Mexico had a rating of 5.51, on a scale in which the maximum score is 10, which is applied based on the vision of legal professionals dedicated to the practice of anti-corruption.
The Anti-Corruption Evaluation in Latin America 2020, carried out by the New York City Bar Association, in the United States, among eight countries in the region, placed Mexico with an almost failing grade in the implementation of its anti-corruption policies due to the lack of enforcement of the laws on the matter, the lack of independence of the anti-corruption authorities and a low institutional capacity.”Despite having a solid and complete legal framework, Mexico stands out for the lack of implementation of the norm derived from a low institutional capacity and a high political influence in anti-corruption authorities”, affirms the document consulted by
MILENIO, published on 17 May.”The anti-corruption authorities do not have the material independence necessary to prevent, investigate and prosecute corruption effectively,” he adds.
In the study, conducted by the Vance Center for International Justice of the New York City Bar Association, Mexico had a rating of 5.51, on a scale in which the maximum score is 10, which is applied based on the vision of legal professionals dedicated to anti-corruption practice.
The study also evaluated the implementation of anti-corruption policies in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, and Peru, among which Chile, which obtained the highest rating, and Guatemala, which achieved the lowest, stood out. The lawyers consulted for the study work in various sectors, including law firms, companies, academia, civil society organizations, human rights defenders, among others.
“Unlike other efforts that focus on measuring corruption or the perception of corruption, this study focuses on legal practice to analyze legislative and regulatory efforts and the institutional framework to prevent, punish and combat corruption,” he explains. The document.
The evaluation includes a review of seven aspects: corruption in the public and private sectors, reporting mechanisms and protection of whistleblowers/whistleblowers, specialized authorities, institutional coordination mechanisms, participation of civil society, and transparency and access to information.
Mexico almost failed
The low rating obtained by Mexico is based, according to the study, on the fact that the application of one or more of the anti-corruption laws or regulations has been difficult, due to a lack of specificity, clarity or definition in relation to other laws or regulations.
In addition, it highlights the lack of application of these laws or their application based on political lines. The lawyers consulted “identify a lack of independence from the anti-corruption authorities, and a low institutional capacity, in part due to high political influence.”
The document adds that although in Mexico there are mechanisms to prevent corruption, for example, in public procurement, “the authority seeks exceptions to carry out direct awards, which is an important space for discretion and corruption.”
The evaluation considered that the System of Internal and External Corruption Alerting Citizens, a program promoted by the Ministry of Public Function (SFP) of the current government “is insufficient, and should operate at the national level, in accordance with the National Anticorruption System, and not be functional only for the scope of application of the Federal Ministry of Public Function (SFP) ”.
He stressed that “in Mexico, there is no provision for financial compensation for reporting or alerting, or for the recovery of State assets as a result of complaints or alerts from citizens.”
Likewise, the lawyers rated as low the institutional capacity of public bodies empowered to prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of corruption. While in the private sector, it was found as a weakness the lack of mandatory compliance programs and anti-corruption policies of companies.
On the other hand, the evaluation considered that the institutional coordination mechanisms, the incentives to report, and the norms that foresee the formal participation of civil society in anti-corruption efforts are non-existent or minimal, being very relevant factors for the fight against corruption.