WJP ROLI 2017-18 Online-Edition

Neth
Mac
e
New Z
Mad
edo
Nicar
Malay
No
Mongolia
nia,
Morocco
Mala
r
Myanmar
agas
Nepal
Moldova
rlands
Nige
Ky
Mexico
ealand
sia
w
Lib
agua
wi
ria
car
i
ay
l
a
ista
FYR
i
z
Re
n
eria
P
ano
za
Pak ma
n
pu
b
Pan eru
Leb stan
l
ine
s
lic
a
rgy nya
of
n
pp nd
d
Ke tan
a
t
Ja
Ph Po gal
Ro
kh an
Po Kor
m
is a
St. St Ja
ani
rtu ea
Ka Jor pan
Vi .K
da
m
nc
a
itt Ru ani
han
en
ai
Alb
rbu
t& s& ss a Ita ca
S
Ba
Afg
the Ne ia ly
ge
&
r
ia
Gr t. Lu vis
st
A
en
str
cia
ua
Au ntin
ad
Au ralia
as
tig
Sen ines m
n
eg ha
A
B a sh
Si e Ser al
bi de
rra ngla dos
Le a
Sing one Ba arba s
apo B aru
Bel
Slov re m
enia giu
South Bel
Afric
a e
Beliz
Spain ia
Boliv
Sri Lank
a
vina
Suriname Herzego
Bosnia &
Sweden Botswana
Tanzania Brazil
Thailand Bulgaria
bago Burkina
Faso
Trinidad & To
Tunisia Camb
odia
Turkey Cam
eroo
da n
Ugan Can
kra ine ada
U s
Iran
Ch
Ind
irate
Ho
ile
Em
one ng
m
s
rab o
ia
A gd Co Chin
Ko
ted
ng
l om a
Uni ted Kin ates
b
Hu India
St Co Cos
SA
Uni
ng
ited uay
a te ta R ia
C
H
R,
ze
Un Urug an d’I ica

Ch ry
t
c
in vo
du
a
Dom
kis ela ire
ra
be
Gu
s
oa
D
ep
inic
ate
Uz nezu am
on yan
e
u
G
tia
a
n
Do
ma
Ve ietn bia
Cr blic
la
h R nma
Gu rena
V am e Gre
min
Z
Rep
rk
bw
da
e c
ba
Gha
ica
Ecua
Germ
e
ubli
m
El Salv
c
na
a
Zi
Georg
dor
any
Egyp
t
o
ia
r
France
Estonia
Finland
Ethiopia
World Justice Project
2017–2018
Rule of Law Index ®
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2017–2018® report was prepared by the World Justice Project’s research team. The Index’s
conceptual framework and methodology were developed by Juan Carlos Botero, Mark David Agrast, and Alejandro
Ponce. Data collection and analysis for the 2017–2018 report was performed by Kate Adams, Juan Carlos Botero, Alicia
Evangelides, Amy Gryskiewicz, Camilo Gutiérrez Patiño, Matthew Harman, Roberto Hernández, Alexa Hopkins, Jeremy
Levine-Drizin, Sarah Chamness Long, Rachel Martin, Layda Negrete, Alejandro Ponce, Christine S. Pratt, and Leslie Solís
Saravia, with the assistance of Abigail Cameron, Erin Campbell, Ben Carleton, Annette Coto, Loralys McDaniel, Carolyne
Musyoka, Kelly Ranttila, Jessica Sawadogo, Nathan Treacy, and Katie Welgan.
Lead graphic designer for this report was Priya Khosla.
Lead website designer was Dan McCarey, with assistance from Priya Khosla.
The World Justice Project
Board of Directors: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, Kamel Ayadi, William C. Hubbard, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Suet-Fern Lee,
Mondli Makhanya, William H. Neukom, Ellen Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat, Petar Stoyanov.
Directors Emeritus: President Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai
Officers: Mark D. Agrast, Vice President; Deborah Enix-Ross, Vice President; William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board;
Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel and Secretary; Judy Perry Martinez, Vice President; William H. Neukom, Founder and CEO;
James R. Silkenat, Director and Treasurer.
Executive Director: Juan Carlos Botero
Chief Research Officer: Alejandro Ponce
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2017–2018 report was made possible by the generous supporters of the work of the World
Justice Project listed in this report on page 191.
IBSN (print version): 978-0-9882846-2-3 IBSN (online version): 978-0-9882846-3-0
© Copyright 2018 by the World Justice Project. The WJP Rule of Law Index and the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index
are trademarks of the World Justice Project. All Rights Reserved. Requests to reproduce this document should be sent to
Alejandro Ponce, The World Justice Project, 1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S.A.
E-mail: aponce@worldjusticeproject.org
Table of
Contents
02 15
Part One Part Two
Introduction Status of Rule of
02 Executive Summary
Law Around the World
03 Scores & Rankings 16 Rule of Law Around the World
04 Features of the Rule of Law Index 18 Rule of Law by Region
06 Defining the Rule of Law 22 Rule of Law by Income
o8 Conceptual Framework of the Rule of Law Index 26 Rule of Law Performance & Changes
10 Indicators of the Rule of Law Index
27 41
Part Three Part Four
Factor Trends Country Profiles
28 Changes in Factor Scores
30 Overview of Factor Changes 155

31 Overview of Factor Performance
Part Five
32 Rule of Law by Factor
32 Factor 1: Constraints on Government Powers

Behind the Numbers
33 Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
156 Methodology
34 Factor 3: Open Government
164 Contributing Experts
35 Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
187 Acknowledgements
36 Factor 5: Order & Security
190 About the World Justice Project
37 Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
38 Factor 7: Civil Justice
39 Factor 8: Criminal Justice

Part One: Introduction

Rule of Law Index
The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index® is the world’s most comprehensive
dataset of its kind and the only to rely principally on primary data, measuring countries’
adherence to the rule of law from the perspective of ordinary people and their experiences.
The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2017– The country scores and rankings for the WJP Rule of Law
2018 is the seventh report in an annual series, which Index 2017–2018 are derived from more than 110,000
measures the rule of law based on the experiences and household surveys and 3,000 expert surveys in 113
perceptions of the general public and in-country experts countries and jurisdictions. The Index is the world’s most
worldwide. Strengthening the rule of law is a major goal of comprehensive dataset of its kind and the only to rely
citizens, governments, donors, businesses, and civil society principally on primary data, measuring countries’ adherence
organizations around the world. To be effective, rule of to the rule of law from the perspective of ordinary people
law development requires clarity about the fundamental and their experiences.
features that define the rule of law, as well as an adequate
basis for its evaluation and measurement. The Index is intended for a broad audience that includes
policy makers, civil society organizations, and academics,
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2017–2018 presents a portrait among others. It is our hope that this diagnostic tool will
of the rule of law in 113 countries by providing scores and help identify countries’ strengths and weaknesses and
rankings based on eight factors: constraints on government encourage policy choices that strengthen the rule of law
powers, absence of corruption, open government, funda- within and across countries.
mental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement,
civil justice, and criminal justice. The table on the following page presents the scores
and rankings of the WJP Rule of Law Index 2017–2018,
in alphabetical order. Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1
indicating the strongest adherence to the rule of law.
2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 2

Global Rank Score Global Rank Score
Country/Jurisdiction Score1 Rank Change2 Change1 Country/Jurisdiction Score1 Rank Change2 Change1
Afghanistan 0.34 111 – 0.00 Kenya 0.45 95 5 0.02

