-corruption policies and practices is crucial to the
fight against corruption as much as the policies and practices themselves. The State of Israel has taken,
inter alia, the following measures for raising awareness with reference to the provisions of Article 5
UNCAC: Knesset (Parliament) Deliberations: As a general matter and according to custom, Knesset
deliberations, both in the plenum and in the separate committees, are open to public viewing, subject to
certain limitations. The television "Knesset Channel" provides live ongoing coverage of deliberations, and
in many cases representatives of a wide variety of public organizations, as well as private citizens, are
invited to attend the deliberations in the various Knesset committees.
The Civil Service Regulations: This collection of regulations and orders applicable to the Civil Service
(referred to herein as the "Takshir") includes, inter alia, prohibitions on gaining personal benefit from
public positions and on operating in conflicts of interest. The Takshir is published on the Civil Service
Commission's website. The Civil Service Law (Discipline), 1963 grants the Civil Service Commissioner
the authority to penalize public officials for any violation of the Takshir, and the Encouragement of Public
Morality in Public Service Law, 1992, provides the framework for encouraging public officials to report
acts of corruption in the public administration. Both these statutes are publicly available.
The State Comptroller Website: The State Comptroller's role is to ensure that the executive branch of the
State acts in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and moral integrity. The
State Comptroller's Website focuses on the State Comptroller's review of the activities of the executive
branch. This reviewing function is defined in the Basic Law: The State Comptroller and is further
described in Part B of this document. The website includes a Complaint Form section, containing an
explanation of the complaint process and how a complaint can be filed. The State Comptroller's Reports are
published annually through the media
and online.
Anti-Corruption Website: A website dedicated to the combat against corruption is currently available in
both Hebrew and English through the homepage of the Ministry of Justice. The anti-corruption website,
which is updated on a regular basis, provides relevant information about corruption fighting methods and
transparency measures, and includes reference to the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Efforts
are being made to incorporate hyperlinks to this website in the websites of a wide variety of public and
private organizations. The address of the anti-corruption website is www.corruption.justice.gov.il.
Anti-Corruption and Anti-Bribery Brochure: The Ministry of Justice has widely distributed, within the
public and private sectors, an informational brochure concerning Israel's domestic and international efforts
to combat corruption. The brochure, which refers, inter alia, to the United Nations Convention against
Corruption, is intended to be a useful tool for the dissemination of information about anti-corruption efforts.
The brochure also includes avenues for reporting suspicions of corruption-related offences and obtaining
more information regarding the prevention of corruption. The brochure is available in Hebrew and English.
Media Campaign: The Ministry of Justice, on several occasions over the last few years, has issued press
releases to major Israeli newspapers and news websites regarding the overall aims of Israel's international
efforts in relation to the struggle against corruption.
Tax Authority Circular: The Israel Tax Authority issued, in January 2011, a Circular entitled "The
Prohibition of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials", reflecting the amendment of Article 32 of the Income
Tax Ordinance, which established the nondeductibility of payments made "in violation of any law" (and
which was enacted on 16 November 2009). The Circular was published on the Israel Tax Authority's
website, and was distributed to all tax inspectors.
ITALY (FIFTH MEETING)
The Italian AntiCorruption system.
Mandates and activities of the Italian National AntiCorruption Authority.
From the Independent National Commission for Evaluation, Transparency and Integrity (CiVIT) to the
Italian National AntiCorruption Authority (A.N.AC.)
The Independent National Commission for Evaluation, Transparency and Integrity (CiVIT) was set up
by the Law No. 15/2009 and further regulated by the Legislative Decree No. 150/2009.
Since its institution in December 2009 CiVIT has been operating in the areas of transparency and integrity
to prevent corruption; improvement and enhancement of performance management; quality of services.
The AntiCorruption Law, Law No. 190, approved by the Parliament on October 31st 2012 and entered
into force on November 28th 2012, qualifies CiVIT as the Italian AntiCorruption Authority, in execution of
the Article 6 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The AntiCorruption Law brings a
comprehensive set of measures aimed to prevent and repress corruption and illegality in the Public
Administration. The Law aligns the Italian legal system to the indications stemming from the main
international instruments to which Italy has subscribed (1997 EU Convention against Corruption, 1997
OECD Convention against Bribery in International Business Transactions, 1999 Council of Europe
Criminal Convention against Corruption, 2003 UN Convention against Corruption – UNCAC) and
implements the recommendations addressed to Italy by the competent OECD and Council of Europe Bodies
on the occasion of the mutual evaluation procedures conducted until now.
Law No. 125, approved by Parliament on October 29th 2013 and entered into force on October 31st 2013,
changed the name CiVIT in A.N.AC. - “National AntiCorruption Authority for evaluation and transparency
of public administrations”.
According to the AntiCorruption Law, A.N.AC. analyses causes and factors of corruption to point out
actions to prevent and fight corruption.
The main functions of A.N.AC. according the AntiCorruption Law are the following: to approve the
National AntiCorruption Plan; to analyze the causes and factors of corruption and identify measures to
prevent it; to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of public administrations’ AntiCorruption
plans31 and the compliance to transparency rules. Regarding these functions, the Law assigns to A.N.AC.
inspection powers: the power to enquire, to demand the exhibition of documents, to command the adoption
of acts as well as the removal of acts and behaviors contrasting with law and with transparency rules.
A.N.AC. also gives optional advices to the state bodies and all the public administrations on the compliance
of public employees with the code of conduct; defines criteria, guidelines and standard models for the code
of conduct regarding specific administrative areas as specification and integration of the general code of
conduct laid down by the Government; reports annually to the Parliament on the activities against
corruption and illegality in the administrations and on the effectiveness of the measures applied.
In addition A.N.AC. cooperates with the corresponding international bodies and in general with
international and foreign bodies in the field of anticorruption to share information and methodologies for the
implementation of anticorruption strategies.
A.N.AC., as the National AntiCorruption Authority, in the execution of the anticorruption inspection
powers assigned by the Law, can use the collaboration of the “Guardia di Finanza” for investigations and
inspections. At the same time, the Authority can request inspections and reports to the Inspectorate of the
Department of Public Administration. A.N.AC. also cooperates with another national body, the National
School of Public Administration (SNA), to plan the training programs on ethics and anticorruption for
public administrations and to share information about the results of the training activities. In general,
A.N.AC. carries on several others agreements with other Italian institution to implement the provisions of
the anticorruption system.
The Authority also carries on relationships with relevant private actors to share information, data,
experiences and practices in the field of transparency and anticorruption. For this purpose, A.N.AC. has
already established a collaborative relationship with the Italian branch of Transparency International and
with World Bank’s experts in anticorruption.
The Anticorruption system in Italy
Law No. 190/2012 constitutes the reference point for policies aimed at fighting corruption and puts into
effect a complex institutional and organizational plan referred to models mainly based on prevention.
31
According to the Anticorruption Law, each entity operating in the public sector is expected to identify areas vulnerable to corruption risk and formulate annually a (rolling) three‐year corruption prevention plan. It applies to both central and local governments. In recognition of possible constraints that local governments could face, the Law provides the possibility for Prefects – the central governments representatives at the local level – to provide the technical support to local authorities in order to prepare their own corruption prevention plans in accordance with the prevailing guidelines. The role of the Prefects is not mandatory but is upon the request of the local authorities.
The AntiCorruption Law brings a comprehensive set of measures aimed to prevent and repress
corruption and illegality in the public administration. It aligns the Italian legal system to the indications
stemming from the main international instruments to which Italy has subscribed (1997 EU Convention
against Corruption, 1997 OECD Convention against Bribery in International Business Transactions, 1999
Council of Europe Criminal Convention against Corruption, 2003 UN Convention against Corruption –
UNCAC) and implements the recommendations addressed to Italy by the competent OECD and Council of
Europe Bodies on the occasion of the mutual evaluation procedures conducted until now.
The law is part of an intense and relevant legislative activity that has reformed the organization and the
functioning of the Italian public administration in recent years. This reform is characterized for having
pursued the objectives of improving the efficiency, the effectiveness and the costs of the administrative
activity, not only through the identification of measures designed to affect the status of a public servant, but
more through the use of instruments to implement, first of all, the diffusion of a culture of evaluation,
quality and transparency, then, the simplification, the digitization and the spending review and, last, the
fight against corruption.
Concerning the general anticorruption model, it should also be noted that in the framework of the
anticorruption regulations, the norms introduced by Law No. 190/2012, find an essential complement in the
Legislative Decrees No. 33 and No. 39 of 2013, to which the law has delegated the implementation of
important principles and guidelines with reference, respectively, to the transparency and to the system of
ineligibility and incompatibility of positions in public administration and in the Presidential Decree No.
62/2013 which sets out the rules of conduct which all public employees under contract must abide by.
The Legislative Decree No. 33/2013, "Reorganization of the regulations concerning the obligations of
publicity, transparency and diffusion of information by public administrations” specifies A.N.AC. powers of
control and inspection on public administrations concerning their duties of data and information
transparency and the activity of the Responsible in charge of transparency.
The Legislative Decree No. 39/2013 provides the rules concerning the absence of conflicts of interest,
both at regional and local level, and the incompatibility between management positions in public
administrations, in bodies under public control, political offices and professional assignments.
Subjects
The anticorruption model is carried out through a complex and particularly articulated pattern of
relationships among multiple actors with different roles - Inter-Ministerial Committee, Government,
Department of Public administration (DFP), National AntiCorruption Authority, Authority for the
Supervision of Public Contracts (AVCP)32, Court of Auditors, Prefects and, within the administrations, the
subject responsible for the prevention of corruption (RPC) and the independent evaluation body (hereafter
called OIV) – and through a capillary system of accountability for the implementation of the anticorruption
measures within each administration.
In this context, significant functions and powers of regulation, supervision and control are attributed to
the National AntiCorruption Authority. Besides the approval of the PNA (see below), the Authority, in
addition to the already existing regulatory powers, has also been called to formulate guidelines for the
preparation of the Three-year Program for Transparency and Integrity, as well as the codes of conduct for
single administrations.
Finally of particular importance, in terms of the effectiveness of the law, is the attribution of powers of
supervision and control over the application and the efficiency of the measures identified in the mentioned
plans and over the compliance with transparency obligations; powers that may materialize in the course of
32
According to the art. 19 of the Law Decree no. 90/2014, the AVCP is suppressed. The tasks and functions carried out by the AVCP are transferred to the National AntiCorruption Authority. inspection activity - through the request of information, records and documents to the administrations - and
may extend to the point of the enactment of an ordinance aimed at the adoption or the removal of acts or
behaviors contrasting the measures under the above plans. In the same logic, the Authority is also the
addressee of the communication by the Prefect of the revocation of the, Secretary of a local authority in
order to verify, within 30 days, if that decision is related to the activities carried out by the town clerk in
prevention of corruption.
Moreover, in the framework of Law No. 190/2012, the Authority has a constant relationship with the
administrations which, first of all, have to appoint the RPC who has the crucial tasks of proposing the
adoption of the PTPC to the political bodies, verifying its correct implementation and its continuing
suitability, as well as of reporting the results of the activity at the end of each year.
It is evident, therefore, that the RPC, in the system of the law, is a central figure, with significant
responsibilities, as well as a privileged interlocutor of the Authority, together with the OIV, which in turn
hold a number of important functions even in the field of the prevention of corruption and, in particular, the
attestation of the fulfillment of the requirements of transparency.
Tools
With Law No. 190/2012, the legislator, establishing a system for combating corruption, focuses on
prevention tools, outlining a framework that is not without complexity due both to the body of tools
introduced, to be integrated with the already existing ones, and to the relations between the various
institutional subjects involved in its implementation.
The prevention of corruption is based on a model of regulation that provides for planning and control
activities, with a “cascade” planning model that affects all levels of government and that is founded on four
instruments - transparency, training, codes of conduct and risk-analysis - which are in part already present in
the Italian public administrations. The National AntiCorruption Plan (hereafter called PNA) is the heart of
this planning model, and each public administration should adopt a Three-year Plan for the Prevention of
Corruption (hereafter called PTCP) using the PNA as the basis to follow with the possibility for local
authorities to be supported by the Prefect. These planning tools assume a fundamental importance in the
system devised by the legislator, as long as the PNA ensures the coordination of national and international
strategies for the prevention of corruption in public administration, whereas the PTCP identifies, on the
basis of the first, the specific risks of corruption in individual administrations and the measures deemed
necessary to prevent them.
The PNA allows for a unified and strategic planning of the activities to prevent and combat corruption in
the public sector and has been calibrated for the pursuit of measurable objectives and for the identification
of specific responsibilities. The PNA is structured as a programmatic tool subjected to an annual update
with the inclusion of indicators and targets in order to make the strategic objectives measurable and to
ensure the monitoring of the possible divergences from these targets arising from the implementation of the
PNA.
The approval by the Authority of the first PNA on September 2013, represented an important and
necessary step in the implementation of Law No. 190/2012 as it created the premises for administrations to
prepare their PTPC.
In order to be effective, the PTPC must contain appropriate targets and adequate measuring indicators
and should be coordinated with other programming tools: the budget, ensuring the financial sustainability of
the interventions needed; the Plan of Performance, which should bring the strategic and operational
objectives chosen by each administration, including the measures to implement the PTPC; the Three-year
Program for Transparency and Integrity and the training Plan.
Appropriate forms of coordination with respect to the other documents required by law are also
necessary, first among all the Three-year Program for Transparency and Integrity and the Codes of conduct
to be observed by public employees.
Transparency
The valorization of the principle of transparency of the administrative action, considered instrumental to
integrity was established by Legislative Decree No. 150/2009. Law No. 190/2012 has integrated this system,
stressing the importance of transparency as a tool for the prevention of corruption, widening the scope of
both the subjective and objective scope, and providing for a code of reorganization of a number of
provisions related to transparency.
In the implementation of the mandate contained in Law No. 190/2012, the Government adopted the
Legislative Decree No. 33/2013 that has reorganized the main publication requirements, not focusing only
on the recognition and coordination of measures already adopted, but introducing new requirements and
further compliances in addition to the numerous ones already existing. It has also extended the substantive
scope of the provisions related to transparency and designed a system of checks and sanctions regarding the
implementation of the mandatory publication.
In addition, the possibilities of a widespread control of the operations of public administrations have been
broadened, with the recognition of the right of “civic access” to be activated by anyone for the publication
of mandatory information and data in case of lack or lateness in compliance by public administrations.
A measure, therefore, that fits within the framework of the maximum diffusion of the transparency of
administrative action as an instrument that, by acting as an effective deterrent of the phenomena of
mismanagement of public resources, ultimately benefits the widespread control and accountability of public
administration.
In the new regulatory framework, the Authority has retained its functions of orientation in terms of
transparency already provided for in Legislative Decree No. 150/2009 and has seen strengthened those of
supervision and control over compliance with the system of transparency, specifically in relation to the
prevention of corruption, even in respect of certain public and private bodies previously excluded from the
list of recipients of the obligations.
The strategy set by the Authority regarding the immediacy of the approval of the law was to emphasize,
in the guidelines, the necessary coordination between the measures of prevention of corruption and those
regarding transparency.
In this perspective, the Authority adopted Resolution No. 50/2013 "Guidelines for updating the Threeyear Program for Transparency and Integrity of 2014-2016" in which the close connections among the
Three-year Program for Transparency, the Three-year Plan for the Prevention of Corruption and the Plan of
Performance were underlined. In addition, in order to support public administrations in the planning of
actions to be performed, some technical annexes on publication requirements in force and the quality of data
to be published were also provided.
The Authority has, therefore, set up and started a supervision on the level and quality of the
implementation of transparency not only with an accompanying perspective, but also to set up ad hoc
measures for adapting the new institutional sites to the new provisions and to identify, in case of significant
deficiencies, internal responsibilities in each agency.
Appropriate activities to direct and control publicly controlled private bodies have been undertaken specifically considered also in Law No. 190/2012 as recipients of specific transparency requirements
(budgets, contracts, permits, authorizations and selection of staff) - and interventions were undertaken to
encourage the application of the norms by the independent administrative authorities, to which Legislative
Decree No. 33/2013 shall apply according their dispositions, and bodies of self-governance of the judiciary
sector subject to the relevant provisions in the AntiCorruption Law.
Incompatibility and Ineligibility of Positions
As mentioned, the norms introduced by Law No. 190/2012, find an essential complement in the
Legislative Decree No. 39/2013, to which the law has delegated the implementation of important principles
and guidelines with reference to the system of ineligibility and incompatibility of positions in public
administration. The Legislative Decree No. 39/2013 has stepped in to regulate the hypothesis of ineligibility
and incompatibility of positions in the public administrations with the clear intention to avoid any form of
interference or confusion between politics and administration in order to prevent corruption and conflicts of
interest or conflict with the constitutional principle of impartiality of administrative action.
The measure is full of innovative though problematic profiles, not only from a technical point of view,
but also because of the awkwardness of the subject. The decree has clarified that while the occurrence of
cases of ineligibility33 involves the permanent or temporary exclusion from assigning offices, the occurrence
of situations of incompatibility34 causes, instead, the obligation, for the person who should be appointed, to
decide, within 15 days under penalty of forfeiture, which of the two positions to keep.
The measure in question, as well as providing a set of definitions to refer to and identifying in detail the
individual situations related to the two cases, addresses the equally important supervision of the proper
application of the law that within public administrations and publicly controlled private bodies is entrusted
to the RPC35. Due to the delicate and relevant role played by the RPC, the legislator has provided that any
revocation of the assignment to the RPC is subject to the mandatory opinion of the Authority that - within
30 days, after which the measure becomes effective - may request a re-examination if there is a correlation
between the revocation and the activities regarding the prevention of corruption. In this context, the
Authority has the general power to supervise the proper implementation of the decree by all its recipients,
also through the use of inspection powers and through the assessment of individual cases. As already stated,
Legislative Decree No. 39/2013, had given an important advisory role to the Authority, to be exercised
through the formulation of opinions, at the request of the administrations and agencies concerned, on the
interpretation of the provisions contained in the decree and on their application to different types of
ineligibility and incompatibility. The first implementation phase of the Legislative Decree No. 39/2013 soon
revealed a number of problems regarding the interpretation and application of its provisions, most likely
caused by the complexity and delicate nature of the content of the issues regulated; problems that have been
promptly reported by those concerned and subsequently addressed by the Authority, which has decided to
adopt "notices" to clarify the major concerns raised by the decree.
33
Ineligibility is verified in the case of conviction of public officials for offenses against the public administration, resulting in
the impossibility of being recipients of top administrative positions and management positions, both internal and external, in
public administrations, public and publicly controlled private agencies on the a national or territorial level. There is therefore
also the possibility of giving positions in national, regional and local administrations to people working for publicly
controlled or funded private bodies and those who have been members of political bodies at national, regional and local
levels. Ineligibility also regards the recruitment of board members for Local health who, in the previous two years, held
political positions or positions in publicly controlled or funded private bodies belonging to Regional Health Services.
34 The situations of incompatibility operate, in order, in the following cases: between assignments and positions in publicly controlled or funded private bodies, and between them and the professional activities; between the executive positions in local public health bodies and members of National regional and local administrations in the same field; between the internal and external executive positions and the positions on National, regional and local boards; between the positions of directors of publicly controlled private bodies and the members of political bodies in the central governments, regional and local administrations; between positions of leadership in local health bodies and the offices of members of political bodies in the central governments, regional and local administrations. 35
The latter, in fact, is required to challenge the emergence of possible situations of incompatibility or ineligibility and report possible violations regarding the guidelines of their respective competence, to the National Anti‐Corruption Authority, the Competition and Market Authority and the Court of Auditors. The choice of the legislator, aimed at increasing the advisory and support activity of the Authority with
respect to public administrations, activity destined to assume a major importance in the phase immediately
after the enactment of Legislative Decree No. 39/2013, however, was later reviewed in the context of a
series of measures containing different provisions. In particular, the already mentioned Legislative Decree
No. 69/2013, converted with amendments by Law No. 98/2013 has established that the Authority may issue
"mandatory" opinions no longer on the needs of administrations and bodies concerned, but "on the
ministerial circulars and directives concerning the interpretation of the provisions" of the same decree "and
their application to the different types of ineligibility and incompatibility of offices" (article 16,
subparagraph 3, of the Legislative Decree No. 39/2013 ). This provision, besides reducing the powers of the
Authority, also threatens to create a legal vacuum because not all of the many interpretative requests of the
single administrations, with a very specific content, can found immediate response in circulars and acts
emanated by the Ministry, which are necessarily of general application.
Conflict of interest
With different aims and norms from incompatibility and ineligibility of positions, the conflict of interest
is regulated in the Italian legislative framework.
Regarding specifically the President of the Council of Ministers, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, State
Undersecretaries and Special Government Commissioners the conflict of interest is regulated by the Law
No. 215/2004, with duties of supervising and control in charge of the Italian Antitrust Authority (Autorità
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato).
More in general concerning the subjective scope, art. 1 , paragraph 41 of Law No. 190/2012 introduces
the art. 6bis “conflict of interest” in the chapter II of Law No. 241/1990 on administrative procedures.
According to the art. 6bis the responsible for the procedure and the holders of the offices in charge of
adopting the opinions, the technical evaluations, the acts occurring within the proceedings and the final
provisions must abstain in case of conflict of interests and must signal every situation of conflict, also
potential.
According to art. 15, subparagraph 2, of the Legislative Decree 39/2913 “the responsible of the
AntiCorruption Plan reports cases of possible violation of the provisions of this Decree to the National
AntiCorruption Authority, to the Antitrust Authority for the exercise of the functions as referred to in the
Law of 20 July 2004, No. 215, as well as to the Court of Auditors, for the detection of any administrative
responsibilities”.
Art. 6 and 7 of the Presidential Decree No. 62/2013 containing the “regulation bringing the code of
conduct of the public employees, pursuant to article 54 of the Legislative Decree No. 165 of 30th March
2001” govern, respectively, “notice of financial interests and conflicts of interest” and “obligation of
abstention” with reference to every potential situation of conflict thus covering even the public procurement
context. Art. 14, paragraph 2 of the Presidential Decree No. 62/2013 governs specifically contracts and the
others negotiating acts stating that the employee does not conclude, on behalf of the administration,
procurement, supply, service finance, or insurance contracts with companies with which the employee has
signed contracts privately or from which he has received benefits in the previous two years with the
exception of those concluded through prescribed forms. In the event that the administration concludes
contracts with companies with which the employee has signed contracts privately or from which he has
received benefits in the previous two years, he must abstain from participating in decision-making processes
and in the activities related to the execution of the contract.
Moreover, the National AntiCorruption Plan, in paragraph 3.1.5 “obligation of abstention in case of
conflict of interest” states that public administrations must undertake adequate initiatives to inform their
personnel about the obligation of abstention and the behavior to follow in case of conflict of interest.
Whistleblowing
With the AntiCorruption Law, the Italian legislator for the first time has introduced an homogeneous
protection for the whistleblower. Before the changes introduced by the AntiCorruption Law, if, on one side,
the subject in question was obliged (ex art. 361 of the Italian penal code) to report to the judicial authority or
to the hierarchical superior a crime of which he had had news in the exercise or due to his functions, on the
other, he had no protection in case of possible retaliations following his report, except for the hypothesis of
illegal dismissal as governed by the art. 18 of the Statute of workers.
This imbalance has been reduced, even if only inside the public administrations, with the introduction of
the art. 54-bis in the Legislative Decree No. 165/2001 according to what provided for by the paragraph 51 of
the Law No. 190. Out of the cases of responsibility for calumny or defamation, the whistleblower protection
has been extended to cover other typologies of retaliations following the report of the alleged misconduct:
demotion, mobbing, transfer and discriminations or similar and the decision about the possible remedies had
been left to the discretion of the judge.
However some critical elements that put in discussion the effectiveness of the protection granted arise. If,
on one side, the guarantee of anonymity (albeit partial) ensured to stimulate the action of the potential
“informer” has been introduced, on the other, still at comma 54-bis is written that the secret on the identity
of the informer can be revealed when “it is absolutely essential for the defense of the accused” that is, in the
majority of cases, in conformity with the legitimate right to defense. Moreover, the prevision of an
autonomous type of offence for those who contravene the provisions of art. 54-bis is missing, with the
consequence of the giving out of the preventive function of the possible sanction. Regarding this last point,
in fact, it is only provided that “the adoption of discriminatory measures is reported to the Department of
Public Administration, to adopt the measures of competence”.
Under these premises, to guarantee more protection to the whistleblower it is necessary for
administrations to consider adequate mechanisms in their Three-year Plans for the Prevention of Corruption
(PTPC). Public administrations are, in fact, required to adopt the necessary practical devices so that the
protection of the employee that reports the alleged misconduct could be effective and the adoption of the
indispensable initiatives is an intervention to be implemented on the basis of the indications coming from
the National AntiCorruption Plan (PNA) predisposed by the Department of Public Administration and
approved by the National AntiCorruption Authority. The first PNA was approved in September 2013.
The PNA provides all the measures that the public administrations should take in their Three-year Plans
for the Prevention of Corruption in 2014: provide different channels for receiving reports; provide reserved
codes for the identification of the complainant; prepare models for receiving reports; establish duties of
confidentiality for all those who receive or become aware of the report.
To this end the PNA recommends the creation of a computerized system for reporting and provides that
the protection of complainants will also be supported by effective awareness, communication and training
through the website of each public administration.
Recent legislative changes
The Law Decree 24th June 2014, No. 90 "Urgent measures for the simplification and administrative
transparency and for the efficiency of the courts”, with norms immediately applicable but that have to be
converted in law by 60 days after the 24th June 2014, introduces new and impacting measures in the
anticorruption system and in the A.N.AC. activities.
Among the most significant interventions intended to sharply affect the fight against corruption in Italy it
must be counted the legislator's choice of anchoring the supervision on public contracts already performed
by the AVCP in the system of corruption prevention outlined by Law No. 190/2013.
The integration of the functions of the two institutions and the consequent extension of the powers of
A.N.AC., in fact, set the conditions to oversee more effectively the scope of the contracts and public
procurement in which nestles a substantial part of the corruption phenomena.
According to art. 19 of the Decree, the AVCP is suppressed. The tasks and functions carried out by the
AVCP are transferred to the National AntiCorruption Authority.
The National AntiCorruption Authority receives information and reports of offences and, unless the act
constitutes a criminal offense, it applies an administrative penalty which can vary from € 1,000 to € 10,000,
in the case the person obliged omits the adoption of the Three-year plans for the prevention of corruption,
Three-year Transparency Programs or Codes of conduct.
In addition, among the other organizational and institutional measures, in order to focus the activity of
the National AntiCorruption on the tasks of transparency and prevention of corruption in public
administrations, the functions of this Authority in the field of measurement and evaluation of performance
are transferred to the Department of Public Administration of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers,
from the date of entry into force of the law of conversion of the decree. The functions of the Department of
Public Administration of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in the field of prevention of corruption
as referred to in art. 1 of Law n. 190/2012, are transferred to the National AntiCorruption Authority.
According to art. 30, tasks of high supervision and guarantee of the fairness and transparency of the
procedures related to the implementation of the works of the EXPO Milano 2015 are conferred to the
President of A.N.AC. .
To this end he avails himself of a special operating unit and, in addition to the tasks attributed to
A.N.AC. in consequence of the suppression of the AVCP, he: verifies, in advance, the legality of the acts
connected to the award and implementation of contracts for works, services and supplies for the execution
of works and activities related to the development of the EXPO particularly with regard to the compliance
with the provisions on transparency and with the agreements on the subject of legality signed with the
Prefecture of Milan; has the powers of inspection and access to databases already attributed to the
suppressed AVCP. The President of the A.N.AC. can also participate in the meetings of the specialized
section of the Committee of coordination for the high supervision of the great works presided by the Prefect
of Milan.
According to art. 32, in the event that the judicial authority processes certain crimes against the public
administration, that is, in presence of detected anomalous situations and nevertheless symptomatic of illegal
conducts or criminal events attributable to a company awarded a contract for the construction of public
works, services or supplies, the President of A.N.AC. proposes to the competent Prefect, either: to order the
renewal of the corporate bodies by replacing the person involved and, if the company does not abide by the
terms established, to provide for the extraordinary and temporary management of the contractor only for the
full implementation of the contract covered by the criminal proceedings; to engage in the extraordinary and
temporary management of the contracting company limited to the complete execution of the contract subject
to criminal proceedings.
This is an innovative and disruptive measure, able to immediately intervene in situations in which
corruption phenomena have arisen to contrast them, and in perspective it can also be a strong deterrent
against behaviors corruption-oriented, performing from this point of view also a preventive function.
The very first application of this norm can be found in one of the EXPO’s procurement <<richiesta di
straordinaria e temporanea gestione della società Maltauro spa con riferimento all’appalto relativo alle
“architetture di servizio” afferenti al sito per l’esposizione universale del 2015 (art. 32 d.l. 24 giugno 2014
n. 90)>>, and could be read at the link http://www.anticorruzione.it/?p=13191.
The complex initiation of the process
The coming into effect of Law No. 190/2012 represents an important moment of discontinuity on the
Italian legislative landscape: the emphasis is on the need to prevent corruption and not only repress it and
also on the fact that the various interventions are part of an integrated policy which must monitor
effectiveness in order to adopt eventual corrective measures.
The organizational problems and implementation difficulties are inevitable in the early stages of any
process of change regarding public administrations. In the specific case of Law No. 190/2012, they have
been intensified by the complexity and scope of this innovative reform which acts upon, among other things,
the delicate sphere of relations between politics and administration. However, it should be noted that the
first steps of this implementation process represent the starting point of a process of compliance to the
principles of law with the aim of improving the integrity of public administrations.
The Authority has intervened to help and stimulate administrations and agencies to implement the
provisions of Law No. 190/2012, to help upon the various interpretative doubts emerged, to overcome the
opposition and the reluctance expressed by many, and to simplify, where possible and allowed by law, all
the fulfillments related to the information flows.
The requests received by the Authority give an image of a public administration that is primarily
concerned about the innovations introduced and sometimes reluctant in assuming responsibility; these
requests are related more to the confirmation of the law and not to acquiring the actual complexities of
interpretation. In short, public administrations sometimes seem adverse to taking risks and often prefer the
formal observance of due terms and procedures rather than the conscious implementation of an effective
policy for the prevention of corruption. This attitude is likely to be accentuated by the increased range of
managerial responsibilities provided for by law and decrees, with the possible and dangerous consequence
that officials react by adopting a purely formal approach and that the administrative procedures become
more cumbersome and slow. To overcome this approach, it is necessary not only to punish deviant behavior
but also to invest in the diffusion of knowledge, communication of best practices and the exploitation of
differences in order to stimulate each administration to program a prevention policy. In this perspective, the
degree of openness of the administration towards the outside can make a difference as well as “targeted”
training but, one year after the entry into force of the law, it is struggling to establish itself.
Although the central role assigned by the legislator to training as a means of preventing corruption, it is
now a missing piece of the mosaic. The activities planned by the National School of Administration (SNA)
can not be said to be going 'up to speed '. Initiatives to support the RPC in the preparation of the PTPC and
those related to other figures of the administrations involved in the areas at risk of corruption are being
launched and have been put in practice, in the operational phase, only by few administrations.
While providing a significant increase in hours of training and assistance during 2014, it is to be
expected, however, that the request of the administrations of targeted training for those who work in areas
particularly exposed to corruption phenomena could be largely unanswered, with the risk of leaving space to
initiatives that are not always coordinated and adapted to the complexity of the needs to be met. In this
perspective the minimum training content that will guide and support the administrations in the selection of
training courses must be at least defined in concordance with the Authority. Technologically advanced
initiatives that expand as much as possible the scope of the training offer should also be promoted.
Inside each administration, moreover, the efficient implementation of policies for the prevention of
corruption also depends on an organizational structure consistent with all of the responsibilities related to
the role that the PRC is expected to perform. In addition to his proper placement in the hierarchy, powers of
control and resources are necessary (in terms of professional competence and information systems) so that
this figure can actually influence behavior and function and not just be a scapegoat.
A necessary condition is, however, a firm commitment by the government bodies entailed in the
definition of clear objectives which are measurable and accountable in the PTPC and a real boost to the
promotion of integrity.
KAZAKHSTAN (SECOND MEETING)
LITHUANIA (FIFTH MEETING)
I - Information requested from States parties in relation to mandates of anti-corruption body or bodies in
respect of prevention (art. 6)
1. Please describe the measures you have taken to implement art. 6 of the Convention. In
particular, States parties may wish to cite and describe measures that:
 Allocate responsibility to a specific body or bodies for the development and implementation of
preventive anti-corruption policies;
Outline the institutional structure and approach in relation to the monitoring and evaluation of the
national anti-corruption strategy or anti-corruption policies;
Outline the scope of the mandate of preventive anti-corruption bodies;
Safeguard the independence of anti-corruption bodies, enable them to carry out their functions effectively
and protect them from any undue influence;
Establish focal points or units within government ministries and departments responsible for the
implementation of anti-corruption policies;
Establish structures to deal effectively with grievances and complaints from citizens, such as an
anticorruption commission, ethics office, auditor general's office, ombudsman office, central
procurement office, etc.
Lithuania has put in place a comprehensive institutional framework to address corruption.
The main anti-corruption body is the Special Investigation Service (STT), an independent
body accountable to the President of the Republic and the Parliament (Seimas), which was
established in 1997 and in 2000 received a broad anti-corruption mandate. In 2000, STT
became an institution independent from the executive branch, accountable to the President
and the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. STT competence includes anti-corruption
education and awareness raising of the public, corruption risk analysis, anti-corruption
programmes and anti-corruption assessment of legal acts or their drafts as well as with pretrial investigation of corruption-related offences, if the above-mentioned measures fail.
Other specialized anti-corruption bodies in the field of prevention of corruption are the Chief
Institutional Ethics Commission (CIEC); the Seimas Anti-corruption Commission (SACC); the
Interdepartmental Commission for Coordinating the Fight against Corruption (ICCFC). It should be
noted that all line ministries and local authorities have an anti-corruption role to play.
Article 12 of the Law on Corruption Prevention of the Republic of Lithuania provides for the
implementation of corruption prevention by the following bodies: the Government, Chief Institutional
Ethics Commission, Special Investigation Service and other state and municipal and non-governmental
institutions.
When implementing this Law, the task of the Government is to ensure that corruption prevention
measures are implemented by the ministries and institutions subordinate to the Government;
allocate the finds necessary for an effective implementation of corruption prevention measures;
together with the Special Investigation Service develop the National Anti-Corruption Programme
and submit it to the Seimas for approval, as well as make proposals as to the amendment of the said
programme; make proposals to the
Seimas as to the enactment and amendment of the laws and other legal acts necessary y fir the
implementation corruption prevention.
When implementing the present Law, the Chief Institutional Ethics Commission is tasked to analyse
ethical problems confronting civil servants, and, seeking to eliminate the factors contributing to a
conflict between public and private interests, make proposals concerning adoption and improvement
of anti-corruption programmes and legal acts; make proposals to the Seimas, other state and
municipal institutions related to the implementation of the provisions of this Law; implement the
corruption prevention measures assigned to it together with the other state and municipal
institutions.
Most of the state and municipal authorities within the scope of their competence implement the
measures set down in the Plan of Measures for the Implementation of the 2011-2014 National AntiCorruption Programme (further — NACP).
In order to ensure effective, targeted and useful implementation, administration and application of
long-term anti-corruption measures in state or municipal institutions, state and municipal institutions
adopt institutional anti-corruption programmes It is noteworthy that state and municipal institutions
regularly (most often at the end of each year) measure the efficiency of the anti-corruption activities
they conduct (e. g. assess the quality and efficiency of measures provided for in the Plans of
Measures of the Implementation of
the anti-corruption programmes approved by their internal legal acts) and provide the public with
information on their anti-corruption activities through the mass media (most often via the Internet).
STT, pursuant to the Law on Corruption Prevention and Law on Special Investigation Service,
together with the Government performs the functions of coordination and control of state and
municipal institutions activities in the area of corruption prevention. For example, STT regularly
assesses how state and municipal institutions implement the measures provided in the Plan of
Measures of the NACP for 2011-2014, Law on Corruption Prevention, their anti-corruption
programmes and provide proposals concerning their improvement. Also STT analyses the efficiency
of anti-corruption activities conducted by state and municipal institutions (e. g. anti-corruption
reports made by the departments of these institutions, etc.) and regularly provides methodical
assistance for the staff of state and municipal institutions performing the functions in the area of
corruption prevention.
Following the practice of many European and world countries, to deal effectively with grievances and
complaints from citizens, the Seimas Ombudsmen's Office was established in Lithuania on 8 December
1994. The Seimas Ombudsmen investigate complaints about the abuse of office by and bureaucracy of
officers or other violations of human rights and freedoms in public administration.
NACP is the main inter-institutional action plan (adopted on 17 January 2002). The revised NACP was
adopted on 16 June 2011 and covers the period_ from 2011 to 2014. At present, a new version of the
NACP is being developed and is envisaged to cover the period from 2015 to 2025.
The NACP is aimed at ensuring an effective and targeted system of corruption prevention and
control of corruption in the Republic of Lithuania. To achieve comprehensive corruption
prevention and control of corruption, anti-corruption programmes adopted by other institutions
must be oriented towards the objectives and goals specified in the NACP. NACP measures should
attain tangible and measurable results (for example, amendments to the existing legal acts
adopted), the NACP specifies clearer criteria of the results (for example, increase of confidence in
state institutions, quick provision of public services,simplification of the procedures for issuing
licences and other administrative requirements laid down in legal acts, public involvement in the lawmaking process, etc.). NACP is developed and its implementation is organised and controlled by the
Government with the participation of the STT. The implementation of the NACP is coordinated and the
control of the implementation of the NACP Plan of Measures is made by the Inter-institutional
Commission. As mentioned before, state and municipal institutions are responsible for the implementation
of the NACP.
2. Please provide information demonstrating the impact of the work conducted by national bodies with
mandates in respect of the prevention of corruption.
In particular, States parties may wish to provide information such as:
 Key conclusions and recommendations from reports prepared by anti-corruption bodies and institutions;
 Results of public perception surveys regarding the effectiveness and performance of the anticorruption body or bodies;
 Results from public awareness surveys of the extent of public knowledge about the prevention
of corruption;
 Key conclusions and recommendations from evaluation reports on the effectiveness and performance
of relevant anti-corruption bodies.
A summary of the STT 2012-2013 performance results on Prevention of Corruption
For STT, it is important to find out the reasons and pre-conditions of corruption, observe changes
and anticipate their impact to be able to implement its functions appropriately. In co-operation with other
public and private sector organisations STT seeks to create and develop an effective corruption prevention
system to be able to detect the systems and procedures contributing to corruption and to eliminate them.
Corruption risk analysis
Corruption risk analysis means an anti-corruption analysis of the activities of a state or municipal
body in compliance with the procedure established by the Government and presentation of motivated
conclusions about the development of an anti-corruption programme and proposals about the content of
the programme. It also includes recommendations concerning prevention measures to state and municipal
authorities that are responsible for their implementation.
During 2012-2013, STT performed corruption risk analysis in the following fields.:
In Vilnius city municipality concerning the administration of social housing
In the area of waste management and administrative monitoring of Vilnius Region
Environmental
Department of the Ministry of Environment
In the area of purchasing hip and knee endoprosthesis by the State Patients ' Fund
In the area of organisation and conducting public procurement as well as implementation
of
corruption prevention measures in a municipality
In the area of issuance of construction and other licences as well as implementation of
corruption
prevention measures in a municipality
In the area of administration and rent of social housing, issuance of licences and permits as well
as
implementation of corruption prevention measures in a municipality
In the area of organisation of social support provision, issuance of licences and permits
and
implementation of corruption prevention measures in a municipality
In the area of organisation of waste management services of one of the municipalities
4
In the area of execution of conditional release procedures by the Prisons Department under
the
Ministry ofJustice and implementation of corruption prevention measures
In the area of administration of immovable state protected cultural heritage of the Ministry of
Culture
and Cultural Heritage Department
Territorial planning and construction permits in six municipalities
Permanent construction commission in one of the municipality
Organisation ofpublic procurement in two municipalities and Customs Department
Administration and use of social housing in Vilnius municipality
Issuance of visas and residence permits in the Migration Department
Customs offices in performing customs clearance procedures at the Customs Department
Waste management services in one of the municipalities
Licensing and monitoring of road transport activities in the Ministry of Transport
Lithuanian fisheries sector in implementing the 2007-2013 action plan by the Ministry of
Agriculture
Public health control and administrative proceedings in a territorial public health centre.
Analysis of
*tutional anti-corruption programmes
The analysis of institutional anti-corruption programmes means examination of anti-corruption
programmes developed and implemented by state or municipal authorities in order to identi)5, their
deficiencies, make proposals on how they should be improved and find out how STT proposals are
followed.
During 2012-2013, STT conducted 37 analyses of anti-corruption programmes and their drafts
developed and implemented by state and municipal authorities. Such analyses include:
33 municipal programmes or their drafts; 3 ministerial programmes (1 of the Ministry of Culture and 2
of the Ministry of Justice); 1 on the Prisons Department.
Anti-corruption assessment of legal acts and their drafts
The anti-corruption assessment of legal acts and their drafts means assessment of the existing or
proposed mechanism of legal regulation from the anti-corruption point of view as well as identification of
shortcomings and preconditions of corruption risk and/or factors.
When performing an anti-corruption assessment STT seeks to assess the impact of legal regulation
on the scope of corruption; identify legal corruption risk factors (loopholes, collisions, insufficiency of
procedures and measures, etc.) and ensure that when a draft legal act is adopted, the possible
consequences of its implementation is taken into account.
The key anti-corruption assessments have been conducted in the following fields:
 Healthcare;
 Public procurement in culture;
 Public procurement in the activities ofpolitical parties;
 Gambling;
 Compensation of real estate;
 Territorial planning;
 Protected territories;
 Social housing;
 Forests;
 Energy;
 Bailiffs
Provision of information about persons
The provision of information about a person is a corruption prevention measure, the purpose of
which is to prevent unreliable persons or those of bad reputation to hold positions in a state or
municipal body, obtain a state award, get access to secret information, purchase shares or longterm assets of public or private companies owned by the state or municipality. During 2012, SIT
submitted information about 1,587 persons and during 2013, STT submitted information about
1,974 persons seeking to hold or holding posts in a state or municipal authorities.
Implementation of National Anti-Corruption Programme (NACP)
When implementing the NACP and its action plan STT implemented the following measures:
submitted overviews to the IACC, Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice; provided assistance to
the National Courts Administration which developed the methodology for assessing the probability of
corruption in judicial activities; summarised information about protection of whistleblowers of
corruption related offices and submitted this information to several state authorities; submitted its
opinion to the Ministry of Environment about collegiate decision-making in approving detailed plans;
submitted its opinion to the Ministry of Justice about integrity testing which would offer opportunities
to develop such practice in civil service, etc.
Seeking to encourage public intolerance towards corruption and inform the public on how to report
potential corruption cases, STT carried out an active awareness raising campaign in 2008-2009,
including:

broadcasting of video clips on the outdoor screens in major Lithuanian towns and on TV;

anti-corruption information stickers on public transport in major Lithuanian towns prompting to
report corruption cases to the S71';

stickers on headrest casings for police cars with the record warning citizens against bribing police
officers;

drawing and essay contest for pupils "The World without Corruption" with the participation of 52
secondary schools and gymnasia;

legal knowledge contest Themis for pupils;

