FIGHTING JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

TOPIC GUIDE
Compiled by the Anti-Corruption Helpdesk
Transparency International is a global movement with one vision: a world in
which government, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are
free of corruption. Through more than 100 chapters worldwide and an
international secretariat in Berlin, we are leading the fight against corruption
to turn this vision into reality.

Topic guides are a series of publications developed by the Anti-Corruption

Helpdesk on key corruption and anti-corruption issues. They provide an
overview of the current anti-corruption debate and a list of the most up-to-
date and relevant studies and resources on a given corruption related topic.

[Link]

Author: Victoria Jennett PhD

Reviewer(s); Marie Chêne, Victor Alistar, Iulia Cospanaru, Robin Hodess PhD

Date: 31 October 2014

© 2014 Transparency International. All rights reserved.

With support from the European Commission

This document should not be considered as representative of the European Commission or

Transparency International’s official position. Neither the European Commission, Transparency
International nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for how the
following information is used.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION 4
KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES 4
APPROACHES, TOOLS AND SOLUTIONS 6
THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 8
RESOURCES ON JUDICIAL CORRUPTION 9

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 3

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
All sectors of society rely on the courts to sanction corrupt officials, politicians, citizens and
businesspeople, who steal resources and weaken integrity in public and private life. When the
judicial system is corrupt, justice cannot be done.

KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

The key issues in judicial anti-corruption reform centre around balancing the wide discretionary
power afforded to judges to enable them to act independently and the need for oversight
mechanisms to hold judges to account. A challenge for anti-corruption reformers is identifying the
particular opportunities for judicial system actors to act corruptly, that is, identifying the risks of
corruption within judicial institutions.

Judicial independence and accountability

Judicial anti-corruption reformers must find the correct balance between demanding accountability of
judicial actors and protecting their independence. Judicial independence should be safeguarded so
that political actors and other powerful interests cannot influence judicial decision making. Judicial
independence requires not just independence in the constitutional sense, that is, the separation of
powers between the three branches of government (executive, legislature and judiciary), but also
the personal independence of judges so that they are free to decide cases based on the application
of the rule of law.

However, judges and the courts deliver a service to society – justice – and, like other service
providers, should be accountable for their decisions and actions. Judges are accountable for their
decisions to higher courts, but their wide discretion in decision making can result in “selective
justice”, that is, not applying the same standards to every case, and can also veil corruption.

Transparency tools may not always be appropriate for the judiciary since transparency and
accountability must be balanced with the need for confidentiality and privacy. Closed courts are
sometimes necessary to, for example, protect the identity of victims or witnesses, protect the details
of ongoing investigations or protect national security. Similarly, privacy rights may trump demands
for the disclosure of information.

Identifying corruption risks within the justice system

Carrying out successful reforms depends on countering the particular corruption risks associated
with the roles of judicial system actors within the judiciary.

Judicial System Actors

Judicial system actors include officials involved in criminal and civil proceedings such as judges, jury
members and laypersons who assist judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and lawyers acting in

4 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
civil cases, court clerks and administrators as well as security staff. Other actors vulnerable to
corruption when they interact with the judiciary include victims, witnesses and expert witnesses as
well as NGOs that provide court services and members of the media who report cases.

There are various forms of corruption that affect judicial system actors in fulfilling their respective
roles:
1. There may be political interference to influence the outcome of a civil case or a criminal trial.
2. Judicial system actors, as well as victims and witnesses, may be bribed to influence the process
and outcome of court cases.
3. Judicial system actors may face extortion, that is, they are coerced to act corruptly under the
threat of violence or the release of damaging information.
4. Judicial system actors may engage in nepotism to enable close contacts or family members to
benefit from any largesse it is in their discretion to distribute, such as awarding procurement
contracts for court security services.
5. There may be a misuse of public funds and resources that result in trials being delayed or
collapsing.

Risks of Corruption in the Judiciary

There are key areas where judicial system actors may be exposed to or engage in these forms of
corruption.