Albania 0.51 68 4 0.00 Kyrgyzstan 0.47 82 1 0.00
Antigua & Barbuda 0.63 34 5 -0.04 Lebanon 0.47 87 2 0.01
Argentina 0.58 46 5 0.03 Liberia 0.45 94 – 0.01
Australia 0.81 10 1 0.00 Macedonia, FYR 0.53 57 3 -0.01
Austria 0.81 8 1 -0.02 Madagascar 0.44 98 8 -0.02
Bahamas 0.60 40 2 -0.01 Malawi 0.51 66 3 0.00
Bangladesh 0.41 102 1 0.00 Malaysia 0.54 53 3 0.00
Barbados 0.65 30 2 -0.02 Mexico 0.45 92 4 0.00
Belarus 0.51 65 8 -0.02 Moldova 0.49 78 1 0.00
Belgium 0.77 15 2 -0.02 Mongolia 0.54 51 4 0.00
Belize 0.47 81 1 0.00 Morocco 0.51 67 7 -0.02
Bolivia 0.38 106 2 -0.02 Myanmar 0.42 100 2 -0.01
Bosnia & Nepal 0.53 58 5 0.01
0.53 56 6 -0.03
Herzegovina Netherlands 0.85 5 – -0.01
Botswana 0.58 45 – 0.01 New Zealand 0.83 7 1 0.00
Brazil 0.54 52 – -0.02 Nicaragua 0.43 99 2 0.01
Bulgaria 0.53 55 2 -0.01 Nigeria 0.44 97 1 -0.01
Burkina Faso 0.51 70 9 0.02 Norway 0.89 2 – 0.01
Cambodia 0.32 112 – 0.00 Pakistan 0.39 105 1 0.01
Cameroon 0.37 109 – 0.00 Panama 0.52 61 1 0.00
Canada 0.81 9 3 0.00 Peru 0.52 60 5 0.01
Chile 0.67 27 1 -0.02 Philippines 0.47 88 18 -0.04
China 0.50 75 5 0.02 Poland 0.67 25 3 -0.04
Colombia 0.50 72 1 0.00 Portugal 0.72 21 2 0.01
Costa Rica 0.68 24 1 0.00 Republic of Korea 0.72 20 1 -0.01
Cote d’Ivoire 0.47 84 3 0.01 Romania 0.65 29 3 0.00
Croatia 0.61 35 4 0.01 Russia 0.47 89 3 0.01
Czech Republic 0.74 17 – -0.01 Senegal 0.55 49 3 -0.02
Denmark 0.89 1 – 0.01 Serbia 0.50 76 2 0.00
Dominica 0.60 41 1 -0.01 Sierra Leone 0.45 93 2 0.01
Dominican Republic 0.47 90 5 0.00 Singapore 0.80 13 4 -0.02
Ecuador 0.47 85 6 0.02 Slovenia 0.67 26 1 0.00
Egypt 0.36 110 – 0.00 South Africa 0.59 44 1 0.00
El Salvador 0.48 79 4 -0.01 Spain 0.70 23 1 0.01
Estonia 0.80 12 2 0.01 Sri Lanka 0.52 59 9 0.01
Ethiopia 0.38 107 – 0.00 St. Kitts & Nevis 0.66 28 2 0.00
Finland 0.87 3 – 0.00 St. Lucia 0.63 33 3 -0.01
France 0.74 18 3 0.02 St. Vincent & the
0.61 37 – 0.00
Georgia 0.61 38 4 -0.04 Grenadines
Germany 0.83 6 – 0.00 Suriname 0.51 69 10 -0.02
Ghana 0.59 43 1 0.01 Sweden 0.86 4 – 0.00
Greece 0.60 39 2 0.00 Tanzania 0.47 86 2 0.00
Grenada 0.61 36 5 -0.05 Thailand 0.50 71 7 -0.01
Guatemala 0.44 96 1 0.00 Trinidad & Tobago 0.56 48 – -0.01
Guyana 0.50 73 3 0.01 Tunisia 0.53 54 4 0.00
Honduras 0.40 103 1 -0.02 Turkey 0.42 101 2 -0.01
Hong Kong SAR, Uganda 0.40 104 1 0.01
0.77 16 – 0.00
China Ukraine 0.50 77 1 0.01
Hungary 0.55 50 1 -0.02 United Arab Emirates 0.65 32 1 -0.01
India 0.52 62 4 0.00 United Kingdom 0.81 11 1 0.00
Indonesia 0.52 63 2 0.00 United States 0.73 19 1 -0.01
Iran 0.48 80 6 0.01 Uruguay 0.71 22 2 -0.01
Italy 0.65 31 4 0.00 Uzbekistan 0.46 91 2 0.01
Jamaica 0.58 47 – 0.00 Venezuela 0.29 113 – 0.01
Japan 0.79 14 1 0.01 Vietnam 0.50 74 7 -0.01
Jordan 0.60 42 – 0.01 Zambia 0.47 83 2 0.00
Kazakhstan 0.51 64 9 0.01 Zimbabwe 0.37 108 – 0.00
1
Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal points.
2
The change in rankings was calculated by comparing the positions of the 113 countries measured in 2016 with the
rankings of the same 113 countries in 2017–2018.
Features of the
WJP Rule of Law Index
2017–2018
The World Justice Project developed the WJP Rule of Law Index to serve as a
quantitative tool that measures the rule of law in practice. The Index’s methodology
and comprehensive definition of the rule of law are the products of intensive
consultation and vetting with academics, practitioners, and community leaders from
more than 100 countries and 17 professional disciplines.
The scores and rankings of the eight factors and 44 civil and commercial law, criminal justice, labor law, and
sub-factors of the Index draw from two sources of data public health.3
collected by the WJP in 113 countries:
Taken together, these two data sources provide current,
1. A General Population Poll (GPP) conducted by leading
firsthand information about the experiences and percep-
local polling companies, using a representative sample
tions of a large number of people. Their insights address
of 1,000 respondents in the three largest cities of each
the government, the police, the courts, the state's open-
country;
ness and accountability, the extent of corruption, and the
2. Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs) magnitude of common crimes to which the general public
consisting of closed-ended questions completed by is exposed.
in-country practitioners and academics with expertise in
Box 1
Country-Specific Data and Online Tools
In addition to this written report, an interactive online platform for country-specific WJP Rule of Law Index® data
is available at: data.worldjusticeproject.org. The interactive data site invites viewers to browse each of the 113
country profiles, and explore country and factor scores. The site features the Index’s entire dataset, as well as global,
regional, and income group rankings.
3
Please see the “Methodology” section on page 156 of this report for more detailed information regarding data collection
and score computation.

Main Features
The WJP Rule of Law Index includes several features that set it apart from other indices and
make it useful for analysis across a large number of countries:
Rule of Law in Practice New Data Anchored in Actual Experiences

The Index measures adherence to the rule of The Index is the only comprehensive set of indi-
law by looking at policy outcomes, such as whether cators on the rule of law that is based on primary
people have access to courts or whether crime is data. The Index’s scores are built from the as-
effectively controlled. This stands in contrast to sessments of residents (1,000 respondents per
efforts that focus on the written legal code, or the country) and local legal experts, which ensure that
institutional means by which a society may seek to the findings reflect the conditions experienced by
achieve these policy outcomes. actual people, including residents from marginal-
ized sectors of society.
Comprehensive and Multi-Dimensional
While other indices cover particular aspects of Culturally Competent
the rule of law, such as absence of corruption or The Index has been designed to be applied in
human rights, they do not yield a full picture of countries with vastly different social, cultural,
the state of the rule of law. The WJP Rule of Law economic, and political systems. No society has
Index is the only global instrument that looks at the ever attained — let alone sustained — a perfect
rule of law comprehensively. realization of the rule of law. Every country faces
the perpetual challenge of building and renewing
Perspective of Ordinary People the structures, institutions, and norms that can
The WJP Rule of Law Index puts people at its support and sustain a rule of law culture.
core. It looks at a country’s adherence to the rule
of law from the perspective of ordinary individuals
and their experiences with the rule of law in their
societies. The Index examines practical, everyday
situations, such as whether people can access
public services and whether a dispute among
neighbors can be resolved peacefully and cost-
effectively by an independent adjudicator.

Defining
the Rule of Law
Effective rule of law reduces corruption, combats poverty and disease, and protects
people from injustices large and small. It is the foundation for communities of peace,
opportunity, and equity – underpinning development, accountable government, and
respect for fundamental rights. The rule of law is not just the rule of lawyers and judges:
all members of society are stakeholders.
Despite its profound importance for fair and functioning This is measured in factors 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Index.
societies, the rule of law is notoriously difficult to define Although broad in scope, this framework assumes very
and measure. A simple way of approaching it is in terms little about the functions of the state, and when it does, it
of some of the outcomes that the rule of law brings to incorporates functions that are recognized by practically all
societies, each of which reflects one aspect of the complex societies, such as the provision of justice or the guarantee
concept of the rule of law. The WJP Rule of Law Index seeks of order and security.
to embody these outcomes within a simple and coherent
framework. The resulting set of indicators is also an effort to strike a
balance between what scholars call a “thin” or minimal-
The WJP Rule of Law Index captures adherence to the rule of ist conception of the rule of law that focuses on formal,
law as defined by the WJP’s universal principles (see Box 2) procedural rules, and a “thick” conception that includes
through a comprehensive and multi-dimensional set of out- substantive characteristics, such as self-government and
come indicators, each of which reflects a particular aspect various fundamental rights and freedoms. Striking this bal-
of this complex concept. The theoretical framework linking ance between “thin” and “thick” conceptions of the rule of
these outcome indicators draws upon two main principles law enables the Index to apply to different types of social
pertaining to the relationship between the state and the and political systems, including those which lack many of
governed. The first principle measures whether the law the features that characterize democratic nations, while
imposes limits on the exercise of power by the state and including sufficient substantive characteristics to render
its agents, as well as individuals and private entities. This is the rule of law as more than a system of rules. Indeed, the
measured in factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Index. The second Index recognizes that a system of law that fails to respect
principle measures whether the state limits the actions of core human rights guaranteed under international law is at
members of society and fulfills its basic duties towards its best “rule by law” and does not deserve to be called a rule
population so that the public interest is served, people are of law system.
protected from violence, and all members of society have
access to dispute settlement and grievance mechanisms.

Box 2
Four Universal Principles of the Rule of Law

The WJP uses a working definition of the rule of law based on four universal principles, derived from internationally
accepted standards. The rule of law is a system where the following four universal principles are upheld:
1. Accountability 3. Open Government

The government as well as private actors are The processes by which the laws are enacted,
accountable under the law. administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and
efficient.
2. Just Laws 4. Accessible & Impartial Dispute Resolution

The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and
applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, independent representatives and neutrals who are
including the security of persons and property and accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the
certain core human rights. makeup of the communities they serve.
The rule of law affects all of us in our everyday lives. and corruption decrease the security of physical
Although we may not be aware of it, the rule of law is infrastructure and waste scarce resources, which are es-
profoundly important – and not just for lawyers or judges. sential to a thriving economy.
It is the foundation for a system of rules to keep us safe,
Public Health & Environment
resolve disputes, and enable us to prosper. Every sector of
Consider the implications of pollution, wildlife poaching,
society is a stakeholder in the rule of law. Below are a few
and deforestation for public health and the environment.
examples:
What would happen if a company were pouring harmful
Business Environment chemicals into a river in a highly populated area and the
Imagine an investor seeking to commit resources abroad. environmental inspector ignored these actions in exchange
She would probably think twice before investing in a for a bribe? Adherence to the rule of law is essential for
country where corruption is rampant, property rights are holding governments, businesses, civil society organiza-
ill-defined, and contracts are difficult to enforce. Uneven tions, and communities accountable for protecting public
enforcement of regulations, corruption, insecure property health and the environment.
rights, and ineffective means to settle disputes undermine
legitimate business and deter both domestic and foreign
investment.
Public Works
Consider the bridges, roads, or runways we traverse
daily – or the offices and buildings in which we live, work,
and play. What would happen if building codes governing
their design and safety were not enforced, or if government
officials and contractors used low-quality materials in order
to pocket the surplus? Weak regulatory enforcement

Conceptual Framework
of the WJP Rule of Law Index
The conceptual framework of the WJP Rule of Law Index is comprised of eight factors
further disaggregated into 44 sub-factors. The WJP also collects data on a ninth factor,
informal justice, which are not calculated into the aggregate scores and rankings.
These factors and sub-factors are presented below and described in detail in the
section that follows.
Factor 1 Factor 3
Constraints on Government Powers Open Government
1.1 Government powers are effectively limited by 3.1 Publicized laws and government data
the legislature
3.2 Right to information
1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by
3.3 Civic participation
the judiciary
1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by 3.4 Complaint mechanisms
independent auditing and review

Factor 4
1.4 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct
Fundamental Rights
1.5 Government powers are subject to non-
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
governmental checks
4.2 The right to life and security of the person is
1.6 Transition of power is subject to the law
effectively guaranteed
Factor 2 4.3 Due process of the law and rights of the
Absence of Corruption accused