provission of answers by the SIT officers to question related with corruption on the Internet news
portal. This measure was very popular with an increasing growth in the number of questions.
The implementation of these initiatives resulted in the increased number of people who addressed STT: in
2008, compared to 2007 the number of ,filed reports increased by 29 %. The STT encouragement not to
ignore the problem of corruption was noticed by 34,1 % population of Lithuanian cities. Most of these
measures are subject to implementation in the long-run with the achievement of long-term results.
With a view to regularly encourage the public to note and report potential corruption-related cases, STT
officials take part in TV and radio programmes designated for discussing corruption-related issues. Since
2011, the public has been invited to demonstrate its active resistance and intolerance towards corruption
on Facebook. Dissemination of information and anti-corruption ideas in the social network allows
reaching a broad audience and communicating with citizens in an accessible and attractive manner.
3. Please outline actions required to strengthen or improve the measures described above and In 2013,
the Chief Institutional Ethics Commission (CIEC) adopted 116 decisions concerning the conduct of persons
working in civil service. CIEC assessed the conduct of 141 persons and found that 53-of them acted
counter the Law on Adjustment of Public of Private Interests in the Civil Service
any specific challenges you might be facing in this respect.
Examples of the types of challenges States parties may have faced include:
 Coordination challenges between anti-corruption bodies and other government agencies;
 Communication challenges with regard to raising awareness
of the existence, functions and aims of preventive anticorruption bodies amongst the public;
 Implementation challenges with regard to the mandate of preventive bodies due to the
interference of other branches of government; and
 Financial challenges with respect to maintaining sufficient and consistent funding for
preventive anticorruption bodies.
Seeking to improve the coordination of the activity of state and municipal or nongovernmental institutions in
the area of corruption prevention and detection of corruption-related legal acts, the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania set up the Intergovernmental Commission for
the Coordination of Fight against Corruption (further — Commission) by Resolution
No. 179 of 3 February 2003. The main tasks of the Commission are as follows:
- coordination of the outlining and implementation of the National Anti-Corruption
Programme;
 control of the implementation of the Plan of Measures of the Programme and the
activity of state and
municipal or non-governmental institutions in the area of corruption prevention and
detection of corruption-related legal acts;
- deliberation of strategic anti-corruption issues;
 improvement of the activity of state and municipal or non-governmental institutions in the
area of corruption prevention and detection of corruption-related legal acts.
The Lithuanian Government is very proactive in co-ordinating corruption prevention
measures and the activities of different stakeholders in this field.
The state authorities constantly informs the general public about the anti-corruption policy
they pursue and the plan is to use the EU allocations during the periodfrom 2014 to 2020 to
strengthen this field, along with the other corruption prevention measures.
STT takes part in performing co-ordination and supervision functions of activities of
state and municipal institutions in the field of corruption prevention carried out by the
Government. STT participates in the development of the National Anticorruption
Programme by the Government, makes recommendations concerning the amendments
thereto and, together with other state and municipal institutions, implements National
Anticorruption Programme and corruption prevention measures.
4. Do you require technical assistance in relation to the measures described above?
If so, please specify the forms of technical assistance that would be required.
No technical assistance is necessary.
POLAND (THIRD MEETING)
The preventive and educational activity of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau was realized as
follows:
In the field of own activity the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau gives precedence to anticorruption measures. Thus, it takes part actively in various seminars and conferences held in
this specialist field. Within own competence the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau has realized
anti-corruption measures by the following means:
1) Organization of trainings for governmental, self-governmental institutions as well as
employer's organizations.
a) In 2010 there were held 21 trainings for 700 participants.
b) In 2011 there were held 531 trainings for 12,280 participants.
2) Preparation and publishing of the following publications:
a) The Anti-Corruption Bulletin — a popular science periodical
b) The Anti-Corruption Handbook for Civil Servants
c) The Anti-Corruption Handbook for Entrepreneurs
d) 2010 Performance Report, 2011 Performance Report
e) The Post-Conference Material. The 1st International Anti-Corruption
Conference 0 The Institutional Anti-Corruption Activities in the World
g) The Anti-Corruption Institutions in the Chosen States
h) Anti-Corruption Recommendations on Public Procurement Procedures
i) In English: The Anti-Corruption Bulletin, The Anti-Corruption Handbook for
Entrepreneurs and Anti-Corruption Recommendations on Public Procurement
Procedures.
3) Conferences and other preventive activities:
a) In 2008:
In December there was activated an anti-corruption web site with the educational and
informational background. The web site is available under the name of "Service for
Anti-Corruption Education" at: www.antykorupcja.edu.pl. Its main objective is to
realize and support activities promoting behaviours combatting corruption. The web
site provides extensive material and documents devoted to the issue of corruption and
fighting against it. Furthermore, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau cooperated with
many institutions and non-governmental organizations, dealing within their activities
with acts of corruption, such as: the Stefan Batory Foundation, Transparency
International Poland, the Institute of Public Affairs, the Sobieski Institute and the
World Bank. The representatives of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau also took part
in many conferences and seminars organized by external entities and devoted to the
issue of corruption, such as a series of meetings within the project "Little Poland
without corruption".
b) In 2009:
The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau took part in the research project "The
problematic nature of anti-corruption strategy and anti-corruption activities in Poland"
which was a part of another larger project "The prevention and fighting against
organized crime and terrorism in conditions of secure, increasing and sustainable
social-economic development".
c) In 2010:
Beside educational activities, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau also took part in
governmental undertakings under the auspices of the Ministry of Interior and
Administration, such as in preparatory works for "The Governmental Programme on
Prevention of Corruption". Moreover, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau cooperated
with the Ministry of Finance during preparatory works for "The Anti-Corruption
Programme of Customs Service 2010-2013+". The main objective of these
undertakings was to make preparations for the effective strategy with the intention of
preventing corruption and organized crime as well as analysing effective methods of
fighting with these forms of crime. The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau continued
working within the project "The prevention and fighting against organized crime and
terrorism in conditions of secure, increasing and sustainable social-economic
development". Within the project the analysis of jurisdiction in corruption crime and
the comparative research in national anti-corruption politics were carried out. An
invitation of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau to take part in this project accepted
the representatives of the scientific environment (University of Gdansk, Jagiellonian
University in Krakow, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, University of Silesia
3
in Katowice, the Institute of Justice and the Institute of Public Affairs). Within the
cooperation eight research reports and analyses with regard to current legal
regulations were prepared. Furthermore, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau took
part in meetings and seminars devoted to the topic of anti-corruption issues and
simultaneously took own initiatives in this field. During the conference, directed at
the representatives of non-governmental organizations, the Central Anti-Corruption
Bureau presented own experience in the field of prevention, disclosure and fighting
against corruption. In relation to International Anti-Corruption Day observed
annually on 9 December the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau jointly with the
Chancellery of the Prime Minister organized a conference to which an invitation was
extended to the representatives of governmental agencies, non-governmental
organizations, partner services (from Lithuania, Latvia and Romania) as well as
officers accredited in Poland. Moreover, there was organized the anti-corruption
model-lesson for pupils of the 6th class at the primary school in the headquarters of
the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau. This lesson was carried out by experts of the
Kosciuszko Institute in the framework of the educational campaign "With small
steps... towards the civil society". The Bureau also cooperated with such institutions
and non-governmental organizations as: the Stefan Batory Foundation, Transparency
International Poland, the Institute of Public Affairs and the Sobieski Institute.
d) In 2011:
On the occasion of International Anti-Corruption Day the Central Anti-Corruption
Bureau organized the 2nd Anti-Corruption Conference with the support of the
Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland and the Directorate-General
(Home Affairs) of the European Commission. The meeting under the name of "Good
practises within supporting transparency in the public and private sector
The 2'd
Anti-Corruption Conference" offered the next forum for integration and debate among
various services and institutions interested in wide-ranging prevention and fighting
against corruption. The conference was held in the Presidential Palace for 200 invited
guests
the representatives of institutions and organizations dealing with prevention
and fighting against corruption in Europe
and had an international character owing
to the participation of the representatives of anti-corruption institutions settled in many
states, e.g. in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary and Great Britain. On 8
October the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau organized the panel debate under the name
"Anti-corruption challenges within public administration and business" during
4
the conference "The 3rd Generation Gdansk Science and Technology Park.
Energetics, biotechnology, commercialization
also from the perspective of
persons threatened by social exclusion". On 15 April the Central Anti-Corruption
Bureau took part in the seminar "Good practises by carrying out and
implementation of public procurement" during "Europoltech 2011 - International
Fair of Technology and Equipment for the Police and National Security Services".
Moreover, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau organized own exhibition stands
during the events "Europoltech 2011 International Fair of Technology and
Equipment for the Police and National Security Services" and "Security Research
Conference 2011". Apart from these undertakings the Central Anti-Corruption
Bureau prepared the e-book and audiobook publication available on web sites
edited by the Bureau. On 9 December the Head of the Central Anti-Corruption
Bureau announced a contest for the best master/doctoral thesis regarding wideranging topic of corruption (contest rules are available on the
web site of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau
www.cba.gov.pl).
Furthermore, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau took part in preparatory works
for governmental programmes, such as "The Governmental Anti-Corruption
Programme 2012-2016" and stated an opinion on it. Opinions were also given on
other projects, such as the strategy "Better Government 2011-2020". The Central
Anti-Corruption Bureau also edited two web sites with preventive character:
www.antykorupcja.edu.pl (with the web site on Facebook) and
www.
antykorupcj a. gov .pl
4) Further information:
a) Infoline - there has been activated phone number, free of charge, to report acts of
corruption (800-808-808)
b) Convention of the Consultative Council by the Head of the Central AntiCorruption Bureau (2 February 2011)
c) Participation in the Consultation Group "The National Integrity System" (NIS)
by Transparency International
d) Application for the European Union funding of "The Prevention and Crime
Fighting Programme"
e) Publishing other material relating to the topic of the prevention of corruption, e.g.
stickers, folders, bookmarks.
MEXICO (FIFTH MEETING)
Elementos de la Secretaría de la Función Pública en atención al
requerimiento de información en materia de "mandatos del órgano o los
órganos de lucha contra la corrupción en lo que respecta a la prevención
(artículo 6)", formulado por la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores en el
marco del Grupo de Trabajo Intergubernamental de Composición Abierta
sobre Prevención de la Corrupción.
En referencia a la fracción 1 del artículo 5 de la Convención de las Naciones
Unidas Contra la Corrupción, que a la letra señala "1. Cada Estado Parte, de
conformidad con los principios fundamentales de su ordenamiento jurídico, formulará
y aplicará o mantendrá en vigor políticas coordinadas y eficaces contra la corrupción
que promuevan la participación de la sociedad y reflejen los principios del imperio de
la ley, la debida gestión de los asuntos públicos y los bienes públicos, la integridad, la
transparencia y la obligación de rendir cuentas:: esta Unidad de Políticas de
Transparencia y Cooperación Internacional informa lo siguiente:
Tema: Transparencia
Para el Gobierno de la República, la transparencia y rendición de cuentas
son un principio fundamental de la gestión administrativa, por tal motivo, el
12 de julio del 2010 se publicó el ACUERDO por el que se emiten las
Disposiciones Generales para la Transparencia y los Archivos de la
Administración Pública Federal y el Manual Administrativo de Aplicación
General en las materias de Transparencia y de Archivos (MAAGMTA), el cual
permitió generar procedimientos homólogos en materia de acceso a la
información y de transparencia. No obstante, a partir del 2011 se incorporó al
citado manual el tema de archivos, con lo cual se estableció una estrategia
integral en materia de transparencia que actualmente opera de manera
transversal en las dependencias y entidades de la Administración Pública
Federal.
Asimismo, con la publicación del Programa de Mediano Plazo denominado
"Programa para un Gobierno Cercano y Moderno" (PGCM) en agosto de 2013,
se atiende la emisión de la estrategia transversal para un Gobierno Cercano y
Moderno, establecida en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2013-2018, el cual
tiene como propósito incentivar un gobierno eficiente que permita que las
políticas y los programas de la administración 2013-2018 se encuentren
enmarcadas en la estrategia para lograr un gobierno orientado a resultados, que
optimice el uso de los recursos públicos, utilice las nuevas tecnologías de la
información y comunicación e impulse la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas.
La estrategia 1.4 Mejorar la transparencia de la información socialmente útil de la
APF, contenida en el PGCM, tiene como propósito acercar el gobierno a la
ciudadanía y facilitar la búsqueda y localización de información socialmente
útil, buscando que la política de Transparencia Focalizada del Gobierno de la
República tenga como objetivo la publicación de información clara, veraz,
oportuna y confiable que permita a los ciudadanos mejorar la toma de decisiones
diaria y con ello, evitar riesgos o solucionar algunos problemas públicos.
Dentro de los resultados obtenidos durante 2013, se implementaron acciones en el
marco del PGCM y del MAAGMTA, las cuales operaron en las 246 dependencias y
entidades de la Administración Pública Federal que cuentan con Unidad de Enlace
propia, resultado que a diciembre de 2013 el 100% de ellas contaba con un espacio
específico en sus portales web institucionales a través del cual se publica información
de alto impacto ciudadano, privilegiando la utilización de formatos abiertos y
aplicaciones digitales que faciliten su consulta.
Cabe destacar que en el 2013 se encontraron disponibles más de 908 temas
socialmente útiles, lo que representa un incremento de 22% con respecto al 2012; así
como 424 bases de datos en formatos abiertos o reutilizables (31% más que el año
2012).
Además con el propósito de contribuir a consolidar un gobierno más eficaz en el
logro de sus objetivos, así como para sentar las bases para la implementación de
sistemas de administración automatizados, el 8 de abril de 2013, la Unidad de
Políticas de Transparencia y Cooperación Internacional de la Secretaría de la
Función Pública participó en el proceso de revisión de los Manuales
Administrativos de Aplicación General, particularmente, en el de materia de
Transparencia y de Archivos, mismo que fue emitido en 2010.
Derivado de un análisis integral de dicho documento, en conjunto con el Archivo
General de la Nación y el Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información y
Protección de Datos Personales, se determinó fortalecer el conocimiento de dicho
instrumento entre los servidores públicos de las dependencias y entidades de la
Administración Pública Federal que lo aplican, con lo cual se llevaron a cabo
acciones de capacitación sobre las materias del Manual los días 6, 7 y 8 de agosto de
2013, en la que participaron 368 servidores públicos.
Con estas acciones, el Gobierno de la República ha establecido las bases de una
nueva generación de la transparencia, donde las políticas no giran únicamente en
torno al cumplimiento del derecho de acceso a la información, sino también, en torno
a la necesidad de fomentar la confianza, el interés y la participación ciudadana en la
construcción de una relación de colaboración más cercana entre el gobierno y la
sociedad.
Tema: Participación Ciudadana
Nueva iniciativa: Medida de Participación Ciudadana para la consulta al sector
privado y a la sociedad civil, para la toma de decisiones gubernamentales.En el
marco del Programa para un Gobierno Cercano y Moderno, publicado el 30 de
agosto de 2013, la Unidad de Políticas de Transparencia y Cooperación
Internacional impulsa la adopción de una medida de participación ciudadana en el
Gobierno Federal dirigida a establecer un mecanismo de consulta de las instituciones
de la Administración Pública Federal hacia el sector privado y la sociedad civil, con el
fin de mejorar la toma de decisiones gubernamentales. Los objetivos específicos de
esta medida son:
Abrir canales de consulta en las instituciones de la Administración Pública
Federal hacia sus grupos estratégicos del sector privado y de la sociedad civil.
Garantizar el análisis y la atención de la Administración Pública Federal a las
propuestas del sector privado y de la sociedad civil.
Fortalecer la rendición de cuentas de la Administración Pública Federal a
sus grupos estratégicos del sector privado y de la sociedad civil.
La medida consiste en fortalecer la consulta de las instituciones del gobierno hacia el
sector privado y la sociedad civil a partir de dos posibles vías, dependiendo de la
institución:
a)
Si la institución carece de órganos colegiados en los que participe la
sociedad, la medida consiste en la realización de un Ejercicio de Participación
Ciudadana (EPC). Un EPC es una sesión de información y diálogo con
actores del sector privado y de la sociedad civil estratégicos para la
institución, con la finalidad de informarles sobre el desempeño de la
institución y recabar sus propuestas de política pública, con el compromiso de
brindar una respuesta institucional a cada una de dichas propuestas.
b)
Si la institución ya cuenta con órganos colegiados con participación de la
sociedad, por ejemplo consejos consultivos, la medida consiste en garantizar
que la institución brinde una respuesta institucional a cada propuesta que
emane de los representantes de la sociedad.
Esta medida es de carácter selectivo, lo que significa que aplica específicamente en
las instituciones del Gobierno Federal que ofrecen servicios de manera directa a la
sociedad (personas, empresas, organizaciones), las que operan programas de desarrollo
social y las que brindan apoyos económicos a organizaciones de la sociedad civil. De
esta manera, la medida de Participación Ciudadana aplica en 210 instituciones del
Gobierno Federal.
La periodicidad de la medida es anual, siendo el 2014 el primer año de
instrumentación, por lo que los primeros resultados se verán reflejados en el
cuarto trimestre de este año. Es importante mencionar que la guía establecida
por la Unidad de Políticas de Transparencia y Cooperación Internacional para
instrumentar esta medida en el Administración Pública Federal, contempla en su
marco de alineación precisamente a la fracción 1 del Artículo 5 de la Convención
de las Naciones Unidas Contra la Corrupción.
Tema: Ética en el Sector Público
En materia de ética en el sector público, la Unidad de Políticas de Transparencia y
Cooperación Internacional determina acciones transversales en la Administración
Pública Federal dirigidas a fortalecer la ética e integridad en el sector público.
Dichas acciones están orientadas específicamente a dos aspectos:
1. El normativo a través de la implementación, seguimiento y evaluación de los
Lineamientos Generales para el establecimiento de acciones permanentes que
aseguren la integridad y el comportamiento ético de los servidores públicos en el
desempeño de sus empleos, cargos o comisiones (Lineamientos de Integridad y
Éticas).
2. Capacitación a través de la sensibilización sobre la importancia del Estado de
Derecho y la Cultura de la Legalidad en la vida de los servidores públicos.
Lineamientos de Integridad y Ética
En el artículo 113 del Título Cuarto de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos
Mexicanos se establece que el ejercicio de la función pública debe apegarse a los
principios de legalidad, honradez, lealtad, imparcialidad y eficiencia.
Por su parte, la Ley Federal de Responsabilidades Administrativas de los Servidores
Públicos en su Título IV, denominado "De las acciones preventivas para garantizar
el adecuado ejercicio del servicio público", señala que las dependencias y entidades
deberán instrumentar acciones permanentes para delimitar las conductas que en
situaciones específicas deberán observar los servidores públicos en el desempeño de
sus empleos, cargos o comisiones.
En ese tenor, el 6 de marzo de 2012 en el Diario Oficial de la Federación se
publicaron los Lineamientos Generales para el establecimiento de acciones permanentes
que aseguren la integridad y el comportamiento ético de los servidores públicos en el
desempeño de sus empleos, cargos o comisiones (Lineamientos de Integridad y Ética).
Con la publicación de este instrumento normativo se busca fortalecer, uniformar e
impulsar la política de ética pública en la Administración Pública Federal
propiciando un mejor seguimiento y evaluación del tema así como el intercambio de
mejores prácticas. Con ello, se pretende alcanzar los siguientes objetivos:
1. Establecer las bases conforme a las cuales se implantarán acciones
permanentes para identificar y delimitar las conductas que en situaciones
específicas deberán observar los servidores públicos en el desempeño de sus
empleos, cargos o comisiones.
2. Que los servidores públicos conozcan, comprendan y vivan los valores y
principios del Código de Ética de la Administración Pública Federal, y que
cuenten con instrumentos normativos (Códigos de Conducta) que los
orienten sobre la conducta que se espera de ellos en situaciones
específicas.
3. Lo anterior, con el fin de desarrollar mecanismos de autorregulación en los
servidores públicos como medida de prevención de la corrupción.
Dentro de las acciones que las instituciones deben realizar para el cumplimiento de los
Lineamientos citados, destacan las siguientes:
1.
2.
3.
Contar con un Comité de Ética, órgano de consulta y asesoría especializada
integrado al interior de cada una de las dependencias y entidades de la
Administración Pública Federal, así como la Procuraduría General de la
República, para coadyuvar en la emisión, aplicación y cumplimiento del
Código de Conducta en cada institución.
Contar con un Código de Conducta en cada institución, que oriente el actuar de
los servidores públicos, alineados al Código de Ética de la APF.
El Comité de Ética deberá elaborar e implementar un Programa Anual de
Trabajo para que, entre otras actividades, difunda los valores contenidos en el
4.
Código de Ética y en el Código de Conducta y, en su caso, deberá recomendar
a los servidores públicos de la dependencia o entidad, el apego a los mismos.
El Comité de Ética deberá evaluar el cumplimiento anual del impacto del
Código de Conducta en la institución.
Resultados 2013.
1.
2.
3.
4.
88% de las instituciones que corresponden (276) cuenta con un Comité de
Ética y han elaborado o actualizado su Código de Conducta.
81% instituciones cuentan con un Comité de Ética en concordancia con los
Lineamientos de Integridad y Ética.
94% instituciones cuentan con un Código de Conducta elaborado o
actualizado de acuerdo a los lineamientos.
64% instituciones realizaron su evaluación anual 2013 del cumplimiento del
Código de Conducta y cuentan con resultados.
Curso sobre Cultura de la Legalidad.
Por otro lado, de manera conjunta con el National Strategy Information Center
(OSC especializada en promover la Cultura de la Legalidad), la Secretaría de la
Función Pública desarrolló un curso sobre cultura de legalidad para servidores
públicos. Este curso brinda a los servidores públicos los conocimientos y habilidades
necesarios para resolver satisfactoriamente dilemas éticos desafiantes que pueden
presentarse en sus actividades cotidianas.
Entre otros objetivos, el curso:
1. Sensibiliza sobre la importancia del Estado de Derecho y la cultura de la
legalidad en la vida de los servidores públicos como profesionales, miembros
de familia y ciudadanos.
2. Desarrolla habilidades de toma de decisiones, solución de problemas y
razonamiento legal y moral para que los servidores públicos logren
identificar y dar solución a dilemas éticos desafiantes de una manera
satisfactoria.
3. Busca que los servidores públicos comprendan que siempre es posible actuar
para promover el cambio a favor de una cultura de la legalidad.
Resultados 2011-2014
1.
La Policía Federal incorporó en su Programa Rector de Profesionalización,
como una de las materias de su tronco común, la formación inicial en "Cultura
de la Legalidad".
2.
Cuadro resumen de los servidores públicos capacitados en las
instituciones que implementaron el curso:
Servidores públicos capacitados en Cultura de la Legalidad en
la Comisión Federal de Electricidad, Procuraduría General de la
República, Secretaría de la Función Pública, Instituto de
Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales y Órganos
Internos de Control 2011-2014
No. De servidores
SFP,
públicos
INDAABIN Total
CFE
PGR
capacitados en CL
y OIC
2011
1,122
No aplica
572
1,694
2012
7,229
9,788
3,194
20,211
2013
774
774
Sin
Sin
información información
20
20
2014
Sin
Sin
información información
Total
8,351
9,788
4,560
22,699
Nota: Las instituciones que instrumentaron el citado curso,
lo realizaron por iniciativa propia.
En la actual administración, se continuarán con las labores de promoción en estos
temas con nuevos impulsos. En este sentido destaca el Programa para un Gobierno
Cercano y Moderno, el cual incluye la Estrategia 1.2 "Promover una cultura de la
legalidad que aumente la confianza de los mexicanos en el gobierno y prevenga la
corrupción", dentro de la cual se subraya las siguientes líneas de acción:
1.2.1 Actualizar los instrumentos normativos y de autorregulación que
construyen el marco de ética de los servidores públicos.
1.2.2 Establecer mecanismos de coordinación de acciones en materia de cultura
de la legalidad entre los distintos poderes y niveles de gobierno.
1.2.3 Desarrollar programas, plataformas e instrumentos de formación
permanente de servidores públicos sobre principios éticos.
Como se puede observar, el Programa para un Gobierno Cercano y Moderno
contempla enfáticamente la promoción de la cultura de la legalidad a fin de
fortalecer la confianza de los mexicanos en sus instituciones y prevenir la corrupción.
Proyectos de integridad en los Sectores público y privado entre el Gobierno de
México y la ONUDD.
En 2011 el gobierno de México, en asocio con la Oficina de las Naciones Unidas
contra la Droga y el Delito iniciaron el desarrollo de los siguientes proyectos:
— GLOX30 Asociación Público-privada para la Probidad en el sector
público.
— GLOX32: Incentivos a la Integridad Corporativa y la Cooperación en
conformidad con la Convención de las Naciones Unidas contra la Corrupción
Estas Iniciativas de Integridad implementadas simultáneamente con el mismo modelo
en México y la India forman parte de un esfuerzo de parte del sector privado
transnacional de concientizar, promover y compartir la integridad y las mejores
prácticas relacionadas en la materia en países de renta media con pujantes economías.
El objetivo de estos proyectos es poder promover la corresponsabilidad y participación
activa tanto del sector público como del privado en la lucha contra la corrupción. Sobre
todo, los incentivos legales y prácticos con los que cuentan las empresas para abonar
a la prevención de la corrupción desde su campo de acción.
Los participantes en dichos proyectos, por parte de México son los siguientes:
Gobierno Federal –Secretaría de la Función Pública; Gobierno del
Distrito Federal – Contraloría General Gobierno del Estado de Puebla –
Secretaría de Finanzas y Administración Sector Privado – Confederación de
Cámaras Industriales de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y el Pacto Mundial
– Capítulo México-.
La implementación del proyecto se desarrolló en tres fases principales
que se complementan e interrelacionan:
1. Revisión
legal
sobre
los
incentivos
legales
en
México,
identificando principales áreas de oportunidad sobre las que se
deban generar capacitaciones.
2. Desarrollo de indicadores para la aplicación de una Línea
Base que dimensione la problemática dentro de la población a
capacitar.
El 5 de marzo de 2014, el Representante de la Oficina de Enlace y
Partenariado en México de la Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la
Droga y el Delito (ONUDD), presentó los resultados de los proyectos
"Iniciativas de Integridad en el Sector Público y Privado en México"
acompañado de todas las contrapartes involucradas.
Parte de los resultados presentados incluyen un diagnóstico legal de las
contrataciones públicas que estudia los marcos normativos tanto de la
Federación como del Estado de Puebla y del Distrito Federal. Asimismo,
se explora en un reporte de proyecto el marco legal de los incentivos legales
para la integridad corporativa en estos mismos órdenes de gobierno. Cada
uno se complementa con dos líneas base sobre la percepción y las
necesidades de capacitación en áreas clave para prevenir y combatir la
corrupción.
3. Estrategia
de
Capacitación
que
permita
fortalecer
los
conocimientos y las habilidades de los actores involucrados,
reduciendo así las posibilidades de corrupción.
En el marco de la presentación de resultados el representante de la
ONUDD anunció la serie de capacitaciones en estas áreas estratégicas, que
se estarán implementando en el periodo de Marzo a Mayo del 2014 como
parte de los proyectos, con programas curriculares diseñados
específicamente para cada contraparte tanto del sector público como del
privado, a continuación el calendario de capacitaciones:
INICIATIVAS
DE
INTEGRIDAD
EN
MÉXICOLPO
UNOD
CALENDARIO DE CAPACITACIONES
México Fecha
Contraparte
Horario
Sede de Capacitación
Participantes
de
CANAIVE
7
de
32
10:00 a 18:00 Cámara Nacional de
(Sector privado)
marzo de
la
Industria
del
participant
PACTO
74
de
Tecnológico
27 y 28 de
8:30 a 16:00
MUNDIAL
participant
Monterrey,
Campus
marzo de 2014
(S
t
S
F
CMIC
Del 5 al 9 de
8:30 a 14:00
Instituto de Capacitación Por impartir
a 20
mayo
por (Sector privado)
de la Industria de la
Capacitadores
Construcción
29d yfi30i de mayo CONTRALORÍA D.F.8:30 a 14:00
Museo Franz Mayer (por Por impartir a
de 2014
(Gobierno del
confirmar)
120
Distrito Federal)
Operativos Áreas d
Compras
Del 9 al 13 de
junio
por definir
PUEBLA
(Gobierno Estatal)
9:00 a 13:00
15:00 a 19:00
Del 16 al 20 de
junio
por
SFP
(Gobierno Federal)
8:30 a 16:00
Contralores Interno
Auditorio de la SecretaríaPor impartir a
Finanzas y Administración 160
del Estado de Puebla,Operativos y Mand
Medios
Tecnológico
de Por impartir a
Monterrey
Campus 120
Operativos y Mand
Medios
Son notables el esfuerzo y la voluntad que cada uno de los actores de ambos
sectores han demostrado en este reconocimiento de responsabilidad compartida
para un México más íntegro y productivo.
Elementos de la Procuraduría General de la República, como parte de las
Medidas adoptadas para aplicar el artículo 6 de la Convención de las Naciones
Unidas contra la Corrupción.
La Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) cuenta con la Visitaduría
General, que es el órgano de evaluación técnico-jurídica, supervisión, inspección,
fiscalización y control de los agentes del Ministerio Público de la Federación, de
los agentes de la Policía Federal Ministerial, de los oficiales ministeriales, de los
peritos y de los demás servidores públicos de la Institución, en lo que se refiere
a las funciones que realicen como auxiliares del Ministerio Público de la
Federación, además de ser el órgano de investigación de los delitos en que
incurran36.
La Visitaduría realiza sus funciones verificando que dichos servidores públicos
cumplan con sus obligaciones de procuración de justicia e investigando a los
servidores públicos de la Institución que se presume han cometido conductas
irregulares en su actuación. Para ello, se cuenta con mecanismos de detección
(atención de quejas y denuncias, visitas de evaluación técnico-jurídica,
supervisión, inspección, fiscalización y control), de investigación (expedientes,
actas circunstanciadas y averiguaciones previas) y un mecanismo de sanción que
se da a través de los procedimientos de remoción.
Específicamente para reducir los actos de corrupción al interior de la
Procuraduría, la Visitaduría lleva a cabo los siguientes procesos:
36
Artículo 21 de la Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República.
• Recibir e investigar las quejas y denuncias que se formulen en contra de
los agentes del Ministerio Público de la Federación, agentes de la Policía,
oficiales ministeriales y peritos por posibles conductas que constituyan
causa de responsabilidad administrativa. Determinar la suspensión
temporal del servidor público sujeto a investigación, cuando aparezcan
datos que hagan presumir la posible comisión de una falta administrativa
grave.

Practicar visitas de inspección, supervisión, seguimiento, investigación y de
evaluación técnico jurídica a las unidades administrativas y órganos de la
Institución, con la finalidad de verificar que los servidores públicos
ajusten su actuación a la Constitución, leyes en la materia, y a los principios
de
certeza,
legalidad,
objetividad,
imparcialidad,
eficiencia,
profesionalismo, honradez, lealtad, disciplina y respeto a los derechos
humanos.

Emitir instrucciones y recomendaciones técnico-jurídicas que subsanen las
deficiencias detectadas durante las visitas practicadas, así como verificar su
observancia y seguimiento.

Formular queja, vista o denuncia, según corresponda, por las conductas
probablemente constitutivas de responsabilidad administrativa o penal de
los servidores públicos de la PGR, de las que tenga conocimiento con
motivo de las visitas e investigaciones que practique.

Integrar expedientes de investigación procedentes de las quejas y denuncias
que se formulen en contra de los agentes del Ministerio Público de la
Federación, agentes de la Policía, oficiales ministeriales y peritos por
posibles conductas que constituyan causa de responsabilidad administrativa.

Instruir los procedimientos de remoción de servidores públicos que
cometan conductas calificadas como graves, y cancelar su certificado de
servidores públicos de la Institución.

Integrar averiguaciones previas cuando los delitos sean cometidos por
servidores públicos de la PGR con adscripción en el Distrito Federal y
servidores públicos con mandos medios a superiores y homólogos.

Ejercer la facultad de atracción de los delitos cometidos por servidores
públicos competencia de las Delegaciones, cuando resulte procedente
atendiendo los criterios siguientes: por las circunstancias personales de los
servidores públicos involucrados, por la presunción de parcialidad en la
investigación, por el impacto institucional, nacional, regional o social que
ocasione el delito; cuando el probable beneficio exceda de cinco mil veces el
salario mínimo y cuando las circunstancias y características del delito así lo
ameriten.
La actuación de los servidores públicos de la Visitaduría General, así como las
atribuciones y facultades de las áreas que la conforman, están reguladas por la Ley
Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República (LOPGR), su Reglamento y
los acuerdos A/100/0337, A/106/0438, A/210 /1039 firmados por el C. Titular de la
PGR, y publicados en el Diario Oficial de la Federación.
MOROCCO (FIFTH MEETING)
Question :
Mesures
prises
pour
appliquer
l’article
6
de
la
CNUCC
Réponse : En application de l’article 6 de la CNUCC et en vertu du décret du 13 mars
2007, il a été créé une Instance Centrale de Prévention de la Corruption auprès du
premier ministre. La dite Instance a pour missions de coordonner, de superviser,
d’assurer le suivi de la mise en œuvre des politiques de prévention de la corruption et de
diffuser
les
informations
dans
ce
domaine.
Elle est composée d’une Assemblée plénière, d’une commission exécutive, d’un
Président et d’un Secrétaire Général et ce, Conformément aux dispositions de l’article 3
de
son
décret
de
création.
L’Assemblée plénière dispose d’une composition tripartite comprenant les représentants
des départements ministériels, les représentants de la société civile et les représentants
des
associations
professionnelles.
Elle est chargée notamment, de proposer au gouvernement les principes directeurs d’une
stratégie nationale de prévention de la corruption ainsi que les mécanismes à mettre en
place pour lutter contre ce phénomène. Elle est également compétente pour évaluer les
actions menées en vue de prévenir la corruption (article 4 du décret de l’ICPC). Le
président de l’ICPC est nommé par le chef du gouvernement pour une durée de 6 ans non
renouvelable. Les membres de l’Instance sont également nommés par le Chef du
gouvernement pour une durée de 4 ans, renouvelable une seule fois.
Hormis le règlement intérieur et le budget de l’Instance qui sont soumis à l’approbation
du chef de gouvernement, toutes décisions sont prises de manière indépendante au sein de
l’Assemblée plénière, et ce conformément à l’article 7 du décret de l’ICPC.
Par ailleurs, à la lumière des dispositions de l’article 8 du décret susmentionné qui charge
la commission exécutive de développer des actions de coordination et de concertation
entre les administrations concernées par la prévention de la corruption, l’Instance a
37
Acuerdo número A/100/03 del Procurador General de la República, por el que se establecen las normas de evaluación técnico‐jurídicas, así como los lineamientos que deberán seguir los servidores públicos adscritos a las unidades administrativas de la Visitaduría General, para el desempeño de sus funciones. 38
Acuerdo número A/106/04 del Procurador General de la República, por el que se crea la Fiscalía Especial para el Combate a la
Corrupción en la Institución (FECCI).
39
Acuerdo número A/210/10 del Procurador General de la República por el que se adscribe la Fiscalía Especial para el Combate a la
Corrupción en la Institución a la Dirección General de Delitos Cometidos Por Servidores Públicos de la Institución.
procédé à des partenariats avec des institutions dont notamment, le Ministère de
l’Habitat, de l’Urbanisme et de l’Aménagement de l’Espace, le Ministère de la santé suite
à une étude dans le domaine sur la corruption, l’Inspection Générale des Finances,
l’office des changes. Ces partenariats portent sur l’échange des informations et sur des
études sectorielles liées au phénomène de la corruption.
Il est signaler, qu’en conformité avec le dernier alinéa de l’article 2 du décret précité,
l’Instance est compétente pour réceptionner et transmettre à l’autorité judiciaire, les
plaintes portées à sa connaissance.
A cet effet, l’ICPC et le Ministère de la justice ont établi un guide fixant les modalités de
traitement et de transmission des plaintes. De plus, un portail « Stop corruption » dédié
aux plaintes relatives aux PME a été mis en place au sein de l’Instance.
Il est à noter que dans le cadre d’une mise en œuvre adéquate de l’article 6 de la CNUCC,
la constitution de 2011 a confié à l’Instance Nationale de la Probité, de la Prévention et
de la lutte contre la Corruption, ainsi dénommée, des prérogatives à la fois de prévention
et de lutte, tout en élargissant son champ d’intervention à tous les actes de corruption
énoncés dans son article 36.
Sur cette base, un projet de loi relatif à l’Instance Nationale de la Probité, de la
Prévention et de la Lutte contre la Corruption a été élaboré par l’ICPC et se trouve
actuellement en cours d’approbation.
NIGERIA (FIFTH MEETING)
ARTICLE 6- PREVENTIVE ANTI-CORRUPTION BODY OR BODIES
In Nigeria, the measures to prevent corruption are anchored in specific institutions and
their enabling laws as well as in several administrative measures embedded in the
mandate of other institutions which are not core anti-corruption agencies. The major
anticorruption institutions with prevention mandates include the Independent Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), The Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission-(EFCC), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the Bureau
of Public Procurement (BPP), the Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(NEITI), The Public Complaints Commission, The Office of the Auditor-General of the
Federation, and the Technical Unit on Governance and Anti-Corruption Reforms
(TUGAR).
This report will capture the specific mandates and activities of some of these agencies
under the following specific headings:
1. The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission
ICPC.
Mandate and Responsibility: The ICPC was set up by the Corrupt Practices and
Other Related Offences Act 2000 as a specialized agency to combat corruption.
ICPC has three main statutory mandates: Enforcement, Prevention and Education.
Section 6 of the Act encapsulates the statutory mandates of the Commission in relation
to prevention as follows:
[b] To examine the practices, system and procedures of public bodies and
where, in the opinion of the Commission, such practices, systems or procedures
aid or facilitate fraud or corruption, to direct and supervise a review of them ;
[c] To instruct, advise and assist any officer, agency or parastatals on ways by
which fraud or corruption may be eliminated or minimized by such officer,
agency or parastatals;
[d] To advise heads of public bodies of any change in practices, systems or
procedures compatible with the effective discharge of duties of the public bodies
as the Commission thinks fit to reduce the likelihood or incidence of bribery,
corruption, and related offences;
[e] To educate the public on and against bribery, corruption and related
offences; and
[f] To enlist and foster public support in combating
corruption
Institutional Structure and Preventive activities:
The Commission has nine departments and six units - including departments of
Education, Public Enlightenment and Planning, Research and Review. It has 805 staff
and is funded through annual Federal budgetary allocation. The Commission trains its
staff every year and has established a training academy.
Activities:
i.
The Commission in collaboration with the National Educational and
Research Development Council [NERDC] commenced the National
Values Curriculum [NVC] initiative aimed at infusing national ethics
and values in the nation's educational system. The curriculum was fused
into selected five thematic school subjects in basic one to nine and 12
subjects in post basic education and tertiary level i.e. colleges of
education. Work is in progress to extend NVC to the Polytechnics and
Universities.
2
ii.
The Commission in 2003 inaugurated 300 anti-corruption clubs in
secondary schools nation-wide and Anti-corruption vanguards in the tertiary
institutions.
iii.
The Commission established the National Anti-Corruption Volunteer
Corps, [NAVC] which has registered about 12, 000 members. The Commission's
collaboration with the civil societies culminated in the formation of National
Anti- Corruption Coalition [NACC] which has registered 350 civil societies.
iv.
The Commission has also carried out systems study and review in 25
government institutions. Further with the support of the UNDP and in
collaboration with other agencies the Commission has trained and certified 69
Corruption Risk Assessors and carried out pilot assessment in the Port Sector in
Nigeria.
v.
The Commission has carried out massive sensitization programmes on
the radios and television by way of jingles and documentaries and has also carried
out Town Hall Meetings to sensitize grass root population about corruption.
Sensitization is also carried out through posters, newsletters and popular theatre
(drama).
vi.
The Commission has created a platform called 'Governors' forum' where
Governors as guest lecturers share their experiences on how they instil
transparency and probity in governance, and prevent corruption.
Independence of the Commission
The Act safeguards the independence of the Commission and enables it to carry out its
functions effectively, protecting it from any undue influence. Section 3 [10] of the Act
provides that the Chairman and members of the Commission shall not be subject to any
authority in the discharge of their functions except as provided by the Act. The Act also
guarantees the security of tenure for the Chairman and members of the Commission. The
Chairman is appointed for five years by the President upon confirmation by the Senate.
The members are also appointed for four years by the President subject to the approval
of the Senate. The Chairman and the members can only be removed by the President
with the support of 2/3 majority of the Senate.
Impact of Work: The Commission has not carried out a nation- wide public perception
survey of its performance. However, in 2007 a survey on the perception of the
Commission was carried out amongst the 91 workshop participants from six local
43
government councils from five States. Majority of the participants felt that the
enforcement efforts of the Commission were adequate but more efforts should be
directed to prevention, particularly awareness raising and education. Majority also
commended the establishment of Anti-Corruption and Transparency Units (ACTUs) in
the MDAs and recommended that if properly utilized, it can substantially reduce
corruption in the public sector.
Outreach and nexus to other public institutions implementing anticorruption
policies: In 2003, the Commission established Anti- Corruption and Transparency and
Monitoring Units [ACTUs] to serve as focal point of the Commission in Ministries,
Department and Agencies [MDAs]. ACTUs are to perform all the duties of the
Commission except prosecution. It shall report to the Commission and send copies of
its report to the Minister or Permanent Secretary. However where the Minister or
Permanent Secretary is involved, report is made directly to the Commission. In 2001
and 2003, the Head of Service of the Federation issued circulars to all the MDAs to
establish ACTUs and ensure its successful implementation. The MDAs are also to
provide funds for the operations of the unit. The Commission's Chairman pursuant to
section 7 [1] and 70 of the Act made a standing order for the operations and the code of
conduct for the members of the unit. So far ACTUs have been set up in 384 MDAs. The
Commission also appoints desk officers to monitor and liaise with the ACTUs.
However the initiative is faced with some challenges. These include hostility toward
members of the unit by their parent body. Sometimes, ACTUs members suffer
harassment, malicious transfers, suspension and even dismissal. The Commission
always looks into such cases whenever they arise. In addition, presently, ACTU is only
present in the Federal MDAs. To make its operation holistic there is need to replicate it
in all the MDAs in the States.
Citizens reporting, Complaint and redress: The Commission receives petitions or
complaints from the public by hand, post, e- mail, hotlines, toll free lines, web-site.. The
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission- (EFCC). The EFCC is set up under the
Economic and Financial Crimes (Establishment) Act and has the primary mandate to
investigate financial crimes. However, section 6(e) of the Act enjoins the EFCC to 'adopt
measures to eradicate the commission of economic and financial crimes' while section
6(f) of the Act provides as follows: "the adoption of measures which include coordinated
preventive and regulatory actions---." Further section 6(p) of the Act provides 'Carrying
out and sustaining rigorous public and enlightenment campaign against economic and
financial crimes within and outside Nigeria'.
Mandate and Responsibility: The 5 EFCC has the mandate to investigate,
eradicate and prevent economic and financial crimes and related offences.
Institutional Structure and Preventive activities: The EFCC carries out several
of its preventive activities through the Enlightenment and Reorientation unit
under the Public Affairs department. The department is specifically charged to
develop and drive the preventive anti-corruption policies of the Commission.
Further the EFCC carries out prevention activities with the private sector, in
particular the financial sector in respect of activities to prevent money
laundering.
Independence: The EFCC accesses annual budget from the Federal
Government and executes its mandate independently and reports to both the
Executive and the National Assembly. The Chairman and Board of the EFCC
are appointed by the President with the ratification of the Senate but may be
removed by the President without recourse to the Senate for "inability to
discharge the functions of office, (whether arising from infirmity of mind or
body or any other cause), or for misconduct or if the President is satisfied that
it is not in the interest of the Commission or the interest of the public that the
member should continue in office."
Outreach and nexus to other public institutions implementing anti-corruption
policies: On the platforms of its Public-Private Sector Initiative Programme (PPSIP),
the E&R unit has carried out numerous anti-corruption sensitization campaigns in
Ministries, Departments and Agencies. Among the MDAs visited by the Commission
include: the Ministry of Transport, the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), the National
Airspace Management Agency (NAMA) the National Directorate of Employment
(NDE), the West African Examinations Council (WAEC), the National Examinations
Council (NECO), the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG). At the sensitization
campaign sessions, the Commission urges the MDAs to set up in-house anti-corruption
units, where they do not already have an Anti-Corruption Unit (ACTU) established by
the
ICPC.
Citizens reporting, Complaint and redress: The EFCC receives petitions or complaints
from the public by hand, post, e- mail, hotlines, toll free lines, and via the web- site.
3. The Bureau of Public Procurement is established by the Public Procurement Act
2007.
Mandate and Responsibility: The Bureau has the mandate to harmonize existing
government policies and practices on public procurement and ensuring probity,
accountability and transparency in the procurement process. The Bureau's mandate as
stated in Part II Section Five (5 (a) to (s)) of the Public Procurement Act 2007 are as
follows:
(a) Formulate the general policies and guidelines relating to public sector
procurement for the approval of the Council;
(b) Publicize and explain the provisions of this Act:
(c) Subject to thresholds as may be set by the Council, certify Federal
procurement prior to the award of contract;
(d) Supervise the implementation of establishment procurement policies;
(e) Monitor the prices of tendered items and keep a national database of standard
prices;
(f) Publish the details of major contracts in the procurement journal;
(g) Publish paper and electronic editions of the procurement journal and maintain
an archival system for the procurement journal;
(h) Maintain a national database of the particulars and classification and
categorization of federal contractors and service providers;
(i) Collate and maintain in an archival system, all federal procurement plans and
information;
(j) Undertake procurement research and surveys;
(k) Organize training and development programmes for procurement
professionals;
( l) Periodically review the socio-economic effect of the policies on procurement
and advise the Council accordingly;
(m) Prepare and update standard bidding and contract documents;
(n) Prevent fraudulent and unfair procurement and where necessary apply
administrative sanctions;
(0) review the procurement and award of contract procedures of every entity to
which this Act applies;
(p) Perform procurement audits and submits such report to the National Assembly
bi-annually;
Introduce, develop, update and maintain related database and technology;
(q) Establish a single internet 67 portal that shall, subject to section 16 (21)
(r)
to
this
Act serve as a primary and definite source of all information on government
procurement containing and displaying all public sector procurement
information at all times; and
Co-ordinate relevant training programs to build institutional capacity;
Institutional Structure and Preventive activities:
i)
Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Strengthening
The BPP developed a procurement manual and implementing regulations; as well as
National Standard Bidding Documents (NSBDs) for the procurement of goods, works and
consulting services. The NSBDs were revised and strengthened in 2011; following which
the World Bank issued a statement to the Federal Ministry of Finance, indicating that it
had no objection to the use of the NSBDs under World Bank-financed projects in Nigeria
for National Competitive Bidding (NCB). The NSBDs are now available on the BPP web
portal. However, there is need to enforce the use of the NSBDs by all MDAs.
As a result of the current regulatory framework, public procurement policies and practices
have shown some improvements. The BPP now publishes large federal government
contract awards in the media twice a year. They are also posted on its website. Adoption
of the Public Procurement Law has resulted in an increased demand for accountability by
the public especially by the CSOs. BPP continues to disseminate all public procurement
documents to stakeholders through the National Orientation Agency and the BPP
Website.
The BPP continues to engage with, and encourage State Governments to adopt and
implement the Act, as only state government projects which receive up to 35 per cent
funding from the Federation account are subject to the Public Procurement Act, 2007.
Fourteen State Governments have so far passed into law their own versions of the PP
Act.
ii)
Procurement Training and Capacity Building in the Federal Public Service
The activities in this sub-component include the professiona lization of the procurement
function in the federal public service and continuous capacity-building to enable
effective implementation of the procurement law. It also includes the strengthening of
the procurement training capacity of identified local training institutions through
"training of trainer programs" and strengthening the capacity of existing procurement
professional
bodies.
Public service capacity to effectively and efficiently manage public expenditure has been
significantly strengthened with the creation of a Procurement Professional Cadre in the
federal public service. The Cadre has been recognized and gazetted by the Federal Civil
Service Commission in collaboration with the Head of Service. The BPP has finalized a
comprehensive strategy for procurement capacity-building for this procurement
professional cadre and continues to provide specific procurement training for this cadre
of staff. However, not much has been done in the area of strengthening of the
procurement training capacity of identified local training institutions and strengthening
the capacity of existing procurement professional bodies. The BPP is also in the process
of recruiting a consultancy firm to design and develop the qualifications, structure,
curriculum and assessment methods for use by the local training institutions to engage in
public procurement training.
iii) Procurement Awareness and Capacity Building of Non-Government Actors
This sub-component focuses on strengthening the understanding of non-government actors
on the role of procurement monitoring in the fight against corruption, building their
capacity to demand for good procurement behaviour from public officials and putting in
place mechanisms for tracking, observing and assessing stakeholder compliance to the
implementation of the public procurement process and regulations in Nigeria.
Impact of Work: Results of public perception surveys regarding the effectiveness
and performance of the anti-corruption body or bodies: the Bureau in recognition of
the need for a survey on the public perception of her activities, commissioned the
Nigeria Institute of Social Economic Research (NISER) to carry out a research on the
Social and Economic Effects of Public Procurement Policies in Nigeria. Further, the
Bureau's annual report addresses the Key conclusions and recommendations from
reports prepared by anti- corruption bodies and institutions. (copy attached).
Outreach and nexus to other public institutions implementing anti-corruption
policies: As stated above the Bureau has established a professional cadre within the
Federal Civil Service and is building the capacity of this cadre to ensure transparent,
effective and efficient public procurement.
Citizens reporting, Complaint and redress: Key structures to deal effectively with
grievances and complaints from citizens include:





Compliance, Certification and monitoring Department
Legal unit
Feedback Section on the BPP's website.
E-mail: infoabpp.gov.ng
Phone calls: 096252377-9
9
8
 Official Letters
4. The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)
The CCB was set up pursuant to the Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1999
Constitution and the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 15 LFN.
The aim and objective of the CCB "shal be to establish and maintain a high
standard of morality in the conduct of government business and to ensure that
the actions and behaviour of public officers conform to the highest standards of
public morality and accountability".
Mandate and Responsibility: The CCB has the following functions: a) receive assets
declaration by public officers, b) examine the assets for compliance with the Act and
any
other law, c) receive complaints about non-compliance, d) prevent conflict of interest by
public officers in carrying out their duties including making regulations for receiving
gifts, e) prevent bribery and abuse of powers by public officers. A key function of the
CCB is to prevent and sanction illicit enrichment through the asset declaration and
verification regimen. Further , Assets declaration serves as a veritable instrument in the
prosecution of cases by other anti-corruption agencies
Institutional Structure and Preventive activities: The Code of Conduct Bureau operates
Board-Management-staff structure. The Board which is made up of chairman and eight
(8) full-time members is charged with full policy making and oversight functions while
the Secretary interfaces between the Board and Management. The Bureau currently
comprises of eight Departments, namely:
i.
Federal Political Office Department
ii.
Federal Public Service Department
iii.
State & Local Governments Department
iv.
Human Resources Management Department
v.
Finance & Accounts Department
vi.
Intelligence, Investigation & Monitoring Department
vii.
Education and Advocacy Services Department
viii.
Legal Department.
The Bureau has offices in Thirty-six (36) States and FCT. The activities of the Bureau
at the Local Government Areas are co-ordinated by respective state offices.
The Investigation Department is an operational arm of the Bureau made up of three (3)
Units namely:
(i)
Intelligence Unit;
(ii)
Monitoring Unit; and
(iii)
Investigation Unit.
Thus, the investigative process put in place to ensure this Constitutional
responsibility include:
> Administration of Assets Declaration by Public Officers.
> Conference and field Verification of Assets declared.
> Tracing of Assets of public officers identified to be funded from proceeds of
corruption.
> The Petition Screening Committee, a body made up of the Board, Management,
specialist operatives in various fields of investigation with powers to evaluate
petitions and invite public officers for interrogation on alleged breach of the code
of conduct for public officers.
> Intelligence gathering such as:
(i)
Institutional intelligence gathering focused on the patterns and behaviours of
public officers.
(ii)
Systemic intelligence gathering which deals with identification of leakages in the
operations of Agencies that could be exploited by corrupt public officials.
(iii)
Individual intelligence gathering dealing with breach of the Code of Conduct for
public officers for instance the Bureau has evolved a method of placing public
officers involved in high public donations and affluent life styles above their
income under watch.
Independence: The CCB is provided for in the Constitution and therefore enjoys
independence in its operations and activities. The Chairman and Board of the CCB
enjoy security of tenure enshrined in the Constitution. They are appointed by the
President with the confirmation of the Senate and can only be removed from office with
the confirmation of a 2/3 majority of the Senate.
Outreach and nexus to other public institutions implementing anti-corruption
policies: Declaration of assets is mandatory for all public officers. Failure to do so is
prosecuted at the Code of Conduct Tribunal —a special court to try offences under the
Code of Conduct and Tribunal Act. .CCB activities include overt and covert visits by
10
operatives to MDA's to monitor the Conduct of Government Business to ensure they
comply with Code of Conduct for public officers. Please see Annex 1 for description of
Public Officers as provided in the Constitution.
5. The Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative - NEITI is the
Nigerian subset of the global EITI and works to ensure transparency and
accountability in revenue receipts and expenditure form the extractive sector. NEITI
carries out its functions through a physical, process and financial audit of the
extractive sector.
6. The Office of the Auditor-General for the federation is provided for in the
Constitution and has the mandate to audit all public accounts of the Federation. He
submits his reports to the National Assembly and enjoys security of tenure provided
for in the Constitution.
7. The Public Complaints Commission created by the Public Complaints
Commission Act is the ombudsman and addresses issues of administrative injustice.
The Commission reports to the National Assembly and has offices in the thirty- six
states of the federation.
8. Technical Unit on Governance and Anti-Corruption Reforms —TUGAR:
TUGAR was set up to respond to the critical need for a dedicated institution to
monitor anticorruption and Governance initiatives, evaluate both the structures and
their outputs for impact, access public feedback, and generate empirical data which
will feed into the policy framework, and enable reforms.
It ensures data -policy nexus using results derived from monitoring and evaluation
tools such as research, surveys and studies. TUGAR activities also facilitates
coordinated data and synergy within the government anti-corruption initiatives on
one hand and initiatives driven by the private sector and other non-state actors such
as Civil Society Organizations, on the other hand.
TUGAR is the Secretariat of the Inter-Agency Task Team [IATT] comprising the core
anti-corruption agencies as well as institutions with transparency and accountability
mandates. TUGAR carries out its mandates through research and surveys. Research
activities carried out by TUGAR include
i.
ii.
A scoping Survey and mapping of anti-corruption initiatives and activities
in Nigeria (Who is Doing What?)
A Gap and Compliance Analysis of anti-corruption initiatives in Nigeria
12 African Union Convention for Preventing
(Using
UNCAC,
The11
and Combating Corruption and the ECOWAS Protocol against Corruption
as benchmarks).
iii.
A Gap Analysis of the Public Finance Management System at the Federal
level and States (Using UNCAC, The African Union Convention for
Preventing and Combating Corruption and the ECOWAS Protocol against
Corruption as benchmarks)
iv.
Corruption Risk assessment of the Port Sector in Nigeria (In collaboration
with BPP and ICPC).
CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE PREVENTIVE
MEASURES Coordination:
The Coordination challenges between the anti-corruption agencies are being addressed
through the mechanism of the Inter-Agency Task Team (IATT) and regular meetings
between the heads of agencies. However the challenge of coordination of policies with
other government agencies remains. Some of the issues include resistance to reforms
and under funding of the internal anti -corruption and transparency units (ACTUs) as
well as hostility towards, and victimization of ACTU members within the public
agencies.
Communication challenges with regard to raising awareness of the existence,
functions and aims of preventive anti-corruption bodies amongst the public:
Public awareness activities require a lot of funding and limited resources impact on the
scope and intensity of the programs.
Implementation challenges with regard to the mandate of preventive bodies due to
the interference of other branches of government:
Institutional resistance, political interference at MDAs, ignorance and unwillingness of
officials to comply with the provisions of the law are some of the challenges faced in
executing preventive mandates.
Financial challenges with respect to maintaining sufficient and consistent funding
for preventive anti-corruption bodies:
Inadequate financial resources are recurring complaint among all the relevant agencies.
The ACAs are canvassing that funding of anti-corruption work should be based on first
line charge on the Consolidated Revenue of the Federation. This will serve to reduce the
dependence on the Executive arm for funding the ACAs.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS
Identified technical assistance needs include capacity building both in terms of human
resources and technical and operational equipment as well as monies to carry out specific
activities.
PAKISTAN (FIFTH MEETING)
1. MANDATES OF ANTI-CORRPUTON BODY OR BODIES IN RESEPCT OF
PREVENTION (ART.6)
(a),In pursuance of Article-6 of UNCAC, related to prevention of corruption, the following facts
are required to be elaborated.
1) Mandate of Anti Corruption body or bodies in respect of prevention.
2) Measures taken up by National Accountability Bureau
3) Impact of the work done under prevention
The above mentioned points are discussed in light of Bureau's legal framework i.e
National Accountability Ordinance 1999, as under:-
(b). Mandate of Anti Corruption body or bodies in respect of prevention:
National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was established in November 1999 under
National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 as an apex anti corruption agency.
The mandate of Bureau was to carry out prevention exercise vide section 33C of NAO
1999, in addition to enforcement operations. Section 33 C provides the following legal
mandate to Chairman NAB to achieve the desired goals. The same is reproduced as
under:
33C. Prevention measures taken by the Bureau:
The Chairman NAB, shall from time to time as he deems fit, constitute committees
comprising officers of the NAB or other persons or organization from the private or
public sectors to:
a. Educate and advise public13 authorities, holders of public office and the
community at large on measures to combat corruption and corrupt practices;on
the detrimental effects of corruption and corrupt practices and the importance of
maintaining the integrity of public administration;
c. Examine the laws in force, and also rules and regulations relating to the practice
and procedure of various ministries, departments of the Federal Government or
Provincial Government, statutory or other public corporation or bodies, and the
conduct of holders of public office and to recommend amendments in such laws,
rules or regulations, as the case may be, in order to eliminate corruption and
corrupt practices;
d. Instruct, advise and assist any statutory or other public corporation or bodies or
upon request, any organization in the private and public sector on measures for
the reduction and elimination of corruption and corrupt practices; and
e. Monitor the implementation of the instructions and advise as aforesaid and to
assess and evaluate the success or otherwise of such instructions and advise on the
reduction and elimination of corruption and corrupt practices.
1.
Measures taken by NAB to implement prevention:
(1) The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has taken following measures to
implement the mandate of prevention:
a. Awareness and Prevention Division of NAB has been allocated responsibility for
the development and implementation of preventive anti corruption policies.
b. The National Anti Corruption strategy (NACS) project was conceived by NAB.
To implement this strategy, all stakeholders are regularly being approached to
undertake work as per instructions.
c. Rules and procedures of regulatory bodies are studied in coordination with
stakeholders to make them more effective, transparent and implementable.
2- (A) In exercise of powers enshrined in section 33C, the Chairman NAB has constituted 18
Prevention Committees in order to look into the Regulatory mechanism so as to prevent the
chances of Corruption and corrupt practices. The detail is given below:(a). NAB- Headquarters
(Federal Level)
1)Mandate.
P
Reformation in all 27 lunctions of NIH as mandated in its
r
Act/Ordinance
e
vention Committee on Capital Development Authority
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Prevention Committee on Ministry of Religious Affairs
Prevention Committee on Agriculture and National Food Security
Prevention Committee on procurement (HQ and Regions)
Prevention Committee on Media
Prevention Committee on Civil Services Reform
Prevention Committee on Reformation of Regulatory Mechanism (HQ and Regions)
Prevention Committee on National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination
SUB COMMITTEES
Sub-Committee No. 1- (Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan) Mandate.
Reformation in the following Division of DRAP:
(a). Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluations and Registration (b)
Division of Controlled Drugs
Sub-Committee No. 2- (Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan)
Mandate.
Reformation in the following Division of DRAP;
Division of Costing and Pricing
Sub-Committee No. 3- (Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan)
Mandate.
(a).
(b).
(c).
Reformation in the following Division of DRAP
Division of Drug Licensing
Division of Quality Assurance and Laboratory Testing
Division of Pharmacy Services
Sub-Committee No. 4- (Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan)
Mandate.
(a).
(b).
Reformation in the following Division of DRAP
Division of Health and OTC Products (Non-drugs).
Division of Medical Devices and Medicated Cosmetics
Sub-Committee No. 5- (National Institute of Health (NIH)
Sub-Committee No. 6- (National Program)
Mandate.
(a).
(b).
(c).
(d).
Reformation in the following Areas/Divisions:Federal Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI)
National TB Control Programme
National Aids Control Programme
Directorate of Malaria Control
(e).
(f)
Tobacco Control
Any other related program
Sub-Committee No. 7- (Tibb & Homeopathy)
Mandate.
(a).
(b).
Reformation in the following Areas/Divisions:Tibb Sector
Homeopathy Sector
Sub-Committee No. 8- (PMDC & FCPS)
Mandate.
(a).
(b).
Reformation of the following:Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (Administrative, Jurisdiction and
Ordinance)
Fellow of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (FCPS)
Sub-Committee No. 9- (ICT Hospitals)
Mandate.
(a).
(b).
(c).
(d).
(e).
Reformation in the following Areas/Divisions:PIMS Hospital (Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences)
Polyclinic Hospital
NIRM (National Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine)
Federal Government Hospitals Services
Human Organ Transplant
(b). NAB (Punjab)
(a). Prevention Committee on Housing Societies
(b). Prevention Committee on Fraudulent Practices in Banking Sector
(c).
NAB(Sindh)
(a). Prevention Committee on Revenue Department
(b). Prevention Committee on Health Department(d). NAB (KPK)
(1).
(2).
(3).
Prevention Committee on Curriculum Change
Prevention Committee on Internal Controls in Provincial Departments
Prevention Committee on Projects Management by Provincial Departments
(4) Prevention Committee on FATA affairs
(e). NAB (Baluchistan)
(1).
Prevention Committee on Excise & Taxation Department
(2).
Prevention Committee on Food Department
2- (B) Prevention in Procurement Regime (1) Vide Section 33B of NAO 1999, all
government department (Federal/provincial) are bound to provide the copies of contracts of
value of Rs. 50 million or above the NAB.
(2) In order to carry out prevention exercise in public procurements and contracts as per section
33B, Chairman NAB has approved prevention framework to look into the pre-procurement
regime. In the subject exercise, violations of rules pertaining to the public procurement are
monitored from initial stage of procurement planning, preparation of specifications, bid
evaluation criteria till the award of contract. Necessary instructions are issued where needed and
in case of serious violations (s), the procuring agencies are directed to scrap the procurement
process and start the procurement process, denovo.
(3) During subject process following principles of prevention are taken care of:
(a).
(b).
(c).
(d).
Prevention must be a stimulus to efficiency and not vice versa
Prevention measures must not result in slower delivery or creating
complications
Speed, simplicity and effectiveness are to be the watchwords.
Good governance and prevention must never be confused. Good governance is
doing things and Prevention is making regulators to hold firmly to the norms
and good practices.
(4) Under pre-procurement, regime time is essence and prevention steps must be taken before
act of corruption has happened. NAB has to come in the area of 'about to happen'
vigorously.Impact of Work Done under Prevention: In pre-procurement and post
procurement
exercise,
National
Accountability
Bureau
has
monitored/scrutinized different projects involving huge amount and ensured to get the best
value of money through transparency and fair play. The activity is summarized as under:
Summary of the Projects monitored at Pre-procurement/Post-Procurement Stage
(January- December 2013)
Organization
No. of Projects
NAB
363
Cost of the Projects
(Rs in Billions) 220
(5) CHARACTER BUILDING SOCIETIES : In Pursuance of Section 33 C (b) NAO
1999, 14000 Character Building Societies have been formulated at Regional Bureaus. Section
33 C (b) empowers NAB's awareness activities pertaining to development, arrangement,
supervision, participation in or conduct of educational programs or media campaigns, and
generally to disseminate information on the detrimental effects of corruption and corrupt
practices and the importance of maintaining the integrity of public administration.
Interaction with youth in university staff and other educational institutions have added a lot of
enthusiasm and participation of these youngsters in carrying out the anti-corruption activities
and preventing corruption in their immediate social circles.
Recently the Abolition of the Discretionary Quotas in Housing Schemes Act, 2013 (XXI OF
2013) has been passed by the Parliament with the purpose of abolishing all discretionary
quotas in housing schemes in the public sector so that allotments therein are made in a fair,
equitable and transparent manner.
REBUBLIC OF KOREA (FIFTH MEETING)
I - Information requested from States parties in relation to mandates of anticorruption
body or bodies in respect of prevention (art.6)
1. Please describe the measures you have taken to implement art. 6 of the Convention.
A. Overview of the ACRC
The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of Korea is the national anti-corruption body,
which is the control tower of anti-corruption policy for the central and local governments, and
public organizations.
• History
In response to the international anti-corruption movement in the mid-1990's including the OECD
Anti-Bribery Convention and the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, a social movement started in
Korea to advance the overall social system including government practices. Civil society and the
academia actively participated in the movement, in particular, to enact an anti-corruption act and
to establish an independent anti-corruption body, leading to a lively discussion at the National
Assembly of Korea. As a result, the "Anti-Corruption Act" was established in 2001 to effectively
control corrupt practices, and the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC)
was launched in the following year.
In line with this, the Korean government put the eradication of corruption and the enhancement
of the national integrity level on the top government agenda and started working on
systematizing its anti-corruption initiatives. These efforts were followed by an effective
combination of preventive measures and reactive measures to address corruption, including
government-wide anti-corruption policies, improvement of corruption-causing laws and systems,
integrity assessment for public organizations, anti-corruption training, code of conduct for public
officials on the prevention front, and handling of corruption reports, protection and reward for
whistleblowers on the reaction front.
To lay the groundwork for a more effective governance, the ACRC was established in 2008 by
integrating three functions of Ombudsman, administrative appeals, and corruption prevention.
By integrating diverse channels to protect people's rights and interests, people can enjoy
improved accessibility and efficiency of the one-stop complaint-filing channel. And given that
corruption, complaints and administrative appeals cases are usually caused by the illegal or
unfair performance of duties by public officials, the integration of the three functions has brought
a huge synergistic effect between protecting people's rights and preventing corruption.
• Organization
The ACRC consists of the Chairperson (Ministerial level), three Vice Chairpersons (Vice
Ministerial level), three Standing Commissioners and eight Non-Standing Commissioners.i The
Chairperson and Vice Chairpersons are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the
Prime Minister. Standing Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation
of the Chairperson, and Non-Standing Commissioners are appointed or commissioned by the
President. The Commission is guaranteed independence in performing its functions, and no
member including the Chairperson shall be dismissed or discommissioned against his/her will.ii
For the fair decision-making by the ACRC, three non-standing commissioners are appointed or
commissioned by the National Assembly, and other three on the recommendation of the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Korea among the eight non-standing commissioners.
• Participation in UNCAC meetings and implementation review process
In pursuant to Article 6 (3) of the Convention, the ACRC was designated and notified as Korea's
national preventive anti-corruption body in April 2008, and has been deploying a delegation to
all Conference of State Parties (CoSP) and Implementation Review Group (IRG) meetings that
have been held so far. In particular, at the 3rd CoSP (Nov. 2009, Qatar), and the 5th CoSP (Nov.
2013, Panama), the ACRC Chairman attended the conference and gave a speech at the General
Discussion session.
In the meantime, the ACRC submitted a report on the implementation status regarding
whistleblower protection system and other measures that the ACRC is conducting in the third
year of the first review cycle. In March 2013, a delegation consisting of anti-corruption experts
from Bulgaria, India and the UNODC visited the ACRC and other related agencies in Korea for
a country review and the Commission responded to the delegation with sincerity. In the Country
Review Report, the ACRC was chosen as the "successful and best practice". As Korea's national
preventive anti-corruption institution, the ACRC is expected to take the lead in the second
review cycle which will monitor the
implementation status of Chapter Ⅱ (Preventive Measures) of the Convention.
REPUBLIC OF KOREA (SECOND MEETING)
ACT ON ANTI-CORRUPTION AND
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF
THE ANTI-CORRUPTION & CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
Act No. 8878, Feb. 29, 2008
Amended by Act No. 9342, Jan 7, 2009
Act No. 9402, Feb. 3, 2009
CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1 (Purpose)
The purpose of this Act is to protect people's basic rights and interests,
secure administrative validity, and create a transparent public service and
society by handling people's complaints and grievances, improving
unreasonable administrative systems, and preventing and efficiently
regulating corruption through the establishment of the Anti-Corruption &
Civil Rights Commission.
Article 2 (Definitions)
The terms used in this Act are defined as follows: <Amended by Act No. 9402,
Feb. 3, 2009>
1. The term "public organizations" means the institutions and organizations that
fall into any of the following categories:
(a) The administrative agencies of various levels under the Government
Organization Act and the executive organs and councils of local
governments under the Local Autonomy Act;
(b) The Superintendents of the Offices of Education, the district offices of
education, and the boards of education under the Local Education
Autonomy Act;
(c) The National Assembly under the National Assembly Act, the courts of
various levels under the Court Organization Act, the Constitutional Court
under the Constitutional Court Act, the election commissions of various
levels under the National Election Commission Act, and the
Board of Audit and Inspection under the Board of Audit and Inspection
Act; and
(d) Organizations related to public service under Article 3 (1) 12 of the Public
Service Ethics Act.
2. The term "administrative agency, etc." means any central administrative
agency, local government, corporation or organization that has the authority
of an administrative agency or to which such authority is delegated or
entrusted, under the article 4 of the Act on the Operation of Public
Institution, or member of such a corporation or organization
3. The term "public organization employees" means the persons who fall into
any of the following categories:
(a) The persons under the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public
Officials Act, and those who are recognized by other Acts as public
officials in terms of qualifications, appointments, education and training,
services, remunerations, guarantee of position and so on; and
(b) The heads of organizations related to public service provided for in
subparagraph 1 (d) and the employees of such organizations.
4. The term "act of corruption" means the act of wrongdoing that falls into any
of the following categories:
(a) The act of a public organization employee to seek illegitimate gains for
himself/herself or for any third party by abusing his/her position or
authority, or violating Acts and subordinate statutes in connection with
his/her duties;
(b) The act of causing financial damage to a public organization in
violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, when it is in the process
of executing its budget, or acquiring, managing or disposing of its
property, or entering into and executing a contract to which it is a
party; and
(c) The act of forcing, recommending, suggesting or encouraging someone
to engage in or conceal the acts provided for by the above
subparagraphs (a) and (b).
5. The term "complaint" means any complaint on any illegal, unjustifiable or
passive action of an administrative agency, etc. (including an actual act
and omission) or unreasonable administrative system which violates a
citizen's right or causes inconvenience or burden to a citizen (including
complaints and grievances of soldiers on service and those who perform
their mandatory service related to military);
6. The term "petitioner" means any individual, corporation or organization filing a
complaint with the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission or a Local
Ombudsman
7. The term "non-governmental organization" means any non-profit and nongovernmental organization registered with the competent Minister or a
Mayor/Do governor under Article 4 of the Assistance for Non-profit and Nongovernmental Organizations Act and
8. The term "Local Ombudsman" means any entity established under
Article 32 to deal with complaints against local governments and
institutions belonging thereto (including corporations or organizations to
which authority of such local governments or institutions is delegated or
entrusted under Acts or subordinate statutes, or their members;
hereinafter the same shall apply) and to improve related systems
Article 3 (Duties of Public Organizations)
(1) A public organization shall take the responsibility to prevent corruption for the
purposes of raising the awareness of ethics in society.
(2) In case a public organization deems it necessary to eliminate legal,
institutional or administrative inconsistencies for the prevention of
corruption, or to address other related issues, then it shall promptly
improve or rectify the foregoing.
(3) By using such reasonable means as educational and promotional
activities, a public organization shall make strenuous efforts to raise the
awareness of its employees and citizens on the prevention of corruption.
(4) A public organization shall make determined efforts to promote
international cooperation and exchanges for the prevention of corruption.
Article 4 (Duties of Political Parties)
(1) A political party registered under the Political Parties Act and its
members shall endeavor to create a culture of clean and transparent
politics. (2) A political party and its members shall establish a transparent
election culture and carry out its transparent operation and ensure the
transparent collection and use of political funds.
Article 5 (Duties of Private Enterprises)
A private enterprise shall establish sound trading order and business ethics. It
shall also take the necessary steps to prevent any case of corruption.
Article 6 (Duties of Citizens)
Every citizen shall fully cooperate with public organizations in implementing their
anti-corruption policies and programs.
Article 7 (Obligation of Public Organization Employees to Maintain
Integrity) Every public organization employee shall honor Acts and
subordinate statutes, perform his/her duties impartially and hospitably, and
refrain from engaging in corruption and damaging his/her dignity.
Article 7-2 (Prohibition of public organization employee from exploiting
secrets learned while performing his/ her duties)
Public organization employee shall not acquire any goods or property
interest by exploiting secrets that s/he has learned while performing his/her
duties, or shall not have a third party acquire such goods or such property
interest through the exploitation of such secrets. <Newly Inserted by Act
No. 9342, Jan. 7, 2009>
Article 8 (Code of Conduct for Public Organization Employees)
(1) The code of conduct that public organization employees shall observe
under Article 7 shall be prescribed by Presidential Decrees, National
Assembly regulations, Supreme Court regulations, Constitutional Court
regulations, National Election Commission regulations or public
organization rules.
(2) The Code of Conduct for Public Organization Employees referred to in
paragraph (1) shall prescribe each of the following categories:
1. Matters on the prohibition of public organization employees from
and restrictions on receiving entertainment, money and other
pecuniary advantages from any person related to his/her duties;
2. Matters on the prohibition of public organization employees from and
restrictions on using his/her public position to influence personnel
management, seek financial benefits, use connections amongst highly
positioned individuals, or solicit favors;
3. Matters on, for example, transparent personnel management, which
public organization employees shall observe in order to create a sound
climate in officialdom; and Other matters that shall be addressed to
prevent corruption and maintain the integrity and dignity of public
office.
(3) If a public organization employee violates the Code of Conduct for
Public Organization Employees referred to in paragraph (1), disciplinary
action may be taken against him/her.
(4) The type, procedure and effectuation of disciplinary action referred to
in paragraph (3) shall be governed by the related Acts and subordinate
statutes, or the by-laws of a public organization to which the violator
belongs.
Article 9 (Guarantee of Livelihoods of Public Organization Employees)
The State and local governments shall make efforts to guarantee the
livelihoods of public organization employees so that they can devote
themselves to their duties, and shall take necessary steps to improve
remuneration and treatment for them.
Article 10 (Requesting Rights and Interests Protection Institution, etc. to
Provide Assistance)
The Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission or any Local Ombudsman
may, if deemed necessary to perform duties, request administrative agencies,
such as the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, corporations or
organizations, the purpose of which is to protect the rights and interests of
citizens or to improve Acts and subordinate statutes or systems in order to
promote social justice and public interest under Acts, to provide necessary
assistance.
CHAPTERIIANTI-CORRUPTION&CIVILRIGHTSCOMMISSION
Article 11 (Establishment of the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights
Commission) The Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Commission') is established under the Prime Minister's Office
in order to handle people's complaints and grievances, improve unreasonable
administrative systems, and prevent and efficiently regulate corruption.
Article 12 (Functions)
The Commission shall perform the following functions:
1. Formulating and implementing policies to protect people's rights, remedy
people's rights and interests, and combat corruption;
2. Investigating and handling complaints and grievances of the people,
recommending related rectification or submitting opinions related to those
complaints;
3. If the improvement of relevant administrative systems and of the
operation thereof is deemed necessary in the course of handling
complaints, recommendation for, or submission of opinions on, such
improvement;
4. Investigating actual conditions and evaluating the results of complaints and
improvement of administrative systems handled by the Commission
5. Formulating anti-corruption policies and making corruption preventing
recommendations to assist public organizations to strengthen their system
and policies, and conducting fact-finding investigations on public
organizations for that purpose;
6. Surveying the actual state and evaluating the progress of policy steps, which
public organizations have taken to prevent corruption;
7. Making and implementing plans for education and promotion to fight
corruption and protect people's rights and interests
8.
Cooperating with and supporting individuals, corporations and
organizations related to the activities of the Commission, including
helping non-profit private organizations with their anti-corruption
activities;
9. Promoting international cooperation related to the Commission
10. Providing information on corruption report and counseling and receiving
reports;
11. Protecting and rewarding those who have reported suspected corruption;
12. Examining corruption-causing factors in Acts and subordinate statutes;
13. Collecting, managing and analyzing data and materials regarding the
prevention of corruption and protection of rights and interests
14. Ensuring the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Public
Organization Employees, receiving and processing reports of violation
whereof, and protecting those who submitted such reports;
15. Providing guidance and counseling related to the filing of complaints, and
checking and notifying how submitted complaints are handled;
16. Operating integrated on-line citizen participation portals, and establishing
and operating the government call-center handling civil applications;
17. Cooperating, assisting and educating with regard to the activities of each
Local Ombudsman;
18. Arbitrating and settling matters related to conflicts of a majority of people,
and investigating and handling complaints of businesses to resolve their
difficulties;
19. Handling matters with regard to the operation of the Administrative
Appeals Commission under the Prime Minister's Office according to the
Administrative Appeals Act;
20. Addressing matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission provided for
by other Acts and subordinate statutes and
21. Addressing matters that the Prime Minister put on the agenda of the
Commission to enhance people's rights and interests.
Article 13 (Composition of the Commission)
(1) The Commission shall be composed of 15 members (including three vice
chairpersons and three standing commissioners), including one Chairperson. In
this case, the three vice chairpersons assist the Chairperson by taking
charge of complaints and grievances, anti-corruption, and the Prime Minister
Administrative Appeals Commission. However, the Administrative Appeals Act
applies to the composition of the Prime Minister Administrative Appeals
Commission.
(2) The Chairperson, vice chairpersons and other commissioners of the
Commission shall be appointed or commissioned from among the following
persons who are deemed capable of fairly and independently performing duties
with respect to complaints and anti-corruption:
1. Persons whose term of service as associate professor (or corresponding
position thereto) or higher either at college or at an authorized research
institute is eight years or more;
2. Persons whose term of service as judge, public prosecutor or
attorney-at-law is ten years or more;
3. Persons who were or are in office as Grade III public official or higher;
4. Persons whose term of service as certified architect, certified tax
accountant, certified public accountant, professional engineer or patent
attorney is ten years or more;
5. Persons whose term of service as member of any Local Ombudsman under
Article 33 (1) is four years or more; and
6. Other persons of high social reputation who have knowledge and experience
on administration and who are recommended by (a) non-governmental
organization(s).
(3) The Chairperson and vice chairperson are appointed by the President on the
recommendation of the Prime Minister. The standing commissioner is appointed
by the President on the recommendation of the Chairperson. The non-standing
commissioner is appointed or commissioned by the President. Among nonstanding commissioners, two are appointed or commissioned on the
recommendation of the National Assembly and the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, respectively.
(4) The Chairperson and vice chairperson serve political service and
standing commissioners are regarded as public officials serving special
service who belong to high-ranking public officials.
(5) If the positions of the commissioners become vacant, new commissioners
shall be appointed or commissioned without delay. In this case, the term of
the newly appointed or commissioned commissioners restarts.
Article 14 (Chairperson)
(1) The chairperson shall represent the Commission.
(2) When the chairperson is unable to perform his/her duty for unavoidable
reasons, a vice chairperson, who is designated by the chairperson, shall act
on his/her behalf.
Article 15 (Disqualification of Members)
(1) A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be
qualified as board member:
1. A person who is not a citizen of the Republic of Korea;
2. A person who falls under any subparagraph of Article 33 of the State Public
Officials Act;
3. A person who is affiliated with a political party as a member; and
4. A person who registers himself/herself as candidate in an election held in
accordance with the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the
Prevention of Election Malpractices.
(2) A board member, when s/he falls under any subparagraph of paragraph
(1), shall rightly resign his/her seat.
Article 16 (Independence and Guarantee of Position)
(1) The Commission shall independently perform the work of which it
is authorized.
(2) The term in office for the chairperson and the other board members shall
be three years , which may be renewed once.
(3) No member shall be dismissed or decommissioned against his/her will with
the exception of any of the following subparagraphs:
1. Where s/he falls under any subparagraph of Article 15 (1);
2. Where s/he has much difficulty in performing his/her duties due to
mental or physical difficulties and
3. If s/he violates the prohibition against holding more than one office under
Article 17.
(4) In case a member falls under the subparagraph 2 of paragraph (3), the
President or the Prime Minister shall dismiss or decommission him/her on the
chairperson's recommendation after a resolution thereof has been passed with
the consent of not less than two thirds of the total members.
Article 17 (Prohibition against Holding More Than One Office)
A member shall not, during his/her term of office, serve concurrently as:
1. a member of the National Assembly or any local council;
2. an individual or an officer or employee of a corporation or organization
having a special interest provided for by Presidential Decree in any
administrative agency, etc.
Article 18 (Exclusion and Evasion of and Challenge to Member)
(1) Any member shall, if s/he falls within any of the following
subparagraphs, be excluded from participation in deliberation and decision
of the given committee:
1. If s/he, or any person who is or was his/her spouse, is associated to the
party involved in the matter in question or shares any interest with the party
as joint holder of any rights or joint burdener of any duties;
2. If s/he has or had a relationship by blood or marriage to the petitioner of
the given matter
3. If s/he makes a witness, appraisal, legal advice or damage assessment
concerning the given matter
4. If s/he was engaged in the investigation, inspection or audit concerning the
given matter before being appointed or commissioned as the commissioner
or
5. If s/he participates or participated in the given matter as an agent of the
petitioner thereof.
(2) Any interest party may make a request to challenge a member if
any special grounds for which it would be difficult to expect impartial
deliberation or decision-making from that member exists.
(3) If any member falls within paragraph (1) or (2), s/he may voluntarily refrain
from deliberation and decision on the given matter.
Article 19 (Resolution of Board)
(1) A resolution shall be passed at a board meeting, which is held with the
attendance of a majority of its registered members and with the concurrent
vote of a majority of those present. But, concerning Article 20, Paragraph 1
Subparagraph 4, a resolution shall be passed with the vote of a majority of
registered members.
(2) Members who are not engaged in deliberation and resolution
according to the Article 18 are excluded in counting the number of
registered members based on the Article 19, Paragraph 1.
(3) Other matters deemed necessary for operating the Commission is
designated based on the Presidential decree.
Article 20 (Small Committees)
(1) In relation to handling complaints, the Commission may establish
committees (herein after referred to as the "small committees") composed
of three members to deliberate and decide on matters that do not fall under
any of the following subparagraphs:
1. Matters provided for by Presidential Decree, including those of interest to
many persons, among those whose rectification is recommended under
Article 46;
2. Matters with respect to which the system improvement is recommended
under Article 47;
3. Matters concerning a decision on a request for audit and inspection under
Article 51;
4. Matters with respect to which the previous decision practices of the
Commission are required to be changed;
5. Matters that the Commission is to deal with directly by resolution of a small
committee; and
6. Other matters that the Chairperson recognizes to be dealt with by the
Commission.
(2) All the members of a small committee shall constitute a quorum, and all
decisions thereof shall be taken by all of those present.
(3) Other matters necessary for the duties and operation of a small committee
shall be provided for by Presidential Decree.
Article 21 (Subcommittees)
For efficient performance, the Commission may have a subcommittee by area.
Article 22 (Outside Expert)
(1) The chairperson may appoint experts in academia, social organizations,
and other related fields as expert members of the Commission, when
reasonably deemed necessary, to support the Commission's work and
conduct specialized studies.
(2) The chairperson shall appoint or designate expert members under
paragraph (1).
Article 23 (Establishment of Secretariat)
(1) The Commission shall have a secretariat to deal with its administrative
affairs.
(2) There shall be one Secretary General appointed by the Chairperson, who
concurrently serves as the vice chairperson. S/he deals with affairs of the
Secretariat, and commands and supervises employees belonging thereto under the
command of the Chairperson.
(3) Except as provided for in this Act, matters necessary for the
organization and operation of the Secretariat shall be provided for by
Presidential Decree.
Article 24 (Advisory Organ)
(1) The Commission may establish an advisory organ which renders advisory
opinions on matters necessary to perform duties.
(2) Matters necessary for the composition and operation of an advisory organ
established under paragraph (1) shall be provided for by Presidential
Decree.
Article 25 (Secondment of Public Officials, etc.)
(1) The Commission may, if deemed necessary to perform its duties, request
State organs, local governments, organizations stipulated in the Article 4 of
the Act on the Operation of Public Institutions, or relevant corporations or
organizations to second their public officials or employees to the
Commission.
(2) The heads of those State organs, local governments, organizations stipulated
in the Article 4 of the Act on the Operation of Public Institutions, or
relevant corporations or organizations which have seconded public officials
or employees belonging thereto to the Commission under paragraph (1) shall
take favorable measures for them in terms of allocation, promotion,
treatment, etc.
Article 26 (Report, Publication, etc. of Status of Operation)
(1) The Commission shall annually report the status of the operation thereof to
the President and the National Assembly and publish such status updates.
(2) In addition to a report under paragraph (1), the Commission may, if deemed
necessary, make any other special report to the President and the National
Assembly.
Article 27 (Recommendation for Institutional Improvements)
(1) The Commission, if need be, may recommend that the head of a public
organization improve institutions to better prevent corruption.
(2) The head of a public organization that has been recommended to improve
institutions under paragraph (1) shall reflect such a recommendation in its
institutional improvement measures and inform the Commission about the
result of the measures taken according to the recommendation, and the
Commission can examine the status of such implementation.
(3)
In the case that the head of a public organization that has been
recommended to make institutional improvements under paragraph (1) finds it
difficult to take measures as recommended by the Commission, s/he shall make a
request for the Commission's review of the recommendation. On request, the
Commission shall do so.
Article 28 (Review of Corruption-causing Factors in Laws)
(1) The Commission may review corruption-causing factors in Acts,
Presidential Decrees, Prime Ministerial decrees and Ordinances of Ministries
and in other directives, regulations, announcements, notices, ordinances and
rules in reference thereto, and may recommend that the head of the public
organization concerned take actions to remove them.
(2) Matters regarding the procedure and methods of the review undertaken
under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.
Article 29 (Hearing Opinions)
(1) In performing the functions provided for in Article 12, subparagraphs 5 to
14,the Commission, if necessary, may take measures which fall under any of the
following subparagraphs:
1. Requesting that a public organization give an explanation or submit
materials, documents, etc. and assess the current status of affairs in the
organization; and
2. Requesting that an interested person, a reference person, or a public
organization employee involved attend to state their opinions.
(2) The Commission shall be prohibited from taking measures provided for in
paragraph (1) with respect to the matters which fall into any of the following
categories:
1. Matters on the confidential information of the State;
2. Matters on the appropriateness of an investigation, trial and execution of
sentence including a security measure, a security surveillance measure, a
protective detention measure, a probation measure, a protective internment
measure, a custodial treatment measure and a community service order, or
matters of which the Board of Audit and Inspection is undertaking
inspection;
3. Matters on an administrative appeal or litigation, a ruling of the
Constitutional Court, a constitutional petition, a review by the Board of
Audit and Inspection or other objection or remedy procedures that are in
process under other Acts;
4. Matters on mediation of interests among parties concerned—including
settlement, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration—which is being in
process under Acts and subordinate statutes; and
5. Matters made definite by a judgment, decision, ruling, settlement,
mediation, arbitration, etc. or other matters on which the Audit and
Inspection Commission has passed a resolution in accordance with the
Board of Audit and Inspection Act.
(3) The measures stated in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) above shall be
limited to what the Commission needs to perform its functions in each
subparagraph of Article 12 and attention shall be paid not to hamper the
performance of duties by any public organization.
(4) The head of a public organization shall sincerely comply with requests for
the submission of materials and cooperate in assessing the current status
of affairs under paragraph (1), and if s/he finds it difficult to do so, s/he
shall explain why.
(5) The head of a public organization may get its employees or relevant experts to
be present at the Commission to state their opinions or to submit relevant
materials in connection with institutional improvements, etc.
Article 30 (Prohibition of Divulging Confidential Information)
The incumbent or former members of the Commission (board members,
expert members, and staff members of the Commission) and any other
person who is or has been seconded to the Commission, or designated by the
Commission to perform the work of the Commission, shall be prohibited
from divulging any confidential information that they have acquired while
performing the work of the Commission.
Article 31 (Legal Fiction as Public Officials in the Application of Penal
Provisions)
The board members and expert members of the Commission who are not
public officials, and secondees shall be deemed public officials in the
application of the Criminal Act and the penal provisions of other Acts with
regard to the work of the Commission.
CHAPTERIII LOCAL OMBUDSMAN
Article 32 (Establishment of Local Ombudsman)
(1) There may be, in each local government, a Local Ombudsman to deal
with complaints against each such local government and institutions
belonging thereto and to improve administrative systems.
(2) Any Local Ombudsman shall perform the following duties:
1. Investigation and handling of complaints against the local government
concerned and institutions belonging thereto;
2. Recommendation for rectification or submission of opinions related to
complaints;
3. If the improvement of relevant administrative systems and of the
operation thereof is deemed necessary in the course of handling
complaints, recommendation for, or submission of opinions on, such
improvement;
4. Actual condition investigation and evaluation of the results of complaints
handled by such Local Ombudsman and the improvement of administrative
systems;
5. Guidance and counseling related to the filing of complaints and assistance for
handling thereof;
6. Education and publicity related to the activities of such Local Ombudsman;
7. Exchange and cooperation with international organizations, foreign rights
and interests protection institutions, etc. related to the activities of such Local
Ombudsman;
8. Cooperation with and assistance to individuals, corporations or
organizations related to the activities of such Local Ombudsman; and
9. Other matters which are entrusted to such Local Ombudsman under
other Acts and subordinate statutes.
Article 33 (Qualifications, etc. of Members of Local Ombudsman)
(1) The members of each Local Ombudsman shall be commissioned by the
head of the local government concerned with the consent of the local
council concerned, from among the following persons who are deemed
capable of fairly and independently performing duties with respect to the
handling of complaints:
1. Persons who are or were associate professors (or corresponding position
thereto) or higher either at college or at an authorized research institute;
2. Persons who are or were judges, public prosecutors or attorneys-at-law;
3. Persons whose are or were Grade IV public officials or higher;
4. Persons whose term of service as certified architect, certified tax
accountant, certified public accountant, professional engineer or patent
attorney is five years or more;
5. Persons of high social reputation who have knowledge and experience on
administration and who are recommended by non-governmental
organizations.
(2) Any member of a Local Ombudsman shall hold office for a term of four years
and shall not be commissioned consecutively for a further term.
(3) The head of the local government concerned shall, if the term of office of
any member of a Local Ombudsman expires, or a vacancy occurs,
commission his/her successor within 30 days after such expiration or
occurrence.
(4) The term of office of any member of a Local Ombudsman who is
commissioned to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term of
office of his/her predecessor shall newly commence.
Article 34 (Provision of Expenses)
The head of a local government in which there is a Local Ombudsman shall
provide such expenses as are necessary for the Local Ombudsman to
perform duties referred to in Article 32 (2).
Article 35 (Applicable Provisions related to the Commission)
The provision of the Article 15, Article 16 (3), Article 17, Article 18, Article
25, and Article 31 with respect to the Local Ombudsman shall apply in this
case.
Article 36 (Executive Office)
(1) The head of the local government concerned shall establish an executive office to
assist a Local Ombudsman to perform his/her duties.
(2) There shall be the chief and other necessary employees in the executive office.
Article 37 (Report, Publication, etc. of Status of Operation)
(1) Any Local Ombudsman shall annually report the status of the operation thereof
to the head of the local government concerned as well as to the local council
concerned and publish such status.
(2) In addition to a report under paragraph (1), any Local Ombudsman may, if
deemed necessary, make any other special report to the head of the local
government concerned as well as to the local council concerned.
Article 38 (Matters concerning Organization and Operation of Local
Ombudsman) Except as provided for in this Act, matters necessary for the
organization and operation of any Local Ombudsman shall be provided for by
ordinance of the local government concerned.
CHAPTERN HANDLING OF COMPLAINT
Article 39 (Filing and Receipt of Complaint)
(1) Any person (including an alien who resides in the Republic of Korea)
may file a complaint with the Commission or a Local Ombudsman
(hereinafter referred to as the "Ombudsman"). In this case, any petitioner
who files a complaint with one Ombudsman may do so with another
Ombudsman.
(2) Any person who intends to file a complaint with the Ombudsman shall
do so by a document in which the following information is inputted
(including an electronic document; hereinafter the same shall apply):
Provided, That when there is any special reason to the contrary, he/she may
do so orally:
1. His/her name and domicile (in the case of a corporation or
organization, its name, the place of its main office, and the name of its
representative);
2. Facts supporting, and reasons for, such filing, and the points at issue;
and
3. Other matters provided for by Presidential Decree, including the name of
the administrative agency concerned.
(3) Any petitioner may, except for a legal agent, appoint any of the following
persons as agents. In this case, the qualifications of agents shall be certified in
writing:
1. A spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, brother or sister of such petitioner;
2. An officer or employee of a legal person which is such petitioner;
3. An attorney-at-law;
4. A person who may file a complaint as an agent under other Acts; and
5. A person who obtains the permission of the Ombudsman.
(4) If a complaint is filed, the Ombudsman shall neither withhold, nor
refuse receipt thereof and shall not unjustifiably return any document
relating to the complaint which has already been received, except as
otherwise provided in other Acts and subordinate statutes: Provided, That
when the Ombudsman withholds, refuses or returns a document relating to
the complaint, the Ombudsman shall, without delay, notify the relevant
petitioner of the reasons for doing so.
Article 40 (Referral, etc. of Complaint)
(1) The Ombudsman may refer to the administrative agency, etc. concerned
any complaint whose handling thereby is regarded as appropriate, out of
complaints received. In this case, its head shall, if requested, notify the
Ombudsman of the results of such handling.
(2) The Ombudsman may handle any complaint whose handling by the
Ombudsman is regarded as appropriate by the head of the administrative
agency, etc. concerned and which that head refers to the Ombudsman. In
this case, such complaint shall be deemed to have been received by the
Ombudsman at the time when it is referred to the Ombudsman.
(3) If the Ombudsman refers any complaint to the administrative agency,
etc. concerned under paragraph (1), the Ombudsman shall, without delay,
notify the relevant petitioner of the reasons for doing so. In this case, the
Ombudsman may, when deemed necessary, render the said petitioner
advisory opinions on the procedures and measures for the remedy of
his/her rights.
(4) If any petitioner files a complaint both with the Commission and with a
Local Ombudsman under Article 39 (1), each of them shall, without delay, notify
the other. In this case, they shall cooperate with each other in handling the
complaint.
Article 41 (Investigation of Complaint)
(1) Upon receipt of a complaint, the Ombudsman shall, without delay,
investigate the complaint: Provided that such investigation may not be
conducted in the following cases;
1. In cases in which the complaint falls within any subparagraph of Article 43
(1);
2. In cases in which the contents of the complaint are deemed false or illfounded; or
3. In other cases in which the Ombudsman deems it inappropriate that the
Ombudsman should initiate such investigation, including any case not falling
within a complaint.
(2) The Ombudsman may, even after initiating an investigation, interrupt or
suspend it in any case in which it is deemed that there is no necessity to
continue the investigation, including a case falling within any subparagraph of
paragraph (1).
(3) If the Ombudsman decides to cease an investigation on a complaint, or
interrupts or suspends such investigation, the Ombudsman shall, without delay,
notify the relevant petitioner of the reasons for doing so.
Article 42 (Methods of Investigation)
(1) In conducting an investigation under Article 41, the Ombudsman may, if
deemed necessary, take any of the following measures:
1. To request the administrative agency, etc. concerned to give an explanation
or submit relevant materials and documents;
2. To request an employee of the administrative agency, etc. concerned, the
petitioner, person of interest or any other reference person to present
him/herself and submit his/her opinions;
3. To inspect any place or facility deemed relevant to matters subject to
investigation on an on-site basis; and
4. To commission any other entity to make an appraisal.
(2) If any employee of the Ombudsman makes an on-site inspection or
hears opinions under paragraph (1), s/he shall carry an identification
verifying his/her authority and present it to the relevant persons.
(3) The head of the administrative agency, etc. concerned shall comply with a
request or inspection made by the Ombudsman under paragraph (1) and
cooperate therewithal in a bona fide manner.
Article 43 (Rejection, etc. of Complaint)
(1) The Ombudsman may reject a complaint falling within any of the following
subparagraphs or transfer it to any other relevant entity:
1. A complaint requiring any high political decision or related to any state or
official secret;
2. A complaint related to the National Assembly, a court, the
Constitutional Court, an election commission, the Board of Audit and
Inspection, or a local council;
3. A complaint related to criminal investigation and execution of a sentence
whose handling by the competent entity is regarded as appropriate or in
connection with which the Board of Audit and Inspection initiates an audit
and inspection;
4. A complaint with respect to which the administrative appeal,
administrative litigation,
trial at the Constitutional Court, review by
the Board of Audit and Inspection, or any other objection or remedy
procedure under any other Act is in progress;
5. A complaint with respect to which any procedure aiming to balance the
interests between the parties, i.e., settlement, mediation, conciliation or
arbitration, is in progress under Acts and subordinate statutes;
6. A complaint that is related to the relationship of rights and duties
established by judgment, decision, ruling, settlement, mediation,
arbitration, etc. or in connection with which the Board of Audit and
Inspection requires any action;
7. A complaint related to the relationship of rights and duties between private
individuals or to an individual's privacy; or
8. A complaint related to personnel administration for employees of any
administrative agency, etc.
(2) If the Ombudsman rejects a complaint or transfers it to any other relevant
entity under paragraph (1), the Ombudsman shall, without delay, notify the
relevant petitioner of the specified reasons for doing so. In this case, the
Ombudsman may, when deemed necessary, render the said petitioner
advisory opinions on the procedures and measures for the remedy of his/her
rights.
(3) If it is found that a complaint on which the investigation is based upon
falls under any subparagraph of paragraph (1), the head of the
administrative agency, etc. concerned shall, without delay, notify the
Ombudsman.
Article 44 (Recommendation for Compromise)
The Ombudsman may propose to the parties involved a remedy s/he deems
necessary for the impartial resolution of any complaint whose investigation is in
progress or completed, whereupon recommending a compromise to those who
are involved.
Article 45 (Conciliation)
(1) In order to ensure the rapid and impartial resolution of any complaint
related to many persons or having far-reaching social effects, the
Ombudsman may, upon request or ex officio, initiate the conciliation
procedure if deemed necessary.
(2) The conciliation shall be completed at the time when, after both parties
enter the compromised matters in the document of conciliation, they sign
and seal it and the Ombudsman, in turn, identifies no flaws in that
document.
(3) The conciliation under paragraph (2) of this Article shall have the same effect as
a settlement under the Civil Act.
Article 46 (Recommendation for Rectification and Submission of Opinions)
(1) If there is a sufficient cause to identify any relevant action, etc. as illegal and
unjustifiable as a result of the investigation of a complaint, the Ombudsman may
make recommendation(s) to the head of the administrative agency, etc.
concerned on an appropriate method of rectification.
(2) The Ombudsman may submit to the head of the administrative agency, etc.
concerned opinions on matters on which the relevant petitioner's case is deemed
well-founded as a result of the investigation of a complaint.
Article 47 (Recommendation for, and Submission of Opinions on, System
Improvement)
If the improvement of any relevant Act and subordinate statute, system,
policy, etc. is deemed necessary in the course of investigating or handling a
complaint, the Ombudsman may recommend or submit to the head of the
administrative agency, etc. concerned the suggested improvement(s) or
opinion(s) within reason.
Article 48 (Provision of Opportunity to Submit Opinions)
(1) Before making a recommendation to the head of the administrative
agency, etc. concerned on the rectification or system improvement under
Article 46 or 47, the Ombudsman shall, in advance, provide the said
administrative agency, etc. and the relevant petitioner or an interested
person with an opportunity to submit their opinions.
(2) Any employee of the administrative agency, etc. concerned, petitioner or
interested person may attend a meeting held by the Ombudsman to state his/her
opinions or to submit necessary materials.
Article 49 (Notice of Decision)
The Ombudsman shall, without delay, notify the relevant petitioner and the
head of the administrative agency, etc. concerned of a decision on a
complaint.
Article 50 (Notification, etc. of Results of Handling)
(1) The head of the administrative agency, etc. concerned receiving a
recommendation or opinion under Article 46 or 47 shall comply therewith and
notify the Ombudsman of the results of the handling those recommendation(s) or
opinion(s) within thirty days after such receipt.
(2) If the head of the administrative agency, etc. concerned receiving a
recommendation under paragraph (1) does not implement the
recommendation, s/he shall, in writing, notify the Ombudsman of the
reasons for not doing so.
(3) If the Ombudsman receives notice under paragraph (1) or (2), the
Ombudsman shall, without delay, notify the relevant petitioner of the interaction
thereof.
Article 51 (Request for Audit and Inspection)
If, in the course of investigating or handling any complaint, it is found that
any employee of the administrative agency, etc. concerned deals with
relevant affairs illegally and unjustifiably by intention or in gross negligence,
the Commission and the relevant Local Ombudsman may respectively
request the Board of Audit and Inspection and the local government
concerned to conduct an audit and inspection.
Article 52 (Confirmation and Review of Implementation of Recommendations,
etc.) The Ombudsman may confirm and review the compliance with
recommendations made or opinions submitted under Articles 46 and 47.
Article 53 (Publication)
The Ombudsman may publish the following items provided that publication
is not restricted under any other Act or will not violate an individual's
privacy:
1. Content of recommendations made or opinions submitted under Articles 46
and 47;
2. Results of handling under Article 50 (1); and
3. Reasons for not implementing recommendations under Article 50 (2).
Article 54 (Interrelations between the Commission and Each Local Ombudsman
and between Local Ombudsmen)
(1) The Commission or each Local Ombudsman shall independently perform
duties and shall comply with request for mutual consultation or assistance unless
there is any justifiable reason to decline such requests.
(2) The Commission shall actively support any of the Local Ombudsman's
activities.
CHAPTER V REPORTING OF ACTS OF CORRUPTION
AND PROTECTION OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS, ETC.
Article 55 (Reporting Act of Corruption)
Any person who becomes aware of an act of corruption may report it to the
Commission.
Article 56 (Public Organization Employee's Obligation to Report
Corruption) In the case that a public organization employee learns that an
act of corruption has been committed or is forced or proposed to commit
corruption by another public organization employee, s/he shall report it
immediately to any investigative agency, the Board of Audit and Inspection
or the Commission.
Article 57 (Obligation to Report in Good Faith)
A person who reports an act of corruption despite the fact that s/he knew
or could have known that his/her report was false shall not be protected
by this Act.
Article 58 (Method of Reporting)
Any person who intends to report an act of corruption shall do so in a
written statement containing his/her personal information, intention,
purport and reasons for reporting. And when making disclosures,
information on who engaged in corruption and evidence attesting to the
wrongdoing shall be included.
Article 59 (Handling of Reports)
(1) The Commission may, upon receipt of a report, confirm the following details
from the informant, complainant or whistle-blower:
1. Matters necessary to specify the contents of the report such as the
name, address and occupation of the informant, complainant or
whistle-blower and the details and purport of his/her report; and
2. Matters concerning whether the contents of the report fall under any
subparagraph of Article 29 (2).
(2) The Commission may ask any informant, complainant or whistle-blower to
submit necessary materials within the scope of ascertaining the truth of the
matters specified in paragraph (1).
(3) If need arises for investigating a corruption case reported, the
Commission shall refer it to the Board of Audit and Inspection, an
investigative agency or an agency in charge of supervising the relevant
public organization In case such a supervisory agency is nonexistent, it
refers to the public organization in itself.(hereinafter, the "investigative
organization"). If the report contains a State secret, it shall be handled
according to the Presidential Decree.
(4) If a person suspected of committing corruption on which the
Commission has received a report is a senior public official who falls
under each of the following subparagraphs and if details on his/her
suspected act of corruption are needed for an investigation for criminal
punishment and an institution of public prosecution, the Commission
shall file an accusation with the prosecution against him/her in its
name:
1. A public official with the rank of Vice Minister or higher;
2. The Mayor of Capital Metropolitan City, Mayor of Metropolitan City or
Provincial Governor;
3. A police officer with the rank of superintendent general or higher;
4. A judge or a public prosecutor;
5. A military officer with the rank of general; and
6. A National Assembly member.
(5) The prosecution, upon receipt of an accusation filed under paragraph (4),
shall notify the Commission of the results of its investigation. It shall also
do so when a case which the Commission has reported is already under
investigation or relates to another case under investigation.
(6) The Commission shall handle a corruption case reported within 60 days of
when it receives the case; provided that if there are justifiable grounds
such as the need for supplementation, then the period of time may be
extended for no longer than 30 days.
Article 60 (Handling of Investigation Results)
(1) The investigative organization shall complete its inspection,
investigation or examination of a case within 60 days of when it receives
the case; provided that if there are justifiable grounds, then the period of
time may be extended and the investigative organization shall inform the
Commission why and how long it will extend the deadline.
(2) The investigative organization to which a report is referred under
Article 59 shall notify the Commission of the findings of inspection,
investigation, or examination thereof within 10 days of when it concludes
such an inspection, investigation or examination. Upon receiving the
findings, the Commission shall relay a summary of the findings to the
person making the disclosure.
(3) The Commission, if necessary, may ask the investigative organization to
explain the results on which the organization has made notification under
paragraph (2).
(4) When the inspection, investigation or examination conducted by the
investigative organization is deemed inadequate, the Commission may ask
the organization to launch again the inspection, investigation or
examination by presenting resonable grounds, for example, submitting new
evidence, within 30 days of when the Commission is notified of the
findings thereof. Any informant, complainant or whistle-blower who is
informed of these findings under the latter part of the above paragraph (2)
may raise objections to the findings.
(5) The investigative organization that is requested to launch again the
inspection, investigation or examination shall notify the Commission of the
results of such further inspection, investigation or examination within 7
days of completion. In that case, the Commission, upon receiving the
findings of such an inspection, investigation or examination, shall relay a
summary of the findings to the person making the disclosure.
Article 61 (Filing Adjudication)
(1) If a person suspected of committing an act of corruption under Article
59 (4) and (5) falls under Articles 129 through 133 and 355 through 357 of
the Criminal Act, including the case of aggravated punishment under other
Acts and the Commission files an accusation with the prosecution against
him/her, or if the same case as the one against which the accusation is filed
is already under investigation or is related to another case under
investigation, and if the public prosecutor concerned delivers a notice to the
Commission that s/he does not institute a public prosecution against either
of the two cases, then the Commission may file an application for an
adjudication on the right or wrong thereof with the High Court
corresponding to the High Public Prosecutor's Office to which the public
prosecutor belongs.
(2) Articles 260 (2) to (4), 261, 262, 262 (4), 264 and 264 (2) of the Criminal
Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis for the adjudication referred to in
paragraph (1).
(3) With respect to the application for the adjudication referred to in
paragraph (1), if the public prosecutor has not instituted a public
prosecution by ten days prior to the date on which the statute of limitation
for prosecution thereof expires, it shall be deemed that the public
prosecutor has served a notice on the Commission that s/he does not
institute such public prosecution at that time; and with respect to an
accusation which the Commission filed with the prosecution under Article
59 (4), if the public prosecutor has not instituted such public prosecution by
three months after the date on which the Commission filed such accusation,
it shall be deemed that the public prosecutor has served such a notice on
the Commission at the time that the three months lapsed, respectively.
Article 62 (Guarantee of Public Position)
(1) Any person shall not be subjected to disadvantage or discrimination in
terms of his/her working conditions or public position, including
disciplinary action taken by a group to which s/he belongs, on the ground
that under this Act s/he reported, made a written statement, or submitted
materials on a suspected act of corruption.
(2) Any person, who has suffered or is expected to suffer disadvantage or
discrimination as a result of reporting corruption, may request the
Commission to take measures to guarantee his/her public position and other
necessary measures, for example, by invalidating discriminatory action
against him/her, transferring him/her elsewhere, or suspending disciplinary
action against him/her.
(3) Any person, who has been put at financial or administrative
disadvantage, such as the cancellation of permit or license and the
revocation of a contract, may request the Commission take necessary steps,
for example, to ensure the temporary implementation of the permit, license,
or contract, for the purpose of restoring the situation back to his/her
original state, or correcting the disadvantages.
(4) If there is a request under paragraph (2) or (3), the Commission shall launch
an inquiry.
(5) The Commission may launch an inquiry in accordance with paragraph (4) in
a manner that falls under any of the following:
1. A request to the requester or reference persons for presenting themselves
before the Commission to state their opinions or for submitting their written
statements;
2. A request to the requester, reference persons, or related agencies for
submitting materials that are deemed relevant to the investigation; or
3. An inquiry about facts or information, which are deemed relevant to the
investigation of the requester, reference persons or related agencies.
(6) Any person who is subject to the request, inquiry, or measures under each
subparagraph of paragraph (5) shall sincerely comply with them.
(7) When a person made a request for the guarantee of his/her public
position and investigation found that it is reasonable, the Commission may
ask the head of an organization, group or enterprise to which the requester
belongs or related agency to take proper measures. In this case, the head of
the body shall comply with requests from the Commission, unless there are
justifiable reasons to act contrarily.
(8) If a public organization employee reports corrupt acts and duly asks
the Commission to take proper personnel management measures such as
transfer and secondment, then it may request the Minister of Public
Administration and Security or the head of the appropriate public
organization to take necessary steps. In such a case, the Minister or the head
of the relevant public organization shall give prioritized consideration to
such request(s)and inform the Commission of the results.
(9) The Commission may ask a relevant disciplinary officer to take action
against a person who has violated those rights outlined in paragraph (1).
Article 63 (Presumption of Disadvantages)
If a public organization employee reports an act of corruption according to
this Act and, pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of Article 62, requests the
Commission to restore the situation back to his/her original state or litigates
for that purpose, then s/he is presumed to have suffered disadvantages for
his/her act of reporting corruption.
Article 64 (Personal Protection)
(1) Any employee of the Commission or the investigative agency to which
matters of corruption are referred under Article 59 (3) shall be prohibited from
disclosing or suggesting the identity of the informant, complainant or whistleblower without his/her consent.
(2) If an informant, complainant or whistle-blower feels that s/he or his/her
family, relatives or cohabitant should be protected from being subjected to
pressure or retaliation, or the fear of such consequences, s/he may request the
Commission to take protective steps. In such a case, the Commission may ask
the Commissioner General of the Korean National Policy Agency, the chief
of a local police agency or the chief of the competent police station to take
relevant protective steps.
(3) The Commissioner General of the Korean National Policy Agency, the
chief of a local police agency, or the chief of the competent police station
shall, upon receiving a request as described in paragraph (2), take steps to
protect the party concerned under the conditions as prescribed by the
Presidential Decree.
(4) If a person suffers disadvantages or discrimination for his/her report of
corruption or if there are reasonable grounds to assume that s/he may
experience such disadvantages or discrimination, Article 7 (Omission of
Personal Information), Article 9 (Inspection of Identification Management
Card) or Article 12 (Consultation of Legal Proceedings) of the Protecting
Those Who Report Specific Crimes Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the
investigation and the following criminal procedures in connection with the
reported act of corruption.
(5) Any person shall not disclose, report, or let others know the personal
information of an informant, complainant or whistle-blower, or what enables
others to assume that s/he reported corruption, secure in the knowledge that
s/he is being protected pursuant to the above paragraphs (3) and (4).
Article 65 (Protection of Cooperators)
The provisions of Articles 62, 64 and 66 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the
guarantee of public position and physical protection of any person, other than
a whistle-blower, who has cooperated in the inspection, investigation or
examination procedure by stating his/her opinion and submitting materials with
regard to corruption matters reported under this Act.
Article 66 (Mitigation of Culpability)
(1) If a person reports corrupt acts according to this Act, which results in the
detection of a crime committed by himself/herself, punishment for the crime
may be mitigated or remitted.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) above shall apply mutatis mutandis to any
disciplinary measure taken by a public organization.
(3) If a person reports corrupt acts according to this Act, s/he shall be
deemed not to violate the obligation of confidentiality in the
performance of his/her duty, even though other laws, pacts, employment
rules, etc. stipulate otherwise.
Article 67 (Applicable Provisions)
The stipulations of Articles 62 to 66 shall apply mutatis mutandis to each of the
following cases:
1. where a person reported acts of corruption to the public organization to
which s/he belongs;
2. where a person reported acts of corruption to the public organization
supervising the organization, group or enterprise to which s/he belongs;
and
3. where a person reported violations of the Code of Conduct for Public
Organization Employees.
Article 68 (Financial Reward and Compensation)
(1) If a person reports an act of corruption under this Act to bring financial
benefits or prevent financial damage to a public organization, or serve the
public interest, then the Commission may recommend that s/he receive an
award under the Awards and Decorations Act and/or provide a financial
reward prescribed by the Presidential Decree.
(2) If a person reports an act of corruption under this Act to contribute
directly to increasing or recovering revenues of a public organization or
preventing it from bearing economic costs to be otherwise incurred, or if legal
relations in that matter are established, then s/he may apply to the Commission
for payment of compensation. In that case, the compensation shall include
expenses spent to restore his/her situation to a state prior to suffering
discriminatory action.
(3) If the Commission receives an application for the payment of
compensation as provided in paragraph (2), it shall pay the applicant such
compensation after going through a deliberation and resolution of the
Reward Deliberation Board set up in accordance with Article 69 on the
conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; provided, however, that
a public official reports an act of corruption in connection with his/her
duties, such compensation may be reduced or not be paid.
(4) The application for the payment of compensation under paragraph
(2) above shall be filed within 2 years of the date on which it is known that
legal relations regarding the recovery or increase of revenues or the
reduction of costs of the public organization are established.
Article 69 (Reward Deliberation Board)
(1) The Commission shall establish the Reward Deliberation Board to deliberate
on and resolve matters concerning the payment of financial reward or
compensation pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 68.
(2) The Reward Deliberation Board shall deliberate on and resolve matters falling
under each of the following subparagraphs:
1. Matters concerning requirements for the payment of financial reward and
compensation;
2. Matters concerning the amount of financial reward and compensation to be
paid and
3. Other matters concerning the payment of financial reward and compensation.
(3) Necessary matters with regard to the composition and operation of the
Reward Deliberation Board shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.
Article 70 (Determination of Compensation Payment)
(1)
(2)
The Commission shall, upon receipt of an application for compensation filed
under Article 68, determine whether to pay such compensation and the amount
of the compensation, if any, to be paid, within 90 days of the date of the
application therefore, unless there exists any reason to the contrary.
If the Commission determines to pay compensation under paragraph (1), it shall
immediately inform the applicant thereof.
Article 71 (Relation to Other Acts and Subordinate Statutes)
(1) Any person who is to be paid compensation under Article 68 shall not be
prohibited from applying for compensation in accordance with other Acts and
subordinate statutes.
(2) If any person, who is to receive compensation, received reward under
this Act or received compensation for the same reason according to the
provisions of other Acts and subordinate statutes, and if the amount of such
reward or compensation obtained is the same as or exceeds the amount of
compensation to be received under this Act, any compensation under this
Act shall not be given to him/her. If the amount of such reward or
compensation is less than the amount of compensation to be received under
this Act, the compensation under this Act shall be the difference between
the two amounts.
(3) If any who received compensation pursuant to this Act is to receive another
compensation for the same reason under provisions of other Acts and
subordinate statutes, the amount to be paid shall be determined with the already
paid compensation deducted.
CHAPTERVICITIZENS'REQUESTFORINSPECTION
Article 72 (Right to Request Inspection)
(1) In the event that a public organization seriously harms public interest
while executing administrative affairs due to a violation of Acts and
subordinate statutes or its involvement in an act of corruption, any citizen
aged 19 or over may request an inspection from the Board of Audit and
Inspection by presenting a petition signed by no fewer than a certain
number of citizens as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; provided,
however, that with respect to the administrative affairs executed by the
National Assembly, courts, the Constitutional Court, Election Commissions,
or the Board of Audit and Inspection, such request shall be made to the
Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
the President of the Constitutional Court, the Chairperson of the National
Election Commission, or the Chairperson of the Board of Audit and
Inspection (hereinafter, the "head of a relevant public organization").
<Amended by Act No. 9342, Jan. 7, 2009>
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the matters falling under
any of the following subparagraphs shall be excluded from the subject of a
request for inspection:
1. Matters pertaining to national security and confidential information;
2. Matters pertaining to the appropriateness of an investigation, trial, and
execution of penalty (including any security measure, any security
surveillance measure, any protective detention measure, any probation
measure, any protective internment measure, any custodial treatment
measure, and any community service order);
3. Matters pertaining to private right relationship or individual privacy;
4. Matters that have been or are under inspection by other public
organizations; an exception shall be made in case there are new results or
notable omissions from such inspection already conducted; and
5. Other matters of which inspection is reasonably deemed inappropriate as
prescribed by the Presidential Decree.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) above, any inspection
request pertaining to the execution of the administrative affairs that belong
to the rights of local governments and their heads shall be governed by
Article 16 of the Local Autonomy Act.
Article 73 (Method of Requesting Inspection)
Any person who intends to request an inspection shall make such
request in the form of a signed document stating his/her name, address,
occupation, etc. and the purport of and reasons for requesting such
inspection under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.
Article 74 (Decision on Conducting Inspection)
(1) With respect to an inspection request made in accordance with the main
sentence of Article 72 (1), the National Audit and Inspection Request
Deliberation Commission prescribed by the Regulations of the Board of
Audit and Inspection shall determine whether to conduct such inspection.
(2) If the head of a relevant public organization receives an inspection request
under the proviso of Article 72 (1), s/he shall determine, within 30 days of
the receipt, whether to conduct such inspection in accordance with the
National Assembly Regulations, the Supreme Court Regulations, the
Constitutional Court Regulations, the National Election Commission
Regulations, or the Regulations of the Board of Audit and Inspection.
(3) If the Board of Audit and Inspection or the head of a relevant public
organization deems that an inspection request is groundless, such board or
head shall dismiss the request and inform the requester thereof within 10
days of when the decision of dismissal comes.
Article 75 (Inspection on Request)
(1) The Board of Audit and Inspection or the head of a relevant public
organization shall conclude an inspection within 60 days of when a
determination has been made to conduct such inspection; provided,
however, that the period of 60 days may be extended where there exists
any justifiable reason.
(2) The Board of Audit and Inspection or the head of a relevant public
organization shall notify a requester for an inspection of the results of such
inspection within 10 days of the date on which such inspection is
concluded.
Article 76 (Operation)
Matters necessary for citizens' request for inspection, except as otherwise
provided for in this Act, shall be governed by the National Assembly
Regulations, the Supreme Court Regulations, the Constitutional Court
Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, or the Regulations
of the Board of Audit and Inspection.
CHAPTERVIISUPPLEMENTARYPROVISIONS
Article 77 (Proposal, etc. for System Improvement)
(1) The Commission may, if there is found any unreasonable system in the
course of handling a complaint or if there are other matters the
improvement of which is deemed necessary, submit opinions thereon to the
President or the National Assembly.
(2) If, in the course of handling a complaint, it is deemed that any relevant Act
or ordinance is obviously unreasonable, the Commission or the local
Ombudsman may submit opinions on the amendment or repeal of such Act
or ordinance to the National Assembly or the relevant local council.
Article 78 (Protection of Information on Complaint)
The Commission, the local Ombudsman and the administrative agency, etc.
concerned shall endeavor not to violate the interests of the relevant
petitioner and other interested persons due to the disclosure of information
on a complaint.
Article 79 (Notice, etc. of Matters Necessary to File Complaint)
(1) The Commission, the local Ombudsman and the head of the administrative
agency, etc. concerned shall, to the extent possible, provide convenience,
including a notice of matters necessary to file a complaint, the keeping of
manuals, etc.
(2) The Commission and the local Ombudsman shall, in dealing with a complaint,
have any employee in charge implement directly the procedures necessary for the
confirmation of materials, the cooperation with the administrative agency, etc.
concerned, etc. and otherwise endeavor to promote the convenience of the
relevant petitioner.
Article 80 (Cooperation with Administrative Agencies, etc. Concerned)
(1)
(2)
The Commission and the local Ombudsman may, if deemed necessary, request the
administrative agencies, etc. concerned to provide assistance necessary to perform
the duties.
Those administrative agencies, etc. concerned which are requested to provide
assistance by the Commission and the local Ombudsman shall, bona fide,
comply with such request, unless there is any justifiable reason to the contrary.
Article 81 (Education, Promotion, etc.)
(1) The Commission and the local Ombudsman may provide education and
raise public awareness necessary to awaken public consciousness of rights
and to remedy violations thereof, if any.
(2) The Commission and the local Ombudsman may consult with the
Minister of Education, Science and Technology to assist schools to provide
education to handle complaints, remedy violations of rights and fight
corruption.
(3) The Commission and the local Ombudsman may consult with the heads
of the administrative agencies, etc. concerned to include the contents of
complaint systems and anti-corruption in any education or training course
for public officials.
Article 82 (Employment Restrictions on Public Organization Employees
Dismissed for Corruption)
(1) Any public organization employee who rightly resigns, or has been
dismissed or removed from office for committing an act of corruption in
connection with his/her duties shall be prohibited from landing a job in
any public organization, any private company of not less than a certain
scale established for profits, which is related to his/her former public
service area for three years in the leading up to his/her resignation
(hereinafter, the "for-profit company"), or any corporation or organization
(hereinafter, the "association") which has been established for the purpose
of seeking a common interest and mutual cooperation with a for-profit
company, for 5 years from the date on which s/he resigns.
(2) The provisions of Article 17 (2) of the Public Service Ethics Act shall
apply mutatis mutandis to the scope of the relationship of close ties
between the post to which the public official has belonged prior to his/her
resignation and the for-profit company, the scale of the for-profit company,
and the scope of the association under paragraph (1).
Article 83 (Demand for Dismissal of Employed Persons)
(1) In the event that a person is employed in a public organization in
violation of the provisions of Article 82, the Commission shall demand that
the head of the public organization concerned dismiss him/her and comply
with the demand unless any justifiable grounds exist.
(2) In the event that a person is employed in a for-profit company or an
association in violation of the provisions of Article 82, the Commission
shall demand that the head of the public organization concerned take steps
to terminate his/her employment in the company or association and the head
of the public organization concerned shall, upon receipt of this demand,
request the head of such for-profit company or such association to dismiss
him/her. In this case, the head of the for-profit company or the association
shall promptly comply with the request unless there are justifiable grounds
that render it too difficult for him/her to do so.
Article 84 (Special Case for National Assembly, etc.)
The National Assembly, courts, the Constitutional Court, the National
Election Commission, or the Board of Audit and Inspection shall exert
voluntary efforts to sincerely perform the work provided for in each of
subparagraphs 5 through 8 of Article 12 to prevent internal corruption.
Article 85 (Delegation Provisions)
(1) With regard to administrative appeals, otherwise stipulated in the Act, the
Administrative Appeals Act is applied.
(2) Matters necessary to enforce this Act, other than what is prescribed by
this Act, shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the National
Assembly Regulations, the Supreme Court Regulations, the Constitutional
Court Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, or the
Regulations of the Board of Audit and Inspection.
CHAPTERVIIIPENALPROVISIONS
Article 86 (Offense of Exploiting Office Secrets)
(1) If any public organization employee is found to have violated the
Article 7 (2), s/he shall be punishable with not more than 7 years in prison
or with not more than KRW50 million in fines. <Amended by Act No.
9342, Jan. 7, 2009>
(2) In the case of the situation described in paragraph (1), the imprisonment
and fine may be imposed cumulatively.
(3) The goods or property interest acquired by a person committing the
offense of paragraph (1) or knowingly acquired by a third party by way of such
offense shall be confiscated or collected by the corresponding value to be
confiscated.
Article 87 (Offense of Leaking Office Secrets)
Any person who has divulged confidential information that s/he learned
while performing his/her duties in violation of Article 30 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for not more than 5 years or with the fine
not exceeding 30 million won.
Article 88 (Offense of Leaking Personal Information)
Any person, who violates paragraph (5) of Article 64, shall be sentenced to
not more than three years in prison or be fined not more than 10 million
Korean won.
Article 89 (Offense of Violating Employment Restrictions on Public
Organization Employees Dismissed for Improprieties)
If any public organization employee who has been dismissed for
improprieties is employed in any public organization, any for-profit
company or any association in violation of Article 82 (1), s/he shall be
punishable with not more than 2 years in prison or with not more than 20
million won in fines.
Article 90 (Offense of Disobedience)
If a person who disadvantaged or discriminated against an informant,
complainant or whistle-blower in terms of public position or working
conditions pursuant to Article 62 (1) fails to meet the requests prescribed
in Article 62 (7), then s/he will be sentenced not more than one year in
prison or be fined not more than 10 million won.
Article 91 (Fine for Negligence)
(1) Any person who falls into one of the following categories shall be
punishable with not more than 10 million won in fines for negligence.
1. A person who disadvantages or discriminates against an informant,
complainant or whistle-blower in terms of his/her public position or
working conditions prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 62
2. A person who violates paragraph (6) of Article 62 and fails to meet the
requests or inquiries prescribed by paragraph (5) of the same article
3. A person who fails to meet the Commission's demand according to
Article 62 (7) without reasonable grounds, except for a person who
disadvantages or discriminates against an informant, complainant or
whistle-blower in terms of public position or working conditions under
Article 62 (1)
(2) Any person who obstructs, refuses, evades, or intentionally delays the
performance of duties under Article 42 without any justifiable reason shall be
punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding 5 million won.
(3) A fine for negligence under paragraph (1) and (2) shall be imposed and
collected by the Commission in accordance with Presidential Decree
(4) When the Commission imposes a fine for negligence in accordance with
paragraph (1) and (2), it shall investigate and confirm the act of violation and
then notify a person subject to a disposition taken to impose such fine for
negligence that he should pay the fine for negligence by specifying the fact of
violation, the method of raising an objection thereto, the period
during which such objection is raised, the amount of the fine for negligence,
etc.
(5) Any person who is dissatisfied with a fine for negligence imposed under
paragraph (3) may, within thirty days of being notified of such an imposition,
raise an objection to the Commission.
(6) If any person on whom a fine for negligence is imposed under
paragraph (3) raises an objection under paragraph (4), the Commission
shall, without delay, notify a court of competent jurisdiction, which shall, in
turn, proceed to trial on the fine for negligence pursuant to the NonContentious Case Litigation Procedure Act
(7) If any person on whom a fine for negligence is imposed neither raises
an objection within the period of time referred to in paragraph (5), nor
pays the fine for negligence, the collection thereof may conform to the
practice of dispositions on nonpayment of national taxes
(8) Necessary matters concerning criteria for imposing a fine for negligence for
violating Article 62 (1) shall be prescribed separately.
Article 91 (Fine for Negligence)
(1) Any person who falls into one of the following categories shall be
punishable with not more than 10 million won in fines for negligence.
<Amended by Act No. 9342, Jan. 7, 2009>
1. A person who disadvantages or discriminates against an informant,
complainant or whistle-blower in terms of his/her public position or
working conditions prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 62
2. A person who violates paragraph (6) of Article 62 and fails to meet the
requests or inquiries prescribed by paragraph (5) of the same article
3. A person who fails to meet the Commission's demand according to
Article 62 (7) without reasonable grounds, except for a person who
disadvantages or discriminates against an informant, complainant or
whistle-blower in terms of public position or working conditions under
Article 62 (1)
(2) Any person who obstructs, refuses, evades, or intentionally delays the
performance of duties under Article 42 without any justifiable reason shall be
punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding 5 million won.
(3) A fine for negligence under paragraph (1) and (2) shall be imposed and
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
collected by the Commission in accordance with Presidential Decree
Deleted <Jan. 7, 2009>
Deleted <Jan. 7, 2009>
Deleted <Jan. 7, 2009>
Deleted <Jan. 7, 2009>
Deleted <Jan. 7, 2009>
[Enforcement date : July 8, 2009]
ADDENDA <Act No. 8878, Feb. 29, 2008>
Article 1 (Enforcement Date)
This Act shall enter into force on the date of promulgation.
Article 2 (Annulment of other Acts)
The following Acts are annulled.
1. Anti-Corruption Act
2. Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Ombudsman of Korea
Article 3 (Transitional Measures concerning Works and Public Officials due
to the Abolition and Establishment of Committee Organizations)
(1) The works conducted by the Ombudsman of Korea and the Korea Independent
Commission Against Corruption when this Act enters into force are succeeded
by the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission.
(2) The commissioners excluding the Chairpersons and standing
commissioners who serve political service of the Ombudsman of Korea
and the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption at the time of
enforcement of this Act are regarded to be appointed or commissioned as
commissioners of the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission. In this
case, the term of office is the remaining period.
(3) The public officials belonging to the Ombudsman of Korea and the
Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption at the time of
enforcement of this Act are regarded as the ones belonging to the Civil
Rights Commission.
Article 4 (Transitional Measures concerning Work Transfer)
(1) The actions conducted by and to the Ombudsman of Korea and the
Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption in accordance with the
Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Ombudsman of Korea and
the Anti-Corruption Act at the time of enforcement of this Act are regarded
as actions conducted by and to the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights
Commission.
(2) The inspection requests filed by the people in accordance with the
Anti-Corruption Act, and works conducted by the Board of Audit and
Inspection of Korea, the National Assembly, the Courts, the Constitutional
Court or the National Election Commission with regard to those requests
at the time of enforcement of this Act are regarded to be performed based
on this Act.
Article 5 (Transitional Measures concerning Secondees)
The public officials or employees belonging to relevant institutions
- organizations who are seconded to the Ombudsman of Korea and
the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption at the time
of enforcement of this Act are regarded as those seconded to the
Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission.
Article 6 (Relationship with Other Acts and Subordinate Statutes)
(1) When this Act enters into force, if the term 'Korea Independent
Commission Against Corruption', 'Ombudsman of Korea' or its Chairpersons
is cited in other Acts and subordinate statutes with regard to responsibilities
of the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption or the
Ombudsman of Korea succeeded by the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights
Commission, it is regarded to be cited as 'Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights
Commission or its Chairperson.
(2) If other Acts and subordinate statutes cite the provisions of the Act on the
Establishment and Operation of the Ombudsman of Korea or the Act on
Anti-Corruption at the time of enforcement of this Act, the corresponding
provisions of this Act are regarded to be cited.
ADDENDUM <Act No. 9342, Jan. 7, 2009>
This Act shall enter into force on the date of promulgation. However, the
amendment to the Article 91 shall take effect 6 months after the date of
promulgation.
ADDENDA(PUBLICSERVICEETHICSACI)<ActNo.9402Feb.3,2009>
Article 1(enforcement date)
This Act shall enter into force on the date of promulgation. <Proviso is
omitt ed>
Article 2 is omitted
Article 3 (amendment of other Acts)
(1) through (3) are omitted
(4) The Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of
the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission shall be partially
amended as foll ows;
"Article 3 (1) 10 of the Public Service Ethics Act" mentioned in the Article
2, 1 (d) shall be amended to "Article 3 (1) 12 of the Public Service Ethics
Act."
ROMANIA (FIFTH MEETING)
I - Information requested from States parties in relation to mandates of anticorruption body or bodies in respect of prevention (art. 6)
The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the overall anticorruption policy in terms of
design, implementation and monitoring, while the National Integrity Agency is
responsible for the verification of wealth, potential conflicts of interest and
incompatibilities of public officials.
1. Please describe the measures you have taken to implement art. 6 of the
Convention.
In particular, States parties may wish to cite and describe measures that:

Allocate responsibility to a specific body or bodies for the development and
implementation of preventive anti-corruption policies;
Since 2001, Romania implemented 3 national anticorruption strategies (2001-2004, 20052007 and 2008-2010) and it is currently implementing the newest public anticorruption
policy. The National Anticorruption Strategy 2012-2015, the Inventory of anti-corruption
preventive measures and evaluation indicators, as well as the National Action Plan for the
implementation of the National Anti-corruption Strategy for 2012-2015 were approved
thorough the Government Decision no. 215/20.03.2012 and published in the Official
Journal no. 202/27.03.2012.
In order to draft this strategy, preliminary consultations were organized by the Ministry of
Justice between April and July and continued between September and November 2011.
Along 2011, over 20 meetings were organized, attended by over 500 persons, representing
over 90 public and private entities. The civil society has been extremely active during the
consultation stage.
The new strategic document is built on the premise of a well-developed legislative and
institutional framework. The accent is therefore placed on the implementation and the
stability of the legislative and anticorruption institutional framework. The NAS 2012 2015 has a holistic and multidisciplinary character and is addressed to all public
institutions representing the executive, legislative and judiciary powers, local government,
business environment and civil society.
The strategy ensures the implementation of EC recommendations, incorporating at the
same time the specific recommendations issued by “The independent assessment on the
implementation of the National Anticorruption Strategy 2005-20007 and the National
Anticorruption Strategy on Vulnerable Sectors and Local Public Administration 20082010 in Romania”. The independent assessment was conducted between December 2010
and March 2011, within the project entitled Support for the Ministry of Justice for the
implementing the recommendations of the European Commission in the framework of the
Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. The Project was conducted by the Ministry of
Justice and the UN Development Program. The evaluation Report was published on
14.04.2011 on the web site of the Ministry of Justice and public consultations were
initiated, in order to elaborate the new national anti-corruption strategy.
The strategic document aims at preparing GRECO’s fourth evaluation round, on
"Corruption Prevention in respect of Members of Parliament, Judges and Prosecutors”.
In order to ensure the coherence and the coordination of all the relevant national level
initiatives, the strategy includes the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th benchmark of the Cooperation
and Verification Mechanism (established by the European Commission). This document
incorporates the areas identified as priorities at EU level by the EC Anticorruption
Communication: recovery of proceeds of crime, whistleblower protection, public
procurement, preventing and combating political corruption, protection of EU financial
interests. The Strategy puts an accent on measures promoting the institutional integrity,
but also proposes new instruments, known as European best practises, such as selfassessment methodology on corruption risks, the introduction of the integrity plans or, on
an experimental basis, the introduction of the integrity test in public administration.
The inventory of preventive measures and associated assessment indicators aims at
achieving a periodical (biannual) assessment of the application and efficiency of
anticorruption measures. The self-assessment is backed by a mechanism consisting of
specific assessment missions made by joint teams, made of experts from various public
institutions and agencies or NGOs.
Lastly, the strategy reflects Romania’s commitment towards the values of the Open
Government Partnership. In September 2011, our country joined the Partnership
declaration, assuming as major priorities: increasing the availability of public data made
available by public authorities, improving public services, increasing public integrity,
effective management of public funds, creating a safer community and strengthening
corporate responsibility.
In Romania, the National Integrity Agency (ANI) has exclusive competences in
preventing and combating conflicts of interests, unjustified wealth and incompatibilities.
Also, the other fundamental attribution of ANI is the management of assets and interests
disclosing process. Approx. 350.000 dignitaries and civil servants must submit, annually,
assets and interests disclosures.
The Agency was established through law in 2007 and became fully operational in 2008.
Moreover, the Anti-corruption General Directorate (AGD) was set up as the specialized
structure on preventing and countering corruption within the Ministry of Internal Affairs
(MoIA) personnel, through Law no. 161/2005 on establishing certain measures to prevent
and counter corruption.
ROMANIA (THIRD MEETING)
NATIONAL INTEGRITY AGENCY
I. ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION
The National Integrity Agency (NIA) was established under Law no. 144/2007, as
amended and supplemented, as an autonomous administrative authority, with legal
personality, operating at national level, a unique structure, with headquarters in Bucharest.
Its main task is to ensure the performance of public dignities and positions in conditions
of impartiality, integrity and transparency. The institution aims at organizing in a unitary
and institutionalized manner the control of assets acquired during the exercise of
mandates or performance of public dignities positions, verification of conflicts of interest,
and incompatibilities.
NIA is a specialized body within the central public administration, financed from the state
budget.
MISSION
The Agency operates under the principles of legality, confidentiality, impartiality,
independence operational, celerity, good administration, defense, and the principle of
presumption of lawful acquisition of wealth.
The Agency’s mission is to contribute significantly to the establishment of standards of
integrity, good practice in public administration and to discourage behaviors that generate
corruption in the administrative level through active cooperation with institutions and
authorities at national and European level.
OBJECTIVES
In 2011, the Agency focused to enhance its activity by fulfilling the following main
objectives:
reaching efficiency and enhancing the evaluation activity of assets, conflicts of
interests and incompatibilities;
fulfilling the objectives set through ANI`s “Strategy for combating and
preventing acquiring unjustified wealth, conflicts of interests and
incompatibilities - 2011 – 2014”






taking measures on submitting the assets and interests disclosers in due time, as well
as developing the assets evaluation cases, conflict of interests cases or
incompatibilities;
professional training of the personnel (both operative and administrative)
improving the work procedures within the Agency’s departments;
enhancing inter-institutional cooperation;
developing awareness and prevention events;
informing the targeted public on the normative acts incidental to A.N.I.’s activity;
In 2011, the Agency strengthened its institutional activity by:




improving the outcome of existing working procedures in the departments of the
Agency;
training of staff;
improving the efficiency of evaluation of assets, conflicts of interest and
incompatibilities;
dynamic inter-institutional cooperation.
II. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
a) The final budget for 2011 of NIA, approved by Parliament by Law no. 286/2010 on the
State Budget for 2011: 11.024.000 Lei, of which:



Staff costs: 5.635.000 Lei;
Goods and services: 5.356.000 Lei;
Capital expenditure: 33.000 Lei.
b) Supplementary budget for NIA for 2011, approved by Decision no. 466/11.05.2011 :


Additional budget requested by NIA: 7.384.000 Lei (EUR 1.759.000);
The total amount allocated by the Government: 2.700.000 Lei (Euro 643,189) =
36.56% of the amount requested.
III. THE STRUCTURE OF THE POSITIONS ON 30 DECEMBER OCCUPIED
AND
FREE


Filled in: 83 positions
Vacant: 117 positions
IV. STAFF PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
Between January 4 and 15, 2011, Human Resources, in collaboration with the Department
of Communication, Public Relations and Strategy, carried out a research for defining
training needs and specialization of the professional staff of the institution and also to
identify “risk areas” where training activities should be prioritized during 2011.The
research was carried out through a questionnaire, which included a set of 23 structured
questions, in order to provide an overview of training activities attended by agency staff in
2010 and also the expectations and wishes of individuals related to their training. Following
the centralization and analysis of data obtained from the research, the department of Human
Resources in collaboration with the Department of Communication, Public Relations and
Strategy developed:
1. The Strategy for training the stuff of the National Integrity Agency for 2011;
2. The Action Plan on training civil servants in 2011;
3. The Annual Plan draft of professional civil servants in 2011.
Thus, following the training needs identified through research and invitations received from
various institutions, the National Integrity Agency staff attended, during 2011, a series of
activities both at national and international level.
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Кроме того, с целью реализации положений статьи 6 Конвенции ООН против
коррупции, а также с учетом того, что проявления коррупции могут наблюдаться в
различных сферах жизнедеятельности государства и общества, в августе 2007 г. в
Генеральной прокуратуре Российской Федерации создано специализированное
подразделение по надзору за исполнением законодательства о противодействии
коррупции. Аналогичные подразделения созданы во всех субъектах Российской
Федерации.
В состав управления входят отдел по надзору за соблюдением федерального
законодательства, отдел по надзору за уголовно-процессуальной и оперативнорозыскной деятельностью, обеспечению участия прокуроров в рассмотрении
уголовных дел судами, а также организационно-аналитический отдел.
Основные направления деятельности этих подразделений можно разделить на
следующие группы:
выявление
коррупционных
проявлений
и
проведение
по
ним
соответствующих проверок;
осуществление надзора за соблюдением уголовно-процессуального
законодательства в ходе расследования уголовных дел о куррупции;
поддержание государственного обвинения в стадии судебного производства
по таким уголовным делам;
мониторинг и анализ исполнения законодательства о борьбе с коррупцией и
выработка предложений по его совершенствованию;
участие в международном сотрудничестве с антикоррупционными и иными
структурами других стран.
Moreover for the purpose of realization of provisions of article 6 of the United Nations
Convention against corruption and taking into account that corruption manifestations can
be observed in different spheres of activities of a particular state or society a specialized
unit was set up in August 2007 within the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation to
supervise over execution of legislation on corruption counteraction. Similar units were
established in all subjects of the Russian Federation.
The unit is comprised of the division for supervision over execution of federal legislation,
the division for supervision over criminal proceedings, investigation and search operations
and ensuring participation of prosecutors in criminal trials, as well as the organizational
analytical division.
The main areas of activities of these divisions can be divided into following groups:
identification of corruption’s manifestations and conduct of relevant inspections;
supervision over execution of procedural criminal legislation in the course of
investigation of criminal cases on corruption;
maintenance of prosecution in the course of judicial proceedings on criminal cases;
monitoring and analysis of the process of execution of legislation on combating
corruption and working out of proposals for its improvement;
participation in international cooperation with anti-corruption and other structures
of other states
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (SECOND MEETING)
The timely assessment and adjustment of measures adopted to combat corruption and
the monitoring of their implementation are conducted by the Council of the President of
the Russian Federation for Countering Corruption and its working body, the Presidium.
SAUDI ARABIA (FIFTH MEETING)
First: Review of the implementation of Article 6 of the United Nations Convention against
Corruption
1. Each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal
system, ensure the existence of a body or bodies, as appropriate that prevent
corruption by such means as:
(a) Implementing the policies referred to in article 5 of this Convention and, where
appropriate, overseeing and coordinating the implementation of those policies
In this regard The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia achieved the following:
Issued the National Strategy to Protect the Integrity and to Combat Corruption according to
the decision of the Council of Ministers Nr. 43 on 19 February 2007, which included:
Establish an Anti-Corruption Commission with the following tasks:
a. Following up the implementation of the National Strategy, as well as monitoring,
assessing and reviewing its outcomes, and putting in place the program of action
and implementation mechanisms thereof.
b. Coordination of the efforts of both private and public sectors in monitoring and
assessing the anti-corruption programs
c. Receiving periodical reports and statistics from the entities working within the
Commission competencies and examining as well as preparing analytical date
thereof
d. Collecting information, data and statistics in order to identify, classify, examine and
exchange them with the competent authorities
The strategy also touched on the importance of the participation of civil society
organizations in protecting the integrity and combat Corruption by
a. The involvement of these organizations” according to their competence” in the
study of the phenomenon of corruption and give their proposals to reduce corruption
b. Urging professional and academic bodies such as Doctors, lawyers, engineers and
accountants to provide their proposals about the (regulatory, financial,
administrative) systems and submit their proposals about the development and
modernization of them.
c. Urging the chambers of commerce and industry on the preparation of plans and
programs to sensitize the businessmen and traders of the dangers of corruption and
its causes and effects and submit their proposals about the financial and business
systems.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission was established according to the Royal Order
Nr. 65/a on 18 March 2011, and was granted full independence from all government
bodies. The National Anti-Corruption Commission was organized according to the decision
of the Council of Ministers Nr. 165 on 2 May 2011 in order to protect integrity and to
combat financial and administrative corruption in all its forms and manifestations. To this
end, the Commission holds the following competencies:
 Following and implementing the orders and instructions relating to the common
public and the citizens interests to ensure the compliance therewith.
 Investigating all forms of financial and management corruption within the public
contacts, operating and maintenance contracts, and other contracts relating to the
common public and the citizens interests at the entities working within the
competencies of the Commission, and conducting the necessary regular procedures
regarding any contract deemed corrupted or was entered into or is being executed
with contravention to the rules and regulations applicable provisions.
 Communicating detected irregularities and violations relating to financial and
management corruption to the watchdog or investigation agencies as the case my
require, along with notifying the Chairman of the Commission to which the









contravener affiliates, and the Commission shall have the access to the
investigations developments and shall follow up the flow of measures undertaken in
this respect, and requests the authorities to conduct whatsoever precautionary or
conservatory procedures in accordance with the system’s requirements regarding
anyone who, through strong evidences and proofs was proved to have committed
deeds that fall under corruption. In all cases, the Commission must report such
irregularities and violations of any entities working within the competencies of the
Commission that it deemed as having institutional dimension, to the King for
further action.
Working on meeting the objectives set forth in the National Strategy to Protect
Integrity and Combat Corruption, and following up the implementation thereof with
the authorities, as well as monitoring assessing, and reviewing its outcomes, and
putting in place the program of action and implementation mechanism thereof.
Promoting the efforts of both private and public sectors, adopting plans and
programs for the purpose of protecting integrity and combating corruption, and
follow up the implementation and assessment of the outcomes.
Following up the recovery of stolen money and returns as a result of crimes of
corruption, with the authorities
Reviewing the work approaches and measures at the entities working within the
Commission competencies, for the purpose of identifying the points of weakness
leading to corruption , and working on addressing them to ensure the Commission
objectives and implementing the competencies.
Recommending the necessary systems and policies to hold back and combat
corruption and conducting a regular review of systems and relevant regulations, to
identify its sufficiency, with the view to developing the system, and providing
reports regarding its implementation.
Establishing the necessary controls regarding submitting financial disclosures, and
functional oath performance for some staff categories in the kingdom, and reporting
such to the King to consider the approval.
Following up the extent to which the entities working within the Commission
competencies, are carrying out their duties towards the enforcement of the systems
criminalizing financial and management corruption, and working on enhancing the
accountability principle, regardless of the personality or position of the contravener.
Following up the implementation of commitments stipulated in the international
agreements relating to protecting integrity and combating corruption, to which the
Saudi Arabia is a party.
Providing direct communication channels with the public to receive their complaints
related to corruption behaviors, and verifying such reports, then taking the
necessary actions in this respect.








