Group of States Against Corruption

Overall, the various stages of the compliance procedure are similar to the above. A key ingredient of the procedure is the so-called Situation Report prepared by the member concerned, which has to be submitted 18 months after the adoption of the relevant Evaluation Report. On the basis of the Situation Report, a Compliance Report is prepared which assesses the level of implementation of each recommendation issued by GRECO in the Evaluation Report. The assessment can lead to three possible conclusions, namely that a given recommendation
* has been implemented satisfactorily or otherwise dealt with in a satisfactory manner;
* has been partly implemented;
* has not been implemented.

Members are required to report back to GRECO on the action taken in order to address partially or non-implemented recommendations within another 18 months. The additional information submitted is appraised by GRECO and leads to the adoption of an Addendum to the relevant Compliance report. The adoption of the Addendum usually terminates the compliance procedure in respect of the country concerned.

All information pertaining to evaluation and compliance procedures is confidential. However, it is standing practice for members to authorise the publication of Evaluation and Compliance Reports, usually shortly after their adoption by the plenary.

The reports (Evaluation reports, Compliance reports and Addenda to Compliance reports) relating to the [http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/Greco/evaluations/round1/reports(round1)_en.asp First] , [http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/greco/evaluations/round2/reports(round2)_en.asp Second] and [http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/Greco/evaluations/round3/ReportsRound3_en.asp Third] evaluation rounds are available on-line in the public part of GRECO’s website, once authorisation to publish has been given by the member State concerned.

----

"Particular strengths of the GRECO process"
The experience gathered in connection with the GRECO process suggests that, ideally, evaluations should be limited in scope, with clear decisions having been taken as to the relevance of certain topics and sub-topics; key questions need to be carefully phrased. Evaluations should also be based on clear and identifiable standards.

One of the most important lessons learned by GRECO, throughout its years of operation, is that the collection of first-hand information during on-site evaluation visits (a fundamental feature of GRECO’s modus operandi) contributes significantly to the quality of evaluations. On-site visits are a major asset for the credibility of the whole process in that they enable evaluation teams to hold thorough discussions with domestic key players (including representatives of civil society), to request additional information on-the-spot, and to shed light on often blurred and contentious issues.

On-site visits also have the potential of adding value to the “mere” evaluation of legislation. Issues of interpretation of certain legal concepts, relevant to the corruption offence (e.g. “undue advantage”, “breach of duty”), the ensuing jurisprudence, as well as the problems involved in properly applying the legislation under scrutiny cannot be adequately addressed without the possibility of discussing these matters with domestic practitioners.