 Management of courts. In the management of courts, there is a risk that political actors
apply pressure to judges and court officials to act in their interests, for example, by
withholding or manipulating court budgets or interfering with processes to select or
discipline judges and other court personnel.
 Criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings, there are risks that political actors or higher
judges direct courts on how to rule. Court clerks or other court administrators may be bribed
to abuse their power in case management, such as by causing delays to the scheduling of
cases or losing evidence. Prosecutors and defence lawyers might be directed to mishandle
cases. Private parties or political actors could tamper with juries or laypersons assisting
judicial decision making. Witnesses and victims may be threatened or bribed by political
officials or defence lawyers. Political authorities or higher courts might hamper the
enforcement of judgments.
 Civil proceedings. There are similar risks in civil proceedings when court clerks and other
court administrators can be bribed to abuse their powers. Risks include clerks charging
unauthorised fees for court services, accepting bribes to lose files or giving access to
judicial decisions before they are scheduled for release. Political authorities could direct
judges’ decisions or judges could solicit bribes for favourable judgments. Lawyers could
accept bribes to mishandle cases.
 Enforcement of judicial decisions. At this stage, there are risks that lawyers or other parties
negotiate with judges, bailiffs or other enforcement agents so that sanctions are not
enforced. Court appointed experts who undertake evaluations of assets could be bribed to
alter their estimations. Government actors could refuse to comply with judicial orders.

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 5

APPROACHES, TOOLS AND SOLUTIONS
Adherence to universal standards of due process and due diligence found in international human
rights conventions can help ensure that cases flow through the justice system free of corruption.
Where these standards are not observed, a range of anti-corruption tools can also bolster integrity
and accountability in the judicial sector. An effective approach to countering corruption within the
judicial sector integrates anti-corruption tools within broad structural reforms of the judiciary. This
enables anti-corruption efforts to be mainstreamed and part of technical reforms within judicial
institutions.

Strengthening control or oversight mechanisms for the judiciary

Control or oversight mechanisms can be integrated into the judicial system. Civil society involvement
or layperson representation on judicial appointments bodies can open the process to greater
scrutiny. An electronic case allocation system can randomly assign cases so that pliant judges are
not cherry-picked to hear particular cases. An electronic case management system can provide
oversight of the progress of cases through the courts and identify irregularities. Official complaints
mechanisms can receive complaints from court users about judges or court officials. Court user
committees can be established so that courts can get feedback on the effectiveness, efficiency and
integrity of their work.

Improving human resources management within the judiciary

Human resources management tools can be applied to the judiciary to increase transparency and
accountability. Recruitment standards for judges and other court officials can help ensure that
appointments are made on merit through an objective and transparent process. Security of tenure
guaranteed for a period of time can contribute to promote judicial independence. Objective criteria
for judicial transfers can ensure that independent judges are not punished and dispatched to remote
jurisdictions. Cases should be assigned to judges based on clear and objective criteria to prevent
case allocation on the basis of political considerations or private interests. Judges and judicial
officials should enjoy adequate salaries and good working conditions protected by law so that salary
and working conditions cannot be used to punish independent judges or reward judges who rule in
accordance with government interests.

Improving the education and training of judicial actors

Providing judges with regular training throughout their careers helps to promote high standards of
professionalism. Training programmes can cover ethical issues, including how to handle ethical
dilemmas. One effective training mechanism can be the facilitation of peer-to-peer mentoring and
exchanges of experiences and good practices across countries as judges may be more open to
discussing ethical issues with their peers from other countries.

Strengthening accountability and discipline

Internal disciplinary mechanisms can contribute to safeguarding judicial integrity. Judges and other
judicial officials should be required to sign codes of conduct and conflict of interest policies. In
connection with this, the regular submission – and verification – of asset and income declarations is
essential. A body dedicated to verifying income and asset declarations of judges, other senior
judicial officials and their families can ensure that judges’ conflicts of interest are identified. An

6 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
independent body needs to investigate allegations made against judges or breaches of the code of
judicial conduct and give reasons for its decisions. Strong whistleblowing policies and effective
complaints mechanisms should also be in place to ensure safe reporting of corruption and other
misconduct. At the same time, judges have the right to a clear, transparent and fair disciplinary
process, due process and appellate reviews in any disciplinary matters. Judges should be
represented by independent judges’ associations that can support judges on ethical matters.

