Loading...

Peru

Capital

Lima

Territory

1,280,000km²

Population (2020)

32,971,846

GDP Total (2020)

202B USD

GDP Per Capita (2020)

6,127 USD

Icome Group

Upper middle income

Convention Implementation

72.2
Implemented

Western Hemisphere Ranking

60.7

4th of 31 countries

South America Ranking

63.2

3rd of 12 countries

Corruption Resilience

53.8
Moderately Resilient

Western Hemisphere Ranking

54.4

18th of 31 countries

South America Ranking

53.9

7th of 12 countries

Convention Implementation

Score by thematic sections and measures

Prevention

In progress
53.6

Western Hemisphere 46.3

South America 47.3

Standards of Conduct

In progress
50

Western Hemisphere 42.8

South America 48.0

Enforcement of Standards of Conduct

In progress
59.3

Western Hemisphere 50.6

South America 58.7

Training of Public Officials

In progress
68.7

Western Hemisphere 36.8

South America 44.5

Asset and Conflicts of Interests Declarations

In progress
50

Western Hemisphere 42.3

South America 45.8

Transparency in Government Contracting

In progress
59.3

Western Hemisphere 33.1

South America 40.3

Elimination of Favorable Tax Treatment

In progress
50.7

Western Hemisphere 47.1

South America 49.2

Oversight Bodies

Core-deficient
35.9

Western Hemisphere 36.0

South America 37.6

Measures to Deter Domestic and Foreign Bribery

Core-deficient
40.6

Western Hemisphere 36.7

South America 40.6

Encouraging Participation by Civil Society

Core-deficient
39.0

Western Hemisphere 43.0

South America 52.8

Study of Other Prevention Measures

Implemented
82.8

Western Hemisphere 44.9

South America 48.1

Criminalization and law enforcement

In progress
70.5

Western Hemisphere 61.1

South America 64.1

Protection of Those who Report Acts of Corruption

In progress
57.8

Western Hemisphere 30.7

South America 34.8

Scope

Not Implemented
0

Western Hemisphere 67.7

South America 75

Jurisdiction: Offense-in-Territory

Implemented
82.8

Western Hemisphere 74.6

South America 77.8

Jurisdiction: Offense-by-National

Not Implemented
0

Western Hemisphere 51.9

South America 62.6

Jurisdiction: Offender-in-Territory

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 58.8

South America 79.1

Passive Public Bribery

In progress
62.5

Western Hemisphere 55.8

South America 55.3

Active Public Bribery

In progress
62.5

Western Hemisphere 56.4

South America 55.3

Abuse of Functions

In progress
62.5

Western Hemisphere 47.0

South America 48.4

Money Laundering

In progress
59.3

Western Hemisphere 55.8

South America 54.3

Participation and Attempt

In progress
59.3

Western Hemisphere 58.4

South America 56.4

Active Foreign Bribery

Core-deficient
33.5

Western Hemisphere 39.0

South America 34.4

Illicit Enrichment

In progress
50.7

Western Hemisphere 54.7

South America 59.2

Use of State Property

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 79.5

South America 85.5

Illicit Acquisition of a Benefit

Core-deficient
21.8

Western Hemisphere 52.1

South America 59.5

Public Embezzlement

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 77.6

South America 83.2

Passive Foreign Bribery

In progress
68.7

Western Hemisphere 25.6

South America 22.0

Private Bribery

Implemented
85.9

Western Hemisphere 22.7

South America 26.4

Private Embezzlement

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 64.7

South America 70.4

Obstruction of Justice

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 71.4

South America 79.1

Liability of Legal Persons

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 61.3

South America 60.6

Statute of Limitations

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 79.6

South America 84.3

Prosecution, Adjudication and Sanctions

Implemented
85.9

Western Hemisphere 69.5

South America 71.2

Consequences and Compensation

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 70.3

South America 77.4

Cooperation With Law Enforcement

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 72.2

South America 72.9

Asset Recovery

In progress
68.7

Western Hemisphere 66.4

South America 68.4

International cooperation

Implemented
87.6

Western Hemisphere 68.9

South America 72.5

Assistance Without Criminalization

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 79.8

South America 82.8

Inclusion in Extradition Treaties

Implemented
74.2

Western Hemisphere 55.1

South America 55.3

Convention as Legal Basis for Extradition

Implemented
85.9

Western Hemisphere 47.5

South America 55.2

Automatic Application Without Treaty

Implemented
74.2

Western Hemisphere 52.7

South America 54.9

Prosecution Without Extradition

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 57.2

South America 58.7

Custody

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 73.4

South America 70.1

Assistance

In progress
54.6

Western Hemisphere 58.0

South America 64.6

Impossibility of Claiming Bank Secrecy

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 84.0

South America 86.3

Limited Use of Information

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 82.6

South America 89.5

Nature of Act

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 84.3

South America 83.3

Designate Central Authorities

Implemented
78.1

Western Hemisphere 75.9

South America 86.5

Responsibilities of Central Authorities

