DOCSLIB.ORG

Anti-Corruption and Integrity Systems in Armenia: Targeted Literature Review and Field Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anti-Corruption and Integrity Systems in Armenia: Targeted Literature Review and Field Research Anti-Corruption and Integrity Systems in Armenia: Targeted Li terature Review and Field Research Development Transformations (DT) in Response to ME.EE.Asia TO #3 Activity 3, USAID/OTI Armenia Technical Assistance and Procurement FINAL REPORT Submitted to: Development Transformations on July 15, 2019. Contractor: New-Rule LLC Technical Team Matthew Murray Dr. Molly Inman Disclaimer This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of New-Rule LLC and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. ARMENIA ANTI-CORRUPTION AND INTEGRITY SYSTEMS TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ ii 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Combatting Corruption Among Civil Servants: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on What Works, USAID Research and Innovation Grants Working Papers Series (2017) ........................ 3 2.1.1 Findings and Conclusion 1: Strategic Approaches ........................................................... 5 2.1.2 Findings and Conclusions 2: Practical Interventions ........................................................ 6 2.2 Practitioner’s Guide for Anticorruption Programming, USAID (2015) ................................. 7 2.2.1 Assessment and Diagnostics ........................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Design and Planning .................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 10 2.2.4 Findings and Conclusion 1: Developing New Strategic Objectives for Armenia .............. 11 2.2.5 Findings and Conclusion 2: Designing and Executing New Programming for Armenia ... 12 2.3 Analysis of USAID Anticorruption Programming Worldwide: 2007-2013 (2014) ............... 14 2.3.1 Findings and Conclusion 1 ............................................................................................ 15 2.4 International Standards and Treaties .............................................................................. 17 2.5 Armenia Specific Documentation: Anti-Corruption Reforms in Armenia, 4th Round of Monitoring of the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan, OECD (2018) ................................... 20 2.5.1 Anti-Corruption Policy and Strategy ............................................................................. 20 2.5.2 Corruption Prevention and Coordination Institutions .................................................... 22 2.5.3 Findings and Conclusion 1: Building Integrity in the Civil Service ................................... 24 2.5.4 Findings and Conclusion 2: Building Integrity in Civil Society ........................................ 27 2.5.5 Findings and Conclusion 3: Civil Service, Civil Society and Media: Increasing Transparency, Accountability and Trust ................................................................................ 28 2.6 Fourth Action Plan of Open Government Partnership Initiative of the Republic of Armenia; Approved by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, November 15, 2018 ....................................... 29 2.6.1 Findings and Conclusion 1 ............................................................................................ 30 USAID.GOV Table of Contents July 15, 2019 ARMENIA ANTI-CORRUPTION AND INTEGRITY SYSTEMS 3 FIELD RESEARCH—DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ......................................................... 33 3.1 Evaluation Methods and Limitations ............................................................................... 34 3.2 Accountability ................................................................................................................. 34 3.2.1 Transitional Justice................................ ....................................................................... 35 3.2.2 Civil Service .................................................................................................................. 36 3.2.3 Media .......................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.4 Civil Society .................................................................................................................. 37 3.2.5 Local Government ........................................................................................................ 38 3.2.6 Findings and Conclusion 1: Transitional Justice ............................................................. 38 3.2.7 Findings and Conclusion 2: Civil Service ........................................................................ 38 3.2.8 Findings and Conclusion 3: Media ................................................................................ 38 3.2.9 Findings and Conclusion 4: Civil Society ........................................................................ 38 3.2.10 Findings and Conclusion 5: Local Government ............................................................ 39 3.3 Transparency .................................................................................................................. 39 3.3.1 Civil Service and Public Service ..................................................................................... 39 3.3.2 Freedom of Information ............................................................................................... 39 3.3.3 Media .......................................................................................................................... 40 3.3.4 Civil Society .................................................................................................................. 40 3.3.5 Findings and Conclusion 1: Civil Service and Public Service ........................................... 41 3.3.6 Findings and Conclusion 2: Freedom of Information ..................................................... 41 3.3.7 Findings and Conclusion 3: Media ................................................................................ 