Examples of using Implementation of the provision under review in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Malta indicated partial implementation of the provision under review.
Afghanistan also indicated that its legislator needed training in order to further the implementation of the provision under review.
Peru, reporting implementation of the provision under review, stated that no cases had been recorded to date.
Cuba also provided examples of the successful implementation of the provision under review.
Reporting no implementation of the provision under review, Tajikistan stated that specific technical assistance was required.
Lithuania, the Russian Federation andSlovakia reported partial implementation of the provision under review.
Serbia reported partial implementation of the provision under review and cited relevant legislation.
Croatia provided an update of its previous submission and reported full implementation of the provision under review.
An example of good implementation of the provision under review by the Republic of Korea is presented in box 3.
Updating its previous submission,Colombia provided an example of the successful implementation of the provision under review.
Yemen reported partial implementation of the provision under review, while Fiji provided a detailed account of such measures.
Brunei Darussalam did not provide examples of the successful use or implementation of the provision under review an optional reporting item.
While Pakistan cited relevant legislation,Fiji explained its legislative framework governing the implementation of the provision under review.
Rwanda provided an example of the successful implementation of the provision under review an optional reporting item.
It reiterated that the expansion of technical assistance provided by the Organization of American States would further the implementation of the provision under review.
Furthermore, Rwanda provided examples of the successful implementation of the provision under review an optional reporting item.
In case of an affirmative response, they were requested to specify by whom assistance was provided and whether an extension orexpansion of such assistance would further facilitate the implementation of the provision under review.
Rwanda also provided examples of the successful implementation of the provision under review also an optional reporting item.
Tajikistan did not, however,comply with the obligatory reporting item of indicating whether the expansion of assistance provided by UNODC through the anti-corruption mentor programme would further facilitate implementation of the provision under review.
Ecuador indicated partial implementation of the provision under review and referred to relevant legislation contained in its penal code.
Reporting on the issuance of advisories to financial institutions(para. 2(a)), Algeria updated its previous submission, indicated full implementation of the provision under review and cited relevant legislation.
Argentina presented information on the partial compliance of its legislation on the restitution or compensation to the aggrieved party,while the Dominican Republic added that the implementation of the provision under review required the conclusion of international agreements.
Slovakia, while reporting full implementation of the provision under review, mentioned that non-binding, and thus non-enforceable, guidelines had been issued.
Mauritania also requested specific technical assistance to comply with the provision under review and added that the expansion of assistance provided by the GermanAgency for Technical Cooperation(GTZ) and UNDP would facilitate greater implementation of the provision under review.
Out of the 10 reporting parties, 8 reported implementation of the provision under review, while Montenegro and the Russian Federation indicated partial implementation. .
With regard to paragraph 1 of article 9, on systems of procurement designed to prevent corruption, Ecuador indicated the need for specific technical assistance to overcome its partial compliance andstated that the expansion of technical assistance provided by, inter alia, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Government of Mexico would further the implementation of the provision under review.
Greece did not elaborate on its legislative framework governing the implementation of the provision under review, but indicated that its mutual legal assistance system was well organized and fully operational.
Malta reported partial implementation of the provision under review and indicated that, while its civil code did not preclude foreign States from instituting a claim before Maltese courts, no specific provisions existed in this regard.