Unveiling UNCAC: Analyzing the results of our Access to Information Campaign

Last updated: 30 July 2024

Almost all countries have ratified the UNCAC, which emphasizes the important role of civil society in anti-corruption. Yet, a lack of publicly accessible information on countries’ efforts to combat corruption, improve their legislative frameworks and take concrete action to address weaknesses is a barrier to civil society actors seeking to inform themselves, hold governments accountable and contribute to anti-corruption efforts by pushing for reforms. Coupled with the fact that the UNCAC review process is weak, since countries are not required to publish the key documents from the process (but only a shorter executive summary of their review), the information that is generally available does not give a comprehensive overview of the anti-corruption reality. Despite these barriers, civil society organizations (CSOs) still try to make an impact, and sometimes do. 

In 2021, the UNCAC Coalition launched its Access to Information campaign in collaboration with CSOs, asking governments and relevant anti-corruption authorities across the globe to release crucial UNCAC information and documents in response to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Where access to information (ATI) legislation does not exist, CSOs cited the transparency principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), in particular, Articles 10 and 13 on access to information and civil society participation.1

The campaign in numbers

Two years on, the Coalition is taking stock of our campaign. What have we learned from submitting FOI requests in 45 countries across 6 continents, calling for the release of key anti-corruption documents which can inform civil society advocacy? 

  • A total of 27 official UNCAC review documents have been released so far by States Parties, ranging from full country reports to self-assessment checklists under both the first and second cycle of the official UNCAC implementation review. Prior to the filing of information requests, these documents were not publicly available.
  • In 14 of the 45 countries (31%) in which information requests were sent for this campaign, the information request was not acknowledged, responded to, or was met with administrative silence. In the remaining 31 countries (69%) where authorities replied, only 5 countries (11%) – Australia, Benin, Bulgaria, Czechia and Poland – released all official UNCAC documents and information relevant to the first and/or second implementation review cycles within their possession. 
  • The median response time for government authorities to reply to our requests was 24 working days.
  • Over 10 CSOs had to wait more than 30 working days until they received a response from authorities. In the Maldives, it took 78 working days, the longest recorded time in this campaign.
  • In contrast, it only took the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Armenia 5 working days to respond to the information request submitted by a CSO – the fastest response time recorded in this campaign. 6 other CSOs heard back from authorities they submitted requests to within 10 working days, which is good practice.

Key recommendations

What are our main takeaways from the campaign, and what needs to improve? 

  • Access to information empowers civil society and creates openings for participation in the UNCAC review: through this campaign, UNCAC focal points have become more aware of civil society demands for updates on UNCAC progress, and in several cases, maintained contact with civil society stakeholders to invite them to participate in ongoing official country reviews.
  • Governments need to proactively, rather than reactively, disclose information on their own websites in an accessible and visible manner. The upcoming 10th UNCAC Conference of the States Parties (CoSP10) presents states with an opportunity to advance civil society participation and access to information, clarifying the need for and importance of proactive disclosure of information.
    • In line with the UNCAC Coalition’s own Transparency Pledge, we call on States Parties to publish and share information about the second cycle country review in a proactive manner.
  • In countries where international standards on FOI are not applied, we encourage the upgrading of existing legal frameworks; or the adoption of an FOI law that reflects the minimum standards of the Tromsø Convention alongside other relevant international best practices, such as target 16.10 of the Sustainable Development Goals on public access to information.
  • Where UNCAC-specific information portals or webpages already exist, States should ensure they are easily accessible to users, and that the information listed on these pages is up-to-date and complete. Such information should include: 
    • Full country reports, self-assessment checklists and executive summaries, as well as other key information such as the country focal point and up-to-date contact details, a timeline for the review that is regularly updated, and how civil society is involved in the review process and/or can become involved in any follow-up actions.
  • UNODC should take steps to improve transparency of the review process by including an announcement on its website when country reviews are completed and by modifying the country profile section of its website to provide more useful, up-to-date and detailed information, such as UNCAC submissions and official country review documents that can be used by States Parties and stakeholders. 2
    • In addition, the UNCAC Secretariat should clarify to States Parties to the UNCAC that they are free to release information and documents related to the UNCAC review, and are not bound by restrictions derived from the UNCAC’s own Terms of Reference (ToR).

