Belize signed the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) on June 5, 2001, and ratified it on August 2, 2002. It is a State Party to the Follow-Up Mechanism for the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (MESICIC) since June 9, 2003. The country also acceded to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) on December 12, 2016. Accordingly, Belize has undergone five rounds of review under MESICIC, and one round of review under the UNCAC review mechanism.

Belize’s record in implementing its commitments to IACAC and UNCAC exhibits a number of failures and very few successes, with the bulk of the committed measures still in progress. With an overall score of 58.1, the measures adopted place the country in the lower level of compliance with international norms—but not far from countries at the middle point—surrounded by El Salvador (51.5), Dominican Republic (55.7), Haiti (58.2), and Paraguay (60.8). Despite the low level of implementation and enforcement, some degree of progress is found in all three sections (although leaning towards criminalization and international cooperation rather than prevention, as is the case throughout the region). Conversely, Belize’s significant measures may also be described as lacking across prevention and criminalization.

The prevention of corruption is deficient but not totally lacking, classified as “core-deficient” by its average score and with prominent measures given a score below 30—i.e., transparency in government contracting and the state of oversight bodies. However, aside from these and the study of preventive measures related to equitable compensation and measures to deter domestic and foreign bribery related to accounting regulations, all other provisions found in this section are found to be in progress. Indeed, preventive measures account for less than one third of all underdeveloped measures in the country.

In terms of criminalization and law enforcement, Belize shows better results than those regarding prevention—yet, significant deficiencies remain, with over a quarter of measures within this section classified as core-deficient or not implemented. The country is found to have successfully implemented two key commitments: actions to control embezzlement in the private section and the obstruction of justice. However, significant measures are found completely lacking—i.e., the criminalization of active and passive bribery of foreign officials—or given low scores, including those pertaining to the abuse of functions, whistleblower protection, and the active and passive bribery of public officials in the country. Other measures, such as the fight against money laundering, the establishment of jurisdiction over corruption offenses, and the liability of legal persons, among several others, are found in progress due to limitations in their legal features. Belize’s record in promoting and engaging with international cooperation is also lackluster, achieving an average section score only slightly higher than that for criminalization and law enforcement (discussed in the previous paragraph) and receiving a classification of “in progress”. Among the few highlights identified here, the country is found fully compliant in its commitments to establish effective central authorities charged with the handling of requests for assistance and cooperation. On the other hand, measures related to extradition are severely deficient, not least due to the fact that Belize does not recognize either convention as a legal basis for extradition. In this regard, the report for the third round of MESICIC reached the following conclusion: “Therefore, because the Convention cannot be the basis for extradition, and because Belize has only entered into bilateral extradition treaties with Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States, extradition would not be possible with any of the remaining States Parties to the Convention, with respect to the acts of corruption contained therein.”

Finally, the review of implementation and/or enforcement activities pertaining to several measures contained in this report could not be elaborated on due to the lack of information. Belize is frequently cited during MESICIC rounds as providing little or no statistical information to assess the level of implementation of legally adopted measures. This point is also brought forward by the UNCAC review mechanism. While lack of monitoring and data collection mechanisms is not solely found in Belize, the issue is worth emphasizing in order to support a more detailed and effective assessment.