4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression is effectively
2.1 Government officials in the executive branch
guaranteed
do not use public office for private gain
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion is effectively
2.2 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use
guaranteed
public office for private gain
4.6 Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy
2.3 Government officials in the police and military do not
is effectively guaranteed
use public office for private gain
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association is
2.4 Government officials in the legislative branch do
not use public office for private gain
4.8 Fundamental labor rights are effectively
guaranteed

Factor 5 Factor 7
Order & Security Civil Justice
5.1 Crime is effectively controlled 7.1 People can access and afford civil justice
5.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited 7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
5.3 People do not resort to violence to redress 7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
personal grievances
7.4 Civil justice is free of improper government influence
Factor 6 7.5 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delay
Regulatory Enforcement 7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced 7.7 Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are
6.2 Government regulations are applied and enforced accessible, impartial, and effective
without improper influence
Factor 8
6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without
Criminal Justice
unreasonable delay
6.4 Due process is respected in administrative 8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
proceedings 8.2 Criminal adjudication system is timely and effective
6.5 The government does not expropriate without 8.3 Correctional system is effective in reducing criminal
lawful process and adequate compensation behavior
8.4 Criminal justice system is impartial
8.5 Criminal justice system is free of corruption
8.6 Criminal justice system is free of improper

government influence
8.7 Due process of the law and rights of the accused
Box 3
Informal Justice and the Rule of Law Factor 9

Informal Justice
The conceptual framework of the Index includes a 9.1 Informal justice is timely and effective
ninth factor on informal justice that is not included 9.2 Informal justice is impartial and free of
in the Index’s aggregate scores and rankings. Informal improper influence
justice systems often play a large role in countries 9.3 Informal justice respects and protects
where formal legal institutions are weak, remote, or fundamental rights
perceived as ineffective. For this reason, the WJP
has devoted significant effort to collecting data on systematically measuring their fairness and effective-
informal justice in a dozen countries. Nonetheless, the ness make cross-country assessments extraordinarily
complexities of these systems and the difficulties of challenging.

Indicators of the
WJP Rule of Law Index
Factor 1 Factor 2
Constraints on Government Powers Absence of Corruption
1.1 Government powers are effectively limited by 2.1 Government officials in the executive branch do
the legislature not use public office for private gain
Measures whether legislative bodies have the ability in Measures the prevalence of bribery, informal
practice to exercise effective checks on and oversight payments, and other inducements in the delivery of
of the government public services and the enforcement of regulations.
It also measures whether government procurement
1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by and public works contracts are awarded through
the judiciary an open and competitive bidding process, and
Measures whether the judiciary has the independence whether government officials at various levels
and the ability in practice to exercise effective checks of the executive branch refrain from embezzling
on the government public funds
1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by 2.2 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use
independent auditing and review public office for private gain
Measures whether comptrollers or auditors, as well Measures whether judges and judicial officials
as national human rights ombudsman agencies, have refrain from soliciting and accepting bribes to per-
sufficient independence and the ability to exercise form duties or expedite processes, and whether the
effective checks on and oversight of the government judiciary and judicial rulings are free of improper
influence by the government, private interests, and
1.4 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct criminal organizations
Measures whether government officials in the execu- 2.3 Government officials in the police and military do not
tive, legislature, judiciary, and the police are investigat-
use public office for private gain
ed, prosecuted, and punished for official misconduct
and other violations Measures whether police officers and criminal
investigators refrain from soliciting and accepting
Government powers are subject to non- bribes to perform basic police services or to inves-
1.5
governmental checks tigate crimes, and whether government officials
in the police and the military are free of improper
Measures whether an independent media, civil society influence by private interests or criminal organiza-
organizations, political parties, and individuals are free tions
to report and comment on government policies with-
out fear of retaliation 2.4 Government officials in the legislative branch do
not use public office for private gain
1.6 Transition of power is subject to the law
Measures whether members of the legislature
Measures whether government officials are elected or
refrain from soliciting or accepting bribes or other
appointed in accordance with the rules and procedures
inducements in exchange for political favors or
set forth in the constitution. Where elections take
favorable votes on legislation
place, it also measures the integrity of the electoral
process, including access to the ballot, the absence of
intimidation, and public scrutiny of election results

Factor 3 Factor 4
Open Government Fundamental Rights
3.1 Publicized laws and government data 4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
Measures whether basic laws and information on Measures whether individuals are free from
legal rights are publicly available, presented in plain discrimination — based on socio-economic status,
language, and made accessible in all languages. gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual
It also measures the quality and accessibility of orientation, or gender identity — with respect to
information published by the government in print public services, employment, court proceedings,
or online, and whether administrative regulations, and the justice system
drafts of legislation, and high court decisions are
4.2 The right to life and security of the person is
made accessible to the public in a timely manner
3.2 Right to information Measures whether the police inflict physical harm
Measures whether requests for information held by upon criminal suspects during arrest and interroga-
a government agency are granted, whether these tion, and whether political dissidents or members
requests are granted within a reasonable time of the media are subjected to unreasonable search-
period, if the information provided is pertinent and es or to arrest, detention, imprisonment, threats,
complete, and if requests for information are grant- abusive treatment, or violence
ed at a reasonable cost and without having to pay
4.3 Due process of the law and rights of the accused
a bribe. It also measures whether people are aware
of their right to information, and whether relevant Measures whether the basic rights of criminal
records are accessible to the public upon request suspects are respected, including the presumption
of innocence and the freedom from arbitrary arrest
3.3 Civic participation and unreasonable pre-trial detention. It also mea-
sures whether criminal suspects are able to access
Measures the effectiveness of civic participa-
and challenge evidence used against them, whether
tion mechanisms, including the protection of the
they are subject to abusive treatment, and whether
freedoms of opinion and expression, assembly and
they are provided with adequate legal assistance.
association, and the right to petition the govern-
In addition, it measures whether the basic rights
ment. It also measures whether people can voice
of prisoners are respected once they have been
concerns to various government officers, and
convicted of a crime
whether government officials provide sufficient
information and notice about decisions affecting 4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression is effectively
the community guaranteed
Measures whether an independent media, civil so-
3.4 Complaint mechanisms
ciety organizations, political parties, and individuals
Measures whether people are able to bring specific are free to report and comment on government
complaints to the government about the provision policies without fear of retaliation
of public services or the performance of govern-
ment officers in carrying out their legal duties in 4.5 Freedom of belief and religion is effectively
practice, and how government officials respond to guaranteed
such complaints Measures whether members of religious minorities
can worship and conduct religious practices freely
and publicly, and whether non-adherents are pro-
tected from having to submit to religious laws
(cont'd)

Factor 4 Factor 6
Fundamental Rights Regulatory Enforcement
4.6 Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy 6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced
is effectively guaranteed Measures whether government regulations, such
Measures whether the police or other government as labor, environmental, public health, commercial,
officials conduct physical searches without war- and consumer protection regulations, are effective-
rants, or intercept electronic communications of ly enforced
private individuals without judicial authorization
6.2 Government regulations are applied and enforced
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association is without improper influence
effectively guaranteed Measures whether the enforcement of regulations
Measures whether people can freely attend com- is subject to bribery or improper influence by
munity meetings, join political organizations, hold private interests, and whether public services, such
peaceful public demonstrations, sign petitions, and as the issuance of permits and licenses and the ad-
express opinions against government policies and ministration of public health services, are provided
actions without fear of retaliation without bribery or other inducements
4.8 Fundamental labor rights are effectively 6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without
guaranteed unreasonable delay
Measures the effective enforcement of fundamen- Measures whether administrative proceedings at

tal labor rights, including freedom of association the national and local levels are conducted without
and the right to collective bargaining, the absence unreasonable delay
of discrimination with respect to employment, and
6.4 Due process is respected in administrative
freedom from forced labor and child labor
proceedings
Measures whether the due process of law is re-
spected in administrative proceedings conducted
Factor 5 by national and local authorities, including such
areas as the environment, taxes, and labor
Order & Security
5.1 Crime is effectively controlled 6.5 The government does not expropriate without
lawful process and adequate compensation
Measures the prevalence of common crimes,
including homicide, kidnapping, burglary and theft, Measures whether the government respects the
armed robbery, and extortion, as well as people’s property rights of people and corporations, refrains
general perceptions of safety in their communities from the illegal seizure of private property, and
provides adequate compensation when property is
5.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited legally expropriated
Measures whether people are effectively protected
from armed conflict and terrorism
5.3 People do not resort to violence to redress

personal grievances
Measures whether people resort to intimidation or
violence to resolve civil disputes amongst them-
selves or to seek redress from the government, and
whether people are free from mob violence

Factor 7 Factor 8
Civil Justice Criminal Justice
7.1 People can access and afford civil justice 8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
Measures the accessibility and affordability of Measures whether perpetrators of crimes are
civil courts, including whether people are aware effectively apprehended and charged. It also mea-
of available remedies; can access and afford legal sures whether police, investigators, and prosecu-
advice and representation; and can access the tors have adequate resources, are free of corrup-
court system without incurring unreasonable fees, tion, and perform their duties competently
encountering unreasonable procedural hurdles, or
experiencing physical or linguistic barriers 8.2 Criminal adjudication system is timely and effective
Measures whether perpetrators of crimes are ef-
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
fectively prosecuted and punished. It also measures
Measures whether the civil justice system discrim- whether criminal judges and other judicial officers
inates in practice based on socio-economic status, are competent and produce speedy decisions
gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual
orientation, or gender identity 8.3 Correctional system is effective in reducing criminal
behavior
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
Measures whether correctional institutions are
Measures whether the civil justice system is free of secure, respect prisoners’ rights, and are effective
bribery and improper influence by private interests in preventing recidivism
7.4 Civil justice is free of improper government influence 8.4 Criminal justice system is impartial
Measures whether the civil justice system is free of Measures whether the police and criminal judges
improper government or political influence are impartial and whether they discriminate in
practice based on socio-economic status, gender,
7.5 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delay ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orienta-
tion, or gender identity
Measures whether civil justice proceedings are
conducted and judgments are produced in a timely 8.5 Criminal justice system is free of corruption
manner without unreasonable delay
Measures whether the police, prosecutors, and
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced judges are free of bribery and improper influence
from criminal organizations
Measures the effectiveness and timeliness of the
enforcement of civil justice decisions and judg- 8.6 Criminal justice system is free of improper
ments in practice
government influence
7.7 Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are Measures whether the criminal justice system is in-
dependent from government or political influence
accessible, impartial, and effective
Measures whether alternative dispute resolution 8.7 Due process of the law and rights of the accused
mechanisms (ADRs) are affordable, efficient, en-
forceable, and free of corruption Measures whether the basic rights of criminal
suspects are respected, including the presumption
of innocence and the freedom from arbitrary arrest
and unreasonable pre-trial detention. It also mea-
sures whether criminal suspects are able to access
and challenge evidence used against them, whether
they are subject to abusive treatment, and whether
they are provided with adequate legal assistance.
In addition, it measures whether the basic rights
of prisoners are respected once they have been
convicted of a crime