Working together with the respective entities, and civil society organizations to
enhance the realization of the sense of citizenship, and the significance of protecting
the public funds, facilities and properties, to ensure the proper management and
maintenance.
Receiving periodical reports and statistics from entities working within the
Commission competencies as per the requirements of the Commission and
examining it as well as preparing analytical data, and then taking the necessary
action.
Supporting the researches and studies relating to protecting integrity and combating
corruption, along with urging the relevant authorities, specialized research centers
and civil societies to contribute to that.
Conducting studies and benchmarking relating to the effects of corruption on
development and social collaboration.
Collecting information, data and statistics relating to corruption, analyzing and
setting up databases and information systems relating.
Raising awareness of the concept of corruption, establishing and identifying the
risks and impacts, as well as demonstrating the importance of protecting integrity,
promoting self-censorship, and intolerance with corruption, along with promoting
civil society organizations and mass media to cooperate and contribute to that
matter.
Representing the Kingdom in the international conferences and forums relevant to
transparency, protection of integrity and combating corruption, as well as
cooperating with regional and international authorities and organizations working in
this field.
Organizing conferences, seminars and training courses on transparency, integrity
and combating corruption.
b. Increasing and diffusion awareness about the prevention of corruption
The organization of the Commission Provides the following: Recommending the necessary
systems and policies to hold back and combat corruption and conducting a regular review
of systems and relevant regulations, to identify its sufficiency, and develop and report
thereof as per the regular measures.
2. Each State Party shall grant the body or bodies referred to in paragraph 1of this
article the necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principles
of its legal system, to enable the body or bodies to carry out its or their functions
effectively and free from any undue influence. The necessary material resources and
specialized staff, as well as the training that such staff may require to carry out their
functions, should be provided.
1. According to Article 2 of the Regulation of the Anti-Corruption Commission:
“The Commission is directly associated with the King, has a legal status, and complete
administrative and financial separation insuring its work impartially, without being
influenced by any authority and without any intervention by anybody in its work’.
2. According to Article 7 of the Regulation of the Anti-Corruption Commission:
“The president is to take over the supervision on achieving the goals and implementing the
specializations on the Commission, the financial and administrative supervision on the
Commission and its staff as well as managing its affairs and he is to have the following
authorities”
a. Supervision of the implementation of the financial and functional regulations of the
Commission and directing to the King to decide whether to accredit them.
b. Issuance of the administrative regulations and the organizational structure of the
Commission.
c. Representing the Commission before the public and private organizations.
d. Supervision on implementing the Commissions project budget and directing it to the
King to decide whether to accredit it.
3. The training manual was adopted by the decision of the President of the National
Anti-Corruption Commission, where the Commission’s employee gets a course or
more each year. The Commission encourages the study scholarship MS and Ph.D.
programs according the need of the commission. The training is considered as
mandatory.
The Commission has prepared a training program in combating corruption in
coordination and cooperation with the Institute of Public Administration which is the
Academic entity in charge for the training of state employees. The Commission is
currently preparing an MS program in combating corruption in collaboration with the
Institute of Public Administration.
3. Each State Party shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the
name and address of the authority or authorities that may assist other States Parties
in developing and implementing specific measures for the prevention of corruption.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations was informed of the Deposit of the
instrument of ratification of the UN Convention Against Corruption about the name
and the address of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, according to the
Royal order Nr. m/5 on 23 January 2013 which stated that the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs shall inform the Secretary- general of the United Nations of the name and
address of the National Anti-Corruption Commission according to Paragraph 3,
Article 6 of the Convention.
SERBIA (FIFTH MEETING)
Mandates of anti-corruption body or bodies in respect of prevention (art.6)
Background information
In accordance with the UN Convention, the Anti-Corruption Agency was established
(Official Gazette of RS, No. 97/2008, 53/2010, 66/11-CC and 67/I3-CC) as an autonomous
and independent state authority with numerous preventive, control and oversight
competencies.
The Law on the Anti-Corruption Agency entered into force on 4 November 2008 thus
enabling the establishment of a new institution of the Republic of Serbia to fight corruption.
The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) was found in accordance with international standards,
especially Article 6 of the UN Convention against Corruption and specific
recommendations from the GRECO.
ACA became operational as of January 2010 and has preventive and operational
competences in several areas — resolving conflict of interest of public officials in Serbia,
controlling the asset declarations of public officials, controlling the funding of political
parties, supervising the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and
corresponding Action Plan, dealing with complaints and whistle-blower charges, fulfilling
international obligations, monitoring the implementation of integrity plans, achieving
cooperation with all governmental and non-governmental organizations and coordinating
international anti-corruption efforts of relevant state institutions in Serbia. In addition, ACA
institutes proceedings and pronounces measures in case of violation of the Law, monitors
and coordinates the operation of state authorities in the fight against corruption, maintains
the register of officials, register of officials' property and income, provides professional
assistance in the anti-corruption area, cooperates with other state authorities in drafting the
anti-corruption legislation, introduces and implements anti-corruption training programmes,
conducts surveys, monitors and analyses statistics and other data about corruption.
For conducting activities within its competences, ACA is accountable to the National
Assembly, to which it is required to file annual work report that shall include a report on
the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and related Action plan. Both
reports includes detail analysis of the key shortcomings within the areas falling under ACA
competencies. Moreover, both reports includes conclusions and specific recommendations
to the competent state authorities. According to the NA Rules of Procedure, within 30 days
upon submission of the report, relevant NA committees have to discuss ACA report and to
formulate conclusions/ recommendations that are to be considered/adopted at the first NA
session. Having in mind the oversight/scrutiny function of the NA, after considering ACA
report, recommendations for improvement of the state of corruption have to be sent to all
relevant state institutions.
For
additional
information
please
see
http://www.acas.rs/sr_cir/component/content/article/229.html
The bodies of the Agency are the Board (consisting of nine members) and the Director. The
Board is appointing and dismissing the Director of ACA, deciding on appeals against
Director's decisions imposing the measures in accordance with this law, adopting the
annual work report of ACA, supervising the work and property of the Director, proposing
the budget for ACA, adopting rules of procedure for its work and performing other tasks
stipulated by the law. Term of office of a Board member is four years, and same person
may be a member only twice.
The Director is representing ACA, managing the work, organizing and ensuring legal and
efficient performance of ACA, making decisions on violations of the law and imposing
measures, preparing an annual report of ACA's work, preparing draft budget, adopting
general and individual acts, deciding on
rights, duties and responsibilities of the employees, carrying out decisions of the Board and
performing other duties specified by the law. Director's term of office is five years, and
same person may be a director only twice.
ACA has professional services managed by the Director, notably the Sector for Prevention,
Sector for Operational Affairs, Sector for Complaints and Branch Offices, Sector for
General Affairs, Department for Resolving Conflict of Interests, Department for Control of
Financing Political Subjects, International Cooperation Department and Public Relations
Department.
Resources for work are allocated from the budget of the Republic of Serbia, as well as other
sources. However, in order to implement activities envisaged in the Law on AntiCorruption Agency, ACA still mostly relies on the donors' support.
In addition, very important role of the Agency is to coordinate the state bodies in the fight
against corruption. In 2013 ACA intensified/targeted efforts re this important task by
initiating regular meetings (at the highest level) of public authority organs, having
significant role in prevention and suppression of corruption. Seven meetings were held so
tar. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss on the ongoing disputable but also future
anti-corruption issues, since efficient fight against corruption require sector approach
supported with joint actions. The representatives/heads of Commissioner for Inhumation of
Public Importance, Ombudsman, Slate Audit Institution, Republic Commission for the
Protection of Rights in Public Procurement Procedures, Republic Broadcasting Agency,
National Assembly, National Bank of Serbia, First I kpuly Prime Minister's Cabinet Office,
Ministry of Health, Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, Ministry of Interior,
Public Prosecutor's Office, High Misdemeanor Court, Administration for the Prevention of
Money Laundering, Public Procurement (Mice, Tax Administration, Business Registers
Agency and Security Information Agency attended the respective meeting.
Corruption Prevention Mechanisms implemented by the ACA
1. Monitoring of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and related Action plan
ACA is responsible for monitoring of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NACS) and
related Action Plan (AP). From its establishment in 2010, ACA has prepared three reports
on the implementation of the old NACS and AP and one on the implementation of the new
NACS and AP. Once the new NACS for the period 2013-2018 and the Action plan' had
entered into force, the ACA drafted Guidelines for reporting on the implementation and
monitoring the implementation of the NACS and Action plan, entailing detailed
instructions for responsible entities in terms of creating reports, indicators as well as
propose of the reporting form. It was expected that the Guidelines will facilitate and unify
the reporting process, thus simplifying the process of monitoring the implementation of the
Strategy, The Guidelines were sent to all responsible entities in the Action plan and
displayed at ACA's website. At the end of March 2014, ACA created Report on the
implementation of the Strategy and Action plan for 2013, encompassing also Report on
implementation of the activities for the first four months of the implementation of the
NACS and AV. The pertinent report was submitted to the National Assembly on March 31,
2014, as an annex to the Annual Report on the work of the ACA. In the first reporting
period the ACA assessed fulfilment in terms of 47 activities. Half of them, i.e. 24 were
fulfilled in conformity with the indicator, 10 activities were not fulfilled in conformity with
the indicator and the ACA couldn't assess the fulfilment of 13 activities for various reasons,
mainly due to lack of information. According to data of the ACA, out of 24 fulfilled
activities, 20 (more than 4/5) were fulfilled in accordance with the method and deadline
envisaged in the Action plan and 4 were implemented in due time, but not in accordance
with the method envisaged in the Action plan.
2. Corruption risk assessment in legislation
In the framework of corruption risk analysis of draft legislation and especially in order to
strengthen regulatory integrity and eliminate potential corruption risks, in late 2012 ACA
has developed the Methodology for corruption risk assessment in legislation. The
methodology represents an internal act of the Agency, and in view of the existing legal
framework, opinions and recommendations for elimination of corruption risk, which are
prepared by the Agency, as the result of an analysis of regulations, are not binding for the
proposers of laws and other regulations. According to the applicable regulations, proposers
of laws and other regulations are not obliged to submit the drafts and bills of laws to the
Agency for an opinion, so that the Agency shall only analyse those drafts of laws and other
regulations submitted for public debate. Up to now, the Agency has prepared 23 opinions of
drafts of laws, 2 reports on analysis of corruption risk in the existing legal framework
governing the field of health care and accreditation procedure and selection of textbooks at
schools and 1 initiative for harmonisation of the Regulation on Fees for Use of Cadastre
and Survey Data and rendering of services by the geodetic Institute of the Republic of
Serbia with the provisions of the Law on State Survey and Cadastre. The opinions about
drafts of laws are submitted by the Agency to the proposer of the law concerned (to the
competent ministry), the Government and the National Assembly and are published at ACA
web-site. Since the competent state bodies have no obligation to take into account any
opinion and recommendations of the Agency, the effects of risk analysis on the drafts of
regulations prepared by the Agency are very modest.
For this reason, the Strategy and the Action Plan prescribe a series of new measures and
activities that
should improve and strengthen the effects of this mechanism for assessment of corruption
risk. The
new NACS and AP prescribe that the Law on ACA is to be changed in the near future
together with the
both Rules of the procedures of the Government and the National Assembly introducing
this important
AC tool in the legislative drafting system. It is planned that ACA is to develop
methodology for
analysis of corruption risk in regulations and the proposers of regulations will be obliged to
use
methodology even on the occasion of drawing up normative acts so that the elements that
might generate, in real life, corruptive incitements or behaviours are eliminated. Any bill of
law must contain
in its statement-of-reasons an analysis of corruption risk as evidence that the proposer had
applied
methodology on the occasion of drawing up the text of law. The Government will be
obliged to submit all bills of laws and regulations to ACA for an opinion. Within 10 days
ACA will submit to the Government an opinion about the analysis of corruption risk in the
bill of law, including recommendations for their elimination. The Government will be
obliged to submit to the National Assembly, together with the bill of law, the ACA opinion
of on analysis of corruption risk in the text of bill of law. According to the AP, after the
adoption and publication of methodology, the Agency shall organise and carry out the
training on the application of methodology for the proposers of laws, as well as for those
that propose and adopt regulations at the level of local self-government and territorial
autonomy.
3. Integrity Plan
An integrity plan is one of anti-corruption mechanisms, namely of preventive mechanisms
for the implementation of risk assessment for the occurrence and development of
corruption. An integrity plan is a mechanism to strengthen institution integrity, i.e. the
document which is created as the result of self-assessment of exposure of an institution to
risks for occurrence and development of corruption and other irregularities, and which
contains measures for prevention, reduction and elimination of identified risks. By drawing
up an integrity plan the institution shall assess possible threats, problems, chain of events
that may lead to corruption before corruption takes place. An internal check-up of the
institution functioning is performed, regulations are assessed in order to see whether they
are such to prevent or enable corruption, as well as quality of human resources and practice
(organisation), method of decision-making, what the extent of discretion powers is in key
fields of the institution functioning (public procurements, finances, human resources,
information...), which is the first step towards the improvement of the institution integrity.
The Law on the Anti-Corruption Agency prescribes an obligation for the state bodies,
organisations, bodies of territorial autonomy and local self-government, public agencies
and public companies to adopt their own integrity plans. The Agency adopted and
published the Guidelines for the preparation and implementation of integrity plans (Official
Gazette of 1?S, no. 80/10).
In the process of preparation and implementation of integrity plans the Agency has
consulting and control roles. The consulting role of the Agency is reflected in the
preparation of the Guidelines for the preparation and implementation of integrity plans,
which defines the structure of plans, method of preparation in stages, performance of
certain tasks, deadlines for preparation, method of preparation monitoring and
implementation method, as well as the training of persons appointed to prepare integrity
plans at the institutions. In the course of 2012 approximately 3,950 representatives of the
state institutions were trained on integrity plans (notion, significance and method of
preparation).
According to the records of the Agency, the total number of the institutions that are obliged
to prepare their integrity plans amounts to 4,483. In order to provide quality preparation and
implementation of integrity plans by such a large number of obligors, the Agency
developed 69 models of integrity plans (in the form of web application) suitable for various
types of institutions. In the preparation of a draft (model) of integrity plans working groups
took part, which consisted of the representatives of various state institutions (109 members
in total), classified to 14 systems (political system, judiciary system, police system, system
of public administration and local self-government, defence system, system of finances,
system of economy and agriculture, system of social policy, health care system, system of
education and science, system of culture and sports, system of environment and
infrastructure, system or data protection, human resources and public interest and system of
public companies). The contents of the draft of integrity plans have been made through 2
processes 1) based on the collection of data, proposals and suggestions submitted to the
Agency by the members of working groups, formed with the aim to prepare the draft and 2)
analysis of data obtained from researches for verification and supplement of the contents of
the draft of integrity plans.
The result of the above mentioned processes if 69 prepared drafts of integrity plans in total,
which are classified to systems. For example, for system of health care 4 drafts of integrity
plans were prepared and for those types of institutions that belong to the systems concerned
in respect of their competences: the Ministry of Health, health centres, clinical
centres/hospitals, the Health Insurance Fund of the Republic of Serbia.
A draft of integrity plan contains identified risk fields/processes, and within each process
individual and concrete risks were defined, which may endanger efficiency and quality of
implementation of the process concerned, as well as the measures for prevention/reduction
of recognised risks. Based on such a model, each institution shall carry out self-assessment
or the mentioned risks that may happen with it or that have already been happening and
what measures are to be undertaken in order to prevent them.
The structure of integrity plan: Common areas (Management of Institution, Management of
Finance, Management of Public Procurements, Management of Documentation,
Management of Human Resources, Security); Area of ethics and personal integrity
(Conflict of Interest, Taking Presents, I affective Response in Respect of Corruption Claims
on Ethically and Professionally Inadmissible Acts, Protection of Employees Reporting
Corruption, Ethically and Professionally Inadmissible Acts); Specific areas/ competences
(they refer to concrete competences of institutions, e.g. Local self-government system area/competence: construction-urban planning projects).
The control role of the Agency implies monitoring and supervision of preparation and
implementation of integrity plan, whether an integrity plan has been made, quality and
objectivity of the prepared integrity plan and level of application of measures for
improvement of integrity. The Agency will assess whether an institution prepared its
integrity plan in quality and objective manner in two ways ¬visiting the institution
concerned, namely directly controlling a certain number of institutions that had prepared
integrity plans and based on comparative analysis of the results of the researches by the
beneficiary of services on the institution functioning.
The procedure of drawing up an integrity plan at the institutions shall have 3 stages, as
follows: 1) preparation stage, 2) stage of assessment and evaluation of the existing
conditions and 3) plan of measures to improve integrity. It is important to stress that the
process of preparation of integrity plan is implemented systematically and the time
prescribed for its preparation is 13 months, as well as that the all employees are included in
the stage of assessment and evaluation of the existing conditions. 1 was done with the aim
to make the most detailed and objective review of the conditions at the institutions and to
propose adequate measures to give expected results. The deadline for drawing up integrity
plan expired on 31 March 2013. Within this first cycle, integrity plans were prepared by
2,121 institutions, namely by about 50 % of them.
The integrity plan is prepared every third year. The preparation and implementation of
integrity plans in cycles makes it possible to monitor the progress of institutions in
strengthening their integrity and anti-corruption capacities, respectively. Also, in this way
the Agency will be able to monitor the pattern of phenomena, causes, occurrence and
change of risks defined in integrity plan, in the public sector or the Republic of Serbia, and
to give recommendations for system prevention of corruption and other irregularities.
Based on an analysis of prepared integrity plans, we get comprehensive and price picture of
the conditions of institutional integrity at the state level. In view of the fact that the
institutions are classified to 14 systems and that they had prepared their integrity plans
based on a model in web application, by means of statistical and content analysis of data
base, it is easy to establish what risks had been identified, which of them are most frequent
in which system and in which field of functioning of the institution they are present —
whether they are in finances, management, human resources or some other field. It is in this
way that it is the best to observe system difficulties opening space fur corruption and render
adequate recommendations for their solution.
The role of the ACA within the process of adopting and implementing the integrity plan, as
a mechanism for corruption prevention as well as strengthening integrity of public sector, is
twofold -consultative and controlling one. Thanks to the support of the ACA, out of 4483
public authority bodies, 2121 developed their integrity plans and submitted it to the ACA.
The control function of the ACA in terms of integrity plans pertains to the assessment of
the objectivity of integrity plans. The ACA has previously drafted methodology based on
which the objectivity is assessed through visiting institutions. After discussion with the
employees and managers, as well as analysis of the legal framework and citizens'
complaints, ACA drafts reports on conducted control, entailing findings and
recommendations in terms of amending the existing integrity plans so as to eliminate or
mitigate corruption risks. From September 2013 till April 2014. ACA visited 28 different
public authority bodies, and 20 more institutions throughout Serbia are to be visited in
order to pursue control of the objectivity of adopted integrity plans on the basis of
representative sample.
4. Researching integrity of public authority bodies from the perspective of service
users
ACA conducted researches based on empirical determination of service users' experiences
in the systems of healthcare, local self-government and judiciary. The basic hypothesis in
drafting research was that stronger institutional integrity of public authority bodies and their
employees stands for a higher level of services delivered to citizens, i.e. enables them to
deliver services to the citizens in a sensible and rational manner, to fulfil their purpose in
terms of meeting the needs and interests of citizens for which they had been established and
basically exist. Researches, having been conducted in three systems and according to the
number and type of subjects involved as well as social activities they pursue and the impact
of these activities on the society, can be deemed to be representative example of the whole
public sector functioning, indicate that the environment wherein the public authorities
operate is prone to occurrence and development of corrupt practice. The ACA publicly
presented the findings of these researches and invited the competent institutions to take the
results of analysis as well as recommendations within the reports, drafted after researches
into account, when defining anti-corruption public policies.
SIERRA LEONE (FIFTH MEETING)
1. Information requested from States parties in relation to mandates of anticorruption
body or bodies in respect of prevention
Please describe the measures you have taken to implement art. 6 of the Convention
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) which was established by an Act of Parliament in
2000 takes the lead in the fight against corruption in Sierra Leone. The object for which the
commission was established is to take all steps as may be necessary for the prevention,
eradication or suppression of corruption and corrupt practices.
The commission functions among others to:
 Detect or investigate any act of corruption
 receive and examine and retain all declarations of assets required to be filed with it
under the Act of 2008
 Examine the practices and procedures of public bodies in order to facilitate the
discovery of corrupt practices or acts of corruption and to secure revision of those
procedures to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of corrupt practices.
 Undertake studies and assist in research in order to identify the causes of corruption
and its consequences on the social and economic structures of Sierra Leone.
 Monitor in such manner as it considers appropriate the implementation of any
contract awarded by a public body with a view to ensuring that no irregularity or
impropriety is involved therein
 Monitor legislative and administrative practices in the fight against corruption and
to advise government on the adoption and ratification of international instrument
relating to corruption
 Educate the public on the dangers of corruption and the benefits of its eradication
and to enlist and foster public support combating corruption
 Cooperate and collaborate with foreign governments, local, regional and
international institutions agencies and organizations in the fight against corruption
 Investigate the extent of liability for the loss of or damage to any public property
and to institute civil proceedings against any person for the recovery of such
property or for compensation
The 2000 Anti-corruption Act was amended in 2008 to expand the scope of corruption
offences, providing protection for whistle blowers, and making it mandatory for all civil
servants to declare their assets. The strengthening of the ACC was followed by a number of
measures aimed at reforming and strengthening other integrity institutions of the state that
ensure transparency and accountability. These include the Audit Service Sierra Leone
(ASSL), the National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA), and the Public Accounts
committee of parliament (PAC), the district budget oversight committees, the public
expenditure tracking surveys (PETS), and the office of the Ombudsman. The government
revised the anti-money laundering act in 2011.
The key document setting out the Government's anti-corruption policy is the National
Anti-Corruption Strategy (NACS). Section 5(1) (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act of 2008
vests in the Commissioner the power to “coordinate the implementation of the National
Anti-Corruption Strategy.” The responsibility to implement the NACS rests with
Government ministries, departments and agencies.
Since 2000, the country has implemented two National Anti-corruption Strategies (2005 2008 and 2008-13) in demonstration of the Government and people of Sierra Leone’s
resolve to confront the scourge of corruption from an integrated and a well-coordinated
approach.
The NACS Secretariat serves as the implementing coordinating unit providing support to
and facilitating scheduled reviews of the strategy. The objectives of the NACS include:
a) To improve the delivery of social services in terms of quality, quantity and process,
b) To promote a public service that is effective in preventing and confronting without
compromising peace and security
c) Playing a leading role in providing an environment for citizens to curb corruption.
The strategy is monitored through the use of a coalition of Civil Society organizations - the
civil society Monitoring Groups (CSMGs). Their involvement in the monitoring process is
to provide an independent opinion on the implementation of the strategy.
The result of these systems and largely structural approach to the fight against corruption
highlights varying successes and challenges in addressing the key corruption issues that
should enhance the delivery of the much needed social services by the public sector.
Implementation of the NACS heralded greater public sector awareness and willingness to
address entity-specific anti-graft measures. Through established structures like the NACS
Integrity Management Committees (IMCs), an attempt to mainstream anti-corruption
initiatives at both the centre and local government levels is gradually gaining momentum.
Almost over 80% of MDAS and 100% of local councils now have IMCs with a mandate to
‘provide a supportive environment to ensure that the recommended actions in the NACS
relevant to the entity are addressed within the stipulated time.’
Focal persons are appointed in all of the IMCs whose responsibility it is for the
coordination of the implementation of the Strategy as is relevant for their respective entity.
They lead the implementation, coordinate sensitization activities in-house and, prepare
updates and implement the work plan with the support of the IMCs.
The establishment of a network of civil society organizations that provide quarterly interval
monitoring within the framework of the strategy implementation mechanism has helped in
support of government’s direct policy of strengthening the accountability regime within the
overall government structure to combat corruption. A culture of addressing corruption is
gradually being nurtured.
The implementation of the 2008 –2013 NACS ended in December of 2013; however the
Strategy was beset with the following challenges:
 It was focused more on the public sector with no adequate provision for private
sector corruption
 Issues of financial and economic crimes were not built into the strategy
 Lack of ownership, as MDAs were questioning where to obtain the resources to
implement the corruption control measures
 Unrealistic planning, inadequate prioritization of reforms, insufficient involvement
of non-state actors; and the lack of adequate coordination and monitoring.
The 3rd Generation National Anti-Corruption Strategy runs from 2014 – 2018 and
addresses the above mentioned challenges and other emerging issues. The new National
Anti-Corruption Strategy (2014-2018) reflects priorities of the government and is built on
the basis of various studies, public consultations, surveys and benchmarking of other
countries’ Anti-corruption strategies. The framework for the new strategy is as follows:
 Risk based- Focuses on sectors or institutions with high propensity for corruption