41 3.3.8 Findings and Conclusion 4: Civil Society ........................................................................ 41 3.4 Trust ............................................................................................................................... 42 3.4.1 Findings and Conclusion 1: Political Will ....................................................................... 43 3.4.2 Findings and Conclusion 2: Local Integrity Systems ....................................................... 43 3.4.3 Findings and Conclusion 3: Judicial Reform ................................................................... 43 3.5 Other Issues .................................................................................................................... 43 3.5.1 Party Membership ....................................................................................................... 43 3.5.2 Corruption in Closed-Systems ....................................................................................... 44 3.5.3 Findings and Conclusion 1: Party Membership .............................................................. 44 3.5.4 Findings and Conclusion 2: Corruption in Closed Systems .............................................. 44 USAID.GOV Table of Contents July 15, 2019 ARMENIA ANTI-CORRUPTION AND INTEGRITY SYSTEMS ANNEX 1: Refined Research Objectives ................................................................................. 45 ANNEX 2: Governmental Experts List .................................................................................... 49 ANNEX 3: Field Research Interview List ................................................................................. 50 ANNEX 4: Literature Review Bibliography ............................................................................. 51 USAID.GOV Table of Contents July 15, 2019 ARMENIA ANTI-CORRUPTION AND INTEGRITY SYSTEMS ACRONYMS Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Anti-Corruption Council (ACC) Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ACN) Armenia Mobilizing Action against Corruption (MAAC) Civic Engagement in Local Governance (CELoG) Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Commission for Prevention of Corruption (CPC) Commission of Ethics for High Ranking Officials (CEHRO) Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Ethics Commission for High-ranking Officials (ECHO) Freedom of Information (FOI) Freedom of Information Center of Armenia (FOICA) Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) Law and Civil Service (CSL) Law and Public Service (PSL Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Open Government Partnership (OGP) United States Agency for International Development (USAID) UN Convention Against Corruption (UNAC) Union of Informed Citizens (UIC) Vulnerability to Corruption Assessments (VCA) USAID.GOV Final Report, pi July 15, 2019 ARMENIA
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Combatting and Preventing Corruption in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia How Anti-Corruption Measures Can Promote Democracy and the Rule of Law
    Combatting and preventing corruption in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia How anti-corruption measures can promote democracy and the rule of law Combatting and preventing corruption in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia How anti-corruption measures can promote democracy and the rule of law Silvia Stöber Combatting and preventing corruption in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia 4 Contents Contents 1. Instead of a preface: Why (read) this study? 9 2. Introduction 11 2.1 Methodology 11 2.2 Corruption 11 2.2.1 Consequences of corruption 12 2.2.2 Forms of corruption 13 2.3 Combatting corruption 13 2.4 References 14 3. Executive Summaries 15 3.1 Armenia – A promising change of power 15 3.2 Azerbaijan – Retaining power and preventing petty corruption 16 3.3 Georgia – An anti-corruption role model with dents 18 4. Armenia 22 4.1 Introduction to the current situation 22 4.2 Historical background 24 4.2.1 Consolidation of the oligarchic system 25 4.2.2 Lack of trust in the government 25 4.3 The Pashinyan government’s anti-corruption measures 27 4.3.1 Background conditions 27 4.3.2 Measures to combat grand corruption 28 4.3.3 Judiciary 30 4.3.4 Monopoly structures in the economy 31 4.4 Petty corruption 33 4.4.1 Higher education 33 4.4.2 Health-care sector 34 4.4.3 Law enforcement 35 4.5 International implications 36 4.5.1 Organized crime and money laundering 36 4.5.2 Migration and asylum 36 4.6 References 37 5 Combatting and preventing corruption in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Kazm ENG.Cdr
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ................................................................................................................................ 7 I. INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION..................................................................................... 8 II. ABOUT THE NIS ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................13 III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................18 IV. PROFILE OF CORRUPTION IN ARMENIA .................................................................... 23 V. ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 25 VI. FOUNDATIONS OF NIS ................................................................................................. 27 VII. NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM .................................................................................. 34 1. LEGISLATURE ...................................................................................................................... 34 2. PRESIDENT ........................................................................................................................ 48 3. EXECUTIVE .......................................................................................................................... 54 4. JUDICIARY ............................................................................................................................. 65 5. CIVIL SERVICE ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption Risks Assessment in Defence Establishments in Armenia