15
Part Two
Status of Rule of
Law Around the World
16 Rule of Law Around the World
18 Rule of Law by Region

22 Rule of Law by Income
26 Rule of Law Performance & Changes

Part Two: Status of Rule of Law Around the World
Rule of Law
Around the World:
Scores & Rankings
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Ranking
Denmark 0.89 1 Antigua & Barbuda 0.63 34

Norway 0.89 2 Croatia 0.61 35
Finland 0.87 3 Grenada 0.61 36
Sweden 0.86 4 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 0.61 37
Netherlands 0.85 5 Georgia 0.61 38
Germany 0.83 6 Greece 0.60 39
New Zealand 0.83 7 Bahamas 0.60 40
Austria 0.81 8 Dominica 0.60 41
Canada 0.81 9 Jordan 0.60 42
Australia 0.81 10 Ghana 0.59 43
United Kingdom 0.81 11 South Africa 0.59 44
Estonia 0.80 12 Botswana 0.58 45
Singapore 0.80 13 Argentina 0.58 46
Japan 0.79 14 Jamaica 0.58 47
Belgium 0.77 15 Trinidad & Tobago 0.56 48
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.77 16 Senegal 0.55 49
Czech Republic 0.74 17 Hungary 0.55 50
France 0.74 18 Mongolia 0.54 51
United States 0.73 19 Brazil 0.54 52
Republic of Korea 0.72 20 Malaysia 0.54 53
Portugal 0.72 21 Tunisia 0.53 54
Uruguay 0.71 22 Bulgaria 0.53 55
Spain 0.70 23 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.53 56
Costa Rica 0.68 24 Macedonia, FYR 0.53 57
Poland 0.67 25 Nepal 0.53 58
Slovenia 0.67 26 Sri Lanka 0.52 59
Chile 0.67 27 Peru 0.52 60
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.66 28 Panama 0.52 61
Romania 0.65 29 India 0.52 62
Barbados 0.65 30 Indonesia 0.52 63
Italy 0.65 31 Kazakhstan 0.51 64
United Arab Emirates 0.65 32 Belarus 0.51 65
St. Lucia 0.63 33 Malawi 0.51 66
*Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal points.

Morocco 0.51 67 Uzbekistan 0.46 91
Albania 0.51 68 Mexico 0.45 92
Suriname 0.51 69 Sierra Leone 0.45 93
Burkina Faso 0.51 70 Liberia 0.45 94
Thailand 0.50 71 Kenya 0.45 95
Colombia 0.50 72 Guatemala 0.44 96
Guyana 0.50 73 Nigeria 0.44 97
Vietnam 0.50 74 Madagascar 0.44 98
China 0.50 75 Nicaragua 0.43 99
Serbia 0.50 76 Myanmar 0.42 100
Ukraine 0.50 77 Turkey 0.42 101
Moldova 0.49 78 Bangladesh 0.41 102
El Salvador 0.48 79 Honduras 0.40 103
Iran 0.48 80 Uganda 0.40 104
Belize 0.47 81 Pakistan 0.39 105
Kyrgyzstan 0.47 82 Bolivia 0.38 106
Zambia 0.47 83 Ethiopia 0.38 107
Cote d'Ivoire 0.47 84 Zimbabwe 0.37 108
Ecuador 0.47 85 Cameroon 0.37 109
Tanzania 0.47 86 Egypt 0.36 110
Lebanon 0.47 87 Afghanistan 0.34 111
Philippines 0.47 88 Cambodia 0.32 112
Russia 0.47 89 Venezuela 0.29 113
Dominican Republic 0.47 90

Rule of Law Around the

World by Region
Region's
Average Region's Top
Region Score Rank Performer
East Asia & Pacific 0.60 2/7 New Zealand
Eastern Europe & Central Asia 0.50 5/7 Georgia
EU & EFTA & NA 0.74 1/7 Denmark
Latin America & Caribbean 0.54 3/7 Uruguay
Middle East & North Africa 0.51 4/7 United Arab Emirates
South Asia 0.45 7/7 Nepal
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.47 6/7 Ghana
East Asia & Pacific

Regional Overall Global Change in Change in
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Global Rank Overall Score* Average Regional Factor Score
New Zealand 1/15 0.83 7/113 1 0.00

Australia 2/15 0.81 10/113 1 0.00 0.59
Singapore 3/15 0.80 13/113 4 -0.02 0.54 0.60
Japan 4/15 0.79 14/113 1 0.01

Hong Kong SAR, China 5/15 0.77 16/113 – 0.00
Republic of Korea 6/15 0.72 20/113 1 -0.01 0.58 0.55
Mongolia 7/15 0.54 51/113 4 0.00

Malaysia 8/15 0.54 53/113 3 0.00
Indonesia 9/15 0.52 63/113 2 0.00 0.60 0.56
Thailand 10/15 0.50 71/113 7 -0.01
0.79
Vietnam 11/15 0.50 74/113 7 -0.01
China 12/15 0.50 75/113 5 0.02
Philippines 13/15 0.47 88/113 18 -0.04 Constraints Absence of Open Fundamental
on Gov't Corruption Government Rights
Myanmar 14/15 0.42 100/113 2 -0.01 Powers
Cambodia 15/15 0.32 112/113 – 0.00

Order & Regulatory Civil Criminal
Security Enforcement Justice Justice
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Global Rank Overall Score*
Georgia 1/13 0.61 38/113 4 -0.04

Bosnia & Herzegovina 2/13 0.53 56/113 6 -0.03 0.43
Macedonia, FYR 3/13 0.53 57/113 3 -0.01 0.42 0.43
Kazakhstan 4/13 0.51 64/113 9 0.01

Belarus 5/13 0.51 65/113 8 -0.02
Albania 6/13 0.51 68/113 4 0.00 0.51 0.48
Serbia 7/13 0.50 76/113 2 0.00

Ukraine 8/13 0.50 77/113 1 0.01
Moldova 9/13 0.49 78/113 1 0.00 0.47 0.51
Kyrgyzstan 10/13 0.47 82/113 1 0.00 0.76
Russia 11/13 0.47 89/113 3 0.01
Uzbekistan 12/13 0.46 91/113 2 0.01
Turkey 13/13 0.42 101/113 2 -0.01
EU & EFTA & NA (European Union, European Free Trade Association, and North America)

Denmark 1/24 0.89 1/113 – 0.01

Norway 2/24 0.89 2/113 – 0.01 0.76
Finland 3/24 0.87 3/113 – 0.00 0.67 0.74
Sweden 4/24 0.86 4/113 – 0.00

Netherlands 5/24 0.85 5/113 – -0.01
Germany 6/24 0.83 6/113 – 0.00 0.70 0.73
Austria 7/24 0.81 8/113 1 -0.02

Canada 8/24 0.81 9/113 3 0.00
United Kingdom 9/24 0.81 11/113 1 0.00 0.71 0.77
Estonia 10/24 0.80 12/113 2 0.01 0.84
Belgium 11/24 0.77 15/113 2 -0.02
Czech Republic 12/24 0.74 17/113 – -0.01
France 13/24 0.74 18/113 3 0.02
Constraints Absence of Open Fundamental
United States 14/24 0.73 19/113 1 -0.01 on Gov't Corruption Government Rights
Powers
Portugal 15/24 0.72 21/113 2 0.01
Spain 16/24 0.70 23/113 1 0.01 Order & Regulatory Civil Criminal
Poland 17/24 0.67 25/113 3 -0.04
Slovenia 18/24 0.67 26/113 1 0.00
Romania 19/24 0.65 29/113 3 0.00
Italy 20/24 0.65 31/113 4 0.00
Croatia 21/24 0.61 35/113 4 0.01
Greece 22/24 0.60 39/113 2 0.00
Hungary 23/24 0.55 50/113 1 -0.02
Bulgaria 24/24 0.53 55/113 2 -0.01

Latin America & Caribbean

Uruguay 1/30 0.71 22/113 2 -0.01

Costa Rica 2/30 0.68 24/113 1 0.00 0.55
Chile 3/30 0.67 27/113 1 -0.02 0.43 0.51
St. Kitts & Nevis 4/30 0.66 28/113 2 0.00

Barbados 5/30 0.65 30/113 2 -0.02
St. Lucia 6/30 0.63 33/113 3 -0.01 0.53 0.53
Antigua & Barbuda 7/30 0.63 34/113 5 -0.04

Grenada 8/30 0.61 36/113 5 -0.05
St. Vincent & the Grenadines 9/30 0.61 37/113 – 0.00 0.49 0.61
Bahamas 10/30 0.60 40/113 2 -0.01
0.67
Dominica 11/30 0.60 41/113 1 -0.01
Argentina 12/30 0.58 46/113 5 0.03
Jamaica 13/30 0.58 47/113 – 0.00
Constraints Absence of Open Fundamental
Trinidad & Tobago 14/30 0.56 48/113 – -0.01 on Gov't Corruption Government Rights
Powers
Brazil 15/30 0.54 52/113 – -0.02
Peru 16/30 0.52 60/113 5 0.01 Order & Regulatory Civil Criminal
Panama 17/30 0.52 61/113 1 0.00
Suriname 18/30 0.51 69/113 10 -0.02
Colombia 19/30 0.50 72/113 1 0.00
Guyana 20/30 0.50 73/113 3 0.01
El Salvador 21/30 0.48 79/113 4 -0.01
Belize 22/30 0.47 81/113 1 0.00
Ecuador 23/30 0.47 85/113 6 0.02
Dominican Republic 24/30 0.47 90/113 5 0.00
Mexico 25/30 0.45 92/113 4 0.00
Guatemala 26/30 0.44 96/113 1 0.00
Nicaragua 27/30 0.43 99/113 2 0.01
Honduras 28/30 0.40 103/113 1 -0.02
Bolivia 29/30 0.38 106/113 2 -0.02
Venezuela 30/30 0.29 113/113 – 0.01
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Middle East & North Africa
United Arab Emirates 1/7 0.65 32/113 1 -0.01