Promoting transparency
Transparency tools can require judges to publish their decisions and require courts to improve
access to information on how courts function as well as the progress of individual cases. Judges
should also have easy access to information, legislation, cases and court procedures, and parties
using the courts need to have access to information on due process rights and the nature of their
rights during and after court proceedings. Simple tools, such as posters displayed in courts stating
the costs of court fees, can minimise the risk of unscrupulous court officials demanding unauthorised
fees. Journalists should also be able to report freely and fairly on legal proceedings as well as
suspicion of corruption or undue influence in judicial processes.

Strengthening budgeting processes within the judiciary

The publication of publish contracts and procurement documents can enable civil society, the media
and court users to oversee court budgets and help to implement budget tracking tools. Capacity
development for civil society organisations can allow them to train citizens in budget literacy so that
judicial budgeting can be understood and checked.

Implementing assessments or monitoring of the judiciary

Corruption risk analyses can help identify and understand the behavioural and institutional factors
that facilitate corruption. Research, including indices measuring corruption and reports on levels of
corruption, can inform reform efforts and put pressure on judicial actors to behave with integrity.

Court monitoring programmes by international organisations, donors or civil society organisations

can assess whether there are irregularities in judicial decision making. Judges enjoy wide discretion
in their decision making and sometimes it will not be clear if a judge is acting corruptly or if he/she is
honest but incompetent. Court monitoring will not necessarily detect corruption but it can indicate
problems in courts that require further investigation.

Journalists trained in reporting legal issues and aware of both the evidence required to bring
proceedings against the corrupt, as well as the pitfalls of reportage that can lead to the collapse of
cases, can be instrumental in both uncovering corruption cases in society and holding courts to
account. Judicial bodies, civil society and donors can undertake integrity reviews of the judiciary to
ascertain whether they meet internationally agreed standards such as the Bangalore Principles for
Judicial Conduct. Service delivery surveys may also be used to assess the satisfaction of court
users with access to justice and the resolution of their legal affairs.

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 7

Increasing public awareness to the role of the judiciary
Public information campaigns can make citizens and court users aware of their rights and what they
can expect from courts. Such campaigns can help court users to resist paying bribes or
unauthorised fees to access court services.

THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

The international community has played an important role in developing norms and standards on the
structures of court systems and the behaviour of judges and other judicial actors, such as Article 11
of the 2005 UN Convention against Corruption and the 2002 Bangalore Principles on Judicial
Conduct. The international community can also be instrumental in ensuring that mutual legal
assistance functions between countries so that national judges cooperate in tackling cross-border
criminality.

Multilateral and bilateral donors typically support anti-corruption efforts from “within” judicial
institutions, working with judges and other judicial actors to strengthen the transparency,
accountability and integrity of judicial systems. The approach has had mixed results in engaging
judges and judicial actors in resisting corruption. Donors can also encourage judicial reform from
“below” by supporting civil society, citizens, the media and court users to demand judicial integrity,
accountability and transparency, through implementing some of the tools described above.

8 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
RESOURCES ON JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
Background studies and resources

Corruption risks and assessment tools in the criminal justice chain. Messick R., Forthcoming.
U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre
[Link]

This forthcoming U4 issue gives an overview of where corruption is most likely to arise within
investigations, arrest, detention, prosecution and trials. It also explains existing tools to assess these
risks.

U4 justice sector theme page. The U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, 2014.

[Link]

The U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre works in thematic areas including the justice sector. They
regularly publish papers and briefs on aspects of judicial corruption, primarily targeted at
international development practitioners.

Courts, corruption and judicial independence. Gloppen, S., 2014.

in Tina Søreide and Aled Williams (eds), Corruption, grabbing and development: real world challenges.
Cheltenham and Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar Publishing.
[Link]

The chapter describes the forms of corruption that can take place in the judicial sector and explains
how corruption threatens judicial independence. It also describes how governments can misuse
corruption charges and investigations to pursue their own political agendas. Finally, it sets out
approaches to addressing corruption problems in the judicial sector and how to balance the need for
increased accountability with respect for judicial independence.

