Iran Statement at resumed 17th IRG of UNCAC: Agenda Item 2

Statement by the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran before First resumed seventeenth session of the Implementation Review Group of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Vienna 31 August- 4 September)

Agenda Item 2: Performance of the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption

(Second phase)

In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful

Madam Chair,

We attach great importance to the thorough and effective preparation of the second phase of the review process, and we stand ready to engage constructively in this regard. My delegation wishes to thank the Secretariat for preparing the draft self-assessment checklist for the second phase, and the distinguished delegations for their insightful remarks in during this session.

Before presenting our specific comments and observations, we wish to reiterate that the fundamental objective of this mechanism is to assist States parties in fulfilling their obligations under the Convention. In this context, we must be vigilant in ensuring that the process does not evolve into a tool for comparing countries or establishing rankings.

We welcome the approach requiring States to report on progress made since the first review phase, which shifts the process to an evolutionary exercise. We also welcome the focus on technical assistance needs, which can help better coordinate international cooperation. In this regard, we emphasize that it is important that technical assistance priorities be identified by the requesting States.

Looking forward to a more productive and successful phase, we would like to draw your attention to the following points:

First, with reference to operative paragraph 4 of resolution 11/2, we note that it refers to information on measures taken to implement the Convention, and, if applicable, their implementation in practice. The qualifier "if applicable" is significant, as not all provisions lend themselves to assessment through practical indicators such as statistics or case law. We therefore propose that the qualifier "where applicable" be explicitly added to the relevant sections to align with the language of resolution 11/2 and provide States Parties with the necessary flexibility.

Second, question 3 part 1 requests the identification of “the international or regional review mechanisms related to measures to combat corruption and associated money-laundering in which the country participate”. We emphasise that the specific reference to money laundering is unnecessary, as corruption already covers many relevant offences and there is no need to choose one or list them all.

It is also important to keep in mind that, based on the terms of reference, “reviewing States may consider” such information from those review mechanisms, which demonstrates its voluntary nature, as it is considered optional based on the decision of States. The objective being reflected in the Guidelines for Experts, is that experts should not be influenced by such information. As this is of utmost importance, we emphasise the need for leaving this option to the discretion of States themselves, and removing this part all together.

We also see merit in the proposals made by some delegations including the deletion of the question requesting the publication of the response to the checklist, as this requirement is inconsistent with the Terms of Reference and resolution 11/2; and, the deletion of section 2 of part 3, given that a separate section is unnecessary, as the relevant COSP resolution already provides for the possibility of stakeholder consultations throughout the process.

Madam Chair,

My delegation also wishes to express its appreciation to the Secretariat for the preparation of the revised draft model schedule and blueprints for the second phase. We particularly welcome the proposal to distinguish the preparatory steps from the official start of the review, and the simplification of the blueprints for the country review reports. These revisions are practical and reflect the lessons learned from the first phase.

We take note of the optional provision allowing States Parties to include information from other stakeholders, and we emphasize that this remains entirely voluntary, consistent with the State-driven and intergovernmental character of the review process. Therefore, we believe there is no need for a separate section, as explained earlier.

In addition, my delegation wishes to underscore that for the same reasons we have already expressed, the inclusion of A3 on “international or regional review mechanisms” runs counter to the Terms of Reference, and we accordingly urge that it be excluded from the documents.

We also attach importance to the following proposals put forward by some delegations:

First, that States Parties should be given the opportunity to verify pre-filled information before it is suggested or auto-filled in the review process.

 Second, we share the concern regarding the allocation of time between direct dialogue and desk review, which should not be applied uniformly without due consideration of the specific circumstances of each State Party under review.

Third, we note that the provision on the deemed-approval of reviewing experts after a fixed period of time appears to be inconsistent with the Terms of Reference.

Madam Chair,

Aspring to the successful launch of the second phase of the Review Mechanism, my delegation reaffirms its readiness to engage constructively in the deliberations of this session and to work closely with all delegations towards the elaboration of detailed and balanced documents that enjoy consensus. In this regard, we consider it essential that the proces be conducted in a manner that ensures all positions and proposals are clearly articulated and reflected. Such clarity and transparency would undoubtedly contribute to the efficiency of the process and enhance our preparedness for the final adoption of the documents at the November meeting. 

Thank you.