Jordan 2/7 0.60 42/113 – 0.01 0.51
Tunisia 3/7 0.53 54/113 4 0.00 0.48 0.53
Morocco 4/7 0.51 67/113 7 -0.02

Iran 5/7 0.48 80/113 6 0.01
Lebanon 6/7 0.47 87/113 2 0.01 0.53 0.40
Egypt 7/7 0.36 110/113 – 0.00
0.51 0.44
South Asia 0.71

Nepal 1/6 0.53 58/113 5 0.01

Sri Lanka 2/6 0.52 59/113 9 0.01 0.53
India 3/6 0.52 62/113 4 0.00 0.39 0.38
Bangladesh 4/6 0.41 102/113 1 0.00

Pakistan 5/6 0.39 105/113 1 0.01
Afghanistan 6/6 0.34 111/113 – 0.00 0.41 0.49
0.43
Sub-Saharan Africa
0.45
0.54

Ghana 1/18 0.59 43/113 1 0.01

South Africa 2/18 0.59 44/113 1 0.00 0.50
Botswana 3/18 0.58 45/113 – 0.01 0.40 0.39
Senegal 4/18 0.55 49/113 3 -0.02

Malawi 5/18 0.51 66/113 3 0.00
Burkina Faso 6/18 0.51 70/113 9 0.02 0.49 0.43
Zambia 7/18 0.47 83/113 2 0.00

Cote d'Ivoire 8/18 0.47 84/113 3 0.01
Tanzania 9/18 0.47 86/113 2 0.00 0.44 0.50
Sierra Leone 10/18 0.45 93/113 2 0.01
0.63
Liberia 11/18 0.45 94/113 – 0.01
Kenya 12/18 0.45 95/113 5 0.02
Nigeria 13/18 0.44 97/113 1 -0.01 Constraints Absence of Open Fundamental
on Gov't Corruption Government Rights
Madagascar 14/18 0.44 98/113 8 -0.02 Powers
Uganda 15/18 0.40 104/113 1 0.01

Ethiopia 16/18 0.38 107/113 – 0.00 Order & Regulatory Civil Criminal
Zimbabwe 17/18 0.37 108/113 – 0.00
Cameroon 18/18 0.37 109/113 – 0.00

Rule of Law Around the

World by Income
Income Group Income Group Top
Income Group Average Score Rank Performer
Low Income 0.45 4/4 Senegal

Lower Middle Income 0.47 3/4 Georgia
Upper Middle Income 0.53 2/4 Costa Rica
High Income 0.74 1/4 Denmark
Low Income
Low
Income Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank
Senegal 1/12 0.55 49/113 Liberia 7/12 0.45 94/113

Nepal 2/12 0.53 58/113 Madagascar 8/12 0.44 98/113
Malawi 3/12 0.51 66/113 Uganda 9/12 0.40 104/113
Burkina Faso 4/12 0.51 70/113 Ethiopia 10/12 0.38 107/113
Tanzania 5/12 0.47 86/113 Zimbabwe 11/12 0.37 108/113
Sierra Leone 6/12 0.45 93/113 Afghanistan 12/12 0.34 111/113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Lower Middle Income
Lower
Middle
Georgia 1/30 0.61 38/113 Cote d'Ivoire 16/30 0.47 84/113

Jordan 2/30 0.60 42/113 Philippines 17/30 0.47 88/113
Ghana 3/30 0.59 43/113 Uzbekistan 18/30 0.46 91/113
Mongolia 4/30 0.54 51/113 Kenya 19/30 0.45 95/113
Tunisia 5/30 0.53 54/113 Guatemala 20/30 0.44 96/113
Sri Lanka 6/30 0.52 59/113 Nigeria 21/30 0.44 97/113
India 7/30 0.52 62/113 Nicaragua 22/30 0.43 99/113
Indonesia 8/30 0.52 63/113 Myanmar 23/30 0.42 100/113
Morocco 9/30 0.51 67/113 Bangladesh 24/30 0.41 102/113
Vietnam 10/30 0.50 74/113 Honduras 25/30 0.40 103/113
Ukraine 11/30 0.50 77/113 Pakistan 26/30 0.39 105/113
Moldova 12/30 0.49 78/113 Bolivia 27/30 0.38 106/113
El Salvador 13/30 0.48 79/113 Cameroon 28/30 0.37 109/113
Kyrgyzstan 14/30 0.47 82/113 Egypt 29/30 0.36 110/113
Zambia 15/30 0.47 83/113 Cambodia 30/30 0.32 112/113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Upper Middle Income
Upper
Middle
Costa Rica 1/36 0.68 24/113 Kazakhstan 19/36 0.51 64/113

Romania 2/36 0.65 29/113 Belarus 20/36 0.51 65/113
St. Lucia 3/36 0.63 33/113 Albania 21/36 0.51 68/113
Croatia 4/36 0.61 35/113 Suriname 22/36 0.51 69/113
Grenada 5/36 0.61 36/113 Thailand 23/36 0.50 71/113
St. Vincent & the Grenadines 6/36 0.61 37/113 Colombia 24/36 0.50 72/113
Dominica 7/36 0.60 41/113 Guyana 25/36 0.50 73/113
South Africa 8/36 0.59 44/113 China 26/36 0.50 75/113
Botswana 9/36 0.58 45/113 Serbia 27/36 0.50 76/113
Argentina 10/36 0.58 46/113 Iran 28/36 0.48 80/113
Jamaica 11/36 0.58 47/113 Belize 29/36 0.47 81/113
Brazil 12/36 0.54 52/113 Ecuador 30/36 0.47 85/113
Malaysia 13/36 0.54 53/113 Lebanon 31/36 0.47 87/113
Bulgaria 14/36 0.53 55/113 Russia 32/36 0.47 89/113
Bosnia & Herzegovina 15/36 0.53 56/113 Dominican Republic 33/36 0.47 90/113
Macedonia, FYR 16/36 0.53 57/113 Mexico 34/36 0.45 92/113
Peru 17/36 0.52 60/113 Turkey 35/36 0.42 101/113
Panama 18/36 0.52 61/113 Venezuela 36/36 0.29 113/113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

High Income
High
Denmark 1/35 0.89 1/113 United States 19/35 0.73 19/113

Norway 2/35 0.89 2/113 Republic of Korea 20/35 0.72 20/113
Finland 3/35 0.87 3/113 Portugal 21/35 0.72 21/113
Sweden 4/35 0.86 4/113 Uruguay 22/35 0.71 22/113
Netherlands 5/35 0.85 5/113 Spain 23/35 0.70 23/113
Germany 6/35 0.83 6/113 Poland 24/35 0.67 25/113
New Zealand 7/35 0.83 7/113 Slovenia 25/35 0.67 26/113
Austria 8/35 0.81 8/113 Chile 26/35 0.67 27/113
Canada 9/35 0.81 9/113 St. Kitts & Nevis 27/35 0.66 28/113
Australia 10/35 0.81 10/113 Barbados 28/35 0.65 30/113
United Kingdom 11/35 0.81 11/113 Italy 29/35 0.65 31/113
Estonia 12/35 0.80 12/113 United Arab Emirates 30/35 0.65 32/113
Singapore 13/35 0.80 13/113 Antigua & Barbuda 31/35 0.63 34/113
Japan 14/35 0.79 14/113 Greece 32/35 0.60 39/113
Belgium 15/35 0.77 15/113 Bahamas 33/35 0.60 40/113
Hong Kong SAR, China 16/35 0.77 16/113 Trinidad & Tobago 34/35 0.56 48/113
Czech Republic 17/35 0.74 17/113 Hungary 35/35 0.55 50/113
France 18/35 0.74 18/113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Rule of Law Performance & Changes
This chart categorizes countries according to whether their overall 2017–2018 rule of
law score is above or below the median, and whether their score has improved, remained
Ruleorofdeclined
stable, Law Score Positioning
since 2016.
Region
0.9
Above Median
0.90 East Asia & Pac

Grenada Eastern Europe
Change: -0.051
France EU & EFTA & N
0.8
0.80 Georgia
Change: +0.019
Change: -0.043 LaKn America &
Poland Middle East &
Change: -0.041
0.7 South Asia
0.70
Antigua & Barbuda Sub-Saharan A
Change: -0.038 Argentina
Change: +0.027
2017–2018
Index Score
0.6
0.60
ROL 2017 Score
Median: 0.53
0.5
0.50
Burkina Faso
Change: +0.023
Philippines
0.4
0.40 Change: -0.038
Below Median
0.3
0.30
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.005 0.00 +0.005 +0.01 +0.02 +0.03
0.2
declining Change in Score improving
since 2016
East Asia & Pacific Eastern Europe & Central Asia EU & EFTA & NA Latin America & Caribbean
0.1
Middle East & North Africa South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
0.0 Above the Median Above the Median Above the Median
Declining
-0.05
Rule-0.04
of Law -0.03
Stable Rule of
-0.02
Law
-0.01 0.00
Improving
0.01
Rule0.02
of Law 0.03
Antigua & Barbuda Hungary Australia New Zealand Argentina Ghana
Austria Macedonia, FYR (median) Canada Romania Botswana Japan
Bahamas Netherlands Costa Rica Slovenia Croatia Jordan
Barbados Poland Finland South Africa Denmark Norway
Belgium Republic of Korea Germany St. Kitts & Nevis Estonia Portugal
Bosnia & Herzegovina Senegal Greece St. Vincent & the France Spain
Brazil Singapore Hong Kong SAR, China Grenadines
Bulgaria St. Lucia Italy ChangeSweden
in Score
Chile Trinidad & Tobago Jamaica Tunisia
Czech Republic United Arab Emirates Malaysia United Kingdom
Sum of Change
Dominicain Score vs. sum of States
United ROL 2017 Score. Color shows details about Region.
Mongolia Details are shown for Country1. The view
is ﬁlteredGeorgia
on Region, which keeps 7 of 7 members.
Uruguay
Grenada
Below the Median Below the Median Below the Median