Implemented
78.1

Western Hemisphere 71.5

South America 74.9

Communication Between Central Authorities

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 67.3

South America 78.3

Special Investigative Techniques

In progress
68.7

Western Hemisphere 56.9

South America 52.0

Technical Cooperation

Implemented
100

Western Hemisphere 62.8

South America 78.3

Anti-corruption conventions timeline

199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022

Conventions

  • IACAC - Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
  • UNCAC - United Nations Convention against Corruption
  • OECD Anti-Bribery Convention

Key events

  • Signed
  • Ratifed / acceded
  • Review rounds

Convention Implementation Analysis

Peru signed the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) on March 29, 1996, and ratified it on April 4, 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 10, 2003, and subsequently ratified it on November 16, 2004. Peru is also party to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (OECD-ABC), having deposited the instrument of accession on May 28, 2018. Accordingly, Peru has undergone six rounds of review under MESICIC (of which only the first five were considered here, as the final report for the sixth round was only adopted on March 11, 2021), one round of review under the UNCAC review mechanism, and two phases of evaluation by the OECD Working Group on Bribery.

Peru’s record in implementing its commitments to IACAC, UNCAC and OECD-ABC exhibits a large number of successes and very few failures. With an overall score of 72.3, the measures adopted place the country at the higher point of compliance with international norms, surrounded by Brazil (69.8), Chile (70.5), Colombia (74.2), and Argentina (75.2). Despite achieving higher success in regard to criminalization and international cooperation (as is the case throughout the region) the majority of preventive measures are found to be in progress or implemented, while roughly an equal number of failed measures pertain rather to criminalization and law enforcement. Although these results point to a reasonable degree of progress in all three sections, a stronger emphasis on international cooperation over prevention is nonetheless identified.

The prevention of corruption is undergoing, classified as “in progress” by its average score and with prominent measures given a score of 50 or above—standards of conduct and their enforcement, the training of public officials, the systems for registering asset and conflict of interests' declarations, transparency in government contracting, and the elimination of favorable tax treatment for corrupt expenditure. Indeed, over half of all preventive measures are considered to be in progress, and the country has successfully implemented preventive measures related to equitable compensation. Within this section, only three measures are found deficient at core: the state of oversight bodies (35.9), the initiatives to encourage the participation of civil society (39.1), and the actions to deter domestic and foreign bribery related to accounting regulations (40.6). However, these measures represent almost half of all failing scores given to Peru’s implementation of international commitments, again reflecting the comparatively lower degree of progress made concerning the prevention of corruption.

In terms of criminalization and law enforcement, Peru shows strong results. The country is found to have successfully implemented roughly half of its commitments, including significant ones such as the criminalization of embezzlement in the public and private sectors, bribery in the private sector, and the obstruction of justice, as well as adopted and enforced the liability of legal persons, a long statute of limitations, and broader consequences—such as the rescinding of contracts and obtaining compensation—for the commitment of corrupt offenses (as required by UNCAC), among others. On the other hand, two important measures are found deficient at core: the criminalization of the illicit acquisition of a benefit (i.e., influence trading) (21.9) and active bribery of foreign officials (33.6). Concerning the former, the UNCAC review mechanism reports that “[t]he Peruvian Criminal Code does not cover active trading in influence. Passive trading in influence is regulated under article 400 of the Code, although the term ‘directly or indirectly’ is not explicitly used. Moreover, the provision applies only where a public official has been trying, is trying or is about to try a specific ‘legal or administrative case’, whereas the Convention does not contain such a restriction.”

Finally, Peru is found only partially compliant with its commitments to establish jurisdiction over the offenses covered by the conventions. The UNCAC review mechanism finds that “[t]he principle of active or passive personality is not explicitly regulated, except in the case of offenses committed by public officials or public servants in the course of their duties. There is no jurisdiction regulating acts preparatory to money-laundering or offenses committed against the State.” That being said, the overall level of the country’s commitments regarding international cooperation shows a very positive result, with an average section score of 87.6 and all but two measures classified as “implemented”.

