Most of the attention in Serbia is creating ways of coordinating and monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption policy, and less on the actual implementation of anti-corruption measures.
By Saša Djordjević (BCSP)
Nearly two years have passed since the National Assembly adopted the anti-corruption strategy. Those bodies charged with fighting corruption have yet to coordinate their activities, even though they have been obliged to do so for ten years.
The UN Convention Against Corruption was adopted in October 2013. Serbia was very quick to ratify it only two years later. Ratification commits Serbian decision-makers to two things (Article 38 of the Convention), which essentially amount to the implementation of international standards for fighting corruption. The first is that institutions are obliged to cooperate in fighting corruption. The second is that the police, prosecutors and judges must share information when necessary to investigate suspected corruption.
In Serbia, institutional cooperation is essential in crafting and implementing anti-corruption policy as framed by the 2013 National Anti-Corruption Strategy, the associated Action Plan of which is not being properly implemented. The normative basis for cooperation between the police, prosecution and judiciary does exist in Serbia but is not well implemented at all stages of criminal proceedings. It is good that the action plan for the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy does recognise these shortcomings, however, practices thus far engaged in are a cause for concern.
The drafting of amendments to the Law on the Fight Against Corruption indicates that cooperation between institutions tasked with fighting corruption is inadequate. According to the schedule set forth in the action plan of the anti-corruption strategy, the amendments are nine months late. The action plan for Chapter 23 has amended the schedule so that the process is now expected to be complete in the autumn. The working group for the amendments met for the first time towards the end of February 2014 (six months behind schedule) and all indications point to the process going badly. The most recent meeting was cancelled as a quorum could not be achieved, meanwhile, two drafts of the law have appeared: The first has been compiled by the Anti-Corruption Agency, while the second is modelled on the corresponding Slovenian law, as proposed by the Ministry of Justice.
The implementation of anti-corruption policy is further confused by the triple mechanism of oversight and coordination. The bodies currently tasked with this are the Anti-Corruption Agency, the Group for the Coordination of the Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy and the Coordination Body of the Government of Serbia for the Implementation of the Action Plan. Their roles overlap. The Agency and the Group monitor the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy; gather reports on the implementation of anti-corruption measures from government authorities; share opinions and recommendations on how to improve the fight against corruption; and participate in the preparation of regulations and proposals aimed at reducing corruption. One year after the adoption of the anti-corruption strategy, the Government formed a new Coordination Body intended to guide and coordinate state authorities in improved implementation of the strategy. The Body is composed of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Finance Minister and a member of the Anti-Corruption Council. In other words, top-level officials. It is known that this Body has held one meeting, even though it is required to meet biannually.
Problems in organising cooperation between the police, prosecution and judiciary stem from the signing of two memoranda of cooperation. The procedure designed to improve anti-corruption cooperation and coordination of the police and public prosecutors has not yet been adopted because the memorandum of cooperation has not been signed. In December 2013, the Secretariat of the Ministry of Interior submitted, to the Criminal Force Directorate, a proposed memorandum covering the Ministry, the General Police Directorate and the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime. It is not known whether this proposed memorandum reached the Ministry of Justice or the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime. In contrast, the Ministry of Justice organised a meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Interior, the Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office and other institutions participating in the implementation of the action plan corresponding to the anti-corruption strategy. The meeting resulted in agreement on the text of another memorandum, which is yet to be signed as the Ministry of Interior has not stated its position.
It is not realistic to expect operational procedures to be signed into effect when there is no consensus among institutions regarding the planning of their mutual cooperation.
The Anti-Corruption Agency can help to resolve these issues as it is the only institution in Serbia that has complete insight into the implementation of anti-corruption policy and it is accountable directly to the National Assembly. This insight stems from the fact that other institutions are obligated to submit reports on the implementation of the strategy’s action plan to the Agency. A further advantage over the Group is that the Agency compiles comprehensive reports on the implementation of the action plan and submits them to National Assembly deputies. This enables the Agency to, in an accountable manner, provide assistance and support in the coordination of those authorities tasked with combating corruption. In practice, however, this role for the Agency is not made use of.
Article 62 of the existing Law on the Anti-Corruption Agency enables the Agency to issue opinions regarding the implementation of the strategy. However, the subjects of these opinions are under no obligation to even discuss them. The new draft law on the Agency (Article 88) establishes the obligation that a hearing will be held within 60 days of an institution receiving an opinion from the Agency. These discussions can encourage better institutional coordination in the fight against corruption.
It is hoped that all of these actors have the same goals. It seems that all institutions need at least two months to react and that no cooperation can be achieved unless it is made to be a legal requirement.
Photo by Bistrong.
The article was originally published on internet portal Peščanik.
Civil society organizations
dedicated to oversight of police integrity.