Ethics and Accountability in Criminal Justice: Towards a Universal Standard – Second edition.
Prenzler T., 2013. Griffith University
[Link]

This book aims at raising ethical standards in criminal justice practice, making the case for
academics, advocates and policymakers to speak with one voice in articulating universal ethical
standards and, most importantly, in prescribing systems and techniques that must be in place for
criminal justice to be genuinely accountable and as free from misconduct as possible. The focus of
the book is on the core components of the criminal justice system - police, courts and corrections -
and the core groups within this system: sworn police officers; judges, prosecutors and defence
lawyers; and custodial and community correctional officers. By using quality research and policy
analysis of these core components Professor Prenzler formulates a basic checklist that can be used
to assess the ethical quality and accountability of the criminal justice system in any jurisdiction.

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 9

Reducing corruption in the judiciary. United States Agency for International Development, 2009.
[Link]

The USAID Program Brief provides valuable advice for those undertaking anti-corruption reform in
the judiciary. It describes the principles that underpin a well-functioning judicial system and sets out
approaches to tackling the many forms of corruption that can take place among the various judicial
actors. The guide recommends that efforts to address judicial corruption should be integrated with
broader efforts to improve the justice system, such as reform of judicial appointments procedures
and case management systems.

Global corruption report 2007: corruption and judicial systems. Transparency International, 2007.
[Link]
ems

Transparency International’s 2007 report analyses the key issues in strengthening the integrity of
judicial systems. It describes the challenges of balancing judicial independence with accountability,
the problem of political interference in the judiciary and provides lessons learned from around the
world about fighting corruption in the judicial systems. A series of country reports documents
examples of judicial corruption in those countries and describes successes and failures in attempts
to sanction the corrupt and reform judicial systems.

International norms and standards

United Nations Convention against Corruption. United Nations, 2005.

[Link]

UNCAC introduces a comprehensive set of standards, measures and rules to strengthen countries’
legal and regulatory regimes to fight corruption. It calls for preventive measures and the
criminalisation of the most prevalent forms of corruption in both public and private sectors. Article 11
specifically addresses measures to strengthen judiciaries’ ability to fight corruption. The convention
also requires member states to return assets, obtained through corruption, to the country from which
they were stolen.

The Bangalore principles of judicial conduct. Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity,
2002.
[Link]

The principles establish six standards for the ethical conduct of judges. They are designed to
provide guidance to judges and to afford the judiciary a framework for regulating judicial conduct.
They are also intended to assist members of the executive and the legislature, and lawyers and the
public in general, to better understand and support the judiciary.

10 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
The Limassol conclusions on combating corruption in the judiciary. 2002.
presented at Limassol Cyprus Conference 25-27 June 2002.
[Link]

An eminent group of judges and judicial officials from the Commonwealth countries met in Limassol,
Cyprus in 2002 and agreed a series of conclusions and recommendations to secure the
independence of judicial officers and a judicial system free from corruption. The recommendations
are directed at the judiciary, government and the legal profession as well as international
organisations and NGOs.

The Latimer House principles on the three branches of government. 2003.

[Link]

The Latimer principles on the three branches of government set out the relationship between
parliament, the judiciary and the executive in Commonwealth member countries and confirm the
separation of powers as a fundamental principle of the Commonwealth. Among others, the
principles provide mechanisms for safeguarding ethical governance and accountability (paragraph
2.3) and combatting corruption (paragraph 2.4). Within this framework, the Plan of Action for Africa
and the Edinburgh Plan of Action reaffirm the importance of implementing the Commonwealth
(Latimer House) principles for the accountability of and relationship between the three branches of
government.

Enhancing judicial transparency. Transparency International, 2007.

Policy Position 01/2007.
[Link]
ency

Transparency relating to the judiciary serves to increase public knowledge about the judicial system,
provides recourse for redress when problems occur and decreases the opportunities for corrupt
practices. It is vital that appointments, complaints and disciplinary processes are transparent and
objective, and that the public has a means of challenging decisions where they are unreasonable or
improper. In addition, information on judicial conduct and discipline enables the public and civil
society to act as a check against arbitrary executive interference.

Judicial accountability and discipline. Transparency International, 2007.

