26
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
ABSTRACT
This scientific work was prepared by the author as part of the preparation of a dissertation for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy (PhD). The article includes an overview of the acts adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the
CIS Member States that affect the anti-corruption expertise of draft legislation. The proposed models for the CIS
countries are considered, as well as the mechanisms used in some countries of the post-Soviet space. A brief overview
of the legislation of the CIS countries in the field of regulation of anti-corruption expertise of draft regulations is given.
In parallel, the author, based on the experience under consideration, developed appropriate proposals for improving
the mechanisms for applying anti-corruption expertise of draft legislation in the Republic of Uzbekistan.
KEYWORDS
CIS, foreign experience, anti-corruption expertise of draft normative-legal acts, corruption, corruption norms,
corruption-related factors, legislation, fight against corruption.
INTRODUCTION
In its essence, corruption has a history of many
thousands of years of existence, and throughout this
time it has undergone changes, acquired new forms,
depending on the development of mankind. From
those same times to the present, a struggle has been
waged against this negative phenomenon, and this
Research Article
MODEL LAWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMMONWEALTH OF
INDEPENDENT STATES REGARDING ANTI-CORRUPTION EXPERTISE
OF DRAFT LEGISLATION
Submission Date:
March 30, 2022,
Accepted Date:
April 11, 2022,
Published Date:
April 24, 2022
|
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume04Issue04-05
Kenjaev Timur Isomovich
Lecturer at the Department of Organization of Supervision over the Execution of Legislation Academy of
the General Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Uzbekistan, independent applicant, 1st class lawyer,
Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theamericanjou
rnals.com/index.php/ta
jpslc
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
27
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
struggle is being waged both at the domestic level and
through joint efforts.
In our opinion, corruption, in its broadest sense, is the
main enemy of the development and prosperity of any
state. The most terrible consequences of corruption
are the degradation of state institutions, the
generation of a distrustful attitude of citizens towards
the government and the existing system of
government as a whole.
Being present in almost every corner of the planet, in
every state, corruption differs only in the size of its
scale. Moreover, this terrible social phenomenon has
no limits of its impact and takes on the character of a
global problem that the entire world community is
facing.
Thus, the fight against corruption is carried out both at
the domestic level and by combining efforts. One of
such joint efforts was the corresponding associations
of states, for example, the UN and the CIS. As practice
shows, such organizations are formed in connection
with the presence of certain problems that have
significant consequences and require the unification of
efforts and the adoption of joint decisions in order to
collectively overcome them with the least losses. So, if
the reason for the creation of the UN was the Second
World War, then the fundamental reason for the
creation of the CIS was the need to unite the efforts of
states that had embarked on their own path of
independent development in connection with the
demise of the USSR.
These organizations have similar areas of their
activities, but at the same time they have their own
specific outlines associated with certain common
grounds. One of these areas is the fight against
corruption, including through the use of mechanisms
for anti-corruption expertise of draft legislation being
developed.
The fundamental call, within the framework of
adopted UN documents, for the need to identify and
eliminate corruption-prone elements in legislation is
contained in general terms in Article 5 of the 2003
United Nations Convention against Corruption.
According to paragraph 3 of the said article, “Each
State Party shall endeavor to periodically evaluate
relevant legal instruments and administrative
measures with a view to determining their adequacy in
terms of preventing and combating corruption” .
Here we can observe the difference in approaches to
the implementation of this rule in the countries that
are members of the UN. The unifying component, in
our opinion, is the similarity of the paths of the
historical and political development of a particular
state. Thus, almost all countries of the post-Soviet
space, and especially the CIS countries, have chosen
the most active way of implementing anti-corruption
policy in the rule-making process than the countries of
Europe, America and other countries.
In our opinion, the fundamental reason for such
different approaches is the presence or absence of an
established system of legislation. So, if most of the
countries of Europe and America already had a well-
formed and historically tested legislative base, then
the CIS countries, united by similar challenges in the
development of statehood, had yet to go this way,
taking into account the need to develop and approve a
system of legislation in the conditions of the
independence of each country.
Given these approaches, the countries were divided
into those who singled out the anti-corruption
expertise of draft legislation as an independent area
28
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
and those who did not separate it from the existing
mechanisms of legal (legal) expertise.
In such conditions, the normative documents adopted
within the framework of the CIS began to stand out
and take on the shape characteristic of the countries
participating in this commonwealth.
