Iran statement at 17the IRG UNCAC under agenda item 2-1

Agenda Item 2: Performance of the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption - Draft model schedule and blueprint for the second phase of the Implementation Review Mechanism

Statement by

Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Before

The seventeenth Session of

the seventeenth session of the Implementation Review Group

Agenda Item 2: Performance of the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption - Draft model schedule and blueprint for the second phase of the Implementation Review Mechanism

(18-22 May 2026, Vienna)

   In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

 

Mr. Chair,

The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran wishes to express its appreciation to the Secretariat for preparing the document entitled “Draft Model Schedule and Blueprint”. We recognize the efforts undertaken to support the second phase of the Implementation Review Mechanism. At the same time, my delegation has a number of substantive concerns regarding the structure, scope and practical implications of the proposed model schedule, which we believe require careful reconsideration to ensure full consistency with the Terms of Reference and with the guidance provided by the Conference of the States Parties, particularly resolution 11/2.

The Terms of Reference clearly stipulate that reviews should be conducted in the shortest time possible and preferably within six months. However, the draft model schedule extends the duration of the review to eleven months, and when combined with the newly introduced preparatory phase, may in practice prolong the process to fourteen or even eighteen months. Such an extension lacks any legal basis in the TOR and risks undermining the efficiency, predictability and credibility of the Mechanism. The introduction of a preparatory phase, which is not foreseen in the TOR nor mandated by any Conference resolution, adds unnecessary complexity, delays the start of the review, and imposes additional administrative burdens on States Parties, particularly developing countries.

Furthermore, the draft allocates five months for completing the self‑assessment checklist, reflecting the excessive length and complexity of the revised questionnaire. This contradicts the guidance in resolution 11/2, which calls for a user‑friendly and streamlined questionnaire. The allocation of three months for drafting the executive summary which is typically a concise document, appears disproportionate and inconsistent with past practice. Similarly, the proposed six‑month period for drafting the country review report is excessive and unjustified, and would prolong the overall review cycle far beyond what the TOR envisages.

While the draft claims to streamline and simplify the review process, in practice it introduces new stages, lengthens timelines, increases documentation requirements and expands the workload for both reviewing and reviewed States. This contradicts the explicit mandate of resolution 11/2 to simplify and rationalize the Mechanism. The proposal to prepare a “provisional consolidated working document,” which is not foreseen in the TOR, introduces yet another layer of reporting and drafting, further complicating the process and increasing the workload of States Parties and the Secretariat. Additionally, the requirement to annex responses to the self‑assessment checklist to the country review report duplicates information already submitted and contradicts the TOR’s principle of avoiding unnecessary repetition and administrative burden.

The proposed schedule also assumes uniform administrative and technical capacities across all States Parties. This assumption is unrealistic and inconsistent with the TOR’s emphasis on flexibility and consideration of national circumstances, particularly for developing countries facing resource constraints. The cumulative effect of the proposed changes shifts the Mechanism away from its core objectives—namely, promoting cooperation, dialogue and technical assistance—and toward a more bureaucratic, time‑consuming and administratively heavy process. This risks undermining the spirit of the Convention, which is non‑adversarial, non‑punitive and assistance‑oriented.

In light of these considerations, the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the Draft Model Schedule and Blueprint requires substantial revision to ensure full consistency with the Terms of Reference, adherence to resolution 11/2, avoidance of unnecessary administrative burdens, preservation of the efficiency and credibility of the Mechanism, and respect for the diverse capacities and circumstances of States Parties. We stand ready to engage constructively in further discussions to develop a model schedule that is practical, balanced, legally sound and fully aligned with the spirit and letter of the Convention.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.