Policy Position 02/2007
[Link]
discipline

The judiciary needs to be independent of outside influence, particularly of political and economic
entities such as government agencies or industry associations. But judicial independence does not
mean that judges and court officials should have free rein to behave as they please. Indeed, judicial
independence is founded on public trust and, to maintain it, judges must uphold the highest
standards of integrity and be held accountable to them. Where judges or court personnel are
suspected of breaching the public’s trust, fair measures must be in place to detect, investigate and
sanction corrupt practices.

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 11

Promoting decent judicial terms and conditions. Transparency International, 2007.
Policy Position 04/2007
[Link]
erms_and_conditions

The terms and conditions under which judges and court officials work are important for determining
their likelihood to engage in corrupt practice. Judiciaries faced with low salaries, poor training and
benefits, uncertain security of tenure, or sub-standard administration are unlikely to attract and retain
high-quality candidates. Even where able judges and court staff are in place, poor terms and
conditions can provide both incentives and opportunities for resorting to corruption. The security of
tenure is an essential means of securing judicial independence but, more broadly, conditions of
service should provide a professional environment that is a transparent, motivating and safe place
for judicial officers to work.

Promoting fairness in judicial appointments. Transparency International, 2007.

Policy Position 03/2007
[Link]
ial_appointments

Where political power plays a significant role in the appointment, promotion and conditions of
service of judges there is a risk that judicial candidates, as well as sitting judges, will feel compelled
to respond positively to the demands of the powerful. Rather than act as a check on government or
economic interests in protecting civil liberties and human rights, judges who have been appointed
unfairly may be more likely to promote their own interests over the rights of the individual.
Appointment procedures must therefore be transparent, fair and robust enough to ensure that only
those candidates with the highest professional qualifications and standards of personal integrity are
allowed to sit on the bench.

European norms and standards

Opinion no. 3 on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct. Consultative
Council of European Judges, 2002.
[Link]
ginal&BackColorInternet=FEF2E0&BackColorIntranet=FEF2E0&BackColorLogged=c3c3c3

The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) adopted this opinion on standards of
professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality in 2002 for the
attention of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. It proposes standards of conduct
applying to judges on issues regarding the exercise of their functions, extra-judicial and other
professional activities of judges.

Compendium of the judiciary's ethical obligations. Supreme Council of the Judiciary (Conseil
Supérieur de la Magistrature), 2010.
[Link]
[Link]/files/recueil_des_obligations_deontologiques_des_magistrats_EN.pdf

12 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
The objective of these principles, comments and recommendations is to establish ethical references
for the French judiciary. This compendium, created by the French Supreme Council of the Judiciary,
does not constitute a disciplinary code but rather a guide for judges and prosecutors, specifying the
ethical requirements of their office. Matters of judicial ethics are presented in a concrete manner and
organised thematically, followed by comments concerning the same obligations or situations and
recommendations. Principles discussed in this compendium include independence, impartiality,
integrity, probity, loyalty, strictly upholding to the law, attention to others, discretion and reserve.

Practical insights: toolkits and guides

Enhancing judiciary’s capacity to curb corruption: a practical guide. Transparency International

Romania, Forthcoming

This Guide synthetises international standards on how judicial systems must be composed and
actors in the judicial system must behave, which if adopted by governments and followed by the
judiciary, can ensure judiciary`s independence, accountability and integrity. Furthermore, it provides
the knowledge for natural and legal persons to hold the judiciary accountable for its own integrity,
proper administration and delivery of justice, or for its failure to provide adequate remedies to those
affected by inequalities or by corruption. It provides an overview of judicial corruption challenges
that prevent the judiciary to play its role in fighting corruption, presents principles and standards for
an effective judiciary, as well as tools to strengthen the role of the judiciary in fighting corruption.

UNCAC Article 11 implementation guide and evaluative framework. UNODC, 2014.

[Link]
e_and_Evaluative_Framework.pdf

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime developed the UNCAC Article 11 Implementation Guide and
Evaluative Framework to help states assess their fulfilment of UNCAC Article 11 measures relating
to the judiciary and prosecution services. It provides two tools. First, it summarises international
standards and best practices and sets out the types of measures states could adopt in order to
implement Article 11. Second, sets of questions (the “evaluative framework”) are posed about
measures a state could adopt. Answering the questions highlights gaps and potential risks of
corruption.