    CORR CORRUPTION RISKSRISKS ASSESSMENT IN DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS IN ARMENIAASSE TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL anticorruption center 2 Corruption Risks Assessment in Defence Establishments in Armenia This publication was made possible by the support of Counterpart International’s Armenia Representation and the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Associate Cooperative Agreement through Transparency International Anticorruption Center public organization with support of Transparency International Defence and Security Programme. Content, views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Counternpart Intermattional’s Armenia Representation, USAID or the United States Government. CORRUPTION RISKS ASSESSMENT IN DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS IN ARMENIA Program Team Leader - Sona Ayvazyan Coordinator – Luiza Ayvazyan Country Assessor – Virab Khachatryan Peer Reviewers – Artur Sakunts, Varuzhan Avetisyan International Experts – Leah Wawro, Emma Kerr Corruption Risks Assessment in Defence Establishments in Armenia 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS 4 INTRODUCTION 5 COUNTRY PROFILE 6 METHODOLOGY 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 10 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH 16 POLITICAL AREA 16 FINANCIAL AREA 55 PERSONNEL 67 OPERATIONS 90 PROCUREMENT 93 APPENDICES 115 1. QUESTIONNAIRE 115 2. TI-DSP GOVERNMENT DEFENCE 123 ANTI-CORRUPTION INDEX GLOBAL RESULTS 4 Corruption Risks Assessment in Defence Establishments in Armenia ABBREVIATIONS CSO Civil society organization
    [Show full text]
  • Tough Choices Observations on the Political Economy of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia
    Tough Choices Observations on the Political Economy of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia Robin S. Bhatty Mimeo, prepared for the World Bank December 2002 "This paper represents the views of its author, not of the official view of the World Bank. World Bank staff views may differ substantially with characterizations contained in this paper. All other usual disclaimers apply." 1 I. OVERVIEW ECONOMIC REFORM IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS The paper which follows presents an analysis and discussion of the problems confronting and prospects for continued economic reform in the three states of the South Caucasus region of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS): Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. Although differentiated by language and religion, in many important ways more unites the three Caucasian states than divides them, at least in terms of the economic and political challenges they face as they attempt to move beyond their Soviet pasts and the difficult experiences which afflicted them in the 1990s. In all three states, the key ingredient for further progress will be the commitment of the national governments and ruling elites to pressing ahead with reforms. All three states have made significant progress in reforming their economies since the fall of the Soviet Union, but to a great extent they are now confronted with even more difficult and politically painful choices. Reform is an intrinsically political process requiring the distribution of costs and gains; each state has its own internal strengths and weaknesses which will shape its ability and willingness to adopt various types of changes. For the international financial institutions and donors who seek to facilitate and expedite these reforms, an understanding of the political costs and risks confronting local decision-makers is crucial in determining the ultimate success – or failure – of the reform campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Law Training for Investigators, Prosecutors, and Judges in the Republic of Armenia
    Report by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION for the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs February 2019 Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Law Training for Investigators, Prosecutors, and Judges in the Republic of Armenia EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP William Baity* Daniel Feldman* Jimmy Gurule* * Academy Fellow Officers of the Academy Jeffrey Neal, Chair of the Board Norton Bonaparte, Vice Chair Teresa W. Gerton, President and Chief Executive Officer Myra Howze Shiplett, Secretary Jonathan Fiechter, Treasurer Study Team National Academy of Public Administration Brenna Isman, Director of Academy Studies Randolph Lyon, Project Director Lawrence B. Novey, Senior Advisor Kate Connor, Research Analyst Alicia Kingston, Research Associate Yerevan State University, Faculty of Law Samvel Dilbandyan, Professor Ara Gabuzyan, Professor Gagik S. Ghazinyan, Dean and Professor Tigran Grigoryan, Assistant Professor Anna Margaryan, Associate Professor Tatevik Sujyan, Associate Professor Tirayr Vardazaryan, Assistant Professor National Academy of Public Administration 1600 K Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 www.napawash.org February 2019 Printed in the United States of America Academy Project Number: 2222 ABOUT THE ACADEMY The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, non-profit, and non-partisan organization established in 1967 and chartered by Congress in 1984. It provides expert advice to government leaders in building more effective, efficient, accountable, and transparent organizations. To carry out this mission, the Academy draws on the knowledge and experience of its over 900 Fellows— including former cabinet officers, Members of Congress, governors, mayors, and state legislators, as well as prominent scholars, career public administrators, and nonprofit and business executives.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Corruption and the Rule of Law in Armenia