States Parties to the UNCAC continue to acknowledge the importance of facilitating information flows as a means to prevent and combat corruption. For instance, the major outcome of the United Nations General Assembly Special Session against Corruption (UNGASS) in June 2021 was the Political Declaration. In its paragraph 22, States Parties agree to “respect, promote and protect the freedom to seek, receive, disseminate and publish information concerning corruption, and ensure that the public has effective access to information, in accordance with the domestic laws of States…including by adopting appropriate and necessary procedures or regulations and designating and enhancing bodies responsible for facilitating access to information, as well as through the use of digital tools, open data and Internet-based portals to help make information more accessible…”. In December 2021 at the 9th Conference of the States Parties (CoSP9), resolutions 9/3 and 9/6 supported by consensus among States Parties to the UNCAC called upon States to increase and ensure access to information, respectively. How are countries living up to their commitments?

See the request tracking table here

With the UNCAC being the only binding global anti-corruption mechanism, are States Parties truly acting in line with the Convention and taking their commitments to transparency and accountability seriously?

Yes, several of them are

In Australia, Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Georgia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Poland, Serbia and Spain, a total of 27 official UNCAC review documents have been released, ranging from full country reports to self-assessment checklists under both the first and second cycle of the official UNCAC implementation review. Prior to the filing of information requests through our campaign, these documents were not publicly available. Furthermore, in most of these countries, additional information about civil society participation in the review was shared, along with follow-up activities implemented by States Parties since the conclusion of their review. 

In their responses, some States Parties demonstrated their commitment to freely accessible, open information by way of several good practices related to:

Response times 

10 working days constitutes good practice in this regard, but frameworks indicating a response period of 20 working days is also common. In Armenia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to the FOI request sent by the Freedom of Information Center of Armenia in a record 5 working days. In Poland, Citizens Network Watchdog heard back from the Ministry of Justice within 7 working days. In Finland, Transparency International Finland received a reply to their FOI request from the Ministry of Justice within 8 working days. 

User-friendly request systems 

In Brazil, a virtual ‘Integrated Platform for [the] Ombudsman and Access to Information’ is one method which allows for the easy submission of information requests in digital format, and tracking of responses. However, in order to use this platform it is necessary to create a user account.

Similarly, in Bulgaria applicants can submit information requests in three ways: by postal mail, via email or through a dedicated online platform for access to public information. Again, using the latter requires registration via electronic signature.

In Croatia, all information related to the request could be viewed in real time through the online portal ‘ImamoPravoZnati’, powered by Alavateli, an open-source civil society platform for making FOI requests. In addition, Code for Croatia (the sender of the request) reported that it was easy to find the country’s Act ratifying the UNCAC online, directing it to the relevant authorities to submit the request. 

In Czechia, the Justice Department has a page on its official website dedicated to the FOI Act procedure, including guidelines on how to submit a request and who is responsible for disclosing information.

Government web pages dedicated to the UNCAC review 

In North Macedonia, in response to a request sent by the Macedonian Center for International Cooperation (MCIC), the Ministry of Justice shared a virtual portal where information about the country’s UNCAC reviews is shared and updated. Information about the voluntary follow-up to the country’s UNCAC review is also available: Macedonia’s proactive publication of information surpasses the benefit of a simple dedicated webpage. In Poland, the Ministry of Justice has 3 pages on its website dedicated to the UNCAC review, first cycle and second cycle information and documents. After receiving the FOI requests from Civic Network Watchdog, the second cycle review page was updated to include details on the then-upcoming country visit (scheduled for March 2023), and inviting civil society stakeholders to participate.

Thorough replies from authorities

In Armenia, authorities replied to all questions asked in the request, offered additional links for further information and provided the full contact details of the UNCAC focal point in the country, within a record 5 working days, the fastest response time recorded in this campaign. 

Australia’s Attorney General’s Department included a decision letter in its response to Uniting Church in Australia’s request for official UNCAC documents, highlighting the rationale for its decision  (refer to document 5) to grant partial access to a document on the basis of the country’s FOI Act, and details about the public interest test it performed and exemptions considered to inform its decision.