The date of creation of the Commonwealth of
Independent States is considered December 8, 1991,
when the leadership of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
signed the Agreement on its establishment. In the
same month, on December 21, 1991, in Alma-Ata, the
leaders of 11 independent states (Azerbaijan, Armenia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine)
signed the Protocol to the named Agreement, which
stipulates,
that
these
countries
form
the
Commonwealth of Independent States on an equal
footing. A little later, or rather in December 1993,
Georgia decided to join the CIS, but in 2008 it changed
its mind and, having implemented all the necessary
procedures, withdrew from the CIS in 2009.
Among the fundamental documents adopted in the
framework of the activities of the CIS and related to
the anti-corruption expertise of draft legislation, we
propose to single out the following.
1. CIS Model Law of 2003 “Fundamentals of legislation
on anti-corruption policy”. As we understand, this Law
was the first to apply and consolidate in its conceptual
apparatus a specific definition of the concept of “anti-
corruption expertise of legal acts”.
The law first of all determined the list of relations, the
legal regulation of which is referred to the anti-
corruption policy. Among such relations, within the
framework of the anti-corruption expertise of draft
legislation, it is proposed to single out the following:
consolidation of the fundamental provisions of the
anti-corruption policy;
determination of priority areas and a system of
mechanisms for preventing corruption, as well as
organizations implementing anti-corruption policies. It
seems appropriate to note that the Law under
consideration classifies anti-corruption expertise of
legal acts as one of the most important measures to
prevent corruption offences;
a clear delineation of powers between the republican,
regional and local authorities in the field of anti-
corruption policy implementation;
establishment and implementation of anti-corruption
policy in rule-making activities.
One of the main tasks and directions of anti-corruption
policy, within the framework of our subject, the Law
determined:
“prevention of corruption offenses;
monitoring of corruption factors;
promotion of legal reform aimed at reducing the
uncertainty of legal institutions, the effective
protection and protection of the rights and freedoms
of man and citizen” .
Important for us, but still forthcoming for full
implementation, are the fixed principles of anti-
corruption policy, among which it is proposed to
highlight the priority of corruption prevention
mechanisms and the normative consolidation of anti-
corruption standards at the level of legislative acts. The
latter, in turn, once again emphasizes the need to
develop and adopt in our country the Law “On Anti-
Corruption Expertise”.
29
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
An important component for us was the presence in
the Law of a separate article 14, directly dedicated to
the anti-corruption expertise of legal acts, including
drafts. This article also emphasizes what we mentioned
in the previous paragraph, namely, that the normative
regulation of anti-corruption expertise should be at the
level of the State Law. Also, here we found a specific
statement that the anti-corruption expertise of legal
projects is one of the types of criminological expertise,
which we talked about in Chapter 1 in the framework
of the Belarusian experience and which we will discuss
in more detail a little later.
At the same time, it is suggested to note that not all CIS
countries took advantage of this recommendation.
Thus, a separate specialized law, directly aimed at
regulating relations in the field of anti-corruption
expertise, is currently available only in the Republic of
Tajikistan and the Russian Federation, which has the
identical name of the Law “On anti-corruption
expertise of normative legal acts and draft normative
legal acts”.
In the Republic of Uzbekistan, the need to adopt such
a Law was indicated back in 2020. Moreover, this was
indicated by a very weighty regulatory legal act -
Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan
dated June 29, 2020 No. UP-6013 “On additional
measures to improve the anti-corruption system in the
Republic of Uzbekistan”. According to this decision of
the President, the newly created Anti-Corruption
Agency of the Republic of Uzbekistan, together with
the Ministry of Justice, the General Prosecutor's Office
of the Republic of Uzbekistan and other interested
organizations, with the mandatory involvement of
international experts in this process, was instructed to
develop a draft Law “On anti-corruption expertise of
legal and regulatory acts and their projects” and
submit it to the Administration of the President of the
Republic of Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, we have to
state the fact that two years have passed, and the Law
has not been adopted.
