Conventions overview
- follow-up mechanisms
(1) The relevant provisions in the various Conventions usually read for mandatory provisions "Each state Party shall take the necessary steps to/shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to… (e.g. promote, enhance transparency etc.)….". The text in the "Relevant Conventions Provision" box should therefore be read as if preceded by such a sentence. For optional provisions, the provisions begin with such text as "Each state Party shall consider…"
(2) The remark "None" in the column "Relevant Convention Provision" means that there is no explicit provision addressing the particular issue. Some of these issues may, nonetheless, be covered implicitly by the Convention in question.
| Convention | Relevant convention provision (1) |
Article
|
Mand.
|
| UN |
|
63
|
Yes
|
| Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure the implementation of its obligations under this Convention |
65
|
||
| OECD | OECD Art 12 & Section
VIII of the 1997 OECD Recommendation - OECD Working Group on Bribery
in International Business Transactions - to carry out a programme of systematic follow-up to monitor and promote full implementation. Parties shall bear the costs of the programme in accordance with the rules applicable to that body. - In the Commentaries attached to the Convention, the text on Art 12 indicates that there should be regular reviews of steps taken by Parties to implement that Convention, based on a system of self-evaluation and a system of mutual evaluation or peer review based on an objective report. - Furthermore, the OECD Working Group on Bribery agreed on detailed provisions concerning the modalities of the systems of self- and mutual evaluation during its meeting on 29 June - 1 July 1998. Mandatory |
12
|
Yes
|
| AU | Ensure and provide
for the participation of Civil Society in the monitoring process
and consult Civil Society on the implementation of the Convention |
12(3)
|
Yes
|
| Advisory Board on Corruption within the African Union to, inter alia, monitor implementation of the Convention and submit a report to the Executive Council on a regular basis on the progress made by each State Party in complying with the Convention |
22 (5)
|
||
| Member States to report to Board on progress on implementation one year after entry into force and then once a year Mandatory |
22 (7)
|
||
| CoE (Crim.) | The Group of States
against Corruption (GRECO) shall monitor the implementation of
the convention by the parties. Furthermore, the evaluation procedures are described in detail in Articles 10 to 16 of the Statute of GRECO and in Title II of the Rules of Procedure. |
24
|
Yes
|
| CoE (Civil) | The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) shall monitor the implementation of the convention by the parties |
14
|
Yes
|
| OAS | None. However, by OAS General Assembly Resolution 1784 (XXI-O-01) adopted on 5 June 2001, the OAS introduced a Mechanism for Follow-up of Implementation of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. |
 |
Conventions |
 |
Donors & conventions |
|
Comparing conventions |
|
Links |
| RECOMMENDED READING |
|
Anti-Corruption Conventions in the Americas: What Civil Society Can Do to Make Them Work (A civil society and advocacy guide by Transparency International, 2006) A new TI publication which sets out how civil society can develop an advocacy strategy which promotes the ratification, implementation and inter-governmental follow-up and monitoring of conventions including UNCAC.
Institutional Arrangements to Combat Corruption - A comparative Study (UNDP) The UN Convention against Corruption requires that States designate a body or bodies to coordinate prevention and enforcement measures. This study explores how such institutional arrangements might look, and provides some lessons learned from existing models. A readable, informative resource for practitioners. |
