We will be consistent in completing the anti-corruption reforms announced by us: Karen Zadoyan, 1in.am

The Armenian Lawyers’ Association and the CSOs Anti-Corruption Coalition of Armenia have jointly monitored the actions of the “Republic of Armenia Anti-Corruption Strategy and Its Implementation Action Plan for 2019-2022” that were planned for 2019-2020. As a result, Monitoring Report of the “Republic of Armenia Anti-Corruption Strategy and Its Implementation Action Plan for 2019-2022” was developed. The report was discussed in details yesterday at an online conference with participation of the representatives of the state bodies, civil society organizations, lawyers and advocates.

We asked a few questions on the topic to Mr. Karen Zadoyan, the President of the Armenian Lawyers’ Association.

– Mr. Zadoyan, yesterday the Monitoring Report of the “Republic of Armenia Anti-Corruption Strategy and Its Implementation Action Plan for 2019-2022” was published. It is known that out of 48 measures envisaged by the Anti-Corruption Strategy, only two have been fully implemented, and the remaining 46 are subject to implementation by 2022. How effectively are the actions envisaged by the strategy implemented?

– Yes, the Monitoring Report of the “Republic of Armenia Anti-Corruption Strategy and Its Implementation Action Plan for 2019-2022”, which was jointly elaborated by the Armenian Lawyers’ Association and the CSOs Anti-Corruption Coalition of Armenia was published and on 20 April was presented at an online conference to the representatives of the state bodies, civil society organizations, lawyers and advocates. Yes, only 2 of the 48 actions envisaged by the strategy have been fully implemented, as their completion was scheduled for 2020, and the remaining actions are planned to be fully implemented by 2022, inclusive.

The results of the monitoring show that although a number of actions were implemented formally, but in terms of content and quality, they were not carried out and did not actually solve the problems envisaged by the strategy, which were intended for implementation.

For example, the first action of the strategy envisages: Establishment of a Commission for the Prevention of Corruption and ensuring its normal functioning. Although the event is formally considered to be fully implemented, there are serious problems in terms of content. In particular, in 2019, amendments and additions were made to the Law on the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, as a result of which the Independent Competition Board was abolished, hence the procedure for appointing the members of CPC by the Board. By virtue of these changes, the CPC was formed by direct nomination of members by the following entities: the Government of the Republic of Armenia, the three factions of the National Assembly (“My Step”, “Prosperous Armenia” and “Bright Armenia”) and the Supreme Judicial Council. Each of them nominated one candidate and all the nominated candidates were elected.

As a result, the CPC was established solely as a result of a political agreement, without ensuring institutional independence, while it is a specialized body, and its appointments should be exclusively in the professional domain, and not political. In this regard, specialized CSOs have repeatedly stated that the formation of the first staff of the CPC through non-competitive, political arrangements is highly vulnerable. CSOs also noted that the legal regulation of having an independent Competition Board was also highly appreciated by the OECD in its report on “Anti-corruption reforms in Armenia – 4th round of monitoring of the Istanbul AntiCorruption Action Plan’, which was published in October 2018.

In addition, in the Second Compliance Report on Armenia of the Fourth Evaluation Round, adopted on December 6, 2019, inter alia (including the judiciary and the prosecutorial system) GRECO referred to the independence of the CPC, noting that, “the new law adopted by the National Assembly removes the Competition Board from the process of appointment of members of CPC and introducing a system of direct nomination of candidates. The main concern with such a model is a significant risk of politisation. This is a vital point for the anti-corruption bodies as their insulation from political interference and influence stands as the main principle for ensuring their effectiveness. Civil society organizations are currently not represented in the nomination or selection process. The Government and the ruling parliamentary faction could control the majority in the Commission. GRECO urges the authorities to ensure independence of the Commission for Prevention of Corruption, in particular through a balanced and sustainable composition and transparent procedures.”

In 2020, the RA National Assembly amended the law and again envisaged the institute of an independent Competition Board, only that it would be applicable in the case of the second staff of the CPC.

In addition, the system of monitoring and evaluation of the strategy is quite incomplete, which does not allow to assess the real and qualitative results of anti-corruption problems and goals, to measure the medium-term and long-term impact. This is very important because the monitoring and evaluation indicators set out in the strategy mainly assess the level of implementation of the action, which is very vulnerable.