Returning to Article 14, it is considered possible to
further indicate the procedures proposed to the CIS
member states for conducting anti-corruption
expertise of draft regulatory legal acts:
a)
The need for mandatory expertise of draft laws
and other regulatory legal acts affecting the
priority areas of legal regulation of anti-corruption
policy. It is proposed to note that the Republic of
Uzbekistan has succeeded in this direction, since in
our country every developed regulatory legal act is
subject to anti-corruption expertise, regardless of
its type;
b)
Conducting an official anti-corruption expertise. At
the same time, the law does not specify what is
meant by official anti-corruption expertise. We can
only assume that this is an anti-corruption
expertise carried out by a specially authorized state
div, following which an official conclusion is
presented. Most likely, this concept is applicable
for countries in which such an examination is not
mandatory. However, it is stated that:
“The decision to conduct an official anti-corruption
expertise of a draft law is made by the State Parliament
or an agency authorized by it after the relevant draft
law has been submitted to the lower house of the
Parliament before it is considered in the first reading;
The decision to conduct an official anti-corruption
expertise of other normative legal acts of the national
level and their drafts is taken by the State Security
Council;
The decision to conduct an official anti-corruption
examination of regulatory legal acts and their drafts
30
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
Adopted at the municipal level may be taken by an
authorized div of local self-government or a state
entity (for federal states);
Decisions to conduct an unofficial anti-corruption
expertise of draft legal acts are taken by the subjects
of anti-corruption policy independently” .
Also important is the anti-corruption standard
enshrined in the Law in the field of rule-making, the
purpose of which is to prevent corruption in legislation
and to suppress corruption-prone components in the
process of its development and adoption. This
standard establishes a ban on the development of
legislation without anti-corruption expertise, as well as
the adoption of legal acts without taking into account
the results of such expertise and without specific fixing
of the mechanisms for their implementation.
2. CIS Model Law of 2012 “On anti-corruption expertise
of regulatory legal acts and draft regulatory legal acts”.
The sphere of regulation of this Law is relations related
to the organization and conduct of anti-corruption
expertise, including draft regulatory legal acts, in the
member states of the Commonwealth of Independent
States, for the purpose of early detection and
elimination of corruption-prone norms.
The document, in an extremely detailed form, provides
the principles of anti-corruption expertise of draft
regulatory legal acts, among which it is proposed to
highlight the following:
Mandatory, providing for the inadmissibility of evasion
of any project from the examination;
Evaluation of the developed project, which consists in
studying the impact on the current legislation;
Scientific validity, objectivity and comprehensiveness
of the examination;
Obligatory consideration of the anti-corruption
opinion;
Competence
of
specialists
conducting
the
examination;
Publicity, providing free access to the results of the
examinations;
The inevitability of responsibility of persons authorized
to organize and conduct an examination, as well as
those responsible for quality control.
A significant assistance in the development of national
legislation in the field of anti-corruption expertise of
draft legislation was the introduction of a specific list
of corruption factors, which can be changed and
supplemented by any CIS state.
At the same time, the Law does not provide a specific
definition of the concept of “corruption factors”,
according to the well-known scientist in the area under
consideration, Tsirin A.M., this was done presumably
due to the possibility of a significant difference with
the national legislation of the participating countries.
According to Article 5 of the Law under consideration,
corruption-related factors were divided into two large
subgroups:
"1.
Corruption-related
factors
that
establish
unreasonably wide margins of discretion for the law
enforcer or the possibility of unreasonable application
of exceptions to the general rules:
The breadth of discretionary powers - the absence
or uncertainty of the terms, conditions or grounds
for making a decision, the presence of duplicating
powers of public authorities or local governments
(their officials);
31
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
Definition of competence according to the formula
"right" - a dispositive establishment of the
possibility of committing actions by public
authorities or local governments (their officials) in
relation to citizens and organizations;
Selective change in the scope of rights - the
possibility of unjustified establishment of
exceptions from the general procedure for citizens
and organizations at the discretion of public
authorities or local governments (their officials);
Excessive freedom of subordinate rule-making -
the presence of blanket and reference norms,
leading to the adoption of by-laws that intrude into
the competence of the state authority or local
government that adopted the original regulatory
legal act;
Adoption of a regulatory legal act outside the
competence - exceeding the competence of state
authorities or local governments (their officials)
when adopting regulatory legal acts;
Normative conflicts - a contradiction of a
normative legal act in whole or in part to another
normative legal act, creating for officials and
employees of state bodies the possibility of an
arbitrary choice of an act to be applied in a
particular case;
o
Filling in legislative gaps with the help of by-laws in
the absence of a legislative delegation of relevant
powers – establishing generally binding rules of
conduct in a by-law in the absence of a law;
The absence or incompleteness of administrative
procedures - the absence of a procedure for the
commission by public authorities or local
governments (their officials) of certain actions or
one of the elements of such an order;
Refusal of competitive (auction) procedures -
fixing the administrative procedure for granting
rights and (or) benefits.