Corruption Resilience

Score by indicator

Social Context

Moderately Resilient
64.4

Western Hemisphere 64.8

South America 64.2

Quality of Government

Moderately Resilient
54.6

Western Hemisphere 50.6

South America 52.4

Rule of Law

Moderately Resilient
49.1

Western Hemisphere 51.1

South America 50.7

Business Stability

Moderately Resilient
59.1

Western Hemisphere 50.5

South America 48.1

Violence & Security

Vulnerable
42.1

Western Hemisphere 55.0

South America 54.4

Corruption Resilience score over the time

Analysis

Peru's social context indicator declined in 2020 by 0.78 points from 2019, resulting in a score of 64.46, which fell 0.43 points below the average for the region. Between 2010 and 2020, Peru's score varied between +/- 2 points, and in 2014, Peru achieved their highest social context score of 67.88. Although the country’s score fares relatively well compared to its regional counterparts, the media does face some challenges when it investigates government corruption and connections with drug trafficking networks.

With regard to the quality of governance and institutions, the country’s indicator fell by 0.63 points from the previous year; however, Peru's score remained 2.17 points above the regional average. In 2020, Peru's quality of government indicator fell within the 50th percentile of the score distribution. Following the first two decades of Peru’s democratic transition in 1980, the country’s democracy was fragile. Since then, Peru has continued their progress—particularly excelling in areas of policy formulation and implementation—and the government remains committed to maintain it.

In 2020, Peru had a marginal decrease in the rule of law by 0.34 points, which is 2.05 points lower than the average of 51.15 for the Western Hemisphere. Peru's rule of law indicator in 2020 fell within the 50th percentile of the distribution for the region. Over the decade, the country's rule of law has varied but always remained below the regional average. For example, Peru's average rule of law score from 2010 to 2020 is 48.70, whereas the decade score for its counterparts in the region is 50. 61. Peru's rule of law score remains at a low level because the judiciary is perceived to be very corrupt, where judges accept bribes and irregular payments in return for more favorable decisions. Additionally, there is widespread political interference within the judicial system and the courts remain susceptible to influence.

Peru's business stability indicator score declined by 1.79 points from the preceding year, resulting in a score of 59.13 for 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, Peru's score hardly fluctuated, consistently remaining within a range of 5.19 points. Despite exceeding the regional average by 8.60 points in 2020, Peru's business environment is impacted by corruption and facilitation payments. The country faces challenges within the business regulatory environment and lacks transparency in government policy related to business. Peru's 2020 violence and security indicator reflected a score of 42.13, which decreased from the preceding year by 12.90 points. Peru's violence and security indicators are within the lower percentile for the region.

Transparency Record

Main Reporting NGO

Proética

Report date

Oct-2021

Review year

2010-2011

Document reviewed

Executive Summary

language

English

Did the government make public the contact details before the country focal point? Yes
Was civil society consulted in preparation for the self-assessment? No
Was civil society invited to provide information to the official reviewers? No
Was the self-assessment published online or provided to CSOs? No

Peru’s civil society parallel review report was authored by the organization Proética—the Peruvian chapter of Transparency International—during the 2010-2011 period. The report assessed Peru’s compliance with articles 15, 16, 17, 23, 26, 32, 33, and 46 of chapters III and IV of the UNCAC. In terms of the availability of information, the report notes that there is a lack of information on the implementation and enforcement of UNCAC obligations that is publicly accessible. Statistics from the judiciary, office of the Attorney General, or Ministry of Justice, among other public institutions, were unavailable. In regard to the legal framework, Peru largely complies with the UNCAC articles reviewed for this report. Important steps have been taken in the fight against corruption, including the enactment of a new criminal procedure code and the adoption of laws on money laundering.

The real problems lie on the enforcement side, as the Peruvian state has been unable to successfully develop the capacities of law enforcement authorities. Generally, there is a lack of independent authorities (in terms of prosecuting authorities and the judiciary) with sufficient resources to carry out investigations. The newly established National Anticorruption Office was closed in less than a year of carrying out operations and presents one of many examples where there is a lack of guidance on behalf of the government. Additionally, delays in processing corruption cases and imposing sanctions have created a sense of impunity. The report culminates in a series of recommendations, namely providing training on anti-corruption implementation, hiring additional staff to lessen corruption caseloads, increasing budgets for anticorruption initiatives, and lastly, implementing a system to maintain records on corruption cases.