Measures for the effective implementation of the Bangalore principles of judicial conduct. Judicial
Integrity Group, 2010.
[Link]

Adopted by the Judicial Integrity Group in 2010, the implementation measures enable a state to
check if they have mechanisms within the judiciary and their state structures that fulfil the Bangalore
Principles of Judicial Conduct.

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 13

Assessment tools and datasets

Independence and accountability of the judiciary – ENCJ report 2013-2014. European Network of
Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), 2014.
[Link]
bility_adopted_version_sept_2014.pdf

The report details indicators for measuring the independence and accountability of the judiciary and
judges in EU justice systems, as well as an overview of risks threatening the independence of the
judiciary.

Fourth evaluation round on prevention of corruption in respect of members of parliament, judges

and prosecutors. Group of States against Corruption, launched in 2012
[Link]

GRECO evaluation procedures involve the collection of information through questionnaires, country
visits – enabling evaluation teams to solicit further information during high-level discussions with
domestic key players – and drafting of evaluation reports. Country reports contain recommendations
to the evaluated countries in order to improve their level of compliance with the provisions under
consideration. Measures taken to implement recommendations are also subsequently assessed by
GRECO under a separate compliance procedure. The fourth evaluation round focuses on
prevention of corruption in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.

Diagnostic checklist for assessing safeguards against judicial corruption. Transparency

International, 2007.
in Transparency International, Combating corruption in judicial systems: advocacy toolkit, pages 23-32.
[Link]
corruption-in-judicial-systems/

Transparency International developed a diagnostic checklist together with a group of judicial experts,
including judges, lawyers and academics, from around the world. It is intended to be an inexpensive
and quickly implemented assessment tool that provides a snapshot of risks of corruption or
weaknesses in integrity or oversight systems in the judicial sector. It focuses on “(1) the system
requirements for a clean judiciary; and (2) the responsibilities of actors involved in the judicial
system”.

Criminal justice assessment toolkit. UNODC, 2006.

[Link]

The Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit (CJAT) is a diagnostic tool that consists of detailed sets of
questions about different sectors of the criminal justice system. The overall aim is not to assess
corruption risks but, nevertheless, the tool dealing with the courts includes questions about the risks
of corruption and the existence and effectiveness of oversight mechanisms in criminal courts. A
major strength is that the tool shows profound understanding of the differences between and within
the common law and civil law systems, as well as hybrid systems and traditional or customary law
systems, and so may be used in many different countries. The CJAT contextualises the great
number of key UN – and other – standards, guidelines and norms concerning the responsibilities of
official actors and the rights of victims, witnesses and the accused in the criminal justice system.

14 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
Case studies

Judicial corruption in Ethiopia. Hammergren, L., 2012.

in Jannelle Plummer, (ed.), Diagnosing corruption in Ethiopia: perceptions, realities and the way forward
for key sectors. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
[Link]

The chapter by Hammergren maps corruption in the justice sector in Ethiopia. The judiciary is one
element of the justice sector that is analysed. The chapter sets out a general overview of the forms
of corruption that can affect the various judicial system actors in different areas of the justice sector.
It describes the tension between respecting judicial independence and making judiciaries more
accountable and it describes the particular challenges of attempting to make more accountable the
wide discretionary powers enjoyed by judicial actors.

Assessment of justice sector integrity and capacity in three Nigerian states. UNODC, 2010.
[Link]
_Integrity_and_Capacity_in_10_Nigerian_States_20071.pdf

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in collaboration with the justice system in
Nigeria in 2006, undertook an assessment to understand the levels of integrity and capacity of
justice sector institutions in three states in Nigeria. The part of the assessment that deals with the
judiciary’s role in criminal justice includes questionnaires carried out with official actors as well as
defendants awaiting trial. The questionnaire asks about corruption risks and experiences and
perceptions of corruption. The assessment also reviewed criminal cases to assess patterns of
corruption risks, including how a judge exercised discretion in adjudicating bail applications. A
rigorous methodology was applied in the assessment as well as an analysis of the findings. Actions
for reform are listed.