    MOORE_JCI(3).DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/23/13 12:17 PM IN THE SHADOW OF THE LAW: AN EXAMINATION OF CORRUPTION AND THE RULE OF LAW IN ARMENIA By Scott A. Moore∗ TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. 199 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 200 PART I: AN ARMENIAN FOUNDATION ........................................................ 204 A Brief Profile of Modern Armenia ............................................... 204 The Judiciary, Legal Institutions and Initiatives, and Bribery . 209 A) The Judiciary ................................................................... 209 B) Enforcement, Initiatives, and Institutions ..................... 210 C) Current Bribery Legislation in Armenia ........................ 213 PART II: SOCIAL NORMS THEORY IN THE PENUMBRA OF ANTI- CORRUPTION ................................................................................... 215 Ellickson’s Social Norms Theory and the Diamond Industry ..... 216 Bernstein’s Diamond Industry Model Applied to Armenia ......... 218 A) Corruption on a Domestic Level ...................................... 219 B) Corruption on an International Level ............................. 222 C) Armenia: Moving Forward .............................................. 224 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 226 ABSTRACT This note examines the tension between social norms and
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption Prevention in the Education, Extractive and Police Sectors in Eastern Europe And
    OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Corruption Prevention in the Education, Extractive and Police Sectors in Eastern Europe and Central Asia OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Corruption Prevention in the Education, Extractive and Police Sectors in Eastern Europe and Central Asia About the OECD The OECD is a forum in which governments compare and exchange policy experiences, identify good practices in light of emerging challenges, and promote decisions and recommendations to produce better policies for better lives. The OECD’s mission is to promote policies that improve economic and social well-being of people around the world. Find out more at www.oecd.org. About the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Established in 1998, the main objective of the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ACN) is to support its member countries in their efforts to prevent and fight corruption. It provides a regional forum for the promotion of anti-corruption activities, the exchange of information, elaboration of best practices and donor coordination via regional meetings and seminars, peer-learning programmes, and thematic projects. ACN also serves as the home for the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan. Find out more at www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/. Please cite this publication as: OECD (2017), Corruption Prevention in the Education, Extractive and Police Sectors in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.
    [Show full text]
  • No 78, Caucasus Analytical Digest: Corruption
    No. 78 5 October 2015 Abkhazia South Ossetia caucasus Adjara analytical digest Nagorno- Karabakh resourcesecurityinstitute.org www.laender-analysen.de www.css.ethz.ch/cad www.crrccenters.org CORRUPTION Special Editor: Lili di Puppo ■■Overview of the Anti-Corruption Fight in Armenia 2 By Khachik Harutyunyan, Yerevan ■■Anti-Corruption Measures in the Energy Sector: EITI in Azerbaijan 6 By Hannes Meissner, Vienna ■■Continuity and Change: Corruption in Georgia 9 By Alexander Kupatadze, St Andrews, UK ■■DOCUMENTATION The Countries of the South Caucasus in International Corruption-Related Rankings 11 ■■OPINION POLL Public Opinion on Corruption—Comparison of the South Caucasus Countries 2013/14 15 Public Opinion on Corruption in Georgia 2014/15 16 ■■CHRONICLE 4 September – 5 October 2015 19 Institute for European, Russian, Research Centre Center Caucasus Research German Association for and Eurasian Studies for East European Studies for Security Studies The George Washington Resource Centers East European Studies University of Bremen ETH Zurich University The Caucasus Analytical Digest is supported by: CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 78, 5 October 2015 2 Overview of the Anti-Corruption Fight in Armenia By Khachik Harutyunyan, Yerevan Abstract: According to the NGO Policy Forum Armenia’s estimation, Armenia lost $5.9 billion in 2013 because of corruption, and instead of a GDP of $10.5 billion in 2013, it would have had $16.4 billion, if only it had had a level of governance comparable to Botswana and Namibia.1 On February 19, 2015 Armenia estab- lished a new institutional structure to fight corruption led by the Prime Minister. This new setup requires the adoption of a new, third anti-corruption strategy for Armenia.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Bribes the Only Way to Get Things Done? an Analysis of Public Perception and Willingness to Pay Bribes in Armenia Arpine Porsughyan
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fall 2013 Are Bribes the Only Way to Get Things Done? An Analysis of Public Perception and Willingness to Pay Bribes in Armenia Arpine Porsughyan Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Porsughyan, A. (2013). Are Bribes the Only Way to Get Things Done? An Analysis of Public Perception and Willingness to Pay Bribes in Armenia (Master's thesis, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/1058 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARE BRIBES THE ONLY WAY TO GET THINGS DONE? AN ANALYIS OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY BRIBES IN ARMENIA A Thesis Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts By Arpine Porsughyan December 2013 ARE BRIBES THE ONLY WAY TO GET THINGS DONE? AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY BRIBES IN ARMENIA By Arpine Porsughyan Approved November 2, 2013 ________________________________ _________________________________ Charles F. Hanna, Ph.D. Jennie L. Schulze, Ph.D. Director, Graduate Center for Social and Assistant Professor of Political Science Public Policy McAnulty College and Graduate School of (Committee Chair) Liberal Arts (Committee Member) ________________________________ __________________________________ James Swindal, Ph.D. Charles F. Hanna, Ph.D., Dean, McAnulty College and Graduate Director, Graduate Center for Social and School of Liberal Arts Public Policy iii ABSTRACT ARE BRIBES THE ONLY WAY TO GET THINGS DONE? AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY BRIBES IN ARMENIA By Arpine Porsughyan December 2013 Thesis supervised by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Caucasian Review of International Affairs (CRIA) Vol 2