People driven- Bottom-top approach
National Ownership (people & donors)
Stakeholders participation (civil society)
Knowledge based design (analysis of local Knowledge)
The following institutions are involved in preventive and investigative activities:
National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA)
A good public procurement system contributes in a major way towards the fight against
corruption and improves governance, introducing efficiency and transparency in Public
Financial Management (PFM).
The NPPA was created by an Act of Parliament in 2004. The legislation creating the
NPPA covers all institutions utilizing public funds for procurement purposes. This includes
partly or wholly owned enterprises or any institution in which government has 51% shares
or more. Furthermore, the law makes it mandatory for all institution to create structures
such as procurement committees for decision making and procurement units or department
for day-to-day procurement activities, record keeping and implementation of the provisions
of the Act and its regulations.
The object for which the Authority is established is to regulate and monitor public
procurement in Sierra Leone and to advise the Government on issues relating to public
procurement. The National Public Procurement Authority is to ensure full compliance by
all procuring entities, Suppliers, Contractors, Consultants and other parties in Public
Procurement with the requirements of the Public Procurement Act 2004 and its regulatory
instruments in order to ensure competitiveness, transparency, accountability and value for
money in government expenditures.
In accordance with the legal and regulatory framework of the public procurement process,
the NPPA introduced a procurement cadre within the civil service as well as government
ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) to separate procurement roles from other
relevant functions, thereby ensuring that procurement professionals are limited only to
undertaking activities bordering on procurement. Furthermore, the Authority is charged
with the responsibility of verifying biding documents and providing technical assistance to
MDAs in order to ensure that procurement activities are carried out within the legal
framework.
Moreover, each Procuring Entity (PE) is required to undertake regular internal monitoring
of its procurement activities to ensure that such activities are conducted within the legal and
regulatory framework. As it were, the Public Procurement Manual introduces a formal
system of routine reporting on procurement to the NPPA coupled with the regular
monitoring of procurement in a PE by the Auditor General and the Ministry of Finance.
Finally, the NPPA will assess the overall procurement process in a PE, including the
issuance of reports of findings in consultation with the Auditor General.
Audit Service Sierra Leone (ASSL)
The ASSL was created by an Act of Parliament in 1998 to carry out the mandate of the
Auditor –General whose establishment is traceable to the 1991 Constitution of Sierra
Leone.
Essentially, the ASSL is charged with the responsibility of auditing the public accounts of
Sierra Leone and its institutions as well as enterprises set up partly or wholly out of public
funds. Since its inception, the ASSL has contributed immensely in introducing Public
Financial Management reforms in the country. This is evident in the pivotal role it played in
the promulgation of the Government and Accountability Act, 2005, Financial Management
Regulation, 2007 and the National Public Procurement Authority, 2004 as well as
recommendations made to government MDAs in order to strengthen their internal control
systems.
Anti-Money Laundering
In recognition of the potential risk posed by money laundering to the financial and
economic stability of Sierra Leone, the government enacted an Anti-Money Laundering Act
criminalizing money laundering and related activities.
Sierra Leone currently has four agencies involved with the investigation and prosecution of
Money laundering cases, namely the Sierra Leone Police (SLP), the National Revenue
Authority (NRA), the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions (DPP). However, none of the investigation agencies have been
designated to conduct such investigations. Whilst the CISU has been mandated with
responsibility to tackle the threat of money laundering and terrorism, it is unable to bring a
matter to court without assistance from another law enforcement agency.
The legal framework for preventive measures for financial institutions can be found in the
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act of 2005 which applies to all financial institutions as
required by the FATF 40 + 9, whereas the Money Laundering Regulations (MLR) applies
only to those financial institutions that are regulated by the Bank of sierra Leone (BSL)
under the Banking Act. The key strengths of the AML Act l include, among other things,
the criminalization of money laundering and terrorism financing, extension of the powers
for freezing order from 72 hours to ten (10).
The MLR, which came into effect in 2002, is relied on as the primary instrument for
preventative measures within the financial sector in Sierra Leone and covers nearly the
entire mandatory preventative measures set out in the FATF standards. The AML Act is
however deficient in some key areas such as client profiling and procedures for high risk
clients, including politically exposed persons (PEPs). Compliance with the MLR is
enforced through the BSL’s program of supervision and examination. Sanctions for noncompliance include revocation of license, removal and replacement of management,
officers and staff, mandatory instructions and fines. While the BSL engages in a program of
annual on-site and periodic off-site examination of commercial banks and licensed foreign
exchange bureau, it has yet to include more than a few provisions of the MLR in its
supervisory examination program.
Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)
In 2006, the monitoring and evaluation process was introduced in Sierra Leone to assess the
country’s level of compliance with international standards in the fight against money
laundering and the financing of terrorism. The process identified a number of weaknesses
within the country’s AML/CFT regime; some of the identified weaknesses were addressed
in the AML/CFT Act 2005. As it were, the AML Act 2005 was reviewed repealed and
replaced by the AML/CFT Act 2012. As a result of this, the FIU was established pursuant
to Section 2 of the AML/CFT Act 2012 as an autonomous entity. Every six months the
country submits to the Regional Coordinating Institution, GIABA a Mutual Evaluation
Follow-up Report highlighting progress in addressing deficiencies within the AML/CFT
regime. That report will incorporate the activities of all relevant stakeholders within the
AML/CFT framework.
The FIU is empowered to directly engage in the following:
 Identify the proceeds of unlawful activities
 Combat money laundering activities, financing of terrorism and related activities
 Share information with law enforcement authorities , the intelligence services,
other local and international agencies
 Supervise and enforce compliance with the AML/ CFT 2012
 Process, analyze add value and retain information disclosed to and obtained by
the FIU.
 Exchange information with similar bodies in the other countries
 Monitor and give guidance to reporting institutions and individuals regarding
their compliance with the provisions of The AML/CFT Act 2012
 Implement a registration system for all affected institutions and persons
 Contribute to the Global framework against money laundering and the financing
of terrorism
 Annual review the implementation of the AML/ CFT Act 2012 and report on
this to the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC)
 Develop policy options after thorough assessment of the available financial
intelligence.
Of concern however as reflected by the performance rating by the inter-governmental
working group against money laundering in West Africa (GIABA) is the inability to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the Act through prosecutions and convictions of money
laundering and terrorism financing offences two years after the criminalization of these
activities.
The Office of the Ombudsman
The Office of the Ombudsman is a public office established by Act No. 2 of 1997.
The mandate of the Office is to investigate any action taken or omitted to be taken in the
exercise of the administrative functions of any department, government agency, statutory
corporation or institution set up with public funds. It safeguards the community in its
dealings with government agencies in Sierra Leone, by independent and impartial
investigation and resolution of complaints of improper administration on the part of
officials. It works closely with the Human Rights Commission and the ACC, referring
cases for investigation and sharing resources. The Ombudsman’s powers are not judicial
and do not provide for any kind of formal sanction for wrongdoings.
The Sierra Leone police play a key role in the Justice sector, especially since police
officers routinely prosecute cases due to lack of staff resources in the Office of the DPP, A
major effort to reform the police has been under way since 2000, as a result of widespread
allegations of indiscipline and corruption. The reform program has emphasized better
training and meritorious promotions for officers of the force. The prison system, on which
the war exerted a heavy toll, is also important for the Justice sector. Today the remaining
prisons are severely overcrowded, conditions are dismal, and staff lack training.
6. The Justice Sector
The following make up the justice sector of Sierra Leone:
• The judiciary (courts);
• The Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General (law officers, Solicitor General,
prosecution);
• The Ministry of Internal Affairs
• The Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (local courts, police and
prisons oversight);
• The Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs (approved school, remand
home, juvenile justice, family matters and women issues);
• The Sierra Leone Police (investigation, prosecution, law enforcement);
• The Sierra Leone Prison Service (law enforcement and custodian of prisoners);
• Human Rights Commission (investigation of human rights abuses);
• Judicial and Legal Services Commission;
• Law Reform Commission (law review and reform);
• The Office of the Ombudsman (maladministration and administrative injustices); and
• The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (budgetary allocations).
The justice sector is critical in the fight against corruption. However accountability
mechanisms are either absent or weak in many of them and the Judiciary suffers from
corruption, inefficiency and lack of transparency. The overall public perception of the
judicial system is negative especially where the judges are reluctant to hand down custodial
sentences on those convicted of corruption.
Various solutions to address these challenges of the Justice sector have been suggested.
One was the creation of a payroll Trust Fund for judges and the recruitment of foreign
judges on a contract basis, both paid for by the international community. This again poses a
problem- employing foreign judges may mask the underlying problems in the system and
hence delay the necessary reform process. Focusing on additional judges without
addressing problems with the conditions of service and the need for additional court
support is insufficient to deal with the core problems in the system.
Introducing foreign judges without improving conditions of local judges also has the
potential of causing friction between the different types of judges and further undermining
the justice system. Another initiative suggested to tackle the backlog of cases in the courts
is to introduce a procedure for fast-track litigation or a special anti-corruption court.
SLOVENIA (FIFTH MEETING)
UNCAC Article 6 – Preventive anti-corruption body or bodies
TOPIC I UNDER CONSIDERATION: Mandates of anti-corruption body or bodies in
respect of prevention (art. 6 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption)
1. Please describe the measures you have taken to implement art. 6 of the
Convention.
The only specialized corruption prevention body in Slovenia is the Commission for the
Prevention of Corruption.
The Commission and its history
The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption of the Republic of Slovenia
(hereinafter: CPC)1 is an independent state body with a mandate in the field of preventing
and investigating corruption, breaches of ethics and integrity of public office.
The current CPC has been established with the adoption of the Integrity and Prevention of
Corruption Act (hereinafter: IPCA) of 2010 (with later amendments) and fulfils the
requirement of an independent anti--‐corruption body as required by the UN Convention against
Corruption (UNCAC) which Slovenia ratified.
The predecessor of the CPC was Government's Office for the Prevention of Corruption,
established in 2002 on the recommendation of the Council of Europe's GRECO (Group of
States against Corruption). With the adoption of the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2004
the Office was replaced with the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption as an
independent state body (appointed by and accountable to the Parliament) with a number of
corruption‐preventive tasks.
On 5th of June 2010, the Integrity and Corruption Prevention Act was adopted. The Act
has retained the name of the CPC, but significantly expanded its mandate, functions and
powers. It also strengthened its independence and introduced additional safeguards and
objectivity in the procedure for appointment and dismissal of its leadership (Chief
Commissioner and two Deputy Commissioners). Most importantly, it expanded some of
the investigative and sanctioning powers of the CPC and made it not only the national
focal point for prevention of corruption, but also for lobbying oversight, whistleblower
protection, integrity of public sector and expanded its reach beyond the public into the
private and business sector. The amendments to the Act adopted in June 2011 further
strengthened the powers of the CPC to subpoena financial documents from the public and
private sector and to hold accountable magistrates, officials, public servants, management
and boards of public enterprises for corruption, conflict of interest or breach of ethics.
Jurisdiction / field of work
The CPC is not part of the law enforcement or prosecution system of Slovenia and its
employees do not have typical police powers. Criminal investigations of cases of
corruption are the prerogative of the Criminal Police / National Investigation Bureau and
the Prosecutors Office --‐ institutions with which the CPC closely cooperates. The CPC,
however, has broad legal powers to access and subpoena financial and other documents
(notwithstanding the confidentiality level), question public servants and officials, conduct
administrative investigations and proceedings and instruct different law enforcement
bodies (e.g. Anti--‐money laundering Office, Tax Administration…) to gather additional
information and evidence within the limits of their authority. The CPC can also issue
fines for different violations under its jurisdiction to natural and legal persons in public
and private sector.
The CPC has a wide mandate in the field of preventing and investigating corruption,
breaches of ethics and integrity of public office. Its tasks, among others, include:
 conducting administrative investigations into allegations of corruption, conflict of
interest and illegal lobbying;
 protection of whistleblowers;
 monitoring the financial status of high level public officials in the executive,
legislature and judiciary through the assets declaration and monitoring system;
 maintaining the central register of lobbyists;
 adopting and coordinating the implementation of the National Anti--‐corruption
Action Plan;
 assisting public and private institutions in development of integrity plans (tools
and internal control mechanisms aimed at identification and curbing of corruption
risks within the given organisation) and monitoring their implementation;
 designing and implementing different anti--‐corruption preventive measures
(awareness raising, training, education, …);
 serving as a national focal point for international anti--‐corruption cooperation on
systemic level (GRECO, OECD, UN, EU, …).
Independence
Although part of the public sector, the CPC is not subordinate to any other state institution
or ministry, and does not receive direct instructions from the executive or the legislature.
In legal terms its independence and autonomy in relation to other state institutions and
branches of state powers is similar to that of the Court of Audit, the Ombudsman or the
Information (Data Protection) Commissioner.
To strengthen its independence, the Act of 2010 provides a special procedure for
appointment and dismissal of the leadership of the CPC. Chief Commissioner and two
deputies are appointed by the President of the Republic of Slovenia following and open
recruitment procedure and nomination by a special selection board. Candidates which must
meet high professional and integrity standards are interviewed and screened by a selection
board comprising a representative of the Government, the National Assembly, non--‐
governmental organisations, the Independent Judicial Council and the Independent Council
of Officials. The Chief Commissioners’ term of office is six years, the deputies’ five. They
can serve up to two terms in office. Prior to the expiration of the mandate, they can only be
dismissed from office by the President (on his/her own motion or on the motion of the
Parliament), if they act in breach of the Constitution or the law.
Financial and human resources
The budget of the CPC is determined yearly by the Parliament and the CPC is autonomous
in allocating and organising its financial and human resources and priorities within the
budget.
While the legal framework safeguarding the independence of the CPC and the material
conditions for its work (facilities, information technology, etc.) are generally
satisfactorily, the CPC – due to fiscal restraints - remains understaffed, in particular
given the broad new mandate under the Act of 2010. As a result, it has been facing a
problem of backlogs of cases.
Accountability
Substantive decisions of the CPC (rulings on corruption, conflict of interest, violations of
lobbying regulations etc.) are subject to judicial review of the High Administrative Court.
Under the Act, the CPC must be the subject to periodic external audit the reports of which
are submitted to the Parliament and the President and publicly available. The CPC is also
required to present yearly reports to the Parliament for elaboration. In addition, by law
decisions (with few exceptions) of the CPC must be published on the internet and various
provisions require the CPC to publicize its work and findings
Organisation and Staff
The decision making panel of the CPC consists of three members – Chief Commissioner
and two deputies. They decide on substantial matters (ruling on corruption, conflict of
interest, breach of ethics, adopting recommendations, etc.) as a collegial body with
majority of votes. They are supported by a number of professional staff with different
expertise (in the field of law, economics, audit, social sciences, information technology,
conducting investigations etc.) working in three main Units: the Secretariat, the
Investigation and Oversight Bureau and the Centre for Prevention and Integrity of Public
Service. Employees of the CPC are recruited directly by the CPC in an open and
competitive recruitment procedure or seconded from other state institutions; they are
public servants and as such bound by salary scheme and regulations governing the public
service.
2. Please provide information demonstrating the impact of the work conducted by
national bodies with mandates in respect of the prevention of corruption.
Some main preventive measures and tools recently developed by the CPC and widely used
by the media, the public and state institutions when exercising their powers:
Supervizor – online application for monitoring expenses of public bodies launched by the
CPC in 2011
Supervizor is an online application that provides information to users on business
transactions of the public sector bodies – direct and indirect budget users (bodies of the
legislative, judicial and executive branch, autonomous and independent state bodies, local
communities and their parts with legal personality, public institutes, public funds, public
agencies etc.). The Supervizor is a project, conceptually designed and prepared by the
Commission for the Prevention of Corruption of the Republic of Slovenia in cooperation
with an independent expert and assistance of other bodies which provided the relevant data
and cooperated in its presentation and interpretation (the Slovenian Ministry of finance, the
Public Payments Administration of the Republic of Slovenia - UJP, the Agency of the
Republic of Slovenia for Public Legal Records and Related Services - AJPES).
The application indicates contracting parties, the largest recipients of funds, related legal
entities, date and amount of transactions and also purpose of money transfers. It also
enables presentation of data using graphs as well as printouts for specified periods of time
and other. The Supervizor represents an important step towards more transparent state
operations and will be further upgraded and improved by the Commission in cooperation
with other bodies. The application enables insight in financial flows among the public and
the private sector not only to the public, the media and the profession, but also to other
regulatory and supervisory bodies. At the same time it implements the primary purpose of
the Commission's mission: strengthening the rule of law, integrity and transparency and
mitigation of corruption risks and conflicts of interest.
Transparency of financial flows among the public and the private sector achieved through
this application increases the level of responsibilities of public office holders for effective
and efficient use of public finance, facilitates debate on adopted and planned investments
and projects as well as decreases risks for illicit management, abuse of functions, and above
all, limits systemic corruption, unfair competitiveness and clientage in public procurement
procedures.
In 2014 the Supervizor has been upgraded in order to present purpose of a particular
transaction made – this enables to identify the structure of spending of public money.
Furthermore, in order to give access to the public and especially researchers, the CPC have
given access to the database itself that allows further use when processing data and when
transferring data for future usage.
In 2012 the CPC was awarded by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia –
Association for information and telecommunications with Netko award in a category
“Digital performance of the state and public administration” for developing the Supervizor.
Netko is awarded since 1999 by the Chamber to companies, institutes, offices, associations
and individuals that exceed with their achievements in the field of quality of internet digital
projects.
Apart from offering an insight into public transactions and public spending which is often
used by different investigators at the CPC, the Police, other supervisory bodies, the media
etc., the CPC effectively uses data from the Supervizor when supervising implementation
of the IPCA provisions on restrictions on business activities (articles 35 – 36) which
prohibit a public sector bodies or organisations to order goods, services or construction
works, enter into public-private partnerships or grant special and exclusive rights to entities
in which the official who holds office in the body or organisation concerned or in cases
where the official’s family member has a one of the roles listed in the IPCA (manager,
management member, legal representative etc.). After launching the Supervizor several
reports were received by the Commission with regard to violations of provisions in
question that helped the CPC to identify violations, especially at the local level. Therefore
in 2011 the CPC launched a project to establish a system for the automatic identification of
transactions (violation of provisions on restriction of business activities) through the online
application Supervizor.
Link to the Supervizor:
http://supervizor.kpk-rs.si/
Some comments regarding the launch of the Supervizor are available at:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/23/slovenia-launches-supervizor-an-official-public-webapp-for-monitoring-public-spending/
http://www.sloveniatimes.com/insight-in-public-expenditure-for-everyone
Integrity plans – a tool for establishing and verifying the integrity of an organization
According to the IPCA (Articles 47 to 50) government bodies, local authorities, public
agencies, public institutes, commercial public institutions and public funds are obliged to
develop and adopt integrity plans.
Integrity plan is a tool for establishing and verifying the integrity of the organization. It is a
documented process for assessing the level of vulnerability of an organisation, its exposure
to unethical and corruption practices. Moreover, is devoted to:
‐ identifying relevant corruption risks in different working fields of an individual
organization;
‐ assessment, what kind of danger the corruption risks may pose to an individual
organization;
‐ determining measures to reduce or eliminate corruption risks.
The integrity plan consists, in particular, of: assessment of corruption exposure of the
institution; personal names and work posts of the persons responsible for the integrity plan;
a description of organisational conditions, staff and typical work processes including a
corruption risk exposure; assessment and proposed improvements regarding:
‐ the quality of regulations, management, administration, etc.;
‐ the integrity of staff and institution;
‐ transparency and efficiency of processes and
‐ measures for timely detection, prevention and elimination of corruption risks.
All institutions are obliged by the law to send their integrity plans to the CPC - after
analysing and processing all the integrity plans, the CPC will determine (at the national
level) an exposure of different institutions, their organizational conditions, processes and
employees to corruption and other illegal and unethical behaviour. The main goal is to
strengthen integrity and anti-corruption culture in a public sector by identifying risks,
planning and implementation of adequate measures. With putting in place an overall
integrity plan system, causes of corruption will be eliminated, which will result in
strengthening the rule of law and people’s confidence in the institutions.
The Act has set an obligation to all the above mentioned to draw up integrity plans by June
5th, 2012 on the basis of guidelines produced by the CPC and submit them to the CPC.
Through the integrity plan it will be possible to identify the level of exposure of an entity to
corruption risks and risks of unethical and other unlawful behaviour. By identifying risks
and risk factors it is possible to assess the existing control mechanisms, evaluate their
likelihood to occur and the level of damage they may cause and finally propose measures to
minimize or suppress risks.
The CPC has checked and will do that in the future on yearly basis how the entities plan to
implement the integrity plans as they have to report that to the CPC. A fine may be imposed
on the responsible person of the body or the organisation obliged to draw up and adopt the
integrity plan it fails to do so.
The CPC has recently developed an electronic registry which enables every subject to
manage data from its integrity plan for its own use as well as to submit data to the CPC for
further supervision.
More on the integrity plans:
https://www.kpk-rs.si/en/prevention
 Key conclusions and recommendations from reports prepared by anti-corruption
bodies and institutions;
Assets report: In January 2013 the CPC issued a final report on supervision of assets of
parliamentary party leaders1 which brought to the (public) attention the purpose of
supervision of assets in order to identify corruption. Declarations of assets of seven
parliamentary party leaders were thoroughly checked in order to establish whether all the
assets had been reported to the CPC and whether the assets owned correspond to the assets
reported. In two cases, regarding the then Prime Minister and the Leader of the major
opposition party it was established that they not only failed to report all asserts, but also
that some assets were either burdened with corruption risks, conflict of interests or unlawful
lobbying or their source was not explained to the CPC in a satisfied manner.
The CPC’s findings were later referred to the responsible bodies for further handling. As a
result of a huge public outrage the Government of that particular Primer Minister fell and
the Leader of the main opposition party resigned as the chair of that party, although he
remained to hold his position as a major of Ljubljana which was controversial as some of
the unexplained transactions made to his bank accounts derived from contracts of the
Municipality of Ljubljana with private companies. However, just recently he was re-elected
as a chair of the party.
Systemic corruption in the Slovenian banking system report1: The CPC published a report
on Slovenian banking system, focusing on state-owned banks and the level of transparency
and accountability with regard to a number of contracts they concluded awarding big loans
to companies and individuals. It was established by the CPC that the functioning of the
banking system is mostly subjected to the influence of the state and that some actions of
individuals and groups closely connected to the politics represent a factor that contributes
to the following corruption risks: (i) inappropriate management of risks, (ii) decisionmaking process of bank management based on their political, business and personal
relations, (iii) insufficient and inappropriate internal and external supervision of bank
activities, (iv) lack of holding members of management and supervisory boards accountable
for their economically unfounded and other inappropriate investments.
The report was sent to the Central bank of Slovenia, the Ministry of Finances etc. and was
used to advocate for some improvements with regard to the “bad bank” project introduced
by the Slovenian Government in order to help improve the bad situation of the Slovenian
banking system which is mostly the result of the poor managing of the state-owned banks.
Systemic principled opinion with regard to established risks in the Slovenian health care
system and recommendations for actions1: The CPC established (i) the intertwining of the
public and the private interests in the health care system, especially due to existence of
doctors employed both in the public and the private health care systems, which
consequently contributes to the increased risks for conflict of interest, (ii) additional work
of the doctors employed in the public health care system without acquiring the necessary
permits prior to such work and the lack of (effective) supervision in this field and (iii) the
field of waiting lists which is a highly risky field not being properly managed, allowing
unlawful advancement of individuals in waiting lists, especially since supervisory bodies
have identified repeated violations of rules on waiting lists in the public sector institutes.
Assessment of the current situation with regard to the prevention of corruption and
prevention and elimination of conflict of interest:1 In 2011 and 2012 the CPC prepared
and published assessments that have to be prepared according to the Article 20 of the IPCA.
Main findings or emphasis made:
Assessment of the current situation for 2011: Administrative corruption in Slovenia is
relatively low in comparison to other transition countries. With regard to the white-collar
corruption which is present in Slovenia, the situation is still better than in other transition
countries. However, it is very much connected to corporate and public-financial crime
which Slovenia is facing in the last years. Past in present business-financial crisis shows a
long-term development of systemic/institutional corruption. Among 13 indicators the
theory considers to indicate the presence of systemic corruption it is possible to detect 12 of
them in Slovenia:
‐
existence of corporate monopolies, cartels and limited competitiveness,
‐
enormous state and local infrastructure projects;
‐
politically-burdened processes of economic liberalisation and privatisation;
‐
low possibility of detection and sanctioning (weakness and lack of priorities of
supervisory and investigative bodies and of prosecution service);
‐
long court proceedings;
‐
institutional and political uncertainty (connected to crisis, elections and low level of
trust in the institutions of the state governed by the rule of law and of the political
system);
‐
inexistent or overregulated system of public procurement with weak supervision;
‐
not fully elaborated system of internal auditing with regard to effectiveness of the
public spending;
‐
weakness of supervisory bodies in enterprise sector and insufficient corporate
culture in the field of business compliance;
‐
politicisation or lack of transparent privatisation of the media sphere;
‐
inefficient and intransparent system of financing of enterprises by the financial
institutions;
‐
influence of lobbyists on the legislative procedure.
Assessment of the current situation for 2012: Slovenia is facing systemic corruption. Main
factors and areas that represent the basis for systemic and administrative corruption are:
‐
overall decrease in trust in institutions of the state governed by the rule of law and
in holders of public functions and their credibility;
‐
public procurement in general;
‐
management of capital investments of the state and local communities;
‐
functioning of the banking system;
‐
transparency of political party funding and of funding of election campaigns;
‐
overall prevalence of conflict of interest, clientelism and nepotism;
‐
lack of transparency of particular influences in legislative procedures and
procedures for adoption of other regulations;
‐
ineffective functioning of some inspection services;
‐
functioning of the prosecution service and the judiciary;
‐
lack of resources and sub-optimal organisation and autonomy of the key supervisory
and investigative bodies;
‐
the process of adoption of budgets (of the state bodies and local authorities).
Letter of Resignation of the CPC management in November 2013:1 The letter was
publicly presented in published by the previous management of the CPC in order to explain
the reasons for the resignation. It includes a short overview of main obstacles that hindered
successful work of the CPC in the future.
• Results of public perception surveys regarding the effectiveness and performance of
the anti-corruption body or bodies;
Excerpt from the Corruption perception surveys in Slovenia (years 2002 – 2009)
How did the following institutions helped fighting corruption in Slovenia?
(average on the scale from 1- did not help to 5 – helped extensively)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Media
3,43 3,41 3,38 3,56 3,37 3,40 3,54 3,37
Commission for the Prevention 3,03 3,11 3,16 3,28 3,37 3,34 3,23 3,28
of Corruption
Anti-Money Laundering Office
2,85 2,77 2,87 3,00 2,96 2,92 2,86 2,86
Police
2,97 2,73 2,79 3,09 2,79 2,74 2,75 2,82
Inspection services
2,94 2,90 2,77 2,97 2,85 3,94 2,64 2,76
Prosecution service
2,95 2,66 2,54 3,05 2,69 2,80 2,62 2,67
Health care institutions
2,99 2,65 2,64 3,06 2,57 2,73 2,51 2,48
Local administration
2,69 2,43 2,51 2,74 2,51 2,62 2,44 2,45
Courts
2,78 2,58 2,55 2,92 2,61 2,67 2,40 2,44
Government
2,58 2,32 2,32 2,78 2,45 2,49 2,36 2,27
Law firms
2,68 2,43 2,37 2,60 2,38 2,45 2,14 2,20
• Results from public awareness surveys of the extent of public knowledge about the
prevention of corruption;
TI CPI:
Year
Rating for Slovenia (score)
2013
2012
2011
2010
43 (57)
37 (61)
35 (5,9)
27 (6,4)
All other analysis and surveys on Slovenia (Eurobarometer, Survey on corporate and
business environment, business ethics and unregistered payments in Slovenia,
Corruption among journalists, Corruption perception in Slovenia etc.) are available at
the CPC’s website in Slovenian language:
https://www.kpk-rs.si/sl/korupcija-integriteta-in-etika/analize-raziskave-instatistika/raziskave-in-statistika
• Key conclusions and recommendations from evaluation reports on the effectiveness
and performance of relevant anti-corruption bodies.
Statistical data on the CPC’s activities
Please, see annex to this report (CPC in numbers in 2012).
Statistical data on CPC’s work in 2013:
Number of reports of suspicions of corrupt 1931
practices and other violations of the IPCA
received
Requests for legal opinions or advice on the use 1190
of the IPCA in practice received
Integrity plans received for evaluation
532
Lobbying reports received
830
Requests for access to public information 84
received
Educational activities carried out for public 60
sector
Asset declarations received
6538
CPC’s work completed in 2013:
Completed proceedings of reports of suspicions 2300
of corrupt practices and other violations of the
IPCA received
Initiated
misdemeanour
violations of the IPCA
procedures
for 111
Determined unauthorized business transactions 8
in public sector and issued warnings or requests
for annulment of contracts
Filed charges of suspicious criminal acts to law 288
enforcement agencies
Filed initiatives to supervisory agencies to 341
undertake actions within their powers
(inspectorates,
Court
of
Audit,
Tax
Administration….)
Carried out sessions of the Senate of the 51
Commission with agenda items;
sessions,
329 items
Reviewed and assessed integrity plans of public 1238
sector entities
Carried out trainings, lectures and round table 60
discussions
Prepared legal opinions, explanations and 1190
answers to public and private sector entities
Carried out international workshops of EACT 2
project;
Upgraded Supervizor web application
Carried out awareness raising project for
primary schools “Say it with a T-Shirt”;
In accordance with the law the Commission
represents the Republic of Slovenia in
international
committees,
missions
and
evaluations – UN, OECD, Council of
Europe/GRECO, European Commission, IACA
…;
Several international organisations have praised the CPC’s work and achievements and
encouraged the Slovenian Government to provide additional resources to it.
An excerpt from the GRECO report from October 20121:
VI. CORRUPTION PREVENTION IN RESPECT OF ALL CATEGORIES UNDER
REVIEW – THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION
232. Throughout this report, the central role of the CPC has been highlighted. It is obvious
to the GET that the position, powers and recognised expertise of the CPC are among the
strongest assets of the system of prevention of corruption, as well as in the promotion of
integrity of parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors in Slovenia. Unfortunately, the CPC’s
ability to act is hampered by financial and staff constraints, which have become all the
more pressing since the extension of its mandate and powers under the new IPCA. The new
tasks and powers it has been provided with as regards lobbying, conflicts of interest and
asset declarations have not been accompanied by the necessary increase in staff and
budgetary resources. The CPC currently functions with a staff of 40 persons whereas its
mandate extends over approximately 10,000 officials as regards assets declarations and
3000 public institutions as regards integrity plans. For example in order to maintain and
enforce the new online asset declaration system for these 10,000 officials, as was described
earlier in this report, the CPC has a budget of only 44,000 EUR and one person working
full time on the monitoring of declarations. Another example of the CPC’s budgetary
constraints arises with the new regulation of lobbying, also introduced by the IPCA. The
CPC has only one person, and no additional financial resources, to maintain the new
register of lobbyists and to enforce the rules in this area. The latest information indicates
that, although it is already suffering from insufficient staff and budgetary resources, the
CPC has been and could continue to be negatively impacted by budgetary cuts in the public
sector due to the economic crisis. The GET is of the strong opinion that these budgetary
and staff constraints are severely detrimental to the action of the CPC in the prevention of
corruption in relation to MPs, judges and prosecutors. Addressing this problem is therefore
essential to the implementation of other recommendations formulated in this report. In
order to ensure that the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption is adequately
equipped to perform its tasks with respect to MPs, judges and prosecutors effectively,
GRECO recommends that its financial and personnel resources in the areas of asset
declarations, lobbying and conflicts of interest be increased as a matter of priority.
An excerpt from the EU Anti-Corruption Report on Slovenia from February 20141:
Legal framework. Fairly well-developed anti-corruption legislation is in place. Recent
legislative changes in 2010 and 2011 focused on integrity and prevention of corrupt
practices, conflicts of interest, transparency of lobbying, whistleblower protection, public
procurement, criminal law provisions and criminal procedure. In particular, through the
Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act adopted in 2010 and amended in 20118 a solid
legislative framework was created to support prevention and integrity policy, defining the
tasks and powers of the KPK, providing for verification mechanisms on asset disclosure,
and including provisions on protection of whistleblowers and lobbying. Some loopholes
remain, however, in the legislation concerning the financing of political parties and
electoral campaigns where GRECO found in mid-20129 and reiterated in a report adopted
in March 2013 and published in January 201410 that its recommendations had not been
satisfactorily implemented. In mid-2013 the government proposed new legislation on
financing of political parties, elections and referendum campaigns. This is currently
undergoing parliamentary debate. The government also proposed in mid-2013 new
legislation on access to information, including provisions on transparency with regard to
state-owned and state-controlled companies, and companies where the State has a
significant number of shares, as well as transparency on services provided to the public
sector. GRECO also stressed that the implementation of rules on conflicts of interest and
lobbying is still insufficient and more needs to be done to raise awareness.
Institutional framework. The KPK was established in 2002 and has gone through several
institutional changes since then12, further strengthening its powers and capabilities. The
scope of the KPK's powers is very broad, ranging from administrative investigations to
preventive measures, research and awareness-raising activities. Criminal investigation
powers are vested in the criminal police, the National Bureau of Investigations and the
prosecution services, which have recently taken steps to improve their track record of
effective investigation policies.13 Specialised law enforcement teams focusing on
corruption and economic crime have also been set up.
Independence and effectiveness of anti-corruption institutions
In 2010 the powers and mandate of the KPK were extended significantly and its
independence was strengthened, allowing for a more effective role in the implementing
anti-corruption policies.59 The KPK conducts administrative investigations into allegations
of corruption, conflicts of interest, and illegal lobbying. It also monitors the financial status
of public officials’ wealth, keeps a central registry of lobbyists, undertakes tasks related to
the protection of whistleblowers, coordinates the development and implementation of the
national anti-corruption action plan, assists public and private institutions in developing
integrity plans and monitoring their implementation, develops and enforces preventive
measures such as awareness-raising, training, etc., and serves as a national focal point for
anti-corruption matters for international organisations and mechanisms.
Since 2010, the KPK has consolidated its role. Given the rather limited resources at its
disposal,60 its track record of implementation is solid: 1 389 reviews/investigations were
completed in 2011 and 1 214 in the first three quarters of 2012.61 The KPK's guarantees of
stability and independence are key to carrying out its investigative and oversight tasks
effectively and without undue pressure. However, the KPK alone cannot ensure effective
prevention and measures against corruption across the board. GRECO also noted that the
financial and human resources of the KPK dedicated to asset disclosure, lobbying and
conflicts of interest are insufficient and must be increased as a matter of priority to avoid
hampering its core activities in the future.62 Internal control and supervision mechanisms,
external oversight and police, prosecution and the judiciary also have an important role to
play. At the end of November 2013, the KPK leadership resigned in protest against the
insufficient support from other authorities and their limited effort to follow-up on the work
of KPK and address corruption risks identified by the KPK.
3. Please outline actions required to strengthen or improve the measures described
above and any specific challenges you might be facing in this respect.
After the resignation of the CPC leadership in November 20131 the CPC issued a call to the
Government and the Parliament, outlining 15 concrete points of actions1 that should and
could be undertaken to improve the situation in the anti-corruption field in the country. The
points outlined were the following:
‐
Starting public and transparent investigation of the state project TEŠ 6 (TEŠ 6 is the
biggest investment of the Republic of Slovenia, after construction of highways. It is
accompanied by suspicions of criminal offences, conflict of interests, inefficient and
uneconomic spending. It is currently investigated by the Police, prosecution service,
CPC and OLAF. The only subject that did not take any action is the owner, the
state. None of the bodies working on TEŠ 6 cannot, due to legislative limitations,
comprehensively address this problem in order to identify what happened, why and
who were the main persons involved. Although the CPC issued a proposal,
supported by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finances and the President of the
Slovenska odškodninska družba, d.d. (a financial organisation managing capital
assets of the Republic of Slovenia) to audit TEŠ 6, the president of the Court of
Audit rejected such proposal.). As the state keeps issuing new guarantees which will
finally be the burden of its tax-payers it is important to prevent further unlawful
actions.
‐
Starting public and transparent investigation of the “banking hole”. Current
expenses to minimize the effect of the banking hole has already become the taxpayers’ burden. Any public spending to this regard should be made public and acted
against those accountable for it.
‐
Adoption of the Access to Public Information Act that will enable disclosure of
lawyers’, consultants’, sponsors’ and donors’ contracts concluded by companies
indirectly or directly owned by the state and municipalities in the online application
Supervizor in order to minimize lobbyist-political-media-clientelism “rent-seeking”
relationships established in the period of transition in Slovenia. The legislative
proposal has been prepared by the CPC, in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior
and the Information Commissioner.
‐
Centralisation and information (and thus increase in transparency of) of the public
procurement in the public health care system.
‐
Accelerated adoption of the new Slovenian Sovereign Holding Act that will include
rigorous measures for transparent appointment and decision-making process of
members of supervisory and management boards in companies with direct or
indirect majority participation of the state in their ownership, that will demand
written disclosure of potential or existing conflict of interest in advance and that
will prescribe sufficient sanctions for violations regarding avoiding conflict of
interest and personal or business clientelism.
‐
Establishment of inspection service for public procurement with sufficient human
resources and with a possibility to impose efficient sanctions for violators at the
state and local level.
‐
Adoption of code of ethics for parliamentarians.
‐
Adoption of code of ethics for government officials and ministerial officials taking
into account good practices of some foreign countries that will also include
standards on business restrictions with companies in the field of state aids, subsidies
etc. and standards with regard to purchase of shares of state-owned companies.
‐
Amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Government and of the Parliament in
order to strengthen the transparency of adoption of laws and regulations, in a way
that every bill mandatorily contains a list of all individuals that participated in
preparation of bills as external consultant (the so-called legislative trace).
‐
Regulation and public accessibility and transparency of the registry of the Trust of
the agricultural land and forests and of changes of their intended purpose.
‐
Adoption of the legislation in order to enable recall of a mayor.
‐
Adoption of the legislation that will enable execution of a recall of individual from
the state office by a court decision and prohibition of performance of public
function for a limited period of time in cases when abuse of office or violation of
anti-corruption legislation has been established by a court decision.
‐
Adoption of a systemic law that will require from professional societies given
public authorisation (Bar Association, Chamber of Notaries, Medical Chamber etc.)
setting up an efficient self-regulation, transparent and publicly accessible (online)
system for monitoring of functioning of their internal honorary/ethical/disciplinary
commissions and pronounced sanctions.
‐
Start of a serious debate on systemic reorganisation of functioning of inspection
services.
‐
Adoption of amendment to the IPCA in order to: a) abolish subsidiarity principle in
order to give this law the nature of systemic law; b) strengthening (with appropriate
powers and possibility to pronounce sanctions) those supervisory powers of the
CPC that are not carries out by other supervisory bodies and are not overlapping
with powers entrusted to the Police or prosecutor service, especially in the area of
monitoring of assets of officials and civil servants exposed to corruption, conflict of
interest (with an emphasis on clientelism and nepotism), business restrictions,
incompatibility of functions, monitoring of acceptance of gifts (which should be
unified for all employees in the public sector), in the field of non-public influences
on adoption of staff, legislative and financial decisions of the office holders etc.; c)
establishment of the legislative framework for implementation of preventive
systemic and thematic supervision carried out by the CPC in the public sector
bodies and organisations in order to provide counselling, strengthen integrity and
identify and remedy systemic corruption risks; d) establishment of the CPC’s
Council (appointed by the Parliament with 2/3 majority) as an independent body
supervising the work of the CPC in order to secure its integrity, objectivity and
efficiency.
SPAIN (FIFTH MEETING)
En el ámbito específico del ministerio del Interior se creó en la Dirección General de la
Policía la Unidad de Delitos Económicos y Fiscales del Cuerpo nacional de Policía (UDEF)
y en la Dirección General de la Guardia Civil dentro de la Unidad Central Operativa (UCO)
se estableció un Departamento de Delincuencia Económica, que a su vez tiene un grupo de
delitos económicos, de fraude y urbanísticos y una unidad adscrita a la Fiscalía
Anticorrupción. También hay un grupo especializado dentro del Servicio de Información.
USA (FIFTH MEETING)
In response to the request for information (CU 2014/52(A)/DTA/CEB) the United States is
pleased to provide the following:
(a) Mandates of anti-corruption body or bodies in respect of prevention (art.6)
With regard to the mandates of anti-corruption bodies in respect of prevention (Article 6),
the
prevention of corruption at the federal level of the United States is a substantial part of the
purpose of the programs of a number of bodies. For this request, we have chosen to
highlight
only one of those bodies, the US Office of Government Ethics. Having said that other
bodies
that have significant activities that help prevent of corruption in the topics covered by
Article 6
include, but are not limited to:
 The US House of Representatives Committee on Ethics addresses the conduct of
Members and staff and provides advisory services and education regarding the standards
to which Members and staff are to adhere. http://ethics.house.gov/jurisdiction

The US Senate Select Committee on Ethics addresses the conduct of Senators and
staff
and provides advisory services and education regarding the standards to which Senators and
staff are to adhere. http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/jurisdiction

The Judicial Conference of the United States is the body through which federal
court
system governs the non-criminal conduct of its members.
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/JudicialConference/Committees.aspx

The US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the central human resources
agency
for the Federal Government providing human resource advice and leadership to Federal
agencies, supporting agencies with human resource policies, holding agencies accountable
for their human resource practices, and upholding the merit system principles.
http://www.opm.gov/

The US Office of Special Counsel responsibilities include protecting Federal
employees
and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, including reprisal for Whistleblowing;
providing a safe channel for federal employees to disclose wrongdoing; and enforcing
restrictions on the political activity of federal employees and employees of certain state and
local agencies. http://www.osc.gov/

The Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) is
responsible for
addressing integrity, economy and effectiveness issues that transcend individual
Government agencies. Individual agencies then have individual offices of the Inspectors
General (OIGs). The individual Offices of Inspectors General maintain a "hot line"
procedure established under the Inspector General Act of 1978. This hot line allows anyone
to confidentially report allegations of fraud, abuse, waste or mismanagement by Federal
employees, contractors or grantees. http://www.ignet.gov/cigie1.html
 The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the Office of Management and
Budget plays a central role in shaping the policies and practices federal agencies use to
acquire the goods and services they need to carry out their responsibilities.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_default/

The Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) in the Office of Management
and
Budget is responsible for the financial management policy of the Federal Government,
including establishing government-wide financial management policies of executive
agencies. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/financial_default/

The Government Accountability Office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that
works
for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the
federal government spends taxpayer dollars. http://www.gao.gov/
 The Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (OIP)) is responsible for
encouraging agency compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and for
ensuring that the President’s FOIA Memorandum and the Attorney General's FOIA
Guidelines are fully implemented across the government.
http://www.justice.gov/oip/index.html

The Committee Management Secretariat of the General Services Administration
monitors
agency compliance with the requirements for establishing, operating, overseeing and
terminating advisory bodies that have been formed by agencies to secure objective
advice from the public and from the private sector.
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104514

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network which establishes, oversees, and
implements
policies and programs that link law enforcement, financial and regulatory communities
into a single information sharing network. http://www.fincen.gov/
The United States Office of Government Ethics
I - Information requested from States parties in relation to mandates of anticorruption
body or bodies in respect of prevention (art. 6)
1. Please describe the measures you have taken to implement art. 6 of the
Convention.
In particular, States parties may wish to cite and describe measures that:

Allocate responsibility to a specific body or bodies for the development and
implementation
of preventive anti-corruption policies;
 Outline the institutional structure and approach in relation to the monitoring and
evaluation
of the national anti-corruption strategy or anti-corruption policies;
 Outline the scope of the mandate of preventive anti-corruption bodies;
 Safeguard the independence of anti-corruption bodies, enable them to carry out
their
functions effectively and protect them from any undue influence;
 Establish focal points or units within government ministries and departments
responsible for
the implementation of anti-corruption policies;
 Establish structures to deal effectively with grievances and complaints from
citizens, such as
an anti-corruption commission, ethics office, auditor general's office, ombudsman office,
central procurement office, etc;
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE), established by the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978, provides overall leadership and oversight of the executive branch ethics program
designed to prevent and resolve conflicts of interests.
While OGE sets policy for the entire executive branch ethics program, the head of each
agency
has primary responsibility for implementation of the ethics program in that agency. To
support the day-to-day activities of the ethics program, each agency head appoints
individuals to serve as the agency's Designated Agency Ethics Official and Alternate
Designated Agency Ethics Official. Depending on the size of the agency, there may be
additional professional ethics staff that support the ethics program. Approximately 5,600
full-time and part-time ethics officials work in the executive branch to provide all executive
branch employees assistance in detecting and resolving potential conflicts of interest.
OGE is led by a Director who is appointed to a five-year term by the President, with
confirmation by the Senate. In addition to the Office of the Director, OGE is divided into
four divisions that work in concert to carry out OGE’s mission:

The General Counsel and Legal Policy Division is responsible for (1) establishing
and
maintaining a legal framework for the executive branch ethics program, which includes
standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch; and (2) providing
assistance to the President and the Senate in the Presidential appointment process.

The Compliance Division is responsible for (1) managing elements of the public
financial
disclosure program; and (2) monitoring and reviewing agency ethics programs to ensure
compliance with applicable ethics requirements established by statutes, rules, regulations,
and Executive Orders.
 The Program Counsel Division is responsible for (1) coordinating and conducting
outreach between OGE and its many stakeholders such as Congress, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), government watchdog groups, and the public; (2)
developing and providing training to agency ethics officials; (3) carrying out initiatives that
reach across executive branch agencies such as e-filing; (4) providing agency specific
administrative and legal support to OGE; (5) managing OGE’s budget, performance, and
legislative affairs programs; and (6) supporting agency ethics officials, through its Desk
Officer program, in carrying out the executive branch ethics program.

The Internal Operations Division is responsible for supporting OGE’s internal
operations.
More
information
about
the
divisions
is
available
at
http://www.oge.gov/About/Organization/.
OGE has no role in the ethics programs of the legislative or judicial branches of the federal
government. Similarly, OGE has no jurisdiction over state or local government ethics
programs.
OGE does not conduct investigations into allegations of individual misconduct and cannot
represent citizens in legal matters. For information about the legislative branch ethics
program, visit http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/ and http://ethics.house.gov/. For
information about
the
codes
of
conduct
for
federal
judges,
visit
http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct.aspx. For a list of state-level
ethics
oversight
bodies,
visit
http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/state-ethics-oversightagencies.aspx.
There are many ways in which OGE itself is held accountable. With respect to monitoring
and
evaluation, like all executive branch agencies, OGE is required to have in place a number
of systems of internal controls, which include an annual independent financial audit and a
process for assessing progress toward established performance goals. This information is
submitted, annually, to the President and Congress in its Performance Accountability
Report (PAR). Copies of OGE’s most recent PARs are available at
http://www.oge.gov/About/Management-ReportsandPolicies/Performance-and-Strategic-Docs/Performance---Strategic-Documents/.
There are various measures that help safeguard the independence and political neutrality of
OGE.
First, the Director serves a five-year term, thereby guaranteeing a bridge across the
Director’s term and a four-year Presidential Administration. Second, with the typical
exception of a Director’s special assistant, all other OGE employees are career civil
servants. This helps to prevent even an appearance of political influence over the agency.
Third, Congress appropriates money to OGE in a public budgeting process and can provide
more or less than the President has asked for in his annual budget.
2. Please provide information demonstrating the impact of the work conducted by
national
bodies with mandates in respect of the prevention of corruption.
In particular, States parties may wish to provide information such as:

Key conclusions and recommendations from reports prepared by anti-corruption
bodies and
institutions;
On-site reviews of agency ethics programs are an important component of OGE’s
statutorily
mandated oversight activities. The primary objective of reviews is to report on the strengths
and
vulnerabilities of the program by evaluating agency compliance with ethics requirements,
and
ethics-related systems, processes, and procedures. In fiscal year 2013, OGE completed
plenary
reviews and follow-up monitoring for more than 35 executive branch agencies. Copies of
program
review
reports
are
available
at
http://www.oge.gov/ProgramManagement/ProgramReview/Program-Review-Reports/Program-Review-Reports/.
 Results of public perception surveys regarding the effectiveness and performance of
the anticorruption body or bodies (bullet 2); Results from public awareness surveys of the
extent of
public knowledge about the prevention of corruption (bullet 3);
Although it does not conduct public perception or awareness surveys, OGE substantially
increased its efforts to reach audiences outside of the Federal government in fiscal year
2013. These audiences include members of the general public, state and local governments,
private sector organizations, professional associations, government watchdog groups, the
media, and foreign delegations. For example, OGE launched an official Twitter account
(@officegovethics) to increase visibility of the executive branch ethics program by sharing
information about the executive branch ethics with the public and media. Additionally,
OGE continued to make public records readily available on its website. Specifically, in
fiscal year 2013, OGE posted 1,013 public financial disclosure reports and 505 semiannual
agency reports of travel payments accepted from non-Federal sources.
OGE also engages with good governance and watchdog groups. This direct, proactive
communication ensures that these non-Federal organizations and, by extension, the general
public, understand the executive branch ethics program and the reasoning behind various
policy
decisions. These efforts also help OGE to be transparent and responsive to public concerns.