Corruption risks in criminal process and judiciary (Ukraine). Council of Europe, 2009.
[Link]
Studies/344-UPAC_Corruption%20risks%20in%20criminal%20process_en.pdf

The Council of Europe, together with a Ukrainian-based NGO and a consulting company, analysed
the risks of corruption in criminal trials in Ukraine, among other aspects of the Ukrainian criminal,
civil, economic and administrative justice system. The methodology included research of the laws
and practices of the courts, case studies and questionnaires concerning perceptions and
experiences of corrupt behaviour as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.
Interviews and focus-group discussions took place with stakeholders, including court officials and
court users.

Assessment of judicial integrity and capacity in two Indonesian provinces. UNODC, 2006.
[Link]

Using the same methodology as the above Nigerian assessment, with a similar questionnaire, the
tool assessed the levels of integrity and capacity of justice sector institutions in two Indonesian
provinces.

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 15

Resources from Transparency International’s Anti-Corruption Helpdesk

Innovative anti-corruption reforms in the judiciary. Martini, M., 2014.

[Link]

Operational reforms that may help prevent political influence and reduce certain types of corruption
usually include measures such as the introduction of an adequate case management system, ethical
and technical training for judges, court staff and prosecutors, appropriate salaries and benefits, the
adoption of clear rules for the appointment, promotion, transfer and removal from office of judges
and prosecutors. Innovative approaches in this area seem to relate to the use of technology, not
only to improve the management of documents and communication within the judiciary system, but
also to enhance transparency and accountability to the general public. Within this framework, civil
society organisations are increasingly playing an important role in monitoring and overseeing, as
well as providing training courses to the judiciary and even ensuring the fair appointment of judges.
Other innovative approaches include the adoption of specialised prosecution bodies, the recording
and monitoring of court proceedings, and limitations to immunity, prosecutorial discretion and
duration of proceedings. This answer is also available in French and Spanish.

Initiatives to reduce corruption in the judiciary in francophone West Africa. Wickberg, S., 2014.
[Link]
ophone_west_afric

The judiciary is a key pillar of good governance and a necessary element of anti-corruption efforts.
Governments, donors, international organisations and civil society are working, together or
separately, to address the issue of corruption in the judiciary. Judicial corruption in francophone
West Africa stems from the systematic interference of the other branches of the government and the
politicisation of the affairs of the judiciary, combined with a lack of transparency and a distance from
users that prevent citizens from holding magistrates to account. The initiatives presented here
attempt to reduce corruption by addressing these issues and make the judiciary more transparent,
independent and accountable. Social accountability initiatives as well as programmes focussing on
the use of technology are featured as they have become increasingly popular methods of measuring
accountability and transparency. This answer is also available in French.

Panama: overview of corruption risks in the judiciary and prosecution services. Jennett, V., 2014
[Link]
cution_service_in_pa

The legal system in Panama faces serious challenges to its integrity. There is political interference in
appointing judges, particularly to the supreme court. There is no independent body to investigate
corrupt acts of public officials. It is problematic that, by law, only supreme court judges can
investigate corrupt acts of National Assembly members and vice versa. Anti-corruption prosecution
offices are underfunded and understaffed. Some state institutions do not cooperate with prosecutors
in corruption cases involving illicit enrichment of public officials.

16 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
Actors and stakeholders

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime manages UNCAC monitoring and reporting processes. It
carries out research on judicial reform, including tackling corruption in the judiciary and undertakes
in-country fact-finding and assessment missions. It formerly hosted the Judicial Integrity Group (JIG)
that drafted the Bangalore Principles. JIG is now hosted by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The website can be accessed here.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers was created in 1994 by
the UN Commission on Human Rights, to address attacks on the independence of judges, lawyers
and court officials. The mandate of the special rapporteur is to: identify and record attacks on the
independence of the judiciary, lawyers and court officials; inquire into any substantial allegations and
to report conclusions and recommendations; report progress achieved in protecting and enhancing
judicial independence; identify ways and means to improve the judicial system, and make concrete
recommendations. The website can be accessed here.

Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL)/International Commission of Jurists. The
CIJL helped formulate and carries out work on the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the
Judiciary and the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. It monitors the implementation of
these principles and intervenes with governments where jurists are harassed. The website can be
accessed here.