2. Corruption-related factors containing uncertain,
difficult and (or) burdensome requirements for citizens
and organizations:
The presence of excessive requirements for a
person who exercises his right, - the establishment
of vague, difficult and burdensome requirements
for citizens and organizations;
Abuse by state authorities or local authorities
(their officials) of the right of the applicant - lack of
clear regulation of the rights of citizens and
organizations;
Legal and linguistic uncertainty - the use of
evaluative
categories
and
ambiguous
terminologically unjustified vocabulary without
clarifying the interpretation of specific concepts" .
It should be noted that the proposed corruption-
related factors are taken as a basis by the CIS states
when developing national methods for conducting
anti-corruption examinations. For example, in
Uzbekistan, until February 2021, these two groups of
the above corruption-related factors were used, while
the corruption factors associated with the presence of
gaps in legal regulation were singled out in a third
independent group. After the adoption at the
beginning of 2021 of a new procedure for conducting
anti-corruption expertise, corruption-related factors
were divided into four large groups, which included all
of the above, while they were combined in an order
that is difficult to understand by a person who was not
directly involved in the development of a new
procedure.
In the Republic of Tajikistan, corruption-related factors
were also divided into two groups:
"1. Corruption-related factors - a norm (norms) in
normative legal acts, draft normative legal acts that
contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of
32
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
Tajikistan and other normative legal acts of the
Republic of Tajikistan, as well as international legal acts
recognized by Tajikistan, state programs (strategies) in
the field of combating corruption, creating conditions
for conflicts of interest, prerequisites for violating
official ethics and non-compliance with the principle of
transparency, giving law enforcement state bodies and
their officials of unreasonable administrative powers
and discretion, the possibility of unreasonable
application of exceptions to the general established
rules, as well as the risk of a situation where obstacles
arise by creating vague requirements, difficult and
artificial obstacles for individuals and legal entities.
2. Corruption-related factors that establish for the law
enforcer unreasonably wide power and administrative
powers, limits of discretion or the possibility of
unreasonable
application
of
exceptions
and
restrictions from the general rules” (breadth of
discretionary powers, the use of the expression
“right”, conflicts and gaps in legislation, etc.).
Further, the CIS Law lists 5 areas of public relations,
which are proposed to be given priority attention in the
conduct of anti-corruption expertise of projects:
1. Relations between representatives of state bodies
and the population, as well as non-governmental
organizations;
2. Economic legislation in the field:
Antimonopoly regulation;
Taxes;
Bankruptcy;
Foreign economic activity;
Customs regulation;
Currency control;
Housing and communal services, as well as housing
and road construction;
Licensing;
3. Distribution of budgetary funds, including legislation
on public procurement;
4. Provision of public services free of charge.
Important for the further development of the institute
of anti-corruption expertise of the Republic of
Uzbekistan is the following list of subjects for
conducting anti-corruption expertise of regulatory
legal:
Prosecution authorities (Belarus, Russia (Kyrgyzstan in
the project);
Parliament (Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova);
Ministry of Justice, executive authorities - project
developers (Armenia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine,
Russia, Kazakhstan);
Other state bodies, local self-government bodies and
their officials (Moldova);
Specially authorized div (Moldova, Belarus,
Tajikistan);
Independent anti-corruption expertise by legal entities
and individuals (Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan).
Speaking of importance, the author implies the
possibility and need for further development of
national mechanisms for conducting anti-corruption
expertise, in particular, it is proposed to expand the
circle of subjects for conducting state (official) anti-
corruption expertise, authorizing, in addition to the
Ministry of Justice, the Anti-Corruption Anti-Corruption
Agency and the Prosecutor's office of the Republic of
Uzbekistan.
33
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
Particular attention, in the form of a separate chapter,
is given by the Law to the institution of independent
anti-corruption expertise, in which the section touches
on the regulation of this institution in great detail.
In particular, the countries are offered the following
mechanisms:
Accreditation by legal entities and individuals in the
justice authorities to obtain the right to conduct an
independent anti-corruption expertise. At the same
time, it is specifically stipulated that accreditation
should be free of charge;
Conducting an examination at its own expense, as well
as at the expense of budgetary funds, in cases
provided for by national legislation;
Availability
of
professional
and
qualification
requirements for independent experts (higher legal
education, practical experience of at least 5 years,
passing a special training course in the field of anti-
corruption expertise);
In the case of a legal entity, there is a requirement to
have at least 5 employees in the state that meet the
requirements given in the previous paragraph.