    Caucasian Review of International Affairs Vol. 2 (2) – Spring 2008 © CRIA 2008; all rights reserved Corridor of Power: The Caucasus and Energy Security Tracey C. German∗ Abstract This article examines one of the key drivers of the South Caucasus’s escalating international significance, its role as both a source of and transit route for hydrocarbons. Energy security has become a significant factor driving deepening international engagement with the South Caucasus and there is a need to ensure reliable and stable export routes for hydrocarbons from the Caspian Sea region. Whilst the development of new pipeline infrastructure has brought many benefits to the area, it is still beset with unresolved conflicts that threaten to undermine the progress made in terms of economic and political stability, as well as regional co-operation. Keywords: South Caucasus, energy security, Caspian Sea, EU, Russia, Iran, USA Introduction The key strategic location of the Caucasus, squeezed between the Black and Caspian Seas, Iran, Russia and Turkey, make it an area of growing importance in the contemporary security environment, particularly given regional instability and the potential threat to western economic interests because of its energy resources and transport infrastructure. Energy represents one of the most important aspects of the growing international significance of the Caucasus region, and organisations such as the European Union (EU) consequently have a keen self-interest in the development of stability and security in the Caucasus.1 In May 2003,
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption and Development: the Armenian Case
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Faculty Publications 2009-01-01 Corruption and Development: The Armenian Case Phillip J. Bryson [email protected] Sevak Tsaturyan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the Economics Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Bryson, Phillip J. and Tsaturyan, Sevak, "Corruption and Development: The Armenian Case" (2009). Faculty Publications. 148. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/148 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Corruption and Development: The Armenian Case Sevak Tsaturyan and Phillip J. Bryson Brigham Young University Contact Information Phillip J. Bryson Douglas and Effie Driggs Professor of Economics Marriott School Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 Tel. 801 422-2526 [email protected] Abstract To determine the relationship between corruption and economic growth variables, we first undertake a general analysis of those relationships for 39 countries over an eleven year period. Since the data on corruption specific to Armenia are insufficient for an econometric analysis, we undertake a case study of that country to illuminate the relationships determined by the empirical analysis. We find corruption to be a hindrance for overall economic performance, since there is a strong negative correlation between corruption indices and real per capita GDP. Regressing real Foreign Direct Investment on corruption, however, we found no strong relationship between the two. Nor is there evidence that high levels of corruption limit international trade.
    [Show full text]
  • Article 13, Subparagraph 1(D) (D) Respecting, Promoting and Protecting the Freedom to Seek, Receive, Publish and Disseminate Information Concerning Corruption
    THEMATIC COMPILATION OF RELEVANT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY ARMENIA ARTICLE 13 UNCAC PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON CORRUPTION ARMENIA (SEVENTH MEETING) Article 13, subparagraph 1(d) (d) Respecting, promoting and protecting the freedom to seek, receive, publish and disseminate information concerning corruption. That freedom may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided for by law and are necessary: (i) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (ii) For the protection of national security or ordre public or of public health or morals. The details of fight against corruption, including the activities of Anticorruption Council and comprehensive description of Anticorruption Strategy, rights and duties of population while facing a corruption have been repeatedly presented to public through various methods, including media reports. The Ministry of Justice, along with Eurasia Partnership Foundation has recorded a media program titled “Corruption and Combating Corruption in Armenia”1. The Ministry of Justice and GIZ work on join project aimed at creation of short video-clips of various contents, which shall be presented by media to spread anticorruption messages. The anticorruption strategy and issues have also been discussed with journalists and business representatives during seminars organized for especially these professionals. During the first sitting of the Anti-corruption Council the Chairperson indicated that in the process of the fight against corruption the most important component is the existence of the political will and the Armenian Government have that will for making the results of the fight against corruption visible and tangible.2 On April 14, 2015, the Ministry of Justice sent a request (numbered 01/4516-15) to the Government of Armenia, asking to order all governmental bodies to provide information about undertaken programs on corruption prevention.
    [Show full text]