Key conclusions and recommendations from evaluation reports on the effectiveness
and
performance of relevant anti-corruption bodies.
OGE assesses its progress towards established performance goals in its Performance
Accountability Report (PAR). Copies of OGE’s most recent PARs are available at
http://www.oge.gov/About/Management-Reports-and-Policies/Performance-and-StrategicDocs/Performance---Strategic-Documents/.
VENEZUELA (FIFTH MEETING)
I – Información solicitada a los Estados partes sobre los mandatos del órgano o los
órganos de lucha contra la corrupción en lo que respecta a la prevención (Art. 6
CNUCC).
1. Señale las medidas que ha adoptado para aplicar el artículo 6 de la Convención.
En particular, los Estados partes podrían querer citar y detallar medidas por la que:
Se asigna a un órgano o unos órganos determinados la responsabilidad de
elaborar y aplicar políticas de prevención de la corrupción.
En la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, el Poder Público Nacional se divide en
Legislativo, Ejecutivo, Judicial, Ciudadano y Electoral. Cada una de las ramas del Poder
Público tiene sus funciones propias, pero los órganos a los que incumbe su ejercicio
colaborarán entre sí en la realización de los fines del Estado. (Constitución de la República
Bolivariana de Venezuela1 (CRBV, Art. 136).
El Poder Legislativo Nacional tiene como órgano a la Asamblea Nacional la cual, de
acuerdo con el artículo 186 de la Constitución, "estará integrada por diputados y diputadas
elegidos o elegidas en cada entidad federal por votación universal, directa, personalizada y
secreta con representación proporcional, según una base poblacional del uno coma uno por
ciento de la población total del país. Cada entidad federal elegirá, además, tres diputados o
diputadas. Los pueblos indígenas de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela elegirán tres
diputados o diputadas de acuerdo con lo establecido en la ley electoral, respetando sus
tradiciones y costumbres. Cada diputado o diputada tendrá un suplente o una suplente,
escogido o escogida en el mismo proceso".
El Poder Ejecutivo, de conformidad con el Artículo 225 de la Constitución de la República
Bolivariana de Venezuela "se ejerce por el Presidente o Presidenta de la República, el
Vicepresidente Ejecutivo o Vicepresidenta Ejecutiva, los Ministros o Ministras y
demás funcionarios o funcionarias que determinen esta Constitución y la ley". Y
continúa en el artículo 226, "El Presidente o Presidenta de la República es el Jefe o Jefa del
Estado y del Ejecutivo Nacional, en cuya condición dirige la acción del Gobierno".
"El Vicepresidente Ejecutivo o Vicepresidenta Ejecutiva es órgano directo y colaborador
inmediato del Presidente o Presidenta de la República en su condición de Jefe o Jefa del
Ejecutivo Nacional. Reunirá las mismas condiciones exigidas para ser Presidente o
Presidenta de la República, y no podrá tener ningún parentesco de consanguinidad ni de
afinidad con éste" (CRBV, Art. 238).
"La Procuraduría General de la República es un órgano integrado al Poder Ejecutivo que
asesora, defiende y representa judicial y extrajudicialmente los intereses patrimoniales de la
República, y será consultada para la aprobación de los contratos de interés público
nacional. Estará a cargo y bajo la dirección del Procurador o Procuradora General de la
República, con la colaboración de los demás funcionarios o funcionarias que determine su
ley orgánica" (CRBV,
1
Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela Gaceta Oficial N° 5.908
Extraordinario de fecha 19 de febrero de 2009. Información disponible en:
http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2009/5908.pdf
Arts. 247 y 248). Actúa en la defensa de los derechos, bienes e intereses patrimoniales de la
República y pertenece a la categoría de órganos consultivos de la Administración Pública
(Decreto con rango, valor y fuerza de Ley de Reforma Parcial del Decreto con Fuerza de
Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República2, Art.1 y Exposición de Motivos)
"El Procurador o Procuradora General de la República reunirá las mismas condiciones
exigidas para ser magistrado o magistrada del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. Será
nombrado o nombrada por el Presidente o Presidenta de la República con la autorización de
la Asamblea Nacional y asistirá, con derecho a voz, a las reuniones del Consejo de
Ministros," (CRBV, arts. 249 y 250).
Uno de los órganos de control superior integrado a la Vicepresidencia es la
Superintendencia Nacional de Auditoría Interna. Se trata del órgano rector del sistema
de control interno del sector público a cargo de la supervisión, orientación y coordinación
del control interno, así como de la dirección de la auditoría interna en los organismos que
integran la administración central y descentralizada funcionalmente, de conformidad con lo
establecido en los artículos 137, 138 y 142 de la Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley
Orgánica de la Administración Financiera del Sector Público3. Estará a cargo del
Superintendente Nacional de Auditoría Interna, designado por el Presidente de la
República.
De conformidad con el artículo 253 de la CRBV, "La potestad de administrar justicia
emana de los ciudadanos y ciudadanas y se imparte en nombre de la República por
autoridad de la ley. Corresponde a los órganos del Poder Judicial conocer de las causas y
asuntos de su competencia mediante los procedimientos que determinen las leyes, y
ejecutar o hacer ejecutar sus sentencias.
El sistema de justicia está constituido por el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, los demás
tribunales que determine la ley, el Ministerio Público, la Defensoría Pública, los órganos de
investigación penal, los o las auxiliares y funcionarios o funcionarias de justicia, el sistema
penitenciario, los medios alternativos de justicia, los ciudadanos o ciudadanas que
participan en la administración de justicia conforme a la ley y los abogados autorizados o
abogadas autorizadas para el ejercicio". Y más adelante, el artículo 254 de la Constitución
señala: "El Poder Judicial es independiente y el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia gozará de
autonomía funcional, financiera y administrativa".
El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia es el máximo órgano y rector del Poder Judicial, al que
le corresponde la dirección, el gobierno y la administración del Poder Judicial, incluyendo
la elaboración y ejecución de su presupuesto y el del Poder Judicial, así como la inspección
y vigilancia de los tribunales de la República y de las Defensorías Públicas, de conformidad
con el artículo 267 de la Constitución y 1 de su Ley Orgánica4.
El Ministerio Público, la Contraloría General de la República y la Defensoría del Pueblo
forman parte del Poder Ciudadano. La CRBV en su artículo 273 indica al respecto: "El
Poder Ciudadano se ejerce por el Consejo Moral Republicano integrado por el Defensor o
Defensora del Pueblo, el Fiscal o la Fiscal General y el Contralor o Contralora General de
la República.
2
Decreto con rango, valor y fuerza de Ley de Reforma Parcial del Decreto
con Fuerza de Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República. Publicada
en Gaceta Oficial Extraordinaria N° 5.892 del 31/07/2008, Decreto 6.286.
Información disponible en: http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2008/5892.pdf
3
Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley Orgánica de la Administración Financiera
del Sector Público. Publicada en Gaceta Oficial N° 39.164 del 23/04/2009.
Información disponible en: http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2009/39164.pdf
4
Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. Publicada en Gaceta Oficial
Nº 39.522 de fecha 1 de octubre de 2010. Información disponible en:
http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2010/39522.pdf “El Ministerio Público, de
conformidad con el Artículo 2 de su Ley Orgánica5, es un órgano del Poder
Ciudadano que tiene por objeto actuar en representación del interés general y es
responsable del respeto a los derechos y garantías constitucionales a fin de preservar
el Estado, democrático y social de derecho y de justicia. Estará bajo la dirección y
responsabilidad del Fiscal General de la República, designado por un periodo de
siete años", según lo establece el artículo 284 de la Carta Magna.
La CRBV en su artículo 287, y la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y
del Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal6 (LOCGRSNCF) en su artículo 2, establecen que la
Contraloría General de la República es el órgano del Poder Ciudadano al que le
corresponde el control, vigilancia y fiscalización de los ingresos, gastos, bienes públicos y
bienes nacionales, así como de las operaciones relativas a los mismos. Por otra parte, la
Contraloría general de la República es el órgano rector del Sistema nacional de Control
Fiscal, integrado por las Contralorías de los Estados, de los Distritos, Distritos
Metropolitanos y de los Municipios; la Contraloría General de la Fuerza Armada Nacional
Bolivariana y las unidades de auditoría interna de las entidades a que se refiere el artículo 9,
numerales 1 al 11, de la LOCGRSNCF.
De conformidad con los artículos 280 de la CRBV y 2 y 3 de su Ley Orgánica7, la
Defensoría del Pueblo es el órgano del Poder Ciudadano que tiene a su cargo la
promoción, defensa y vigilancia de los derechos y garantías establecidos en los artículos 19
al 31 de la Constitución y en los tratados internacionales sobre derechos humanos, además
de los intereses legítimos, colectivos o difusos de los ciudadanos y ciudadanas dentro del
territorio, y de éstos cuando están sujetos a la jurisdicción de la República en el exterior.
Actuará bajo la dirección y responsabilidad del Defensor o Defensora del Pueblo,
designado o designada por un único periodo de siete años.
Con relación al Poder Electoral, la CRBV señala en su artículo 292, "El Poder Electoral se
ejerce por el Consejo Nacional Electoral como ente rector; y son organismos subordinados
a éste, la Junta Electoral Nacional, la Comisión de Registro Civil y Electoral y la Comisión
de Participación Política y Financiamiento, con la organización y el funcionamiento que
establezca la ley orgánica respectiva"; el cual, de acuerdo con su Ley Orgánica, tiene
carácter permanente y su sede es la capital de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela. Es de
su competencia normar, dirigir y supervisar las actividades de sus órganos subordinados,
así como garantizar el cumplimiento de los principios constitucionales atribuidos al Poder
Electoral. Ejerce sus funciones autónomamente y con plena independencia de las demás
ramas del Poder Público, sin más limitaciones que las establecidas en la Constitución y en
la ley8.
Ahora bien, visto lo mencionado anteriormente se establece que los órganos de control
superior de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela que tienen a su cargo la prevención,
sanción y erradicación de las prácticas corruptas son los siguientes:
1) Tribunal Supremo de Justicia
2) Ministerio Público
3) Contraloría General de la República
5
Ley Orgánica del Ministerio Público. Publicada en Gaceta Oficial. No. 38.647 de fecha 19
de
marzo
de
2007.
Información
disponible
en:
http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2007/38647.pdf
6
Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y del Sistema Nacional de Control
Fiscal. Publicada en Gaceta Oficial No. 6.013 Extraordinario del 23/12/2010. Información
disponible
en: http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2010/6013.pdf
7
Ley Orgánica de la Defensoría del Pueblo. Publicada en Gaceta Oficial N° 37.995 de
fecha 5/8/2004.
8
Ley Orgánica del Poder Electoral. Publicada en Gaceta Oficial N° 37.573 del
19/11/2002.
Información
disponible
en:
http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2002/37573.pdf
Señale el alcance del mandato de los órganos de prevención de la corrupción, así
como, la independencia de los órganos de lucha contra la corrupción, si se les
permite realizar eficazmente su labor y se evita que sufran influencias indebidas.
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia
En cuanto al Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, el mismo es parte del Sistema de Justicia de
la República y es el órgano rector del Poder Judicial. En consecuencia, es la máxima
autoridad jurisdiccional y ejerce su dirección, gobierno y administración, con la finalidad
de asegurar al justiciable la protección y tutela de sus derechos y garantías constitucionales.
La CRBV en el Capítulo III Del Poder Judicial y Del Sistema De Justicia, Sección primera:
Disposiciones generales, artículo 253, establece que “el sistema de justicia está constituido
por el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, los demás tribunales que determine la ley, el
Ministerio Público, la Defensoría Pública, los órganos de investigación penal, los o las
auxiliares y funcionarios o funcionarias de justicia, el sistema penitenciario, los medios
alternativos de justicia, los ciudadanos o ciudadanas que participan en la administración de
justicia conforme a la ley y los abogados autorizados o abogadas autorizadas para el
ejercicio”.
En la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (LOTSJ) se establece que “el
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia es el más alto tribunal de la República; contra sus decisiones,
en cualquiera de sus Salas, no se oirá, ni admitirá acción ni recurso alguno, salvo lo que se
dispone en la presente Ley” (Art. 3); así también, se establece que este órgano “garantizará
la supremacía y efectividad de las normas y principios constitucionales. Será el máximo y
último intérprete de la Constitución de la República y velará por su uniforme interpretación
y aplicación. Las interpretaciones que establezca la Sala Constitucional sobre el contenido
o alcance de las normas y principios constitucionales son vinculantes para las otras Salas
del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia y demás tribunales de la República”, (Art. 4).
Establecido en el artículo 7 eiusdem, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia funcionará en Sala
Constitucional, Político Administrativa, Electoral, de Casación Civil, de Casación Penal y
de Casación Social, así como en la Sala Plena, cuyas funciones están establecidas en los
artículos 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 y 31.
Todas las Salas del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia estarán integradas por cinco (5)
Magistrados o Magistradas, a excepción de la Sala Constitucional, que estará integrada por
siete (7) Magistrados o Magistradas, (Art. 8 de la LOTSJ).
Es importante mencionar que la autonomía, independencia, autodeterminación nacional y
soberanía, son derechos irrenunciables del Estado Venezolano, y por tanto, son inherentes a
las funciones que constitucionalmente tiene atribuidas el Poder Judicial.
Por tanto, cada una de las ramas del Poder Público tienen establecidas en la Constitución y
las leyes funciones propias, las cuales deben ser cumplidas con estricta observancia de ese
ordenamiento jurídico que las consagra. Ello implica que las atribuciones privativas que por
mandato constitucional y legal sean competencias de un poder no pueden ser desempeñadas
ni invadidas por otro. (Vid. Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional N° 2.230 del 23 de
septiembre de 2002, caso: “Carlos Tablante”). En concreto, el Texto Fundamental, en su
Título V, denominado “De la Organización del Poder Público Nacional”, Capítulo III,
titulado “Del Poder Judicial y el Sistema de Justicia”, consagra la autonomía e
independencia de esta rama del Poder Público, véase artículo 254.
Asimismo, el artículo 256 de la CRBV señala la imparcialidad y la independencia que en
el ejercicio de sus funciones deben mantener los magistrados o las magistradas, los
jueces o las juezas, los fiscales o las fiscales del Ministerio Público; y los defensores
públicos o las defensoras públicas. También, es necesario mencionar el artículo 267, que
establece: “Corresponde al Tribunal Supremo de Justicia la dirección, el gobierno y la
administración del Poder Judicial, la inspección y vigilancia de los tribunales de la
República y de las Defensorías Públicas. Igualmente, le corresponde la elaboración y
ejecución de su propio presupuesto y del Presupuesto del Poder Judicial…”
Enunciado lo anterior, es necesario advertir que la autonomía e independencia del Poder
Judicial, se ratifica en el ordenamiento jurídico vigente, en especial en la LOTSJ, cuyo
artículo 2, consagra que el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia constituye parte del sistema de
Justicia, es el máximo órgano rector del Poder Judicial, goza de autonomía funcional,
financiera y administrativa. En su carácter de rector del Poder Judicial y su máxima
representación, le corresponde la dirección, el gobierno y la administración del Poder
Judicial, incluyendo la elaboración y ejecución de su presupuesto, así como la inspección y
vigilancia de los tribunales de la República y de las defensorías públicas, de conformidad
con la Constitución y las leyes. Autonomía e independencia establecida también en los
artículos 1, 3, 5 y 7, en la Ley de Carrera Judicial, en los artículos 1, 2, 47 y, en la Ley
Orgánica Procesal del Trabajo en su artículo 1, específicamente la independencia e
imparcialidad de los trabajadores.
El Código Orgánico Procesal Penal9, en su artículo 4, prevé la autonomía e independencia
de los jueces; el Código de Ética del Juez Venezolano y la Jueza Venezolana10, establece lo
concerniente a la independencia judicial y la Ley Orgánica de la Jurisdicción Contencioso
Administrativa11, en su artículo 2, consagra entre sus principios los siguientes:
“Los Órganos de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa orientarán su actuación por
los principios de justicia gratuita, accesibilidad, imparcialidad, idoneidad, transparencia,
autonomía, independencia, responsabilidad, brevedad, oralidad, publicidad, gratuidad,
celeridad, e inmediación.”
Ahora bien, con respecto al ejercicio de las funciones de este órgano en concurrencia o
compartidas con otros órganos o autoridades y los mecanismos para solucionar eventuales
conflictos de competencia, de conformidad con los artículos 136 y 137 de la Constitución
de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, se reitera, que los órganos y entes que ejercen el
Poder Público tienen establecida en la Constitución y las leyes funciones propias, las cuales
deben ser cumplidas con estricta observancia en ese ordenamiento jurídico que las
consagra. No obstante, los órganos a los que les incumbe su ejercicio, colaborarán entre sí
para la realización de los fines del Estado.
Asimismo, en caso de suscitarse un conflicto entre los órganos y entes que ejercen el Poder
Público, serán los órganos jurisdiccionales los competentes para la resolución del mismo, a
tenor de lo dispuesto en la CRBV, en su artículos 266, numerales 4 y 7 y el artículo 336,
numeral 9, así como, en la LOTSJ, en sus artículos 24, numeral 3; 25 numerales 9 y 13; 26,
numerales 7 y 8; y 31 numeral 4. Igualmente, la Ley Orgánica de la Jurisdicción
Contencioso Administrativa, en sus artículos 9, numeral 7; 23, numerales 7, 8 y 19; y 25,
numeral 9, establece las competencias de las diversas Salas del Tribunal Supremo de
Justicia para conocer las controversias administrativas que surjan.
9
Código Orgánico Procesal Penal. Publicado en Gaceta Oficial N° 6.078 Extraordinario, de
fecha 15 de junio de 2012.
10
Reforma Parcial del Código de Ética del Juez Venezolano y la Jueza Venezolana.
Publicada en Gaceta Oficial N° 39.493 de fecha 23 de agosto de 2010. Información
disponible en: http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2010/39493.pdf
11
Ley Orgánica de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa. Publicada en Gaceta Oficial
N° 39.451 de fecha 22 de junio de 2010.
http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/2010/39451.pdf
Información
disponible
en:
En cuanto a las funciones jurisdiccionales del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, están
consagradas en la CRBV, (véase el artículo 266) y las competencias jurisdiccionales de
cada una de las Salas que lo integran, están tipificadas ampliamente en los artículos 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30 y 31 de la LOTSJ. Cabe precisar que con relación a estas competencias
no existen excepciones, sino las previstas en las mismas, dado que de conformidad con el
artículo 253 constitucional, corresponde a los órganos del Poder Judicial, la potestad de
administrar justicia; en consecuencia, conocer las causas y asuntos de su competencia,
mediante los procedimientos que determinen las leyes y ejecutar o hacer ejecutar sus
sentencias.
Ministerio Público
El Ministerio Público, es el encargado de ejercer la acción penal en nombre del Estado, es
único e indivisible y está bajo la dirección y responsabilidad del Fiscal o la Fiscal General
de la República. "El Ministerio Público es un órgano del Poder Ciudadano que tiene por
objetivo actuar en representación del interés general, y es responsable del respeto a los
derechos y garantías constitucionales, a fin de preservar el Estado democrático y social de
derecho y de justicia", (Ley Orgánica del Ministerio Público Art. 2).
El Plan Estratégico 2008-2014 del Ministerio Público, contempla como su principal
objetivo (general): “Coadyuvar a rescatar la solidaridad y otros valores fundamentales para
un adecuado desarrollo del ser humano, mediante el ejercicio de una justicia basada en la
moral colectiva, la conciencia cívica y la nueva ética de lo público, consolidando el respeto
de los derechos sociales universales”. Su objetivo específico se basa en: “Responder de
manera oportuna las demandas de la colectividad, mediante el establecimiento de acciones
institucionales e interinstitucionales, dirigidas a facilitar al ciudadano, el acceso a la justicia
y a fortalecer la credibilidad en el Sistema de Justicia Venezolano”.
Entre sus funciones más destacadas se encuentran: ordenar, dirigir y supervisar todo lo
relacionado con la investigación y acción penal; practicar por sí mismo, a través del Cuerpo
de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas, o por los órganos con
competencia especial y de apoyo con competencia en materia de investigaciones penales,
las actividades indagatorias para demostrar la perpetración de los actos punibles; hacer
constar su comisión con todas las circunstancias que puedan influir en la calificación y
establecer la responsabilidad de los autores y demás partícipes, así como el aseguramiento
de los objetos activos y pasivos relacionados con su perpetración. En correlación con dichas
funciones el Ministerio Público, como parte del Poder Ciudadano, posee las siguientes
funciones, señaladas en el artículo 274 de la CRBV: "Los órganos que ejercen el Poder
Ciudadano tienen a su cargo, de conformidad con esta Constitución y con la ley, prevenir,
investigar y sancionar los hechos que atenten contra la ética pública y la moral
administrativa; velar por la buena gestión y la legalidad en el uso del patrimonio público, el
cumplimiento y la aplicación del principio de la legalidad en toda la actividad
administrativa del Estado; e igualmente, promover la educación como proceso creador de la
ciudadanía, así como la solidaridad, la libertad, la democracia, la responsabilidad social y el
trabajo”.
En relación con la autonomía para el cumplimiento de dichos objetivos y funciones, se
estipula que el Ministerio Público como órgano del Poder Ciudadano, cuenta con
autonomía funcional, financiera y administrativa, según lo previsto en el artículo 273 de
la CRBV igualmente, en su Ley Orgánica, el artículo 4 indica: "El Ministerio Público es
independiente de todos los Poderes Públicos, y goza de autonomía funcional,
organizativa, presupuestaria, financiera y administrativa. En consecuencia, no podrá
ser impedido ni coartado en el ejercicio de sus atribuciones por ninguna autoridad".
De acuerdo con el artículo 136 eiusdem, el Ministerio Público como órgano del Poder
Ciudadano y del Poder Público, además de tener sus funciones propias, colabora con otros
órganos, en la realización de los fines del Estado. La LOMP, en su artículo 5, señala: "Los
Poderes Públicos, las entidades públicas y privadas y los ciudadanos y ciudadanas deberán
colaborar con el Ministerio Público cuando sean requeridos para ello". Y continúa en el
artículo 16, numeral 15, al mencionar sus competencias, que éste solicitará "…la
colaboración de cualquier ente u organismo público, funcionario o funcionaria del sector
público, quienes estarán obligados a prestar la ayuda solicitada sin demora y a suministrar
los documentos e informaciones que les sean requeridos".
Asimismo, el artículo 285 de la CRBV, establece las siguientes atribuciones al Ministerio
Público:
“Son atribuciones del Ministerio Público:
1. -Garantizar en los procesos judiciales el respeto de los derechos y garantías
constitucionales, así como de los tratados, convenios y acuerdos internacionales
suscritos por la República.
2. -Garantizar la celeridad y buena marcha de la administración de justicia, el juicio
previo y el debido proceso.
3. -Ordenar y dirigir la investigación penal de la perpetración de los hechos punibles
para hacer constar su comisión con todas las circunstancias que puedan influir en la
calificación y responsabilidad de los autores o las autoras y demás participantes, así
como el aseguramiento de los objetos activos y pasivos relacionados con la
perpetración.
4. -Ejercer en nombre del Estado la acción penal en los casos en que para intentarla o
proseguirla no fuere necesario instancia de parte, salvo las excepciones establecidas
en la ley.
5. -Intentar las acciones a que hubiere lugar para hacer efectiva la responsabilidad
civil, laboral, militar, penal, administrativa o disciplinaria en que hubieren incurrido
los funcionarios o funcionarias del sector público, con motivo del ejercicio de sus
funciones.
6. -Las demás que le atribuyan esta Constitución y la ley”, (Art. 31).
Del mismo modo, la Ley Orgánica del Ministerio Público consagra en su artículo 16 sus
competencias:
“Son competencias del Ministerio Público:
1. Velar por el efectivo cumplimiento de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana
de Venezuela, los tratados, acuerdos y convenios internacionales, válidamente
suscritos y ratificados por la República, así como las demás leyes.
2. Garantizar el debido proceso, la celeridad y buena marcha de la administración de
justicia, el respeto de los derechos y garantías constitucionales, así como de los
tratados, convenios y acuerdos internacionales vigentes en la República, actuando
de oficio o a instancia de parte.
3. Ordenar, dirigir y supervisar todo lo relacionado con la investigación y acción
penal; practicar por sí mismo o por el Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas,
Penales y Criminalísticas, o por los órganos con competencia especial y de apoyo en
materia de investigaciones penales, las actividades indagatorias para demostrar la
perpetración de los actos punibles; hacer constar su comisión con todas las
circunstancias que puedan influir en la calificación y establecer la responsabilidad
de los autores o las autoras y demás partícipes, así como el aseguramiento de los
objetos activos y pasivos relacionados con su perpetración.
4. Requerir de organismos públicos o privados altamente calificados la práctica de
peritajes o experticias pertinentes para el esclarecimiento de los hechos objeto de
investigación, sin perjuicio de la actividad que desempeñe el Cuerpo de
Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas o los órganos con
competencia especial y de apoyo en materia de investigaciones penales.
5. Autorizar, en aquellos casos previstos por las leyes, las actuaciones de investigación
penal a ser ejercidas por el Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y
Criminalísticas, así como de los órganos con competencia especial y de apoyo en
materia de investigaciones penales, los cuales estarán obligados a informar al
Ministerio Público sus resultas en los plazos requeridos o, en su defecto, en los
plazos fijados legalmente.
6. Ejercer, en nombre del Estado, la acción penal en los casos en que para intentarla o
proseguirla no sea necesario instancia de parte, salvo las excepciones establecidas
en el Código Orgánico Procesal Penal y demás leyes.
7. Librar y ejecutar exhortos o cartas rogatorias y solicitudes de asistencia mutua en
materia penal, y ejercer las demás funciones inherentes en su condición de autoridad
central en la materia.
8. Intentar las acciones a que hubiere lugar para hacer efectiva la responsabilidad civil,
penal y administrativa en que hubieren incurrido los funcionarios o funcionarias del
sector público, con motivo del ejercicio de sus atribuciones, así como la penal y
civil de los o las particulares.
9. Fiscalizar la ejecución de las decisiones judiciales en los procesos en los cuales el
Ministerio Público haya intervenido o cuando su intervención hubiese sido
requerida.
10. Ejercer los recursos y acciones contra los actos dictados por el Poder Público,
viciados de inconstitucionalidad o ilegalidad, sin menoscabo de las atribuciones
conferidas a la Defensoría del Pueblo y a la Procuraduría General de la República.
11. Intervenir en defensa de la constitucionalidad y legalidad en los casos de nulidad de
actos públicos, que sean interpuestos por ante los diferentes órganos de la
jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa.
12. Investigar y ejercer ante los tribunales competentes, las acciones a que hubiere lugar
con ocasión de la violación de las garantías constitucionales y derechos humanos,
por parte de funcionarios públicos o funcionarias públicas o particulares.
13. Velar por el correcto cumplimiento de las leyes y la garantía de los derechos
humanos en las cárceles y demás establecimientos de reclusión.
14. Velar para que en los retenes policiales, en los establecimientos penitenciarios, en
los lugares de reclusión para efectivos militares, en las colonias agrícolas
penitenciarias, en los internados judiciales, las comunidades penitenciarias,
entidades de atención para niños, niñas y adolescentes, y demás establecimientos de
reclusión y de detención, sean respetados los derechos humanos y constitucionales
de los internos o internas, de los detenidos preventivamente y de los niños, niñas y
adolescentes; tomar en todo momento las medidas legales adecuadas para restituir y
mantener la vigencia de los derechos humanos cuando
hayan sido menoscabados o violados.
En el ejercicio de esta competencia los o las fiscales del Ministerio Público tendrán acceso
a todos los establecimientos mencionados.
Los funcionarios o las funcionarias que impidan el ejercicio de esta competencia serán
responsables penal, civil o disciplinariamente, según lo dispuesto en la ley para cada caso.
Asimismo, aquellos particulares que entraben de cualquier manera el ejercicio de esta
competencia serán responsables penal y civilmente, de conformidad con las leyes según sea
el caso.
16. Solicitar, en el cumplimiento de sus funciones, la colaboración de cualquier ente u
organismo público, funcionario o funcionaria del sector público, quienes estarán
obligados a prestar la ayuda solicitada sin demora y a suministrar los documentos e
informaciones que les sean requeridos. Presentar observaciones y recomendaciones
a proyectos de ley y sugerir las reformas legislativas a que hubiere lugar.
17. Presentar observaciones y recomendaciones en la planificación de la política
criminal que realice el Poder Ejecutivo.
18. Las demás que le señalen la constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela
y las leyes.
Contraloría General de la República
La CRBV establece en su artículo 289 lo siguiente: “Son atribuciones de la Contraloría
General de la República:
1. Ejercer el control, la vigilancia y fiscalización de los ingresos, gastos y bienes públicos,
así como las operaciones relativas a los mismos, sin perjuicio de las facultades que se
atribuyan a otros órganos, en el caso de los estados y municipios, de conformidad con la
ley.
2. Controlar la deuda pública, sin perjuicio de las facultades que se atribuyan a otros
órganos en el caso de los estados y municipios, de conformidad con la ley.
3. Inspeccionar y fiscalizar los órganos, entidades y personas jurídicas del sector público
sometidos a su control; practicar fiscalizaciones, disponer el inicio de investigaciones
sobre irregularidades contra el patrimonio público, así como dictar las medidas, imponer
los reparos y aplicar las sanciones administrativas a que haya lugar de conformidad con
la ley.
4. Instar al fiscal o a la fiscal general de la República a que ejerza las acciones judiciales a
que hubiere lugar con motivo de las infracciones y delitos cometidos contra el
patrimonio público y de los cuales tenga conocimiento en el ejercicio de sus
atribuciones.
5. Ejercer el control de gestión y evaluar el cumplimiento y resultado de las decisiones y
políticas públicas de los órganos, entidades y personas jurídicas del sector público
sujetos a su control, relacionadas con sus ingresos, gastos y bienes.
6. Las demás que establezca la Constitución y la ley”.
Asimismo, la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y del Sistema
Nacional de Control Fiscal –en adelante también citada como LOCGRSNCF-, establece, en
su artículo 2, que la Contraloría General de la República en el ejercicio de sus funciones
verificará la legalidad, exactitud y sinceridad, así como la eficacia, economía, eficiencia,
calidad e impacto de las operaciones y de los resultados de la gestión de los organismos y
entidades sujetos a su control.
Es importante destacar que una vez declarada la responsabilidad administrativa, el
Contralor o Contralora General de la República de manera exclusiva y excluyente, sin que
medie ningún otro procedimiento, podrá imponer de manera accesoria y en atención a la
entidad del ilícito cometido: 1) La suspensión del ejercicio del cargo sin goce de sueldo por
un periodo no mayor de veinticuatro (24) meses; 2) La destitución del declarado
responsable, y por último 3) La inhabilitación para el ejercicio de funciones públicas hasta
por un máximo de quince (15) años, tal como se encuentra establecido en el artículo 105 de
la LOCGRSNCF.
La Contraloría General de la República, como órgano integrante del Poder Ciudadano, goza
de autonomía, tal como lo establece el artículo 287 de la CRBV. Así mismo, la
LOCGRSNCF, en su artículo 3, establece que la Contraloría General de la República, en el
ejercicio de sus funciones, no está subordinada a ningún otro órgano del Poder Público,
ratifica que goza de autonomía funcional, administrativa y organizativa e igualmente de
la potestad para dictar normas reglamentarias en las materias de su competencia.
Por Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal –en adelante citado como SNCF- se entiende "el
conjunto de órganos, estructuras, recursos y procesos que, integrados bajo la rectoría de la
Contraloría General de la República, interactúan coordinadamente a fin de lograr la unidad
de dirección de los sistemas y procedimientos de control que coadyuven al logro de los
objetivos generales de los distintos entes y organismos sujetos a esta Ley, así como también
al buen funcionamiento de la Administración Pública" (LOCGRSNCF, Art. 4).
El Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal "tiene como objetivo fortalecer la capacidad del
Estado para ejecutar eficazmente su función de gobierno, lograr la transparencia y la
eficiencia en el manejo de los recursos del sector público y establecer la responsabilidad
por la comisión de irregularidades relacionadas con la gestión de las entidades" bajo su
control. (LOCGRSNCF, Art. 23).
La misma ley establece en su artículo 26, que los órganos que conforman el SNCF, entre
los que figuran los siguientes: la Contraloría General de la República; las Contralorías de
los Estados, de los Distritos, Distritos Metropolitanos y de los Municipios; la Contraloría
General de la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana; las unidades de auditoría interna de las
entidades a que se refiere el artículo 9, numerales 1 al 11, de esta Ley.
Los órganos del control fiscal antes enumerados, funcionarán coordinadamente entre sí,
para lo cual, según el artículo 33 de la LOCGRSNCF, a la Contraloría le corresponderá:
“1. Dictar las políticas, reglamentos, normas, manuales e instrucciones para el ejercicio del
control y para la coordinación del control fiscal externo con el interno.
2. Dictar el reglamento para la calificación, selección y contratación de auditores,
consultores o profesionales independientes en materia de control, y las normas para la
ejecución y presentación de sus resultados.
3. Evaluar el ejercicio y los resultados del control interno y externo.
4. Evaluar los sistemas contables de los entes y organismos señalados en el artículo 9,
numerales 1 al 11, de esta Ley.
5. Fijar los plazos y condiciones para que las máximas autoridades jerárquicas de los
organismos y entidades sujetos a control dicten, de acuerdo con lo establecido por la
Contraloría General de la República, las normas, manuales de procedimientos, métodos y
demás instrumentos que conformen su sistema de control interno; y para que los demás
niveles directivos y gerenciales de cada cuadro organizativo de los organismos y entidades
sujetos a control, implanten el sistema de control interno.
6. Evaluar la normativa de los sistemas de control interno que dicten las máximas
autoridades de los entes sujetos a control, a fin de determinar si se ajustan a las normas
básicas dictadas por la Contraloría General de la República.
7. Evaluar los sistemas de control interno, a los fines de verificar la eficacia, eficiencia y
economía con que operan.
8. Asesorar técnicamente a los organismos y entidades sujetos a su control en la
implantación de los sistemas de control interno, así como en la instrumentación de las
recomendaciones contenidas en los informes de auditoría o de cualquier actividad de
control y en la aplicación de las acciones correctivas que se emprendan.
9. Elaborar proyectos de ley y demás instrumentos normativos en materia de control fiscal.
10. Opinar acerca de cualquier proyecto de Ley o reglamento en materia hacendaria.
11. Dictar políticas y pautas para el diseño de los programas de capacitación y
especialización de servidores públicos en el manejo de los sistemas de control de que trata
la LOCGRSNCF”.
Con respecto al ejercicio de funciones en concurrencia o compartidas con otros órganos o
autoridades, es necesario recordar lo previsto en la CRBV en el Título IV, del Poder
Público, artículo 136, el cual establece que: “(…) Cada una de las ramas del Poder Público
tiene sus funciones propias, pero los órganos a los que incumbe su ejercicio colaborarán
entre
sí
en
la
realización
de
los
fines
del
Estado”.
En este mismo orden de ideas, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 de la
LOCGRSNCF, están sujetos al control, vigilancia y fiscalización de la Contraloría General
de la República, los órganos y entidades a los que incumbe el ejercicio del Poder Público
Nacional, Estadal, Distritos y Distritos Metropolitanos, Municipal, Territorios Federales y
Dependencias Federales, institutos autónomos, Banco Central de Venezuela, universidades
públicas, sociedades en las cuales las personas a que se refieren los numerales anteriores
tengan participación en su capital social, entre otros, fundaciones, asociaciones civiles y
demás instituciones creadas con fondos públicos.
"La Contraloría General de la República y los demás órganos de control fiscal externo, en
el ámbito de sus competencias, podrán realizar auditorías, inspecciones, fiscalizaciones,
exámenes, estudios, análisis e investigaciones de todo tipo y de cualquier naturaleza en los
entes u organismos sujetos a su control, para verificar la legalidad, exactitud, sinceridad y
corrección de sus operaciones, así como para evaluar el cumplimiento y los resultados de
las políticas y de las acciones administrativas, la eficacia, eficiencia, economía, calidad e
impacto de su gestión" (LOCGRSNCF, Art.46). Tales atribuciones pueden ser delegadas en
auditores, consultores y profesionales independientes como lo señala el Parágrafo único del
Artículo 43 de dicha ley.
Se crean en los ministerios o departamentos de gobierno centros de coordinación
o dependencias encargadas de aplicar las políticas anticorrupción.
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia
En este sentido el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, a través de su Junta Directiva y de sus
órganos auxiliares, deberá suministrar amplia, oportuna y veraz información sobre su
organización, funcionamiento y actividades, con el fin de que el pueblo participe y ejerza
control social sobre su gestión pública.
El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia y sus órganos auxiliares deberán crear, mantener y
actualizar un sistema de información físico y electrónico que contenga, entre otros, el
esquema actualizado de su organización y funcionamiento, así como un mecanismo de
comunicación e información electrónica disponible para todas las personas, (Art. 120).
Ahora bien, en cuanto a la coordinación con los órganos de control respecto al Poder
Judicial, resulta imperioso mencionar al Poder Ciudadano, cuyo órgano de expresión es el
Consejo Moral Republicano; así como con el Poder Legislativo, a través de la Asamblea
Nacional, que colaboran entre sí, para el ejercicio de los fines del Estado en el ámbito de
sus competencias, junto con los demás integrantes del Sistema de Justicia, en el marco de
sus funciones de control, disponen de mecanismos de coordinación respecto al Poder
Judicial con la finalidad de armonizar sus atribuciones, fundamentalmente en lo atinente al
sistema de postulación, designación y remoción de los Magistrados del Tribunal Supremo
de Justicia, así como la declaratoria de responsabilidad de los funcionarios públicos en el
manejo del patrimonio público y por hechos que atenten contra la ética pública y la moral
administrativa, aunado lo relativo a la complementación de dichos actores en el proceso de
formulación de leyes, de conformidad con lo previsto, entre otros, en los artículos 211, 222
y 270 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela.
En este orden de ideas, la LOCGRSNCF, dispone en sus artículos 2, 4, 5, 9, 26, 35 y 42, las
funciones de control de la Contraloría General de la República aplicables al Poder Judicial
y con fundamento en lo cual se creó la Unidad de Auditoría Interna como integrante del
referido sistema, la cual funciona coordinadamente y bajo la rectoría de la Contraloría
General de la República.
Paralelamente, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia como máxima instancia del Poder Judicial y
en el marco de sus competencias otorgadas constitucional y legalmente, ejerce a su vez el
control jurisdiccional de la actividad desarrollada por los Poderes Públicos y su adecuación
al ordenamiento jurídico, véase artículo 262 y 266 de la CRBV.
Ministerio Público
En ejercicio de la disposición prevista en el artículo 136 de la CRBV, referida a la
colaboración o coordinación entre sí, de las distintas ramas del Poder Público, y muy
específicamente en materia de lucha contra la Corrupción, la Dirección contra la
Corrupción del Ministerio Público ha venido definiendo estrategias dirigidas a mitigar
los fraudes que se cometen contra la Banca, conformando para ello un equipo
interinstitucional integrado por representantes del Ministerio Público, Superintendencia de
las Instituciones del Sector Bancario, División contra la Delincuencia Organizada del
Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas; Asociación Bancaria
Nacional y Banca Privada (Mercantil, Provincial y Banesco).
Cabe recordar aquí el artículo 273 de la CRBV, conforme al cual se estableció que, el Poder
Ciudadano es ejercido por el Consejo Moral Republicano, el cual está integrado por el
Defensor o Defensora del Pueblo, el Fiscal o la Fiscal General y el Contralor o Contralora
General de la República. "Los o las representantes del Consejo Moral Republicano
formularán a las autoridades, funcionarios o funcionarias de la Administración Pública, las
advertencias sobre las faltas en el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones legales. De no acatarse
estas advertencias, el Consejo Moral Republicano podrá imponer las sanciones establecidas
en la ley. En caso de contumacia, el Presidente o Presidenta del Consejo Moral
Republicano presentará un informe al órgano o dependencia al cual esté adscrito o adscrita
el funcionario público o la funcionaria pública, para que esa instancia tome los correctivos
de acuerdo con el caso, sin perjuicio de las sanciones a que hubiere lugar de conformidad
con la ley”, (CRBV, Art. 275).
“Todos los funcionarios o funcionarias de la Administración Pública están obligados u
obligadas, bajo las sanciones que establezca la ley, a colaborar con carácter preferente y
urgente con los o las representantes del Consejo Moral Republicano en sus investigaciones.
Éste podrá solicitarles las declaraciones y documentos que considere necesarios para el
desarrollo de sus funciones, incluidos aquellos que hayan sido clasificados o catalogados
con carácter confidencial o secreto de acuerdo con la ley. En todo caso, el Poder Ciudadano
sólo podrá suministrar la información contenida en documentos confidenciales o secretos
mediante los procedimientos que establezca la ley”, (CRBV, Art. 277).
En correlación con lo establecido en la CRBV, debemos destacar el artículo 5 de la Ley
Orgánica del Ministerio Público, el cual expresa: “Los Poderes Públicos, las entidades
públicas y privadas y los ciudadanos y ciudadanas deberán colaborar con el Ministerio
Público cuando sean requeridos para ello”.
En esa misma línea de ideas, el Ministerio Público creó en su seno la Coordinación de
Gestión Social, con miras a contribuir a la consolidación de una sociedad más justa,
solidaria e igualitaria, encaminando su labor a la creación de lazos más estrechos con las
comunidades. Esta dependencia tiene, entre sus competencias, coadyuvar con la Dirección
de Fiscalías Superiores, a través de las Oficinas de Atención al Ciudadano y las Unidades
de Atención a la Víctima, la coordinación de las acciones necesarias para formular y
ejecutar las actividades de Gestión Social.
Por último, la Fiscal General de la República inauguró la Coordinación Nacional de
Protección de Víctimas, Testigos y demás Sujetos Procesales, que busca el resguardo de
las personas que participan en un proceso penal, mediante el trabajo mancomunado con las
Unidades de Atención a la Víctima, para garantizar la defensa y protección de los derechos
que asisten a toda víctima de delito y testigos en casos de delitos ejecutados por
delincuencia organizada, quienes necesitan una protección especial para garantizar sus
derechos. Sus funciones se encuentran enmarcadas en la Ley de Protección de Víctimas,
Testigos y demás Sujetos Procesales, que tiene por objeto la protección de los derechos e
intereses de las víctimas, testigos y demás sujetos procesales, así como regular las medidas
de protección, en cuanto a su ámbito de aplicación, modalidades y procedimiento.
Contraloría General de la República
En este sentido, todos los funcionarios o funcionarias de la Administración Pública están
obligados u obligadas, bajo las sanciones que establezca la ley, a colaborar o cooperar con
carácter preferente y urgente con los o las representantes del Consejo Moral Republicano
en sus investigaciones. (…”El Poder Ciudadano sólo podrá suministrar la información
contenida en documentos confidenciales o secretos mediante los procedimientos que
establezca la ley”. (CRBV, Art. 277). Además, el deber de cooperación de todos los
órganos y entes están establecidos en el artículo 136 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal
Supremo de Justicia.
En concordancia con la Constitución, el Artículo 7 eiusdem, expresa que “…los entes y
organismos del sector público, los servidores públicos y los particulares están obligados a
colaborar con los órganos que integran el Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal, y a
proporcionarles las informaciones escritas o verbales, los libros, los registros y los
documentos que les sean requeridos con motivo del ejercicio de sus competencias”.
Asimismo, deberán atender las citaciones o convocatorias que les sean formuladas.
Tal como lo estipula la LOCGRSNSF, y como lo mencionamos anteriormente, la
Contraloría General de la República está bajo la dirección y control del Contralor General
de la República y cuenta con la estructura orgánica necesaria para cumplir con sus
funciones legales, estructura ésta determinada por el Contralor a través del Reglamento
Interno y de las resoluciones Organizativas que para tal fin dictó. Actualmente esta
estructura organizativa es:
Despacho del Contralor General de la República, quien dirige, coordina, y vigila el
trabajo de todos los órganos de la Contraloría General y establece las políticas que guían la
actividad institucional y los objetivos que deben alcanzarse. A este Despacho están
adscritos las siguientes dependencias: Auditoría Interna; Dirección de Asistencia al
Despacho; Dirección de Comunicación Corporativa; Recursos Humanos; Administración; y
Seguridad, Prevención y Control de Riesgos.
Despacho del Sub-Contralor: que asiste al Contralor en la coordinación del trabajo de
todos los órganos de la Contraloría, así como en la vigilancia del cumplimiento de las
políticas y los objetivos establecidos por la Institución. Este Despacho tiene adscrita la
Oficina de Atención al Ciudadano.
Dirección General Técnica: que actúa como unidad de asesoramiento técnico del
Contralor General y de los diferentes órganos de la Contraloría en lo referente a las
políticas, normas y procedimientos de control; el área de informática; y las relaciones
nacionales e internacionales; y fomenta el desarrollo y la implementación de normas,
instrucciones y pautas técnicas para el funcionamiento coordinado de los integrantes del
sistema de nacional de control fiscal, y para los sistemas de control interno y externo. A
esta Dirección General están adscritas las Direcciones Sectoriales de: Planificación,
Organización y Desarrollo; Informática; e Información y Cooperación Técnica; Sistemas de
Control. De esta última depende el Registro de Auditores y Consultores Independientes.
Dirección General de los Servicios Jurídicos: que actúa como unidad central de asesoría
jurídica e interviene en todos los asuntos que en materia jurídica corresponden o atañen a la
Institución. Resuelve las consultas, emite los dictámenes y realiza los estudios jurídicos que
le son solicitados por el Contralor, el Sub-Contralor o por los Directores Generales del
organismo. A esta Dirección General están adscritas las Direcciones Sectoriales de:
Asesoría Jurídica y Procedimientos Jurídicos.
Dirección General de Control de los Poderes Públicos Nacionales: que ejerce funciones
de control, vigilancia y fiscalización sobre los órganos a los que incumbe el ejercicio del
Poder Público Nacional (los Despachos ministeriales, la Presidencia de la República, la
Vicepresidencia Ejecutiva y los organismos que integran los poderes Legislativo, Judicial,
Electoral y Ciudadano), sobre el personal de dichos órganos y sobre las personas naturales
o jurídicas que se relacionen con ellos. A esta Dirección General están adscritas las
Direcciones de Control de los Sectores de: la Economía, Infraestructura y Social; y Poderes
Nacionales y Seguridad Pública.
Dirección General de Control de la Administración Nacional Descentralizada: que
ejerce funciones de control, vigilancia y fiscalización sobre las entidades descentralizadas
funcionalmente que integran la Administración Nacional Descentralizada (institutos
autónomos, empresas del Estado, empresas en las que el Estado tiene participación mayor o
igual al 50%, fundaciones y asociaciones Estatales, establecimientos públicos corporativos
y servicios autónomos sin personalidad jurídica), sobre el personal de dichas entidades e,
igualmente, sobre las personas naturales o jurídicas que se relacionen con las mismas. A
esta Dirección General están adscritas las Direcciones de Control de los Sectores de:
Industria; Producción y Comercio; Servicios; y Desarrollo Social.
Dirección General de Control de Estados y Municipios: que le corresponde ejercer el
control, vigilancia y fiscalización sobre los Estados, los Distritos Metropolitanos, los
Distritos, los Municipios, demás entes locales y sus respectivos órganos y entidades
descentralizadas funcionalmente; sobre el personal de dichos órganos y entidades, e
igualmente sobre las personas naturales o jurídicas que se relacionen con los mismos.
Además de otras funciones, vela por el cumplimiento de las normas constitucionales y
legales relativas a la inversión del situado constitucional y a la participación en las
asignaciones económicas especiales; y asesora a las contralorías estadales, distritales y
municipales en materia de organización y funcionamiento y en los aspectos de
administración hacendística y control fiscal. A esta Dirección están adscritas las
Direcciones Sectoriales de Control de: Estados y Municipios.
Finalmente tenemos la Dirección General de Procedimientos Especiales: que aplica el
procedimiento administrativo para la determinación de responsabilidades, de conformidad
con lo establecido en la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y del
Sistema Nacional de Control, en el Reglamento de ésta y en otras disposiciones legales. A
esta Dirección General están adscritas las Direcciones Sectoriales de: Determinación de
Responsabilidades y Declaraciones Juradas de Patrimonio
Es importante mencionar que atendiendo al mandato constitucional, la Ley Orgánica de la
Contraloría General de la República y del Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal, prevé
normativa que procura la participación ciudadana y que procura que la ciudadanía se
involucre profundamente en el desarrollo del país, del Estado y del entorno social que lo
perfecciona, exigiendo la participación ciudadana en la gestión contralora como punto de
extraordinaria importancia con base a las previsiones constitucionales, porque permite
legalmente la posibilidad real de darle a los ciudadanos responsabilidad en las funciones de
Control Fiscal.
Esta disposición prevista en la LOCGRSNCF es sabia pues obviamente, nadie puede tener
una percepción más directa e inmediata sobre los impactos de las diversas gestiones y
políticasgubernamentales, estadales o locales, que las propias comunidades y dentro de
ellas, las personas individuales que las conforman.
Pero también establece esta ley, como una obligación de todos los órganos que conforman
el Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal, el establecer estrategias de promoción de la
participación ciudadana para coadyuvar a la vigilancia del control fiscal, así como ordenar,
dirigir, sistematizar y evaluar las denuncias ciudadanas; abarcando incluso, la promoción de
mecanismos de control ciudadano en los proyectos de alto impacto económico, financiero y
social.
Desde la propia Contraloría General de la República, y a objeto de propiciar la
participación de la sociedad civil en el ejercicio del control fiscal, se dictó un Instructivo en
materia de denuncia, donde se estimula al ciudadano a presentar denuncia cuando tenga
conocimiento de que funcionarios públicos o particulares se encuentren involucrados en
algún hecho irregular relacionado con el manejo de fondos o bienes públicos.
La CGR en cumplimiento al mandato previsto en la Ley contra la Corrupción de la creación
de Oficinas de Atención al Ciudadano y con el fin de garantizar la participación ciudadana
en el ejercicio de la función contralora, mediante Resolución Organizativa publicada en la
Gaceta Oficial de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, en marzo del año 2000, creó
dentro su organización interna, esta Oficina de Atención al Ciudadano adscrita al Despacho
del Subcontralor, con el fin de atender la necesidad de incorporar a la sociedad en la
vigilancia de la ejecución del gasto público y en la lucha contra la corrupción, orientarla e
informarla al respecto, canalizando sus quejas, reclamos, peticiones o denuncias.
Se crean estructuras encargadas de atender eficazmente las quejas y
reclamaciones de la ciudadanía, como una comisión anticorrupción, una oficina
de ética, la oficina del auditor general, una oficina del ombudsman, una oficina
central de adquisiciones, etc.
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia
El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia cuenta con la Unidad de Auditoría Interna del Tribunal
Supremo de Justicia que se encarga de realizar el examen del control posterior de las
actividades administrativas y financieras de los órganos y dependencias que conforman el
Poder Judicial Venezolano, sin menoscabo, de la obligación de cada una de estos órganos y
dependencias de realizar su propio control interno sobre sus funciones, organización,
administración de su personal y gestión administrativa. En este sentido, y en el marco del
tema alusivo al control interno y de atención de reclamos o denuncias, es de señalar que
dicha Unidad de Auditoría cuenta con un mecanismo para formular las denuncias, que
pueden estar relacionadas con sus funciones propias o con las llevadas a cabo por los
órganos sobre los cuales ejerce control, presentándolas mediante comunicación escrita y/o a
través del formulario elaborado a tal fin, cuyo enlace se encuentra disponible en la Página
Web del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia.
Las Normas Generales de Control Interno, las disposiciones contenidas en dichas Normas
establecen, en su artículo 8, como deben ser estructurados los sistemas de control interno de
los organismos y entidades a los que incumbe el ejercicio del Poder Público Nacional,
abarcando por tanto a los órganos del Poder Judicial. En este sentido, la LOTSJ, véase los
numerales 14 y 15 del artículo 22, establece entre las atribuciones del Presidente o
Presidenta del Alto Tribunal, y de los demás Presidentes de cada una de sus Salas, como
mecanismo invaluable para el control interno, decidir en relación con quejas por demora y
otras faltas de los funcionarios y empleados en el cumplimiento de sus deberes.
El artículo 26 de la Ley del Sistema de Justicia, que rige al Máximo Tribunal, sobre el
particular expresa:
“Artículo 26. Los consejos comunales y las demás formas de organización del Poder
Popular, tienen derecho a participar y, especialmente, a ejercer la contraloría social sobre la
gestión del Sistema de Justicia y de todos sus componentes. A tal efecto, tienen las
siguientes funciones:
... omissis...
3. Notificar y denunciar ante las autoridades competentes los hechos que puedan constituir
infracciones a esta Ley, las leyes que la desarrollen y sus reglamentos, a los fines de iniciar
los procedimientos administrativos o judiciales a que hubiere lugar, así como intervenir y
participar directamente en los mismos, especialmente en los sancionatorios y
disciplinarios”.
Asimismo, la Ley Orgánica de Administración Pública, en el numeral 2 de su artículo 6,
establece lo relativo a las garantías que debe ofrecer la Administración Pública a las
personas y establece la posibilidad de presentación de reclamaciones sobre el
funcionamiento de ésta.
En la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, en sus artículos 65 y 66, se establece el deber
atinente a conocer de las quejas por omisión, retardo o denegación de justicia en los
juzgados de la Circunscripción.
Aunado a lo anterior, en el artículo 69 eiusdem, inherente a los deberes y atribuciones de
los jueces de primera instancia, contenido en las atribuciones de carácter general, se ubica
lo dispuesto en el numeral 3, referente a transmitir a los Juzgados Superiores las quejas que
se reciban contra los funcionarios inferiores por omisión, retardo o denegación de justicia o
por falta de cumplimiento de sus deberes, cuando actúen en materia mercantil, a fin de que
se siga el procedimiento legal y se hagan efectivas las responsabilidades del caso.
Y por último la Ley Orgánica de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa también
dispone de mecanismos de control interno y de atención de reclamos en relación con el
cumplimiento de funciones, señalando en el numeral 5 de su artículo 9 sobre la
competencia de los órganos de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa.
Ministerio Público
Como mecanismo de control interno y atención de reclamos por el actuar irregular de
una persona de la Institución, el Ministerio Público cuenta con la Dirección de Inspección
y Disciplina , adscrita a la Vice-Fiscalía, que ejerce la supervisión de la gestión y actuación