It is proposed to note that the Republic of Uzbekistan
has recently taken a significant step towards the
formation and development of an independent anti-
corruption expertise, as evidenced by the fundamental
documents in this area, which included most of the
norms of the Model Law under consideration:
Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan
dated October 22, 2021 No. PP-5263 "On measures to
further improve the conduct of anti-corruption
expertise of regulatory legal acts and their drafts";
Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of
Uzbekistan dated February 2, 2022 No. 2-mx “On
approval of the Regulations on the procedure for the
formation and maintenance of a register of experts on
anti-corruption expertise of legislative acts and their
drafts”.
It is proposed to emphasize the essential importance
of having and improving the mechanisms for
conducting an independent anti-corruption expertise,
as many researchers in the field under consideration
have said and are talking about. For example, experts
in the field of anti-corruption policy of the National
Research University of Russia "Higher School of
Economics" Dolotov R.O. and Krylova D.V. emphasize
that "the development of the institution of
independent anti-corruption expertise of normative
legal acts and their projects is one of the topical areas
of interaction between the state and civil society
institutions and citizens in the fight against corruption"
. We will dwell on this topic in more detail in a separate
paragraph directly devoted to independent anti-
corruption expertise.
In
conclusion,
the
document
contains
recommendations on drawing up the conclusion of the
anti-corruption expertise and taking into account the
results of consideration of such conclusions. In
essence, most of the CIS countries took these
recommendations as a basis and, of course, made
adjustments based on the national legislation of each
state individually.
In general, this law has a very wide scope of regulation
of relations in the field of anti-corruption expertise of
draft
legislation.
“The
model
law
and
recommendations for conducting anti-corruption
expertise of regulatory legal acts and draft regulatory
legal acts, adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly of the CIS Member States, quite fully
34
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
regulate the procedure and methodology for
conducting anti-corruption expertise.
3. Recommendations for conducting anti-corruption
expertise of regulatory legal acts and draft regulatory
legal acts, approved in 2012 by a resolution of the Inter-
Parliamentary Assembly of States Members of the
Commonwealth of Independent States.
Understanding the importance and scope of the
subject of anti-corruption expertise, a few months
after the adoption of the Model Law “On anti-
corruption expertise of normative legal acts and draft
normative legal acts”, the Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly of States Members of the Commonwealth of
Independent
States
developed
the
above
recommendations.
The recommendations are a sample of rules or
methodology for conducting anti-corruption expertise
by all subjects (state bodies and independent experts)
of legal acts.
The very fact of preparing such a draft is the basis for
conducting an anti-corruption expertise of a draft
regulatory legal act. Thus, the obligation to conduct
this type of examination is emphasized.
At the same time, not all countries have chosen the
approach of unconditional obligation, putting forward
specific restrictions, or an exhaustive list of public
relations, the regulation of which is subject to
mandatory anti-corruption expertise.
Thus, in Belarus there is a specific list of draft normative
legal acts that are not subject to criminological
examination by the state institution "Scientific and
Practical Center for the Problems of Strengthening
Law and Order of the Prosecutor General's Office of
the Republic of Belarus":
“Prepared in connection with the conclusion,
execution, suspension or termination of international
treaties of the Republic of Belarus;
Relating to technical regulatory legal acts;
Containing state secrets, unless otherwise provided by
the President of the Republic of Belarus;
of the National Bank on the issuance of banknotes and
coins,
including
commemorative
banknotes,
commemorative and bullion (investment) coins, and
their
withdrawal
from
circulation,
on
the
establishment of the refinancing rate of the National
Bank, on the establishment of mandatory reserve
ratios deposited with the National Bank (reserve
requirements ), on the minimum amount of the
authorized capital of a bank, non-bank financial
institution, on the amount (quota) of participation of
foreign capital in the banking system;
On the regulation of prices (tariffs) for goods, works
(services), with the exception of regulatory legal acts
that determine the procedure for establishing and
applying prices (tariffs);
By decision of the President of the Republic of Belarus,
the Administration of the President of the Republic of
Belarus" .
