Bolivia signed the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) on March 29, 1996, and ratified it on January 23, 1997. It is a State Party to the Follow-Up Mechanism for the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (MESICIC) since June 4, 2001. The country also signed the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) on December 9, 2003, and subsequently ratified it on December 5, 2005. Accordingly, Bolivia has undergone six rounds of review under MESICIC, and one round of review under the UNCAC review mechanism.

Bolivia’s record in implementing its commitments to IACAC and UNCAC exhibits a number of successes but also a modicum of failures. With an overall score of 62.7, the measures adopted place the country at the middle point of compliance with international norms, surrounded by Paraguay (60.8), Venezuela (61.0), Panama (63.5), and Jamaica (65.1). Despite achieving higher success in regard to criminalization and international cooperation (as is the case throughout the region) over half of all preventive measures are found to be in progress while a number of measures in the former sections receive failing scores.

The prevention of corruption is deficient but not totally lacking, classified as “core-deficient” by its average score and with two measures found absent—i.e., the elimination of favorable tax treatment for corrupt expenditures and measures to deter domestic and foreign bribery related to accounting regulations, for which the country does not have specific legislation and did not present results. However, aside from these and the state of oversight bodies (25.0) and standards of conduct (40.6) all other provisions in this section are found to be in progress. Considering them across all three sections, preventive measures account for precisely one third of all underdeveloped measures in the country.

In terms of criminalization and law enforcement, Bolivia shows better results than those regarding prevention, although significant deficiencies remain. The country has not adopted sufficient protection for those who report acts of corruption (i.e., whistleblower protection), established international jurisdiction over offenses committed by a national, extended the range of predicate offenses for money laundering to include those involving the private sector, or specifically criminalized the abuse of functions, bribery in the private sector, or the illicit acquisition of a benefit (i.e., influence trading). Other measures, such as the active and passive bribery of foreign officials and illicit enrichment has been fully or largely implemented, and the criminalization of embezzlement in the private sector shows encouraging results (although still in progress). Overall, almost half of all the measures in this section are found to comply with Bolivia’s international commitments, resulting in an average section score of 65.6.

Bolivia is found generally compliant with its commitments regarding international cooperation, with only two measures remaining fully unimplemented: the regulation and application of special investigative techniques such as electronic surveillance, undercover operations, and others; and the possibility of prosecuting corrupt offenses when an extradition request has been denied. Regarding the latter, the country reported during its third round of review of MESICIC that the lack of legislation on the matter meant that “it is not obliged to bring the case to the attention of its domestic authorities for prosecution, much less report the final outcome to the requesting country.” Concerning other measures in this section, a majority of them are found to be implemented, with only five measures still in progress.