Declining Rule of Law Stable Rule of Law Improving Rule of Law
Belarus Nigeria Afghanistan India Burkina Faso Nicaragua
Bolivia Philippines Albania Indonesia China Pakistan
El Salvador Suriname Bangladesh Kyrgyzstan Cote d'Ivoire Peru
Honduras Thailand Belize Malawi Ecuador Russia
Madagascar Turkey Cambodia Mexico Guyana Sierra Leone
Morocco Vietnam Cameroon Moldova Iran Sri Lanka
Myanmar Colombia Panama Kazakhstan Uganda
Dominican Republic Serbia Kenya Ukraine
Egypt Tanzania Lebanon Uzbekistan
Ethiopia Zambia Liberia Venezuela
Guatemala Zimbabwe Nepal
27
Part Three
Factor Trends
28 Changes in Factor Scores
30 Overview of Factor Changes
31 Overview of Factor Performance
32 Rule of Law by Factor

32 Factor 1: Constraints on Government Powers
33 Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
34 Factor 3: Open Government
35 Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
36 Factor 5: Order & Security
37 Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
38 Factor 7: Civil Justice
39 Factor 8: Criminal Justice

Part Three: Factor Trends
Change in
Factor Scores
These charts present changes in country scores* for the eight aggregated factors by region.
An arrow pointing up indicates a statistically significant improvement, while an arrow pointing
down represents a statistically significant decline.
East Asia & Pacific EU & EFTA & NA

Total Countries: 15 Total Countries: 24
Australia 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 -0.02 Austria -0.02 0.00 -0.04 -0.03 0.00 0.01 -0.02 0.07
Cambodia 0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.03 Belgium -0.01 0.00 0.02 -0.01 0.06 0.00 -0.03 -0.03
China 0.02 0.03 0.01 -0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 Bulgaria 0.04 0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 -0.01
Hong Kong SAR, China -0.04 -0.02 0.08 -0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.08 Canada 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Indonesia 0.00 -0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.03 Croatia -0.01 0.03 0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.02 0.05 -0.03
Japan 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.03 0.05 Czech Republic -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Malaysia -0.01 0.05 0.04 0.03 -0.05 0.03 -0.01 -0.01 Denmark 0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00
Mongolia 0.01 0.03 0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.01 Estonia 0.04 0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.01 -0.02
Myanmar -0.04 0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.02 -0.06 -0.03 Finland 0.03 -0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.00
New Zealand -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 -0.01 France -0.01 0.00 0.03 -0.03 0.12 0.05 -0.01 0.00
Philippines 0.04 -0.02 0.01 0.08 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.05 Germany 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00
Republic of Korea 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.03 -0.07 -0.01 Greece 0.04 0.00 0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 0.00 0.02
Singapore -0.04 -0.02 -0.03 0.01 -0.01 0.02 -0.03 -0.03 Hungary -0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.03 0.05 -0.04 -0.02 -0.07
Thailand -0.01 0.03 -0.04 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.05 Italy 0.00 0.02 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.01
Vietnam -0.03 -0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 Netherlands -0.01 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00
Norway 0.03 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.01
Poland 0.06 -0.01 0.07 0.08 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 0.08
Eastern Europe & Central Asia Portugal 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 -0.03
Romania -0.02 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01
Total Countries: 13
Slovenia 0.02 0.03 0.01 -0.03 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.08
Spain 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Sweden 0.00 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
United Kingdom -0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.06 0.00 -0.02
Albania 0.00 0.02 -0.01 0.03 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 0.01
United States 0.04 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 0.01 0.02 -0.02
Belarus -0.02 0.03 0.09 -0.02 0.01 -0.04 0.05 -0.01
Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.05
Georgia 0.06 -0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 -0.04 0.07 -0.05
Kazakhstan 0.01 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00
Kyrgyzstan -0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.04 -0.02
Macedonia, FYR 0.02 -0.03 -0.07 0.00 0.04 -0.01 0.00 -0.05
Moldova 0.01 0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.03
Russia -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.00
Serbia -0.04 0.02 0.08 -0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02
Turkey -0.02 0.02 0.00 -0.02 0.07 0.00 -0.02 0.00
Ukraine 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.04 0.09 0.02 0.04 -0.02
Uzbekistan 0.03 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.01

Latin America & Caribbean South Asia
Total Countries: 30 Total Countries: 6
Antigua & Barbuda -0.04 0.06 0.02 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 0.12 Afghanistan 0.00 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 0.04 0.00
Argentina 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 Bangladesh 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.00
Bahamas 0.00 -0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.05 India -0.01 0.01 -0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 -0.01 0.01
Barbados 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 Nepal -0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.02 0.05 -0.01
Belize 0.02 -0.04 -0.01 0.03 0.03 -0.05 0.00 0.01 Pakistan 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
Bolivia -0.03 -0.03 0.01 -0.05 0.00 -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 Sri Lanka 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 -0.02 0.02 -0.01
Brazil 0.03 0.01 -0.01 0.05 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 -0.02
Chile -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.04 -0.01 -0.02
Colombia 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 Sub-Saharan Africa
Costa Rica 0.01 -0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.02 -0.04 0.01 0.00
Total Countries: 18
Dominica 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.02
Dominican Republic 0.01 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01
Ecuador 0.04 0.00 0.04 -0.01 0.03 -0.01 0.02 0.02
El Salvador 0.03 0.00 0.01 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.02 -0.04
Botswana 0.00 0.01 -0.03 0.06 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.04
Grenada -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.05 0.00 -0.03 0.13 -0.09
Burkina Faso 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.02 0.03
Guatemala 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 0.02 0.02 Cameroon -0.02 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02
Guyana 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.03 0.05
Cote d'Ivoire -0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03
Honduras -0.05 -0.01 -0.03 -0.01 0.05 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01
Ethiopia -0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.01
Jamaica -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04
Ghana 0.05 0.01 -0.02 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.04
Mexico -0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02
Kenya -0.01 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.03
Nicaragua 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.03 0.03
Liberia -0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.04
Panama -0.03 -0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04
Madagascar -0.01 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04
Peru 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Malawi 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.06 -0.03 0.00 -0.01
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.05 0.02 0.01 Nigeria 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.11 -0.01 0.02 0.00
St. Lucia -0.02 -0.03 0.00 -0.05 -0.01 0.01 0.05 -0.06
Senegal 0.09 -0.01 0.08 -0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
St. Vincent & the Grenadines 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.01 -0.02
Sierra Leone 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02
Suriname -0.05 0.01 0.09 -0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02
South Africa 0.00 -0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Trinidad & Tobago 0.01 -0.05 0.02 -0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01
Tanzania 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 -0.01
Uruguay 0.03 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.04
Uganda 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00
Venezuela 0.00 0.05 -0.02 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01
Zambia -0.02 0.03 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00
Zimbabwe 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.01
Middle East & North Africa

Total Countries: 7
Egypt 0.01 -0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01

Iran 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 -0.03 -0.03 0.02
Jordan 0.02 -0.01 0.03 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.02
Lebanon -0.02 0.02 0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.06
Morocco -0.02 0.07 -0.02 0.00 -0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01
Tunisia -0.04 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 -0.03
United Arab Emirates -0.03 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.05
Statistically significant Statistically significant

decline improvement
Constraints on Absence of Open Fundamental Order & Regulatory Civil Criminal

Gov't Powers Corruption Government Rights Security Enforcement Justice Justice

Overview of Factor Changes
The chart below summarizes the number of countries whose score has improved or declined
for each of the eight aggregated factors of the Index.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Number of Countries
10
(out of 113)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

Improvement Decline
Statistically Significant Improvement Statistically Significant Decline
Overview of Factor Performance
This chart presents country performance for the eight aggregated factors of the WJP Rule
of Law Index.
Denmark Nepal
Norway Sri Lanka
Finland Peru
Sweden Panama
Netherlands India
Germany Indonesia
New Zealand Kazakhstan
Austria Belarus
Canada Malawi
Australia Morocco
United Kingdom Albania
Estonia Suriname
Singapore Burkina Faso
Japan Thailand
Belgium Colombia
Hong Kong SAR, China Guyana
Czech Republic Vietnam
France China
United States Serbia
Republic of Korea Ukraine
Portugal Moldova
Uruguay El Salvador
Spain Iran
Costa Rica Belize
Poland Kyrgyzstan
Slovenia Zambia
Chile Cote d'Ivoire
St. Kitts & Nevis Ecuador
Romania Tanzania
Barbados Lebanon
Italy Philippines
United Arab Emirates Russia
St. Lucia Dominican Republic
Antigua & Barbuda Uzbekistan
Croatia Mexico
Grenada Sierra Leone
St. Vincent & the Grenadines Liberia
Georgia Kenya
Greece Guatemala
Bahamas Nigeria
Dominica Madagascar
Jordan Nicaragua
Ghana Myanmar
South Africa Turkey
Botswana Bangladesh
Argentina Honduras
Jamaica Uganda
Trinidad & Tobago Pakistan
Senegal Bolivia
Hungary Ethiopia
Mongolia Zimbabwe
Brazil Cameroon
Malaysia Egypt
Tunisia Afghanistan
Bulgaria Cambodia
Bosnia & Herzegovina Venezuela
Macedonia, FYR
Top Tercile Bottom Tercile


Constraints on Government Powers

Factor 1 measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law. It comprises the means, both constitutional
and institutional, by which the powers of the government and its officials and agents are limited and held accountable
under the law. It also includes non-governmental checks on the government’s power, such as a free and independent
press. For a further breakdown of Constraints on Government Powers by sub-factor, please refer to page 10.
Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction
Score Rank
Denmark 0.94 1 St. Lucia 0.62 39 El Salvador 0.48 76