In Kazakhstan, “the requirement to conduct a scientific
anti-corruption expertise does not apply to projects:
Normative legal decrees of the President of the
Republic of Kazakhstan;
Normative legal acts of the Chairman of the Security
Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
Regulatory resolutions of the Parliament of the
Republic of Kazakhstan and its Chambers;
35
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
Normative resolutions of the Constitutional Council;
Normative resolutions of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Kazakhstan;
Resolutions of the Government providing for the
submission of draft legislative acts for consideration by
the Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of
Kazakhstan and draft decrees of the President of the
Republic of Kazakhstan for consideration by the
President of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
Normative legal acts on recognition of normative legal
acts as invalid;
Normative legal acts providing for the adoption of
decisions on the establishment (cancellation) of a
quarantine zone with the introduction of a quarantine
regime in the relevant territory, on the establishment
(removal) of quarantine and (or) restrictive measures
in cases provided for by the legislation of the Republic
of Kazakhstan in the field of veterinary medicine, as
well as declaring an emergency natural and man-made
character;
Normative legal acts on the formation of polling
stations and the determination of places for placing
campaign printed materials;
Regulatory legal acts on the formation, abolition and
transformation of administrative-territorial units, the
establishment and change of their boundaries and
subordination, their naming and renaming, as well as
the clarification and change in the transcription of their
names;
Regulatory legal acts on the naming and renaming of
the constituent parts of settlements, as well as
clarifying and changing the transcription of their
names;
Regulatory legal acts on the approval of the state list
of historical and cultural monuments of republican and
local significance;
Regulatory legal acts on the approval of budgets of all
levels;
Regulatory legal acts on a guaranteed transfer from
the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
Regulatory legal acts on the volume of transfers of a
general nature between the republican and regional
budgets, the budgets of cities of republican
significance, the capital;
Normative legal acts on the approval of marginal
tariffs, prices provided for by the legislation of the
Republic of Kazakhstan;
Regulatory legal acts on the establishment of a public
easement;
Regulatory legal acts on the approval of qualification
requirements for administrative public positions;
Normative legal acts containing state secrets and other
secrets protected by law, as well as marked "For
official use", "Not published in print", "Not for print" .
In Russia, if we consider the so-called state (official)
anti-corruption
expertise
of
draft
legislation
conducted by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian
Federation, the first thing to say is that this expertise is
carried out as part of a legal expertise, and not as an
independent one. The second thing we noticed is the
lack of exceptions for any projects.
If we consider independent anti-corruption expertise
in Russia, then according to the Rules for conducting
anti-corruption expertise of normative legal acts and
draft regulatory legal acts, “in order to ensure the
possibility of conducting an independent anti-
36
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
corruption expertise … state bodies and organizations
- developers of draft regulatory legal acts … post these
projects on the website: regulation.gov.ru" .
In Uzbekistan, a similar situation is observed in terms
of conducting a state (official) anti-corruption
expertise of draft legal acts as part of a legal expertise
by the Ministry of Justice. At the same time, conditions
are provided for conducting an independent anti-
corruption expertise by independent and scientific
experts, which can only be individuals included in the
Register of Experts for Anti-Corruption Expertise of
Legislative Acts and Their Drafts.
The recommendations offer the CIS countries three
main stages of anti-corruption expertise:
Preparation (gathering the necessary information
related to the project);
Conducting an examination (identification of
corruption-related norms);
Preparation of a conclusion (formulation of results
on identified corruption-related factors, comments
and proposals for their elimination).
Further, the requirements for conducting anti-
corruption expertise are fixed. Among these
requirements, it is proposed to note the need to check
each norm without exception, as well as predicting the
possible consequences of the identified corruption-
related factors.
Based on our practical experience in the Ministry of
Justice of the Republic of Uzbekistan, namely in the
Main Department of Legislation, which directly carried
out the anti-corruption expertise of draft regulatory
legal acts, I would like to note that these requirements
were most often used.
The recommendations separately touch upon the topic
of the competence of persons authorized to conduct
anti-corruption expertise of draft legislation. In order
to avoid problems with this requirement, the following
is suggested:
a) fixing professional and qualification requirements at
the level of legislation (higher legal education,
scientific specialization, practical experience in the
field of combating corruption, rule-making experience,
if necessary, passing a special course in the field of anti-
corruption expertise).