In Benin, the National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANLC) was willing to share draft versions of its full country reports with the Front des organizations nationales contre la corruption (FONAC) who sent the information request, in the interest of transparency, besides releasing both self-assessment checklists.

Brazil’s Office of the Comptroller General provided Transparência Internacional Brazil with a full reply to their request, sharing detailed information about civil society participation under the second review cycle, and documents related to follow-up actions on the implementation of the first review cycle’s recommendations. 

In Bulgaria, the Ministry of Justice answered Transparency International Bulgaria’s information request comprehensively in 9 working days, sharing official UNCAC documents and follow-up actions on the implementation of the first review cycle’s recommendations, such as making amendments to Bulgaria’s Criminal Code, Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act, among others. 

Finland’s Ministry of Justice provided a full reply to Transparency International Finland’s information request, volunteering additional information about remaining “committed to inform and engage civil society participation in the implementation review process,” in line with their commitments as a signatory of the UNCAC Coalition’s Transparency Pledge.

In Mongolia, the Globe International Center’s information request to the Independent Authority against Corruption resulted in the release of preliminary versions of its official  UNCAC review documents, illustrating the government’s willingness to publicize information. 

In Paraguay, Semillas para la Democracia’s information request to the National Anticorruption Secretariat (SENAC) resulted in a detailed reply, including the release of an official UNCAC document (the second cycle self-assessment checklist), a thorough update on the status of the ongoing review, and follow-up actions on the implementation of the first review cycle’s recommendations.

In their response to Civic Network Watchdog’s information request, Poland’s Ministry of Justice released official UNCAC documents (the first and second cycle self-assessment checklists), sharing information about the focal point, civil society participation in the review process, details about the upcoming second cycle country visit and follow-up actions on the implementation of the first review cycle’s recommendations.

The Serbian Ministry of Justice replied to the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy’s (BCSP) information request by releasing official UNCAC documents (the first cycle full country report and second cycle self-assessment checklist), as well as information on the ongoing review and focal point details.

No, many States Parties are not honoring their commitments

The majority of States Parties did not respond to information requests sent by civil society, while others blocked the release of information and documents for various reasons, hindering the full participation of CSOs in anti-corruption efforts. Nearly half of the attempts to obtain information from authorities were unsuccessful (no or little information of relevance shared) or met with administrative silence, in violation of ATI legislation, where applicable. In Hungary and Russia, certain denials to share information cannot be appealed. Major deficiencies were apparent in relation to:

Administrative silence 

In Ethiopia, despite the existence of access to information legislation which is ranked highly in terms of its framework, the FOI request sent by Progress Integrated Community Development Organization (PICDO) was never answered. The same applies for information requests sent in Botswana (by the Botswana Centre for Public Integrity, BCPI), Cambodia (sent by the UNCAC Coalition on behalf of Transparency International Cambodia), Congo (sent by Nouveaux Droits de l’Homme), El Salvador (sent by Fundación Nacional para el Desarrollo, FUNDE), France (sent by Transparency International France),3 Greece (sent by Vouliwatch), Mali (sent by Fédération des Collectifs d’ONG, FECONG), Perú (sent by Proética), the United States (sent by Centro de Gobernanza Pública y Corporativa)4 and Uzbekistan (sent by the Uzbek Forum for Human Rights). 

Lengthy response times

In Georgia, a reply to the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information’s (IDFI) request was only received from the Government Administration of Georgia within 75 working days (where the law stipulates that a public authority must respond to a request within 10 days). 

In Hungary, although the Ministry of the Interior replied to K-Monitor’s FOI request in 30 working days, under a special law related to Covid-19 (see English summary here), authorities were able to postpone the deadline for a response by 45 days, with the possibility of a further 45-day postponement and no remedy to challenge such a decision. 

In the Maldives, the Ministry of Finance took 78 working days to respond to Transparency Maldives’s FOI request (where the law stipulates that a public authority must respond to a request within a maximum of 21 days). 

In Malta, the UNCAC Coalition heard back from the Ministry of Justice and Government, responding to the FOI request 64 working days later (where the law stipulates that a public authority must respond to a request not later than 20 working days after the request is received). 

A handful of other countries, namely, Albania, Australia, Croatia, Mexico, New Zealand, North Macedonia and Spain also took over 30 working days to respond.

