Chair,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, and Ukraine align themselves with this statement.

Let me start by thanking the Secretariat for the excellent organisation and preparation of the meeting and the various background papers. 

According to the work plan for the implementation of Conference Decision 10/2, this session should consider draft recommendations on the next phase of the Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM). Let me reiterate our suggestions. 

First, concerning the scope of the next review phase, we recommend that it should focus on all elements outlined in the Secretariat’s Options Paper, with the aim to create an effective and meaningful follow-up mechanism. These would include:

• Follow-up on the implementation of recommendations made during the first phase; 

• Review of new developments, challenges, success stories and good practices since the first phase reviews were carried out; and

• Review of the delivery of technical assistance and assessment of the remaining needs.

All of the above could be addressed in the second review phase. We should follow-up on the recommendations made in both cycle 1 and cycle 2 of the first phase. 

For the next phase to be credible and impactful, the Implementation Review Mechanism must analyse the practical effectiveness of domestic provisions taken to implement the UNCAC. The Secretariat’s Options Paper provides good suggestions in this respect. 

Second, we recommend that more attention be given to reporting after the conclusion of a review to maximise its impact. Review efforts should be redirected towards actions that help States under review to implement effectively the relevant recommendations and outputs of previous reviews. Progress reports should be systematic and submitted within a fixed period after the country reviews to help monitor and encourage further implementation. Additionally, States Parties and peer reviewers could report on the results of country reviews at IRG meetings. We also support publishing a press release for country report publications.

Third, as far as the outcome documents of the reviews are concerned, we would like to suggest more concise and substantive country reports. As highlighted by the Secretariat’s options paper, many States Parties expressed a shared concern over the length and their interest to evolve towards more user-friendly outcome documents in the next phase. To that end, the text of the country’s legal provisions could be presented in an annex. In the report itself, a greater focus should be put on analysing the measures taken by the country and their effectiveness.  To increase transparency in the second phase, we should move towards a system in which States Parties have to opt-out of the publication of country reports rather than a system in which they have to opt-in to have their reports published.

Fourth, on information-gathering, information technology and direct dialogue: We recommend developing a self-assessment questionnaire (SACL) that is easy to use, clear, and concise. It could contain targeted questions and indicative reference points that can inform the reviewers on the effective implementation of the Convention. A questionnaire would be a practical tool to assist in the information-gathering exercise and help harmonising the various data provided in the review process. The questionnaire would use information gathered during the first phase of the IRM as its baseline, similar to the template provided by the Secretariat in the pilot exercise.

Moreover, reviewers should also have an opportunity to use open-source information and information that is available in other relevant reviews, for example the annual EU Rule of Law Report, or reports from the Council of Europe (GRECO) and the OECD. 

We recall the valuable contributions provided by civil society and the importance of considering the views of those stakeholders who have participated in the country review. At this point, we would like to underline once more, how enriching the inclusion of stakeholders was during the on-site visit. For the next phase of the IRM, we would be in favour of building in elements that could help increase the participation of civil society in country reviews and provide avenues for direct dialogue.

Chair,

Finally, we would like to give an update on the state of play of the review of the EU under the 1^st cycle. The review is well underway and close to its completion. We strongly hope that the executive summary can be finalised before the summer break on our end. We expect that the finalised report will share some successes and good practices, as well as some challenges. We would like to thank the reviewing team of UNODC again for the excellent cooperation.

Thank you, Chair.