– What were the recommendations you made as a result of the monitoring?։

Our recommendations as a result of the monitoring, are of two types: methodological and content.

The methodological recommendations are:

The indicators to be monitored for the activities envisaged by the Anti-Corruption Strategy Action Plan mainly include output level indicators. These indicators mainly refer to whether this or that action envisaged by the Anti-Corruption Strategy Action Plan has been implemented or not, while the indicators on the relationship between the action and the expected result are mostly absent. This assumes that the impact assessment of the performed actions is not performed and it is not assessed whether the performance of the action led to the desired result/results. For example, the analyzes and assessments of the actions 1, 2, 3, 11 presented in this report allow to conclude that these indicators do not fully allow to assess the qualitative aspects of the actions performed. For this reason, we propose to include impact level indicators, as indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the implementation of Anti-Corruption Strategy Action Plans, which it will enable to assess whether the actions taken have led to the desired results and what impact they have had in the in the long term perspective.

Some of the actions envisaged by the Anti-Corruption Strategy Action Plan do not have monitoring indicators, which does not allow finding out the real scope and real impact of the actions carried out in a specific period. We suggest reviewing and envisaging such measures for all the events for which there are no audit indicators. We propose to review and provide for such measures for all events for which there are no monitoring indicators.

In order to assess and monitor the performance of the anti-corruption strategy and its implementation measures, some monitoring indicators are based on assessments and indicators provided from one source, and comparisons are not made with the results and information provided by other reliable sources. We suggest combining information provided from several sources for verifying the monitoring indicators to effectively evaluate the performance of actions.

Content suggestions are:

Adopt the draft law on amendments to the RA Law on the Corruption Prevention Commission and other related laws and envisage the CPC as the central body that will coordinate and supervise the activities of the integrity affairs organizers, including the organization of trainings for them.

Adopt the draft law on making amendments to the RA Law on the Corruption Prevention Commission and other related laws, making available to the public the results of the integrity check of public servants carried out by the CPC, preserving personal data in accordance with the RA Law on Protection of Personal Data.

Carry out a real assessment of the formation and capacity of the Anti-Corruption Policy Council, identify the illegal grounds for membership of NGOs involved in violation of the requirements of the RA legislation, as well as Illegal grounds for artificial barriers to membership to the Council of the CSOs Anti-Corruption Coalition of Armenia and make appropriate legal decisions.

Adopt model rules of conduct of public servants and rules of conduct of civil servants, members of parliament and investigators.

Expand the scope of the term “family” of declaring officials, including persons closely related to the official, such as a spouse/parent, child, brother or sister, as well as persons in a godfather-godson relationship.

Train the representatives of the main stakeholders (policy makers, civil society organizations, scientific institutions, media, government clients, businesses) on anti-corruption and integrity topics, contributing to strengthening their capacity building.

Review the Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan in the light of the methodological and contextual proposals presented in this report, as well as in the light of the situation in Armenia as a result of the Artsakh 2020 war and the challenges encountered.

– Can you say that in 2022 we will have effective mechanisms to fight corruption and a clear result and what is needed for that?

– It can be said that the main mechanisms are envisaged by the strategy, but their implementation is different. The results will depend on the staff that will carry out the reforms and lead the activities of the anti-corruption bodies to be set up under the reformed anti-corruption institutional system.

The notorious procedure for electing members of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption initially distorted the formation of the first composition of the Commission, as the leadership of the National Assembly representing the ruling political force, by overthrowing the open competition for the election of the members of the Commission, by reaching a political agreement with the leaders of the other two political forces represented in the parliament, by reaching a political agreement with the leaders of the other two political forces represented in the parliament, formed a commission consisting of politicized, affiliated and dependent members. So, now, how can we expect from such a staff that the Commission will be able to effectively fight political corruption and exercise its powers in good faith and without hindrance? We have the same concerns about other anti-corruption bodies that are formed and/or to be formed, including the Anti-Corruption Committee.

However, the Armenian Lawyers’ Association and other members of the CSOs Anti-Corruption Coalition of Armenia are not discouraged, as we have the relevant vision, will and potential to complete the anti-corruption reforms we announced five years ago.