Confidentiality claims

In Mexico, public authorities were unwilling to release the official second cycle self-assessment checklist and share it with civil society organization Impunidad Cero due to alleged confidentiality conditions indicated in point 31 of the UNCAC’s Terms of Reference (ToR). Moreover, with the second cycle review currently ongoing in Mexico, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed concern about adversely affecting joint collaboration between States Parties amid negotiations during the review process. The Ministry referred this decision to the Transparency Committee, a collegiate body that decided to classify information for 3 years (refer to document 2c in Spanish).

In Montenegro, Institut Alternativa’s information request to the Agency for Prevention of Corruption was only partially answered on the basis of the ongoing review cycle, “protecting official duties” and respecting intergovernmental confidentiality, citing the UNCAC ToR, paragraphs 36-39 (refer to document 2a). A second request sent to the same Agency by Građanska Alijansa (Civic Alliance) 6 months later was partially successful, resulting in the release of some UNCAC-related information. Nevertheless, access to the first cycle self-assessment checklist and full country reports was denied on the basis of “legal restriction[s]” and confidentiality concerns under the ToR (refer to document 2). 

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Justice responded to the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties’ request, withholding access to the second cycle self-assessment checklist due to the review process still being underway. The Ministry stated that “releasing this information would prejudice or compromise New Zealand’s ability to effectively negotiate our review” (refer to document 3), claiming that the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the supposed prejudice to negotiations. 

In Spain, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed similar concerns in response to Access Info Europe’s FOI request. The Ministry once again quoted the UNCAC’s ToR and its principle of confidentiality as justification for withholding official documents (refer to document 1b in Spanish). Of more concern is the fact that Access Info Europe challenged this decision before Spain’s Transparency Council, since the ToR actually offer guidance to States Parties, encouraging the publication of such documents. 5 The complaint was upheld, with the Transparency Council, ordering the Ministry to disclose the working documents within 10 days. Instead of doing so, in July 2022 the Ministry appealed to the Administrative Court, asking for an interim measure from the requirement to disclose the information. The case is still pending.

The necessity of appealing 

In Albania, an appeal had to be made to the Information Commissioner before the Center for Development and Democratization of Institutions (CDDI) received a reply from the Ministry of Justice, which merely acknowledged the information request, but did not reply within the legal deadline of 10 working days. The Commissioner ordered the Ministry to respond within 1 week. The Ministry first requested an informal meeting with the CSO to gather more information, and finally responded more than 2 weeks later, sharing the information that was available and within its possession.

In Croatia, Code for Croatia appealed to the Information Commissioner to carry out an inspection on the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration which asked for an extension to answer the information request, but failed to reply before the deadline elapsed, therefore violating the country’s access to information act. As a result, the Ministry was compelled to respond to the request and share information. 

In Georgia, the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information’s (IDFI) sent 2 information requests and an administrative complaint to the Government Administration of Georgia before the latter replied. Although official UNCAC documents and information were released through this process, it took a total of 75 working days and repeated efforts from IDFI to get information.

In the Maldives, only upon order of the Information Commissioner did the Ministry of Finance share the official first cycle self-assessment checklist and full country report. 

Unnecessarily burdensome procedures and processes

In Brazil, clear, public information on which bodies and public officials are responsible for the UNCAC review in the country were not available. This leads to delays in receiving information, especially where government bodies are not able to point requesters and forward requests to the relevant entity. Uncertainty about whom to address requests to due to a lack of information was reiterated by participating CSOs in Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, and Russia.

Despite the existence of a digital platform through which to submit information requests, in Bulgaria, doing so would not have been faster than filing an FOI request via email. Transparency International Bulgaria noted that registering with the portal is subject to approval, activation and use of an electronic signature - all of which are more burdensome.

In Croatia, Code for Croatia commented on the overstepping of deadlines by authorities due to a weak enforcement of punitive measures (such as fines) for failing to respond to the information request. The absence of consequences for non-compliance are working to disincentivize government bodies to respect the right to information, and seldom are requesters willing to go the legal mile to dispute the process.