In our opinion, this requirement is mainly applicable to
persons involved in independent anti-corruption
expertise, since the official (state) anti-corruption
expertise is carried out by employees of state bodies,
whose qualifications and competence have already
been confirmed by the fact that they were hired into
the civil service, by passing the necessary procedures
admission to work.
There are also three other important documents that
are invited to pay attention to:
Commentary on the Model Law “On Anti-Corruption
Expertise of Regulatory Legal Acts and Draft
Regulatory Legal Acts”, approved in 2013 by a
resolution of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of
States
Members
of
the
Commonwealth
of
Independent States;
2013 CIS Model Law “On Anti-Corruption Monitoring”;
Recommendations for conducting anti-corruption
monitoring in the CIS member states, approved in 2013
by a resolution of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of
States
Members
of
the
Commonwealth
of
Independent States.
In conclusion, we propose to identify a significant
difference
between
the
approaches
to the
implementation of anti-corruption policy in the rule-
37
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
making process in most European countries, Canada,
the United States and the member states of the
Commonwealth of Independent States.
As we could see, anti-corruption expertise in its
understanding is mainly found in the countries of the
post-Soviet space, whose legislation is undergoing a
stage of new formation and constant reform in the
conditions of independence of each country. Many
factors specific to each state separately are taken into
account, and there are also many similar general
directions for conducting rule-making policy.
REFERENCES
1.
United Nations Convention against Corruption of
31
October
2003.
https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/con
ventions/corruption.shtml. Date of the access
:09/03/2022.
2.
Model Law of the CIS Member States
"Fundamentals of Legislation on Anti-Corruption
Policy". P. 3. Interparliamentary Assembly of States
- Members of the Commonwealth of Independent
States. https://iacis.ru/public/upload/files/1/158.pdf.
Date of access: 03/11/2022.
3.
Model Law of the CIS Member States
"Fundamentals of Legislation on Anti-Corruption
Policy". P. 11. Official site of the Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly of States - Members of the
Commonwealth
of
Independent
States.
https://iacis.ru/public/upload/files/1/158.pdf. Date
of access: 03/11/2022.
4.
Model Law of the CIS Member States “On Anti-
Corruption Expertise of Regulatory Legal Acts and
Draft Regulatory Legal Acts”. pp. 3-4. Official site
of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of States -
Members of the Commonwealth of Independent
States.
ttps://iacis.ru/baza_dokumentov/modelnie_zakon
odatelnie_akti_i_rekomendatcii_mpa_sng/modeln
ie_kodeksi_i_zakoni/160.
Date
of
access:
03/11/2022.
5.
Art. 5 of the Law of the Republic of Tajikistan on
December 28, 2012, No. 925 “On anti-corruption
expertise of regulatory legal acts and draft
regulatory legal acts”. Official website of the
National Center for Legislation under the President
of the Republic of Tajikistan. http://ncz.tj/content/.
Date of access: 03/24/2022.
6.
Dolotov R. O., Krylova D. V. Prospects for
increasing the efficiency of the institute of
independent anti-corruption expertise. Journal of
Russian Law. 2019. No. 10. P. 164.
7.
Tsirin A.M. Anti-corruption expertise in Russia and
foreign countries: a comparative legal study.
Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative
Law, No. 4 - 2018. P. 140
8.
Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus
dated May 29, 2007 No. 244 “On criminological
expertise”. National Center for Legal Information
of
the
Republic
of
Belarus.
https://etalonline.by/document/?regnum=p307002
44. Date of access: 03/17/2022.
9.
Rules for conducting scientific anti-corruption
expertise of draft regulatory legal acts, approved
by the Decree of the Government of the Republic
of Kazakhstan dated July 16, 2020 No. 451.
Information and legal system of regulatory legal
acts
of
the
Republic
of
Kazakhstan
/
https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P2000000451. Date
of access: 03/17/2022.
10.
Rules for conducting scientific anti-corruption
expertise of draft regulatory legal acts, approved
by the Decree of the Government of the Republic
of Kazakhstan dated July 16, 2020 No. 451.
Information and legal system of regulatory legal
acts
of
the
Republic
of
Kazakhstan
/
38
Volume 04 Issue 04-2022
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
VOLUME
04
I
SSUE
04
Pages:
26-38
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2020:
5.
453
)
(2021:
5.
952
)
(2022:
6.
215
)
OCLC
–
1176274523
METADATA
IF
–
7.659
Publisher:
The USA Journals
https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P2000000451. Date
of access: 03/17/2022.