Norway 0.94 2 Poland 0.61 40 Zambia 0.47 77
Finland 0.92 3 South Africa 0.61 41 Suriname 0.47 78
Netherlands 0.88 4 Nepal 0.61 42 Belize 0.47 79
Sweden 0.88 5 Bahamas 0.61 43 Thailand 0.47 80
Germany 0.86 6 Grenada 0.61 44 Vietnam 0.46 81
New Zealand 0.85 7 Tunisia 0.60 45 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.46 82
Canada 0.84 8 Antigua & Barbuda 0.59 46 Mexico 0.46 83
United Kingdom 0.84 9 Croatia 0.59 47 Myanmar 0.46 84
Australia 0.84 10 Senegal 0.58 48 Kazakhstan 0.45 85
Estonia 0.84 11 United Arab Emirates 0.58 49 Ukraine 0.45 86
Austria 0.83 12 Brazil 0.58 50 Bulgaria 0.45 87
Belgium 0.81 13 St. Vincent & Dominican Republic 0.45 88
the Grenadines 0.57 51
Portugal 0.80 14 Macedonia, FYR 0.45 89
Costa Rica 0.79 15 Georgia 0.57 52 Madagascar 0.45 90
United States 0.77 16 Dominica 0.57 53 Moldova 0.44 91
France 0.76 17 Malawi 0.57 54 Cote d'Ivoire 0.44 92
Uruguay 0.76 18 Sri Lanka 0.56 55 Hungary 0.44 93
Japan 0.74 19 Jordan 0.56 56 Iran 0.43 94
Czech Republic 0.74 20 Guyana 0.55 57 Afghanistan 0.43 95
Ghana 0.72 21 Botswana 0.55 58 Ecuador 0.43 96
Chile 0.71 22 Philippines 0.55 59 Serbia 0.42 97
Spain 0.71 23 Liberia 0.55 60 Bangladesh 0.42 98
Italy 0.71 24 Morocco 0.55 61 Uganda 0.42 99
Singapore 0.70 25 Mongolia 0.55 62 China 0.40 100
Republic of Korea 0.70 26 Nigeria 0.55 63 Russia 0.39 101
Greece 0.68 27 Guatemala 0.54 64 Cameroon 0.39 102
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.68 28 Colombia 0.53 65 Honduras 0.39 103
Romania 0.66 29 Pakistan 0.53 66 Bolivia 0.36 104
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.66 30 Burkina Faso 0.53 67 Belarus 0.34 105
Barbados 0.66 31 Panama 0.53 68 Ethiopia 0.33 106
Peru 0.65 32 Sierra Leone 0.52 69 Egypt 0.33 107
Indonesia 0.64 33 Albania 0.52 70 Uzbekistan 0.32 108
Argentina 0.63 34 Tanzania 0.52 71 Nicaragua 0.32 109
Slovenia 0.63 35 Lebanon 0.49 72 Cambodia 0.32 110
India 0.63 36 Kenya 0.49 73 Turkey 0.30 111
Trinidad & Tobago 0.63 37 Malaysia 0.49 74 Zimbabwe 0.28 112
Jamaica 0.62 38 Kyrgyzstan 0.48 75 Venezuela 0.18 113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
Absence of Corruption
Factor 2 measures the absence of corruption in government. The factor considers three forms of corruption: bribery,
improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. These three
forms of corruption are examined with respect to government officers in the executive branch, the judiciary, the military,
police, and the legislature. For a further breakdown of Absence of Corruption by sub-factor, please refer to page 10.
Factor Factor
Score Rank
Denmark 0.95 1 Botswana 0.62 38 El Salvador 0.42 76

Norway 0.93 2 Italy 0.62 39 Zambia 0.42 77
Sweden 0.91 3 Antigua & Barbuda 0.60 40 Ecuador 0.42 78
Singapore 0.91 4 Croatia 0.60 41 Ghana 0.42 79
Finland 0.89 5 Romania 0.58 42 Nepal 0.41 80
New Zealand 0.88 6 Suriname 0.57 43 Malawi 0.41 81
Netherlands 0.86 7 Malaysia 0.56 44 Bulgaria 0.41 82
Japan 0.85 8 Greece 0.55 45 Colombia 0.41 83
Austria 0.84 9 Jamaica 0.55 46 Tanzania 0.40 84
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.83 10 China 0.55 47 Egypt 0.40 85
Canada 0.83 11 Belarus 0.54 48 Cote d'Ivoire 0.40 86
Australia 0.83 12 South Africa 0.53 49 Lebanon 0.39 87
Germany 0.83 13 Senegal 0.53 50 Nicaragua 0.38 88
United Kingdom 0.82 14 Argentina 0.53 51 Peru 0.38 89
Estonia 0.79 15 Iran 0.53 52 Indonesia 0.37 90
Belgium 0.78 16 Hungary 0.51 53 Dominican Republic 0.37 91
United Arab Emirates 0.76 17 Turkey 0.50 54 Guatemala 0.35 92
Uruguay 0.76 18 Trinidad & Tobago 0.50 55 Bangladesh 0.35 93
United States 0.75 19 Thailand 0.49 56 Albania 0.35 94
France 0.75 20 Tunisia 0.49 57 Ukraine 0.34 95
Portugal 0.74 21 Sri Lanka 0.48 58 Uzbekistan 0.34 96
Poland 0.72 22 Morocco 0.47 59 Sierra Leone 0.34 97
Georgia 0.71 23 Macedonia, FYR 0.47 60 Honduras 0.34 98
Spain 0.71 24 Myanmar 0.47 61 Pakistan 0.33 99
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.69 25 Philippines 0.47 62 Nigeria 0.32 100
Chile 0.69 26 Brazil 0.46 63 Moldova 0.32 101
Costa Rica 0.68 27 Guyana 0.46 64 Mexico 0.31 102
Barbados 0.68 28 Ethiopia 0.46 65 Venezuela 0.30 103
St. Vincent & Kazakhstan 0.45 66 Kyrgyzstan 0.29 104
the Grenadines 0.68 29
India 0.45 67 Kenya 0.29 105
Republic of Korea 0.67 30 Panama 0.45 68 Zimbabwe 0.28 106
Grenada 0.66 31 Burkina Faso 0.44 69 Madagascar 0.28 107
Jordan 0.66 32 Mongolia 0.44 70 Liberia 0.28 108
St. Lucia 0.66 33 Vietnam 0.44 71 Afghanistan 0.27 109
Czech Republic 0.65 34 Belize 0.44 72 Bolivia 0.26 110
Dominica 0.65 35 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.43 73 Uganda 0.26 111
Bahamas 0.64 36 Serbia 0.43 74 Cameroon 0.25 112
Slovenia 0.63 37 Russia 0.43 75 Cambodia 0.25 113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Open Government
Factor 3 measures the openness of government defined by the extent to which a government shares information,
empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy
deliberations. This factor measures whether basic laws and information of legal rights are publicized and evaluates
the quality of information published by the government. For a further breakdown of Open Government by sub-factor,
please refer to page 11.
Factor Factor
Score Rank
Norway 0.88 1 Jamaica 0.59 39 Madagascar 0.46 76

Finland 0.86 2 Trinidad & Tobago 0.57 40 Burkina Faso 0.46 77
Denmark 0.86 3 Moldova 0.57 41 Botswana 0.46 78
Sweden 0.85 4 Georgia 0.57 42 Jordan 0.45 79
Netherlands 0.84 5 Kyrgyzstan 0.56 43 Pakistan 0.45 80
Canada 0.82 6 Peru 0.56 44 Bolivia 0.45 81
New Zealand 0.81 7 Bulgaria 0.55 45 Malawi 0.45 82
United Kingdom 0.81 8 Ukraine 0.55 46 China 0.45 83
Australia 0.80 9 Indonesia 0.54 47 Morocco 0.44 84
France 0.80 10 Antigua & Barbuda 0.53 48 Vietnam 0.44 85
Germany 0.79 11 Ghana 0.52 49 Senegal 0.44 86
Estonia 0.79 12 Dominican Republic 0.52 50 Albania 0.44 87
United States 0.77 13 Nepal 0.52 51 Nigeria 0.44 88
Belgium 0.75 14 El Salvador 0.52 52 Lebanon 0.44 89
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.75 15 St. Lucia 0.52 53 Belize 0.44 90
Austria 0.72 16 Philippines 0.52 54 Honduras 0.43 91
Costa Rica 0.72 17 Grenada 0.50 55 St. Kitts & Nevis 0.42 92
Chile 0.71 18 Dominica 0.50 56 Turkey 0.42 93
Uruguay 0.71 19 Tunisia 0.50 57 Zambia 0.42 94
Japan 0.70 20 Ecuador 0.49 58 Sierra Leone 0.42 95
Spain 0.69 21 St. Vincent & Nicaragua 0.41 96
0.49 59
Republic of Korea 0.69 22 the Grenadines Malaysia 0.39 97
Portugal 0.68 23 Barbados 0.49 60 United Arab Emirates 0.39 98
Slovenia 0.67 24 Mongolia 0.49 61 Uganda 0.38 99
Czech Republic 0.66 25 Sri Lanka 0.49 62 Tanzania 0.38 100
Romania 0.66 26 Hungary 0.49 63 Cote d'Ivoire 0.37 101
Poland 0.66 27 Macedonia, FYR 0.49 64 Iran 0.37 102
Singapore 0.65 28 Kenya 0.49 65 Afghanistan 0.36 103
Argentina 0.64 29 Guatemala 0.49 66 Suriname 0.36 104
Italy 0.64 30 Serbia 0.49 67 Belarus 0.35 105
Colombia 0.63 31 Thailand 0.48 68 Cameroon 0.33 106
India 0.63 32 Russia 0.48 69 Myanmar 0.32 107
Croatia 0.62 33 Kazakhstan 0.48 70 Uzbekistan 0.30 108
South Africa 0.62 34 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.48 71 Zimbabwe 0.30 109
Brazil 0.61 35 Bahamas 0.48 72 Venezuela 0.30 110
Mexico 0.61 36 Liberia 0.48 73 Ethiopia 0.28 111
Greece 0.60 37 Guyana 0.46 74 Egypt 0.25 112
Panama 0.59 38 Bangladesh 0.46 75 Cambodia 0.23 113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
Fundamental Rights
Factor 4 recognizes that a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under international
law is at best “rule by law,” and does not deserve to be called a rule of law system. Since there are many other indices
that address human rights, and as it would be impossible for the Index to assess adherence to the full range of rights, this
factor focuses on a relatively modest menu of rights that are firmly established under the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and are most closely related to rule of law concerns. The selected menu of rights can be found on page 11.
Factor Factor
Score Rank
Finland 0.91 1 Bahamas 0.66 38 Jordan 0.51 76