In Ecuador, Fundación Ciudadania y Desarrollo (FCD) expressed frustration over the loss of data due to constant changes within the civil service and inadequate systematization of information, especially that which relates to the (older) first cycle UNCAC review, which was concluded in 2015. 

In Russia, Transparency International Russia commented on burdensome bureaucracy. Request letters require the signature of a division head, and replies are often printed documents which are then scanned and sent to the applicant. Digital documents sent via email or similar virtual alternatives would be more convenient and efficient.

Reflections and recommendations 

Since launching our campaign, civil society in 17 countries has successfully pressured for the release of crucial anti-corruption documents. What are our main takeaways, and what needs to improve? 

  • Access to information empowers civil society and creates openings for participation in the UNCAC review: through this campaign, UNCAC focal points have become more aware of civil society demands for updates on UNCAC progress, and in several cases, maintained contact with civil society stakeholders to invite them to participate in ongoing official country reviews.
  • Governments need to proactively, rather than reactively, disclose information on their own websites in an accessible and visible manner. The upcoming 10th UNCAC Conference of the States Parties (CoSP10) presents states with an opportunity to advance civil society participation and access to information, clarifying the need for and importance of proactive disclosure of information.
    • In line with the UNCAC Coalition’s own Transparency Pledge, we call on States Parties to publish and share information about the second cycle country review in a proactive manner.
  • In countries where international standards on FOI are not applied, we encourage the upgrading of existing legal frameworks; or the adoption of an FOI law that reflects the minimum standards of the Tromsø Convention alongside other relevant international best practices, such as target 16.10 of the Sustainable Development Goals on public access to information.
  • Where UNCAC-specific information portals or webpages already exist, States should ensure they are easily accessible to users, and that the information listed on these pages is up-to-date and complete. Such information should include: 
    • Full country reports, self-assessment checklists and executive summaries, as well as other key information such as the country focal point and up-to-date contact details, a timeline for the review that is regularly updated, and how civil society is involved in the review process and/or can become involved in any follow-up actions.
  • In addition, UNODC should take steps to improve transparency of the review process by including an announcement on its website when country reviews are completed and by modifying the country profile section of its website to provide more useful, up-to-date and detailed information, such as UNCAC submissions and official country review documents that can be used by States Parties and stakeholders.6
    • In addition, the UNCAC Secretariat should clarify to States Parties to the UNCAC that they are free to release information and documents related to the UNCAC review, and are not bound by restrictions derived from the UNCAC’s own Terms of Reference (ToR).

A heartfelt thanks to all of the civil society organizations who have collaborated with us on this campaign, without whom there would be no requests! Is your country not listed above? Reach out to email hidden; JavaScript is required to participate - the campaign is ongoing.

  1. “Article 10 of the UNCAC reiterates the importance of public reporting, which helps strengthen the public’s trust in institutions as it facilitates the average citizen’s access to official decision-making processes. Article 10 is complemented by Article 13, which requires States to take measures to promote citizen participation,” Article 19, ‘International: Using access to information to combat corruption’, May 2022, available at: https://www.article19.org/resources/access-to-information-combat-corruption/.
  2. See, ‘The Way Forward: Ensuring an inclusive, transparent and effective UNCAC review mechanism’, page 7, UNCAC Coalition, September 2022, available at: https://uncaccoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-IRM-Report-September-2022.pdf. 
  3. Although the FOI request sent in April 2022 by TI France to the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs was met with administrative silence, in August 2022, the country published its Cycle 2 Full Country Report online.
  4. In March 2023, Centro de Gobernanza Pública y Corporativa received an email notification from the US Department of State FOIA Requester Service Center that it is currently working through a backlog of FOIA/Privacy Act requests, and is still processing this request. This FOI request was sent in November 2021, and has been pending for 29 months as of the time of writing.
  5. See Article 38 of the Terms of Reference, “The State party under review is encouraged to exercise its sovereign right to publish its country review report or part thereof”, page 10, https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/ReviewMechanism-BasicDocuments/Mechanism_for_the_Review_of_Implementation_-_Basic_Documents_-_E.pdf.
  6. See, ‘The Way Forward: Ensuring an inclusive, transparent and effective UNCAC review mechanism’, page 7, UNCAC Coalition, September 2022, available at: https://uncaccoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-IRM-Report-September-2022.pdf.