de los Fiscales principales y auxiliares, abogados adjuntos y personal profesional en todo el
territorio nacional, para la aplicación de los correctivos necesarios, a fin de lograr una
gestión transparente y eficaz, ajustada a la normativa interna y a la ley. Su objetivo
principal es garantizar que los funcionarios públicos, que tiene bajo su supervisión,
desempeñen sus atribuciones con alto rendimiento y apego a los valores. A tales efectos, la
Dirección desarrolla cuatro actividades fundamentales en esta materia: investigación,
inspección, orientación y prevención, que le permiten establecer la responsabilidad
disciplinaria de los Fiscales del Ministerio Público denunciados y generar los correctivos y
las sanciones pertinentes, lo que conlleva según sea el caso, a emitir exhortos,
observaciones, el inicio de procedimientos disciplinarios y, cuando proceda, la solicitud de
remociones.
Las faltas disciplinarias que les corresponde investigar a esta Dirección están relacionadas
con problemas interpersonales entre los funcionarios y el público, incumplimiento o
negligencia de los deberes inherentes al cargo; usurpación de funciones, abuso de poder,
incumplimiento de las instrucciones emanadas de sus superiores jerárquicos, violación de
las garantías y derechos constitucionales, conductas que atenten contra la ética, y otras
faltas previstas en los artículos 117, tanto de la LOMP como del Estatuto de Personal del
Ministerio Público. Entre sus funciones, previstas en el artículo 19 del Reglamento Interno,
que define las competencias de las dependencias que integran el Despacho de la Fiscal
General de la República, se destacan: fiscalizar el desarrollo de las actividades de los
representantes del Ministerio Público, mediante la inspección directa de los libros y
archivos del despacho y la verificación de la adecuación entre la información suministrada
a las direcciones operativas, y los registros documentados en los respectivos despachos;
realizar la labor investigativa propia de los procedimientos disciplinarios; realizar
inspecciones ordinarias y extraordinarias, a los despachos de los representantes del
Ministerio Público, a fin de mantener una supervisión continua y generar, de ser el caso, el
establecimiento de correctivos en el manejo de las diferentes oficinas; desarrollar los
controles de vigilancia y seguimiento de actuaciones de los fiscales del Ministerio Público,
a los efectos de determinar la eventual responsabilidad disciplinaria; formular
observaciones en materias de su competencia, a las actuaciones de los fiscales del
Ministerio Público; recibir y estudiar las denuncias por faltas disciplinarias presuntamente
cometidas por los funcionarios del Ministerio Público, sea fiscal, fiscal auxiliar o abogado
adjunto; sustanciar los Procedimientos Disciplinarios, instruidos a los funcionarios de esta
Institución, que se hayan iniciado como resultado de una averiguación previa, abierta por
denuncia o de oficio, conforme a lo previsto en el Estatuto de Personal del Ministerio
Público; recibir audiencias, en relación con los asuntos que tramita la Dirección, y dar
respuesta a los peticionarios, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 51 de la
Constitución.
Por otra parte, la Dirección de Recursos Humanos de acuerdo con el artículo 25 del
Reglamento Interno, ejerce el control interno sobre el desempeño del personal de la
Institución al asesorar y orientar a las diferentes dependencias sobre la aplicación de las
políticas, normas y procedimientos en materia de Recursos Humanos; evaluar los
candidatos oferentes a cargos del Ministerio Público, por medio de la revisión de
documentos y aplicación de pruebas psicológicas y de conocimientos; tramitar las
solicitudes de traslados, ascensos, compensaciones, entre otras; revisar y modificar el
sistema de evaluación de actuación laboral en la búsqueda de la optimización del mismo, de
acuerdo con los lineamientos que el Despacho del Fiscal General de la República imparta;
instruir los procedimientos legalmente establecidos a los fines de hacer valer la
responsabilidad disciplinaria del personal administrativo y obrero del Ministerio Público,
entre otras.
Asimismo, el Ministerio Público cuenta con la Oficina de Atención al Ciudadano, la cual
brinda asesoría a las personas que acuden al Ministerio Público a hacer sus planteamientos,
si son competencia del Ministerio Público, se les remite a la dependencia correspondiente a
los fines de que reciban la atención debida, si no están vinculados con las atribuciones del
Ministerio Público, éstos son remitidos al organismo respectivo para que sean atendidos
oportunamente y se hace el seguimiento correspondiente.
Contraloría General de la República
La CGR cuenta en su organización con la Dirección de Comunicación Corporativa, órgano
encargado de diseñar, coordinar y supervisar lo relativo a la política comunicacional e
informativa de la Contraloría, así como las actividades referentes a relaciones públicas y
protocolo.
Es de hacer notar que, en el marco de los principios de transparencia y rendición de cuentas
que caracterizan la gestión contralora, cada año se presenta a la Asamblea Nacional y se
coloca a disposición de la ciudadanía, a través de su portal web, los resultados relevantes de
la gestión cumplida por la Institución Contralora en el ejercicio de sus funciones de control
fiscal.
Adicionalmente, la CGR cuenta con la Oficina de Atención al Ciudadano (OAC), la cual
es la dependencia de las instituciones públicas, más cercana al ciudadano, creada con la
finalidad de recibirlos y brindarles asesorías, información y documentación vinculada con
la gestión pública y la participación ciudadana.
Su propósito fundamental es proporcionar una respuesta oportuna y efectiva en
materia de denuncias, quejas, reclamos y sugerencias, y desarrollar ampliamente la
función de educar a los ciudadanos en la gestión contralora. Adicionalmente, facilita la
cooperación con las Contralorías Sociales en su labor de vigilancia ciudadana en la correcta
administración, manejo o custodia de los ingresos, gastos y bienes del Estado, como
estrategia para contribuir a la lucha contra la corrupción.
La OAC también contempla el desarrollo de actividades orientadas a la conformación de un
área dirigida a la difusión de la información para el fomento de la participación ciudadana;
atiende las iniciativas de la comunidad vinculadas con el ejercicio de la participación
ciudadana; forma y capacita a la comunidad en los aspectos relacionados con el ejercicio
del derecho de la participación ciudadana y lleva un registro de las comunidades
organizadas. La OAC ha permitido integrar el control social con el control fiscal.
Asimismo, la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y del Sistema
Nacional de Control Fiscal establece en su artículo 35 que: “El control interno es un
sistema que comprende el plan de organización, las políticas, normas, así como los métodos
y procedimientos adoptados dentro de un ente u organismo sujeto a esta Ley, para
salvaguardar sus recursos, verificar la exactitud y veracidad de su información financiera y
administrativa, promover la eficiencia, economía y calidad en sus operaciones, estimular la
observancia de las políticas prescritas y lograr el cumplimiento de su misión, objetivos y
metas.”
El sistema de control interno es el proceso realizado por la alta gerencia, los supervisores, y
el personal operativo de una entidad, diseñado para proporcionar seguridad razonable de
cumplir los objetivos institucionales. En este orden de ideas, "cada entidad del sector
público elaborará, en el marco de las normas básicas dictadas por la Contraloría General de
la República, las normas, manuales de procedimientos, indicadores de gestión, índices de
rendimiento y demás instrumentos o métodos específicos para el funcionamiento del
sistema de control interno", (LOCGRSNCF, Art. 37). En este sentido el Sistema de Control
Interno comprende planes, políticas, normas, métodos y procedimientos adoptados para la
autorización, procesamiento, clasificación , registro , verificación, evaluación, seguridad y
protección de los bienes que integran el patrimonio público, abarcando aspectos
económicos, financieros, presupuestarios, patrimoniales, normativos y de gestión.
La Contraloría General ha hecho amplios esfuerzos en normar sus procesos tanto medulares
como de apoyo, mediante manuales de normas e instructivos, cuenta además con la
Auditoría Interna que es "el órgano encargado de realizar el examen posterior, objetivo,
sistemático y profesional de las actividades financieras y administrativas del Organismo, de
conformidad con la LOCGRSNCF, la Ley Orgánica de la Administración Financiera del
Sector Público, el Reglamento Interno y las Resoluciones Organizativas de la Contraloría
General y demás disposiciones aplicables", (Resolución Organizativa N° 1, Art. 4).
A la Auditoría Interna le corresponde, entre otros, evaluar el sistema de control interno de
la Contraloría, incluyendo el grado de operatividad y eficacia de los sistemas de
administración y de información gerencial y proponer al Contralor las recomendaciones
que sean pertinentes; vigilar la pertinencia y confiabilidad de los registros y estados
financieros de la Contraloría; verificar la legalidad exactitud, sinceridad y corrección de las
operaciones relacionadas con ingresos, gastos o bienes públicos, realizadas por la
Contraloría; evaluar el cumplimiento y resultado de los planes y las acciones
administrativas y financieras de la Contraloría; realizar las actuaciones especiales que le
requiera el Contralor (Resolución Organizativa N° 1, Art. 5
Con el propósito de orientar las acciones para instaurar el control interno en la
administración pública, la Contraloría General prescribió las Normas Generales de Control
Interno, las cuales comprenden los requisitos que deben cumplir los organismos para el
establecimiento, implantación, funcionamiento, evaluación de sus sistemas y mecanismos
de control interno.
La Unidad de Auditoría Interna, adscrita a los entes de la administración pública, según lo
dispuesto en el artículo 40 de la LOCGRSNCF, es la encargada de "evaluar el sistema de
control interno, incluyendo el grado de operatividad y eficacia de los sistemas de
administración y de información gerencial, así como el examen de los registros y estados
financieros, para determinar su pertinencia y confiabilidad, y la evaluación de la eficiencia,
eficacia y economía en el marco de las operaciones realizadas", función que cumple la
Auditoría Interna en la CGR.
La LOCGRSNCF dedica el Capítulo VIII a la participación ciudadana (Artículo 75)
indicando los aspectos que el Contralor o Contralora General de la República, debe tomar
en cuenta para dictar las normas destinadas a fomentar la participación de los ciudadanos y
ciudadanas. En concordancia con este artículo, la Contraloría dictó las Normas para
Fomentar la Participación Ciudadana, con el objeto de normar el ejercicio del derecho
de los ciudadanos a participar en el control sobre la gestión pública, a través de las Oficinas
de Atención Ciudadana y de los Órganos de Control Fiscal.
En ellas se canalizan las denuncias, quejas, reclamos, sugerencias o peticiones por
parte de los ciudadanos de forma individual o colectiva.
El personal al servicio del control interno está integrado por el "Contralor General de la
República, los titulares de los órganos de control externo de los Estados y Municipios y la
máxima autoridad jerárquica de cada uno de los organismos y entidades a que se refieren
los numerales 1 al 6 del artículo 5° de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la
República, quienes son responsables de la aplicación de las normas de control interno en
sus respectivas estructuras de control interno", (Art. 2, Normas Generales de Control
Interno -NGCI)12.
Corresponde a la máxima autoridad jerárquica de cada organismo o entidad establecer,
mantener y perfeccionar el sistema de control interno y, en general, vigilar su efectivo
funcionamiento. (NGCI, Arts. 8 y 10).
A las Unidades de Auditoría Interna les compete la mayor responsabilidad dentro del
sistema de control interno. Las atribuciones que el Auditor Interno y los responsables de
sus dependencias, deben adoptar, se establecen en los “Lineamientos para la Organización
y Funcionamiento de las Unidades de Auditoría Interna”, dictado por la Contraloría
General para una mejor organización y funcionamiento de estas instancias de control.
2. Suministre información que demuestre la repercusión de la labor de los órganos
nacionales con mandatos relacionados con la prevención de la corrupción.
Contraloría General de la República
En primer lugar, es importante destacar que existen grandes avances en los logros
alcanzados en los últimos diez años, en relación con la evolución y desarrollo del Sistema
Nacional de Control Fiscal
12
Contraloría General de la República. Normas Generales de Control Interno publicadas
en la Gaceta Oficial N° 36.229, de fecha 17 de junio de 1997. Información disponible en:
http://www.pgr.gob.ve/dmdocuments/1997/36229.pdf
(SNCF) como conjunto de órganos, estructuras, recursos y procesos, que interactúan
coordinadamente entre sí, a fin de lograr la unidad de dirección de los sistemas y
procedimientos de control que coadyuven al logro de los objetivos generales de los
distintos entes y organismos del sector público, así como al buen funcionamiento de la
Administración Pública.
Corresponde a la Contraloría General de la República como órgano integrante del Poder
Ciudadano, ejercer el control, vigilancia y fiscalización de los ingresos, gastos, bienes
públicos y bienes nacionales, así como de las operaciones relativas a los mismos; fomentar
la participación de los ciudadanos y ciudadanas en ejercicio de su derecho a participar
libremente en los asuntos públicos, directamente o por medio de sus representantes elegidos
o elegidas, asimismo, le corresponde el rescate de la ética pública, la moral administrativa y
demás principios y valores ciudadanos inspirados en la doctrina del Libertador Simón
Bolívar; siendo de trascendental importancia en la evolución del control fiscal venezolano,
el hecho de que la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, en el artículo
290 de su parte orgánica, otorga rango constitucional al Sistema Nacional de Control
Fiscal.
Este Sistema ha sido estructurado con el objeto de fortalecer la capacidad del Estado para
ejecutar eficazmente su función de gobierno, para lograr la transparencia y la eficiencia en
el manejo de los recursos del sector público y el establecimiento de responsabilidades,
administrativas y/o civiles, por la comisión de irregularidades relacionadas con la gestión
pública, a través de la adecuada interacción del control fiscal, el control interno y el control
social, todos bajo la coordinación de la Contraloría General de la República.
En ese contexto, forman parte del Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal los actores
responsables del ejercicio del control fiscal, el control interno y el control social. De allí
que a tenor de la comentada Ley Orgánica integran dicho Sistema: i) los órganos de control
fiscal tanto internos como externos, como organismos especializados encargados de ejercer
el control fiscal, el cual ha sido previsto como el control institucional por excelencia sobre
el patrimonio y la gestión pública; ii) la Superintendencia Nacional de Auditoría Interna,
como órgano a quien corresponde la coordinación, supervisión y orientación del control
interno en los distintos entes y órganos que conforman el Poder Ejecutivo Nacional; iii) las
máximas autoridades, y demás niveles directivos y gerenciales de los órganos y entidades
del sector público, como actores responsables de la implantación y vigilancia de la eficacia
del sistema de control interno del respectivo ente u organismo, el cual constituye el control
primario o autocontrol que les corresponde ejercer sobre las actividades y operaciones que
les han sido encomendadas, a fin de garantizar su legalidad, veracidad, oportunidad y
eficacia, así como para salvaguardar los recursos que administran, promover la eficiencia,
economía y calidad de sus operaciones, estimular la observancia de las políticas prescritas y
lograr el cumplimiento de la misión, objetivos y metas del respectivo organismo; y iv) los
ciudadanos y ciudadanas, en el ejercicio de su derecho constitucional a participar en la
función de control de la gestión pública, como apoyo fundamental a los controles
institucionales previstos a tal fin.
En visto de lo anteriormente señalado, la Contraloría General de la República junto con el
resto de los integrantes del Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal, ha realizado grandes
esfuerzos para la implementación de una serie de programas preventivos en materia de
lucha contra la corrupción que exalten los valores éticos y morales, relativos al resguardo
del Patrimonio Público y a sembrar valores ciudadanos que coadyuven a la lucha contra la
corrupción. La Contraloría va a la escuela; el Abuelo Contralor; el Contralor Indígena;
Haciendo Comunidad, son algunos de los programas que forman parte de la interacción e
integración del SNCF con el Poder Popular y que coadyuvan a la formación y
afianzamiento de valores morales y éticos que contrarresten esquemas de corrupción. A
continuación, se hará una prevé explicación del contenido de cada uno de los programas
creados con el fin de prevenir la corrupción.
Programa “La Contraloría va a la Escuela”.
Tuvo sus inicios en el 2003, como una iniciativa de la Contralora del estado Táchira para la
fecha, con el fin de que los niños, niñas y adolescentes se organizaran de manera individual
y colectivamente para ejercer el control, vigilancia y supervisión de los recursos de su
escuela; de esta forma, se pone en práctica el principio de democracia participativa y
protagónica contemplada en la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela
(CRBV), principio que impulsa a los niños a defender su patrimonio escolar.
Actualmente, el Programa se desarrolla con éxito en los 23 estados del país a través de las
contralorías estadales, utilizando nuevas modalidades y herramientas para que los niños
integrantes de las escuelas puedan, mediante la observación, realizar el seguimiento y
control de los recursos que son asignados para estas casas de estudios, ilustrando y
enseñando de manera pedagógica y educativa los flagelos de la corrupción y como
combatirla, inculcando valores y principios para que sigan formándose como hombres y
mujeres de bien en cada uno de sus hogares.
En este programa han participado 1.041 escuelas a nivel nacional y juramentado como
Contralores Escolares, a 12.472 niños y niñas de las diferentes escuelas de las entidades
federales y de los municipios del país.
Implementación de la “Valija Didáctica”
Este programa, emprendido inicialmente por el Consejo Moral Republicano en el año 2005,
tiene como finalidad contribuir a incentivar valores ciudadanos, mediante estrategias que
permitan la incorporación permanente de virtudes cívicas y valores democráticos para una
efectiva participación social.
En la actualidad está constituido como un programa educativo inserto en el currículum
nacional de todos los niveles y modalidades (inicial, primaria y secundaria) de la educación
básica en el ámbito nacional.
Durante el año 2013, las 23 Contralorías Estadales realizaron la entrega de 8.507 libros
incluidos en la "Valija Didáctica", a las zonas educativas de los diferentes municipios de
cada uno de los referidos estados.
Implementación del Programa “Abuelo Contralor”
Este Programa fue implementado en el año 2006 por iniciativa de la Contraloría del estado
Guárico y tiene como finalidad instruir al ciudadano(a) de la tercera edad, en el principio de
democracia participativa y protagónica contemplada en la Constitución de la República
Bolivariana de Venezuela, incorporándolos a las actividades sociales, económicas, políticas
y culturales.
El mismo le permite a los adultos mayores, ejercer las funciones de control, supervisión y
vigilancia de los recursos que son suministrados por el Estado, para el buen funcionamiento
de los Institutos Gerontológicos y Casas de Abuelos a las cuales los referidos ciudadanos
asisten, logrando con ello mejorar y asegurar su condición humana.
Ciudadano Auditor para la garantía de los Derechos Humanos
Es un programa que busca fortalecer el ejercicio del control social como una función para
garantizar los derechos humanos y el buen vivir, aportando a la comunidad organizada
herramientas para ejercerlo de manera eficiente y eficaz, siguiendo los principios
establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico nacional.
El mismo, ha acreditado a más de 600 personas como contralores sociales en distintos
estados del país, con la intención de que supervisen y controlen los proyectos de sus
comunidades, y cumplir así con el lema: Contralores somos todos.
Programa del Contralor Indígena
Este programa tiene como objetivo enseñar los principios de defensa, salvaguarda,
preservación y conservación del patrimonio otorgado a las comunidades indígenas, para
fortalecer la cultura de control social.
El contralor indígena es una persona elegida a través de una asamblea de ciudadanos por
los demás integrantes de su comunidad y debe ejercer las labores de supervisión, control
de los recursos y servicios, convertirse en el principal garante de la preservación
ambiental, así como en guardián del hábitat que lo circunda.
Implementación del Programa “Haciendo Comunidad”
Este programa busca formar y capacitar a los participantes en los conocimientos teóricos,
prácticos y metodológicos para realizar la contraloría social, con base en la visión crítica
de derechos humanos, a través de acciones de control, vigilancia, seguimiento y
evaluación, de manera individual, colectiva u orgánica, con el propósito de contribuir al
conocimiento de la gestión pública en el manejo de los recursos públicos o privados.
Por otro lado, tenemos que la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela,
establece y reconoce en el artículo 290 la existencia de un Sistema Nacional de Control
Fiscal cuyo propósito es que se logre la unidad de dirección en el ejercicio de las facultades
de vigilancia en la administración del erario público y el realce de las actividades a
desempeñar por los diferentes órganos de control fiscal, tanto internos como externos.
Esta norma programática se desarrolla en la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la
República y del Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal, que otorga relevancia a las funciones
de control fiscal externo e interno, que ejercen tanto este Máximo Órgano de Control, como
las Contralorías de los Estados, Distritos y Municipios, así como las Unidades de Auditoría
Interna de los Órganos y entes del Sector Público, incluida la Contraloría General de la
Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana.
En ese sentido, desde el año 2002 hasta el año 2013 , los órganos de control fiscal que
integran el Sistema, han realizado actuaciones fiscales de cuyos resultados detectaron la
ocurrencia de actos, hechos u omisiones tipificados en la citada Ley como generadores de
responsabilidad administrativa, e iniciaron procedimientos administrativos a los fines de
hacer efectiva dicha responsabilidad, imponer las multas derivadas de dicha declaratoria; y
formular los reparos correspondientes, en aquellos casos donde se causara perjuicio al
patrimonio público.
De modo que durante el lapso 2002 -2013, el Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal declaró la
responsabilidad administrativa de 3.364 funcionarios y/o particulares, de los cuales 1022 lo
declaró la Contraloría General de la República (CGR) y 2.342 otros Órganos de Control
Fiscal (OCF).
DECLARADOS RESPONSABLES POR EL SISTEMA NACIONAL DE CONTROL
FISCAL
2002-2013
CUADRO
N°
TOTAL
AÑO
CGR OCF
SNCF
2002
75
39
114
2003
97
55
152
2004
200
97
297
2005
109
79
188
2006
103
162
265
2007
41
94
135
2008
96
163
259
2009
60
231
291
2010
58
260
318
2011
41
430
471
2012
77
433
510
2013
65
299
364
1022
2342
3364
TOTAL
FUENTE: Dirección de Determinación de Responsabilidades.
Asimismo, se aplicaron multas por la cantidad de Bs. 34.158.066,52 de los cuales la
cantidad de Bs 4.477.013,15 las aplicó la CGR y Bs 29.681.053,37 impuestas por los OCF,
como se detalla anualmente en el siguiente cuadro:
MONTO TOTAL EN MULTAS DERIVADAS DE LAS
DECLARATORIAS DE RESPONSABILIDAD ADMINISTRATIVA
DICTADAS POR EN EL SISTEMA NACIONAL DE CONTROL
FISCAL
20022013
CUADRO
N°
AÑO
MONTO TOTAL DE MULTAS EN
BOLÍVAR
ES
TOTAL
CGR
OCF
SNCF
2002
46.298,80
2003
135.996,30 66.409,11
202.405,41
2004
416.830,00 400.342,66
817.172,66
2005
163.928,80 1.724.337,94 1.888.266,74
2006
148.783,80 950.456,73
1.099.240,53
2007
160.347,30 642.243,01
802.590,31
2008
314.487,40 1.442.290,92 1.756.778,32
2009
174.195,40 1.796.122,13 1.970.317,53
2010
218.289,10 3.771.376,79 3.989.665,89
120.569,21
166.868,01
2011
AÑO
385.584,30 6.298.738,73 6.684.323,03
MONTO TOTAL DE MULTAS EN
BOLÍVAR
ES
TOTAL
CGR
OCF
SNCF
2012
1.153.352,40 6.544.700,83 7.698.053,23
2013
1.158.919,55 5.923.465,31 7.082.384,86
29.681.053,3 34.158.066,5
TOTAL
4.477.013,15 7
2
FUENTE: Dirección de Determinación de Responsabilidades.
En materia reparos, del 2002 al 2013, se formularon en el Sistema Nacional de Control
Fiscal un total de Bs. 201.154.205,01; del cual Bs 169.315.668,78 fueron formulados por la
CGR y 31.838.536,23 por los OCF.
MONTO TOTAL EN REPAROS DERIVADOS DE LAS DECLARATORIAS DE
RESPONSABILIDAD ADMINISTRATIVA DICTADAS EN EL SISTEMA
NACIONAL DE CONTROL FISCAL
20022013
CUADRO
N°
MONTO TOTAL EN REPAROS EN
BOLÍVARES
AÑO
TOTAL
CGR
OCF
SNCF
2.002,00
176.554,74
-
176.554,74
2.003,00
67.967,97
-
67.967,97
2.004,00
392.758,76
11.249,00
404.007,76
2.005,00
9.153.412,09
43.859,44
9.197.271,53
2.006,00
1.200.365,07
1.498.314,48
2.698.679,55
2.007,00
560.992,21
377.075,86
938.068,07
2.008,00
14.540.156,58
482.072,35
15.022.228,93
2.009,00
78.992.419,44
1.158.311,24
80.150.730,68
2.010,00
8.822.824,79
2.130.159,25
10.952.984,04
2.011,00
2.951.504,02
7.741.504,04
10.693.008,06
2.012,00
8.545.390,11
13.830.837,77 22.376.227,88
2.013,00
43.911.323,00
4.565.152,80
48.476.475,80
TOTAL 169.315.668,78 31.838.536,23 201.154.205,01
FUENTE: Dirección de Determinación de Responsabilidades.
Adicionalmente, conforme a lo previsto en el artículo 105 de la Ley Orgánica de la
Contraloría General de la República y del Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal, se procedió
a la imposición de sanciones a 1.361 personas naturales y jurídicas, previa valoración de la
entidad del ilícito cometido o la gravedad de la irregularidad, derivadas de las decisiones
declaratorias de responsabilidad administrativa emanadas de la Contraloría General de la
República y del resto de los Órganos que integran el Sistema Nacional de Control Fiscal.
Con relación a lo anteriormente expuesto, se detalla que del total de las 1.361 sanciones
impuestas durante el período 2002-2013, equivalentes a la misma cantidad de personas
naturales y jurídicas, 307 corresponden a suspensiones para el ejercicio de cargos públicos,
20 corresponden a destituciones decargos públicos, 56 corresponden a destituidos e
inhabilitados para el ejercicio de cargos públicos y 978 corresponden a inhabilitados para el
ejercicio de cargos públicos.
CIUDADANOS
CON
SANCIONES
ACCESORIAS
A
LA
DECLARATORIA DE RESPONSABILIDAD ADMINISTRATIVA
(ART.105 LOCGRSNCF)
AÑOS 2002-2013
CUADRO N°
Ciudadano
s
Ciudadanos
inhabilitad
Ciudadanos
os
Ciudadanos
destituidos e
suspendidos
inhabilitados
para el
para el
AÑO
ejercicio
de destituidos de para
TOTAL
cargos
ejercicio
de
cargos
públicos
públicos
el ejercicio de cargos
cargos públicos
públicos
2002
4
1
8
3
16
2003
4
0
13
16
33
2004
9
0
2
57
68
2005
32
0
17
92
141
2006
62
5
8
94
169
2007
44
5
8
112
169
2008
26
1
0
94
121
2009
18
0
0
148
166
2010
36
2
0
112
150
2011
51
6
0
142
199
2012
15
0
0
7
22
2013
6
0
0
101
107
978
1361
TOTAL
307
20
56
FUENTE: Dirección de Determinación de Responsabilidades
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia
El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia y la Dirección Ejecutiva de la Magistratura, disponen de
una plataforma tecnológica que coadyuva en la lucha contra la corrupción en el Poder
Judicial venezolano. Ésta se ve reflejada en:
El Sistema de Información y Autoconsulta de Casos JURIS 2000 que funciona en las
Cortes, Tribunales y Juzgados de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, y que se
constituye en el modelo organizacional y de sistema de computación, gestión, decisión y
documentación que automatiza la actividad diaria y los asuntos que ingresan a los
Tribunales, imprimiéndole celeridad a la función jurisdiccional al llevar un efectivo
control, a fin que el justiciable pueda obtener una información precisa sobre sus casos y
un mejor servicio de administración de justicia. A través de dicho sistema se procura una
mayor transparencia en la distribución de los asuntos que ingresan a las sedes judiciales,
debido a que los mismos son llevados de manera aleatoria, equitativa e imparcial,
constituyendo un significativo aporte en la lucha contra la corrupción administrativa.
El Sistema de Control Automatizado de Expedientes TEPUY XXI que funciona en el
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, instalado en todas sus Salas, a través del cual tiene lugar el
manejo de casos judiciales, haciendo posible el control y seguimiento de todos los
expedientes que cursan en cada Sala, desde su ingreso hasta el cierre de los mismos. Este
permite el control de la gestión y el cumplimiento de los objetivos que le corresponden a
la Institución, lo que facilita su labor de control gerencial y planificación estratégica, toda
vez que logra la optimización de la función jurisdiccional, la facilitación y aceleramiento
de la tramitación de los asuntos, la facilitación en el acceso y disponibilidad de la
información, la elevación del grado de calidad y transparencia de la información; la
garantía de seguridad y el control de acceso; y, la agilización en la gestión de los
despachos judiciales, permitiendo incluso la generación de indicadores de gestión.
El Portal Vitrina que constituye el área de consulta tanto de ejecución presupuestaria del
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia dentro de su sitio web (Vitrina-Transparencia), como respecto
a los pagos para proveedores de la Institución (Vitrina-Administración), lo cual garantiza la
transparencia de la ejecución presupuestaria de la institución y de los procedimientos
administrativos de contratación pública destinados a la selección de contratistas.
La página web del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, ofrece información de utilidad a los
usuarios del sistema de administración de Justicia sobre la Institución, tales como los
aspectos institucionales del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (su historia; sede; organización;
competencia; administración; funcionamiento; el resumen curricular de sus Magistrados y
Magistradas; el directorio telefónico y direcciones electrónicas de contacto de sus distintas
dependencias); el acceso a los elementos propios de las actividades judiciales de las Salas
del Tribunal (mediante la publicación de las cuentas que permiten conocer el conjunto de
actuaciones cumplidas en cada Sala; la publicación por cada Sala de la fijación de
audiencias de casos judiciales; de las sentencias dictadas como ejercicio propio de la
actividad jurisdiccional de administración de Justicia, a fin de saber sus contenidos y
alcances; la publicación de compilaciones jurisprudenciales por materias del Derecho); el
acceso a los elementos propios de las actividades judiciales llevadas a cabo por las diversas
Cortes y Tribunales del país, al contar con un espacio denominado TSJ-REGIONES13, a
través del cual tiene lugar la publicación del contenido de las decisiones dictadas por los
mismos; el número de decisiones que ha dictado cada Sala (estadísticas de gestión), así
como, lo relativo al sistema de estadística judicial, donde se llevan los registros de
información de este tipo de todos los Tribunales a nivel nacional en sus diversas
competencias, a través de indicadores previamente diseñados para tal fin.
En el contexto de las funciones de prevención que asume el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia
respecto de las prácticas contra la corrupción, se destaca la existencia de un modelo que se
constituye en el arquetipo institucional de lucha contra la misma. Dicha organización
estructural se presenta de la siguiente manera:
Creación de la Comisión de Contrataciones Públicas del Tribunal Supremo de
Justicia: En la Gaceta Oficial N° 39.407 de fecha 21 de abril de 2010, fue publicada la
certificación mediante la cual se hizo constar la designación de los integrantes actuales de
la Comisión de Contrataciones del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, cuyas funciones están
apegadas a las previsiones normativas, contenidas tanto en la referida Ley de
Contrataciones Públicas, como en su Reglamento.
Nombramiento por Concurso Público del Titular de la Unidad de Auditoría Interna
del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia : En la Gaceta Oficial N° 39.717 de fecha 20 de julio
de 2011, y con base en el Reglamento sobre los Concurso Públicos para la designación de
los Contralores Distritales y Municipales, y los Titulares de las Unidades de Auditoría
Interna de los Órganos del
13
En consonancia con esta automatización se hizo necesario que las decisiones dictadas por
los distintos tribunales del país fuesen cargadas en la página web del Tribunal Supremo de
Justicia, www.tsj.gov.ve en la sección denominada “TSJ REGIONES”, para permitir a
cualquier persona que acceda a dicha dirección electrónica, leer los distintos fallos que han
sido organizados para una búsqueda más eficiente por Circuito Judicial, órgano
jurisdiccional, fecha y hasta por caso, toda vez que lo que perseguido es la divulgación de
toda la doctrina judicial que se genera en el país (Sala Constitucional, sentencia N° 568 de
fecha 8 de mayo de 2012, recaída en el caso: José Rafael Castañares Fernández).
Poder Público Nacional, Estadal, Distrital y Municipal y sus Entes Descentralizados14, fue
publicada la Resolución a través de la cual se declaró al ganador del Concurso Público
convocado para la selección del titular de la Unidad de Auditoría Interna del Tribunal
Supremo de Justicia.
Creación y Funcionamiento de la Gerencia de Planificación del Tribunal Supremo de
Justicia: Desde el 2009, la Gerencia de Planificación, adscrita a su Gerencia General de
Administración y Servicios, desarrolla el trabajo del nivel operativo de la Institución,
centrado en el diseño de las acciones, proyectos y tareas específicas a ejecutar por el
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, para cumplir con las acciones tácticas, objetivos y metas
establecidos en su nivel de coordinación de acuerdo con su estructura operativa interna15.
Capacitación en materia de lucha contra la corrupción: La Contraloría General de la
República, a través de la Fundación Instituto de Altos Estudios de Control Fiscal y
Auditoría de Estado Gumersindo Torres (COFAE)16, se ha dedicado a impartir programas
formativos en materia anticorrupción, a los cuales han tenido oportunidad de participar
activamente funcionarios adscritos al Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, sólo con fines
ilustrativos, el curso dictado bajo la modalidad e-learning, desarrollado entre los meses de
julio a octubre de 2010, sobre la Convención Interamericana Contra la Corrupción, como
instrumento jurídico internacional, con una duración de 231 horas académicas.
En el desarrollo de la política fundamental del Estado venezolano en la lucha directa contra
la corrupción, destacan las competencias judiciales que a este respecto son ejercidas
actualmente por parte de los órganos de la jurisdicción penal, con fundamento en la
legislación adjetiva en la materia17, esto, a través de los Juzgados en Funciones de Control,
Juicio y Ejecución18, respectivamente, como parte integrante de la primera instancia que
conoce de los juicios vinculados con la sanción de delitos relacionados con la cosa pública;
y, las Cortes de Apelaciones19, como segunda instancia que actúa en este mismo sentido20,
amén de las competencias que constitucional y legalmente corresponden en la materia al
Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, a través de las Salas Constitucional y de Casación Penal,
respectivamente.
14
Gaceta Oficial Nº 39.350 de fecha 20 de enero de 2010.
Todo ello, claro está, enmarcado en las disposiciones de la Ley Orgánica de Planificación
Pública y Popular (Gaceta Oficial N° 6.011 de fecha 21 de diciembre de 2010), que
dispone, en este sentido, la obligatoriedad de la instauración del Plan Estratégico
Institucional, como instrumento a través del cual, cada órgano y ente del Poder Público
establece los proyectos, objetivos, metas, acciones y recursos dirigidos a darle concreción a
los
lineamientos plasmados en el Plan de Desarrollo Económico y Social de la Nación.
16
Su Reglamento Interno ha sido publicado en la Gaceta Oficial N° 38.488 de fecha
28 de julio de 2006.
17
Ello conforme a lo establecido en el aún vigente Código Orgánico Procesal Penal,
publicado
en la Gaceta Oficial N° 5.930, Extraordinaria de fecha 4 de octubre de 2009.
18
Al respecto, véanse los artículos 530 y 531 del referido Código Adjetivo Penal, aún
vigente desde el año 2009.
19
Artículo 530 del mencionado Código Orgánico Procesal Penal, aún vigente desde el
año 2009.
20
Ahora bien, es de hacer notar que a través de la reciente reforma del Código Orgánico
Procesal Penal, (Gaceta Oficial N° 6.078 Extraordinaria de fecha 15 de junio de 2012, el
cual conforme lo dispuesto en su Disposición Final Primera, cuenta con vacatio legis que
culmina el 1° de enero de 2013, oportunidad a partir de la cual entrará en plena vigencia la
misma), se establece la creación de una estructura jurisdiccional en materia penal en los
siguientes términos: “Artículo 65. Es de competencia de los Tribunales de Primera
Instancia Municipal en Funciones de Control el conocimiento de los delitos de acción
pública, cuyas penas en su límite máximo no excedan de ocho años de privación de
libertad. Quedan excluidas de la aplicación de esta norma, las causas que se refieran a la
investigación de los delitos de: homicidio intencional, violación; delitos que atenten contra
la libertad, integridad e indemnidad sexual de niños, niñas y adolescentes; secuestro,
corrupción, delitos contra el patrimonio público y la administración pública; tráfico de
drogas de mayor cuantía, legitimación de capitales, contra el sistema financiero y delitos
conexos, delitos con multiplicidad de víctimas, delincuencia organizada, violaciones a los
derechos humanos, lesa humanidad, delitos contra la independencia y seguridad de la
nación y crímenes de guerra”. “Artículo 66. Es de competencia de los Tribunales de
Primera Instancia Estadal en Funciones de Control el conocimiento de los delitos, cuyas
penas en su límite máximo excedan de ocho años de privación de libertad. Igualmente, es
competente para el conocimiento de los delitos exceptuados en el único aparte del
artículo anterior, indistintamente de la pena asignada”.
15
Sobre este punto, debemos destacar que la ya referida Ley contra la Corrupción,
instrumento legislativo especial en materia de lucha contra aquellas actuaciones y prácticas
que atentan contra el patrimonio público, contiene un conjunto de disposiciones que
habilitan la actuación coordinada de parte de los órganos judiciales de la jurisdicción penal,
con finalidades netamente preventivas de protección de la cosa pública21.
Ministerio Público
El Ministerio Público, a través de la Dirección Contra la Corrupción, adscrita a la Dirección
General de Actuación Procesal, cumple funciones operativas, a través de la supervisión en
la actuación de los fiscales del Ministerio Público, en las causas que son seguidas con
motivo de la comisión de delitos contra el patrimonio público y civil patrimonial. La labor
preventiva desempeñada en los últimos años es la siguiente:
1) En el año 2007, el trabajo de la Institución implicó un enorme compromiso, al considerar
que la víctima de delitos de Corrupción que no tiene rostro, es el Estado Venezolano, por lo
que afecta directamente a cada uno de los ciudadanos. Para ese momento la Dirección de
Salvaguarda dio continuidad a reuniones con los fiscales especializados en la materia, con
la finalidad de crear un espacio para el intercambio de ideas sobre las dificultades más
comunes que se presentan en las investigaciones, así como la necesidad de optimizar los
logros que hasta ahora se han obtenido, dándose a conocer los resultados estadísticos de la
gestión de los mismos e instándolos a impartir la debida celeridad en los casos por ellos
adelantados. La Dirección de Salvaguarda tuvo la iniciativa de crear Comisiones de Enlace
con distintos organismos de la Administración Pública para lograr que las instituciones
comprometidas se auxiliaran mutuamente, con el fin de obtener resultados efectivos,
encontrándose activas las relacionadas con la Contraloría General de la República, el
Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas -CICPC-, la Comisión de
Administración de Divisas -CADIVI-, la Comisión de Casinos, Bingos y Máquinas
Traganíqueles y el Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario, Pesquero, Forestal y Afines FONDAFA-.
2) En el año 2008, según Resolución N° 1411, emanada del Despacho de la Fiscal General
de la República, publicada en la Gaceta Oficial N° 66.234 del día 08/12/2008, fue
modificada la denominación de la "Dirección de Salvaguarda" por "Dirección Contra la
Corrupción", por cuanto el mencionado nombre no se identificaba con la Ley Contra la
Corrupción, texto normativo que determina su principal competencia. Además, de
continuar con las labores operativas y de supervisión de los Fiscales del Ministerio Público
adscritos, se destacó como una importante actividad preventiva el Seminario Regional "La
Lucha contra la Corrupción", coauspiciado por la Embajada de Francia, con la
participación de invitados extranjeros, en el que se concluyó que los países de la región
presentan una problemática común, en lo que respecta al flagelo de la corrupción, por lo
que se hace necesario trascender el concepto de funcionario y utilizar el de servidor
público, arraigando en éstos, valores morales que permitan desplazar, definitivamente, la
cultura de la corrupción.
3) En el año 2009, el Ministerio Público se destacó en la labor preventiva de los delitos
contra la Corrupción, a través de la dependencia correspondiente, pues se brindó sustancial
apoyo a
21
A título de ejemplo, encontramos el caso de la obligatoriedad para las instituciones
bancarias de abrir cajas de seguridad de sus clientes sometidos a averiguación por presunta
comisión de delitos contra la cosa pública, previa orden judicial emitida por el Juez de
Control (vgr. artículo 92); o, como se presenta en el caso de las medidas cautelares de
retención preventiva de remuneraciones, prestaciones y pensiones del funcionario que
puede dictar el Juez de Control, cuando a juicio del Ministerio Público existan indicios
fundados de responsabilidad del investigado (vgr. artículo 93); o, como sucede en el caso
de las medidas cautelares de aseguramiento de bienes que igualmente puede dictar el
Juez de Control, en los casos de existencia de indicios de graves de enriquecimiento ilícito
o de daño causado por el investigado al patrimonio público (vgr. artículo 94).
los funcionarios de los distintos sectores involucrados en la materia, y se efectuaron
actividades de capacitación, tales como:
Curso de "Prevención del Delito de Legitimación de Capitales y el Financiamiento al
Terrorismo".
Se coordinó con la Asociación Bancaria Nacional, la realización del "Seminario sobre
Banca Electrónica y Delitos Informáticos".
Taller denominado "La Prevención de los Delitos de Corrupción".
Curso dirigido a setenta (70) funcionarios de la Guardia Nacional Bolivariana, sobre lo
que respecta a los tipos penales establecidos en la Ley Contra la Corrupción, Destacamento
54 de la Guardia Nacional.
Participación en el Programa de Preparación Académica de los funcionarios que van a
ingresar en la Policía Nacional, a los fines de transmitirles nociones jurídicas y
conocimientos prácticos, en lo relativo especialmente al tema de flagrancias, elaboración de
actas policiales, reglas del sistema acusatorio, delitos, tramitación de los procedimientos y
justicia penal, entre otros.
Asimismo, se destaca que en aras de optimizar los aportes del Ministerio Público a las
comunidades, en lo que respecta a la difusión del conocimiento de las materias relacionadas
con la lucha contra la corrupción, fue designado un Fiscal del Ministerio Público a Nivel
Nacional con Competencia Plena, para participar en reuniones con representantes de los
Ministerios del Poder Popular para las Comunas y Protección Social; y para las Relaciones
Interiores y Justicia; a los fines de canalizar denuncias que se realizan contra miembros de
los Consejos Comunales, con motivo de presuntas desviaciones de recursos otorgados por
el Estado venezolano, transferidos a través del Servicio Autónomo Fondo Nacional de los
Consejos Comunales (SAFONACC). Por último, se señala que a nivel internacional se
atendió la invitación extendida por la Coordinación de Asuntos Políticos Multilaterales del
Ministerio del Poder Popular para Relaciones Exteriores, participando en la "Conferencia
Regional sobre "Recuperación de Activos en América Latina y el Caribe: Establecimiento
de un Programa de Cooperación Regional", específicamente en lo referente a hechos de
corrupción, efectuada en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, siendo organizada por la
Oficina de las Naciones Unidas Contra la Droga y el Delito (ONUDD).
4) En el año 2011, se participó en el “V Encuentro Internacional sobre la Sociedad y sus
Retos frente a la corrupción", que se realizó en La Habana, Cuba del 08 al 10 de
Noviembre, con la presentación de la ponencia "Sistema de Valores y la Corrupción".
Adicionalmente, en el marco del Plan Nacional de Prevención Social del Delito, se impartió
capacitación en la materia contra la corrupción, mediante charla dirigida a doscientos (200)
delegados del Instituto Nacional de Prevención, Salud y Seguridad Laboral (Inpsasel),
relacionada con los delitos contemplados en la Ley Contra la Corrupción, para solventar
dudas en cuanto al contenido del citado texto legal. También, se dictó una charla dirigida a
aproximadamente cincuenta (50) funcionarios de la Contraloría del Municipio Sucre y
miembros de Consejos Comunales del mismo Municipio, en la cual además de describir las
acciones tipificadas como delitos en la Ley Contra la Corrupción, se expuso la función del
Ministerio Público en relación con las irregularidades que, en esta materia, pueden incurrir
los miembros de los Consejos Comunales. En aras de continuar fortaleciendo las
actuaciones de los funcionarios del Estado venezolano en la prevención del delito, se
desarrolló la capacitación de cincuenta (50) funcionarios adscritos a la Comandancia del
Destacamento Aéreo N° 5 de la Guardia Nacional Bolivariana, en el temario "Prevención
del Delito y la Corrupción", con el objeto de evitar irregularidades y optimizar el
procesamiento de casos penales cuando este ente actúe como órgano auxiliar de
investigación, facilitándole las técnicas procesales que deben aplicar en el cumplimiento de
sus atribuciones.5) Durante el año 2012 el Ministerio Público, realizó talleres a
funcionarios adscritos a las distintas dependencias del Ministerio del Poder Popular para las
Comunas y Protección Social, así como a integrantes de las diversas instancias del Poder
Comunal, a los fines de evitar posibles desviaciones de recursos otorgados por el Estado
venezolano, transferidos a estas últimas para la constitución y el cumplimiento de los fines
del Estado Comunal.
3. Señale las acciones necesarias para reforzar o mejorar las medidas antes expuestas,
así como cualquier problema concreto que haya surgido a este respecto.
A los fines de solventar las dificultades y problemas encontrados se requiere lo siguiente:
Incrementar los recursos humanos para cometer todas las actividades vinculadas con
la materia.
Capacitar los recursos humanos con los que cuentas las organizaciones citadas en
asuntos vinculados con la lucha y prevención de la corrupción.
Proveer de mayores recursos financieros a las instituciones mencionadas.
Fomentar la interrelación y coordinación entre los órganos preventivos de la
corrupción en los procedimientos que lleven a cabo cada una de ellas.
Sensibilizar a las máximas autoridades de los órganos de la administración pública
acerca de la importancia de implementar políticas de lucha contra la corrupción.
Interconectar informáticamente a los órganos integrantes del Sistema Nacional de
Control Fiscal para que intercambien información y programas, y cooperen entre sí
en la prevención y lucha contra la corrupción.
Prever la implementación de mecanismos y procedimientos de supervisión y seguimiento a
las medidas anticorrupción establecidas por los distintos órganos de la administración
pública y diseñar indicadores de gestión para su evaluación.
i
ii
Refer to Article 13 of the ACRC Act in the Annex.
Refer to Article 16 of the ACRC Act in the Annex. VIETNAM (FIFTH MEETING)
I. Article 6
1. Corruption prevention bodies
1.1. Organizational structure, functions and duties
- Vietnam does not have a specialized corruption prevention body. Preventing
corruption is the mandate of all agencies, organizations, units and socio-economic
organizations.
- The political regime of Vietnam is led by the Vietnam’s Communist Party (VCP),
thus it’s the VCP’s responsibility to lead and steer anti-corruption work. The Central
Steering Committee on Anti-Corruption (CSCA) is the advisory agency of the VCP in
leading and steering anti-corruption work.
CSCA is responsible for directing, coordinating, monitoring and urging anticorruption efforts all over the country, especially in severe and complicated cases. The
CSCA is headed by the Secretary General of the VCP. The Central Committee for Internal
affairs is the standing agency of CSCA.
At local level, the provincial Party Committees directly lead and steer the anticorruption work of their respective localities and have the responsibility to coordinate with
the CSCA when serious corruption cases occur in the localities.
- All state agencies (those belong to legislative, executive, judiciary branches, the
State Audit) together with social and political organizations have the responsibility to take
measures to prevent and combat corruption. In the system of state agencies in the
legislative, executive and judicial branches, there are specialized anti-corruption bodies.
Specifically as follows:
Legislative branch:
The National Assembly (NA) has the responsibility to enact laws on anti-corruption
such as: Law on Anti-corruption; Criminal Code; Criminal Procedure Code; Law on Thrift
practice and Anti-wastefulness; Law on Inspection; Law on Complaints; Law on
Denunciations...
The NA, NA’s Standing Committee, Nationality Council and other commitees of
the NA, together with the People's Councils at provincial, district and communal levels, are
responsible for supervising anti-corruption work. The NA and the People's Councils are the
agencies with state power, members of which are elected by the people to ensure the
independence of oversight.
Executive branch:
The Government issues anti-corruption bylaws, develops plans and strategies on
anti-corruption, organizes and directs the implementation of anti-corruption tasks and
measures.
Ministers, heads of ministry-level agencies and heads of local governments are
responsible for organizing and directing the implementation of anti-corruption tasks and
measures under their functions, mandates, areas and localities of management.
The Government Inspectorate (GI) has the responsibility to exercise functions of
state management on anti-corruption (i.e. advising for the development and improvement of
anti-corruption policies and laws; synthesizing and assessing anti-corruption work;
organizing, directing and guiding the inspection on the implementation of the anticorruption laws in the entire inspectorate system; developing a common anti-corruption
database; propagandizing and raising awareness on anti-corruption…); conducting
inspections and anti-corruption activities within its competence; upon detection of
corruption behaviors, requesting competent agency or organization to handle the case. Anti-
Corruption Bureau under GI is the advisory unit which assists the Government Inspector
General to carry out the above-mentioned duties and powers.
Ministry of Public Security (MPS) and Ministry of National Defense (MND) have
the responsibility to direct and conduct investigations of corruption crimes. Police
Department for investigation of corruption crimes under the MPS is responsible for
advising the Director General of the Police General Department, the Head of Police
Department for Investigation to direct and provide guidance to the corruption investigation
police all over the country to take steps to prevent, detect, investigate and handle corruption
crimes; directly investigating corruption cases in accordance with the laws.
Judicial branch:
The Supreme People's Procuracy (SPP) has the responsibility to organize and direct
the work of prosecution of corruption crimes, and to supervise activities of investigation,
adjudication and implementation of conviction relating to corrupt offences. Department for
Prosecution and Supervision over Investigation of Corruption Cases under SPP assists the
Chief Procurator to practise the rights of prosecution and supervise corruption cases
investigated by the MPS’s investigation agencies; advise the Chief Procurator in
monitoring, managing, guiding, directing and examining the practice of prosecution,
investigation and first instance trial of corruption cases conducted by local people's
procuracies; detect and synthesize the violations of laws by investigation agencies, judicial
bodies and other relevant agencies, organizations and units to advise the Chief Procurator to
make recommendations; advise the Chief Procurator to organize the implementation of
tasks assigned by the CSCA; assist the Chief Procurator in coordinating with anticorruption authorities; synthesize, assess, forecast corruption crimes and make
recommendations on anti-corruption policies and measures; perform the tasks of
international cooperation in mutual legal assistance in anti-corruption.
The Supreme People's Court has the responsibility to adjudicate and provide
guidance on the adjudication of corrupt offences in the whole system. Local people’s courts
do not have specialized anti-corruption adjudication agencies. Corruption crimes shall be
adjudicated by judges of provincial courts who are in charge of criminal cases.
The State Audit
The State Audit (SA) - a specialized body established by the NA - has the
responsibility to audit the management and use of public finances and assets in order
to prevent, detect and coordinate to deal with corrupt acts; upon detection of corrupt
acts, the SA shall transfer the case files to investigation agencies, procuracies or other
competent agencies for handling.
1.2. Independence of corruption prevention bodies
It can be seen from the overview of organizational structure, functions and duties of
Vietnamese relevant agencies, that the main agencies which play an important role in
corruption prevention include: the CSCA, the GI and other bodies in the inspectorate
system, the SA and the audit system, the MPS, the SPP and local people’s procuracies.
Among them, the SPP and SA are independent bodies which perform their duties only in
accordance with the laws; for other anti-corruption agencies under the Government or Party
Central Executive Committee, although they are put under the management and direction of
higher-level agencies, they are relatively independent in professional aspect.
SPP is the highest agency in the system of people’s procuracy. It is stated in the
Constitution of Vietnam that the people’s procuracy is an independent state agency system
in the state apparatus, exercising the rights of prosecuting and supervising judicial activities
in accordance with the Constitution and laws. The whole system of military and people’s
procuracies at different levels is put under the management and direction of the Chief
Prosecutor. The Chief Prosecutor is elected among the NA’s deputies by the NA, at
proposal of the State President. This person is put under the supervision of the NA, being
accountable and to report to the NA. Tenure of the Chief Prosecutor is 5 years. The NA
also has the right to dismiss or remove the Chief Procurator from his office.
The SA is the highest body in state audit system. Under State Audit Act of 2005, the
State Audit is a specialized agency in the field of state financial control established by the
NA, operating independently and only complying with laws.
The MPS and GI are two government agencies; the Minister of Public security and
Government Inspector General are members of the Government who are accountable to the
Prime Minister for their implementation of tasks and powers. These two positions are
appointed under approval of the NA, at proposal of the Prime Minister and have a same 5year term as that of the NA. The dismissal, removal from office of them shall be conducted
by the NA, at proposal of the Prime Minister. Regarding anti-corruption work, as these 2
agencies respectively have the functions of conducting state management over anticorruption work and conducting inspections on the implementation of anti-corruption
policies and laws (the GI), and conducting investigation to prevent and combat crimes,
including corruption offences (the MPS), while both of them are put under the
Government’s management, it can be affirmed that these two agencies do not have
independent positions in the system of state agencies. However, in terms of implementation
of tasks, certain independence is legally guaranteed for the inspectorates and investigation
agencies.
Paragraph 1, Article 7 of the Law on Inspection 2010 provides for the principles of
inspection activities: "to comply with the laws; ensure the accuracy, objectiveness, honesty,
publicity, democracy and timeliness”; Paragraph 7, Article 13 of the same Law states that it
is prohibited “to make unlawful intervention in inspection activities". Many other
provisions of Law on Inspection 2010 also provide for mandates and powers of the
inspectorates, heads of inspectorates, inspection decision makers, heads of inspection
delegations and inspection delegation members. Paragraph 1, Article 5 of the Law on
People's Public security stipulates principles in the operation of the people's public security
that "shall comply with the Constitution and laws". Paragraph 1, Article 41 of the
mentioned Law provides that "Agencies, organizations and individuals that commit acts of
opposing or obstructing activities of People's Public Security officers, non-commissioned
officers and soldiers who are on official duty shall, depending on the nature and seriousness
of their violations, be charged with disciplinary measures, administrative or criminal
liability”.
2. Some difficulties and challenges in the prevention of corruption
- Currently, a common anti-corruption database has not been developed, thus
Vietnam has to cope with a number of difficulties in monitoring, assessing and
synthesizing progresses of the implementation of anti-corruption laws as well as anticorruption work.
- The methods of conducting the dissemination and propaganda of anti-corruption
laws are still simple, unidirectional, lack of creativeness, together with the absence of an
effective communication strategy, which lead to the fact that the awareness of the citizens,
business and public servants and officials on those laws is not adequate and clear.
3. Proposal for technical assistance
In order to further improve anti-corruption laws, in the coming time, Vietnam is
revising the Law on Anti-corruption to make it more comprehensive and up-to-date and at
the same time making legal recommendations on improving the functions and mandates of
anti-corruption agencies. To this end, Vietnam is in need of both financial and technical
assistance from the Secretariat of UNCAC. Specifically as follows:
+ Financial assistance in conducting surveys and studies on the results of
implementing anti-corruption measures in recent years;
+ Technical assistance for the revision of the Law on Anti-corruption, including the
sharing of international experiences in anti-corruption;
+ Assistance for the GI to develop a national anti-corruption database as well as
anti-corruption communication strategy.