Judicial Integrity Group are the authors and guardians of the Bangalore Principles on Judicial
Conduct. The website has a useful resources section that sets out JIG documents as well as other
documents covering UN resolutions and standards concerning judicial integrity, regional standards,
examples of codes of conduct, donor guides to judicial conduct, details of conferences and court
decisions concerning the discipline of judges. The website can be accessed here

The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice aims to improve the efficiency and
functioning of justice in the member states of the Council of Europe, and the development of the
implementation of the instruments adopted by the Council of Europe. It consists of experts from all
47 member states and its work is assisted by a secretariat. Its activities include analysing the justice
systems of the member states, assessing their challenges and preparing benchmarks, defining
instruments of measure and means of evaluation, developing reports and organising hearings.
Country reports are available on the website and they also have details of cooperation programmes
with countries that are not members of the Council of Europe. The website can be accessed here.

The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) is an advisory body of the Council of Europe
on issues related to the independence, impartiality and competence of judges. It is the first body
within an international organisation to be composed exclusively of judges. The CCJE adopts
opinions for the attention of the Committee of Ministers on issues regarding the status of judges and
the exercise of their functions. The website can be accessed here

The Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) includes members from all
Commonwealth judiciaries. One of its aims is to secure judicial independence, and fighting
corruption is a priority area (see Limassol Conclusions in International norms and standards above).
It has agreed several seminal standards for the judiciary and has a Judicial Education Programme. It
is the repository for Commonwealth judiciaries’ codes of conduct/ethics. The website can be
accessed here.

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 17

Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL) is an association of European
judges and judges’ bodies that aims to bring together European judiciaries to protect judicial
independence and the democratisation of the judiciary, to promote the judiciary as a public service
that allows for citizens’ control over its functioning and to defend the rights of minorities, especially
immigrants. They organise conferences, publish articles and record threats to the judiciary across
the wider European region (not just the countries of the EU) and the website lists activities they
support, including training for judges and prosecutors as well as a variety of projects on tackling
corruption and crime. The website can be accessed here.

IFES rule of law programme focuses on judicial independence as well as building integrity and
tackling corruption in the judiciary. The website can be accessed here.

International Association of Judges (IAJ) consists of members of national associations of judges and
focuses on safeguarding judicial independence and the judiciary’s role in guaranteeing freedom and
human rights. The website can be accessed here.

International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) assists countries pursuing accountability for past
mass atrocity or human rights abuse. It supports, among other activities, prosecuting perpetrators,
and documenting and acknowledging violations. The website can be accessed here.

International Development Law Association (IDLO) provides training courses on judicial corruption
and justice sector reform in post-conflict environments. The website can be accessed here.

International Bar Association (IBA) provides training courses for judges and lawyers and undertakes
fact-finding missions to countries where the rule of law is threatened. It encourages compliance with
fair trial standards and monitors legal proceedings. The website can be accessed here.

American Bar Association (ABA) supports legal reform, including judicial reform programmes, and
offers technical assistance in Europe and Eurasia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and
Asia and the Pacific.

Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) is responsible for monitoring observance of the
Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption and implementation of the international legal
instruments adopted in pursuit of the Programme of Action against Corruption. Expert teams are
appointed to evaluate member countries, and to prepare country reports for discussion and adoption
at plenary sessions. The website can be accessed here.

Due Process of Law Foundation focuses on legal reform, including strengthening judiciaries against
corruption in Latin and Central America. The website can be accessed here.

The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA) is a professional association of bar
councils, law associations, lawyers, law firms and corporations that promotes the rule of law
throughout the Asia-Pacific region. The website can be accessed here.

Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession (ACIJLP) is a regional
organisation that supports judicial independence, the rule of law and the protection of human rights
in Egypt and other Arab countries. The website can be accessed here.

18 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
Transparency International
International Secretariat
Alt-Moabit 96
10559 Berlin
Germany

Phone: +49 - 30 - 34 38 200

Fax: +49 - 30 - 34 70 39 12

ti@[Link]
[Link]

[Link]
[Link]/transparencyinternational
[Link]/anticorruption
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION TOPIC GUIDE 19