Denmark 0.90 2 Poland 0.66 39 Ecuador 0.51 77
Norway 0.88 3 Peru 0.65 40 Indonesia 0.51 78
Sweden 0.87 4 Albania 0.63 41 Vietnam 0.50 79
Germany 0.85 5 Grenada 0.63 42 Kyrgyzstan 0.50 80
Netherlands 0.85 6 Greece 0.63 43 Lebanon 0.49 81
Austria 0.85 7 South Africa 0.63 44 Madagascar 0.48 82
Belgium 0.83 8 Jamaica 0.63 45 Tanzania 0.48 83
Canada 0.82 9 Georgia 0.61 46 United Arab Emirates 0.47 84
Estonia 0.82 10 Bulgaria 0.60 47 Nigeria 0.47 85
New Zealand 0.81 11 Burkina Faso 0.60 48 Nicaragua 0.47 86
United Kingdom 0.81 12 Ukraine 0.59 49 Malaysia 0.47 87
Australia 0.81 13 Panama 0.59 50 Thailand 0.47 88
Czech Republic 0.80 14 Trinidad & Tobago 0.59 51 Belarus 0.47 89
Portugal 0.79 15 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.59 52 Cote d'Ivoire 0.46 90
Uruguay 0.78 16 Hungary 0.59 53 Kenya 0.46 91
Costa Rica 0.78 17 Dominican Republic 0.59 54 Bolivia 0.46 92
Barbados 0.77 18 Senegal 0.59 55 Morocco 0.45 93
Spain 0.77 19 Mongolia 0.59 56 Kazakhstan 0.45 94
Japan 0.76 20 Malawi 0.58 57 Russia 0.44 95
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.75 21 Botswana 0.57 58 Zambia 0.43 96
Slovenia 0.74 22 Brazil 0.57 59 Honduras 0.43 97
Chile 0.73 23 Tunisia 0.57 60 Cameroon 0.43 98
France 0.72 24 Serbia 0.56 61 Philippines 0.42 99
Argentina 0.72 25 Liberia 0.56 62 Pakistan 0.40 100
United States 0.72 26 Colombia 0.56 63 Uganda 0.40 101
Romania 0.72 27 Guyana 0.55 64 Afghanistan 0.39 102
Italy 0.71 28 Guatemala 0.55 65 Uzbekistan 0.38 103
Republic of Korea 0.71 29 Macedonia, FYR 0.54 66 Cambodia 0.38 104
St. Vincent & Moldova 0.54 67 Venezuela 0.36 105
0.70 30
the Grenadines El Salvador 0.53 68 Bangladesh 0.34 106
Antigua & Barbuda 0.70 31 Belize 0.53 69 Turkey 0.32 107
Singapore 0.70 32 Sri Lanka 0.53 70 China 0.31 108
St. Lucia 0.68 33 Nepal 0.53 71 Ethiopia 0.31 109
Ghana 0.68 34 Mexico 0.52 72 Myanmar 0.31 110
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.67 35 Suriname 0.52 73 Iran 0.30 111
Croatia 0.67 36 Sierra Leone 0.52 74 Egypt 0.30 112
Dominica 0.67 37 India 0.52 75 Zimbabwe 0.29 113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Order & Security

Factor 5 measures how well a society assures the security of persons and property. Security is one of the defining
aspects of any rule of law society and is a fundamental function of the state. It is also a precondition for the realization of
the rights and freedoms that the rule of law seeks to advance. For a further breakdown of Order & Security by sub-factor,
please refer to page 12.
Factor Factor
Score Rank
Singapore 0.93 1 Mongolia 0.78 39 Trinidad & Tobago 0.67 76

Sweden 0.93 2 Serbia 0.77 40 Tanzania 0.67 77
Norway 0.93 3 Malaysia 0.77 41 Panama 0.67 78
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.92 4 Vietnam 0.77 42 Zimbabwe 0.67 79
Denmark 0.92 5 Albania 0.77 43 Sierra Leone 0.66 80
Finland 0.92 6 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.76 44 Cambodia 0.66 81
Uzbekistan 0.92 7 Barbados 0.75 45 Lebanon 0.66 82
Japan 0.91 8 France 0.75 46 Brazil 0.65 83
Canada 0.91 9 Dominica 0.75 47 Russia 0.65 84
Czech Republic 0.90 10 St. Vincent & Suriname 0.65 85
0.75 48
United Arab Emirates 0.90 11 the Grenadines Peru 0.64 86
Hungary 0.90 12 Indonesia 0.74 49 Burkina Faso 0.63 87
Austria 0.90 13 Italy 0.74 50 Ecuador 0.63 88
Estonia 0.90 14 Kyrgyzstan 0.74 51 South Africa 0.62 89
Slovenia 0.89 15 Bulgaria 0.74 52 Jamaica 0.62 90
New Zealand 0.89 16 Ukraine 0.73 53 Guyana 0.62 91
Germany 0.88 17 Iran 0.73 54 Honduras 0.61 92
Australia 0.86 18 Belize 0.73 55 Argentina 0.61 93
Poland 0.85 19 Botswana 0.73 56 Dominican Republic 0.61 94
Netherlands 0.85 20 Nepal 0.73 57 Ethiopia 0.60 95
United Kingdom 0.84 21 Bahamas 0.72 58 El Salvador 0.60 96
Republic of Korea 0.84 22 Sri Lanka 0.72 59 Liberia 0.59 97
Romania 0.84 23 Madagascar 0.72 60 India 0.59 98
Belarus 0.82 24 St. Lucia 0.72 61 Mexico 0.59 99
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.82 25 Greece 0.72 62 Guatemala 0.58 100
Croatia 0.81 26 Uruguay 0.71 63 Bolivia 0.58 101
Moldova 0.80 27 Myanmar 0.70 64 Bangladesh 0.58 102
China 0.80 28 Nicaragua 0.70 65 Kenya 0.57 103
Grenada 0.79 29 Ghana 0.70 66 Colombia 0.57 104
Georgia 0.79 30 Zambia 0.69 67 Uganda 0.56 105
United States 0.79 31 Costa Rica 0.69 68 Turkey 0.52 106
Portugal 0.79 32 Thailand 0.69 69 Philippines 0.51 107
Antigua & Barbuda 0.79 33 Morocco 0.69 70 Egypt 0.51 108
Belgium 0.78 34 Tunisia 0.69 71 Cameroon 0.49 109
Macedonia, FYR 0.78 35 Senegal 0.69 72 Venezuela 0.47 110
Kazakhstan 0.78 36 Malawi 0.68 73 Nigeria 0.37 111
Spain 0.78 37 Chile 0.68 74 Afghanistan 0.32 112
Jordan 0.78 38 Cote d'Ivoire 0.68 75 Pakistan 0.32 113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 6 measures the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced.
Regulations, both legal and administrative, structure behaviors within and outside of the government. This factor does
not assess which activities a government chooses to regulate, nor does it consider how much regulation of a particular
activity is appropriate. Rather, it examines how regulations are implemented and enforced. For a further breakdown of
Regulatory Enforcement by sub-factor, please refer to page 12.
Factor Factor
Score Rank
Netherlands 0.88 1 Romania 0.56 39 Hungary 0.46 76

Singapore 0.87 2 South Africa 0.55 40 Macedonia, FYR 0.46 77
Denmark 0.87 3 Grenada 0.55 41 Uzbekistan 0.46 78
Norway 0.87 4 Greece 0.54 42 Myanmar 0.46 79
Sweden 0.85 5 Morocco 0.54 43 Burkina Faso 0.45 80
New Zealand 0.85 6 Bulgaria 0.53 44 Nicaragua 0.45 81
Australia 0.85 7 Indonesia 0.53 45 Ecuador 0.45 82
Germany 0.85 8 Panama 0.52 46 Vietnam 0.45 83
United Kingdom 0.84 9 St. Vincent & Turkey 0.44 84
0.52 47
Austria 0.81 10 the Grenadines Kenya 0.44 85
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.81 11 Brazil 0.52 48 Lebanon 0.44 86
Finland 0.81 12 Trinidad & Tobago 0.52 49 Mexico 0.44 87
Japan 0.80 13 Dominica 0.52 50 Zambia 0.43 88
Canada 0.79 14 Kazakhstan 0.52 51 Kyrgyzstan 0.43 89
Estonia 0.77 15 Croatia 0.52 52 Nigeria 0.43 90
France 0.77 16 Tunisia 0.52 53 Albania 0.43 91
Belgium 0.77 17 Colombia 0.51 54 Malawi 0.43 92
Republic of Korea 0.72 18 Philippines 0.51 55 Liberia 0.42 93
United States 0.72 19 Antigua & Barbuda 0.51 56 Bangladesh 0.42 94
United Arab Emirates 0.69 20 Cote d'Ivoire 0.51 57 Moldova 0.42 95
Uruguay 0.69 21 Argentina 0.50 58 Ukraine 0.42 96
Czech Republic 0.67 22 Thailand 0.50 59 Uganda 0.41 97
Spain 0.66 23 Malaysia 0.50 60 Bolivia 0.41 98
Costa Rica 0.64 24 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.50 61 Dominican Republic 0.40 99
Slovenia 0.63 25 Nepal 0.50 62 Tanzania 0.40 100
Chile 0.62 26 Peru 0.50 63 Belize 0.39 101
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.61 27 Belarus 0.49 64 Cameroon 0.38 102
Portugal 0.61 28 El Salvador 0.49 65 Sierra Leone 0.37 103
Poland 0.61 29 India 0.49 66 Honduras 0.37 104
Barbados 0.60 30 Russia 0.48 67 Pakistan 0.35 105
Jordan 0.59 31 Sri Lanka 0.48 68 Guatemala 0.35 106
Georgia 0.58 32 China 0.48 69 Zimbabwe 0.35 107
Botswana 0.58 33 Bahamas 0.48 70 Madagascar 0.34 108
St. Lucia 0.58 34 Suriname 0.48 71 Afghanistan 0.34 109
Italy 0.57 35 Mongolia 0.47 72 Egypt 0.31 110
Senegal 0.57 36 Serbia 0.47 73 Ethiopia 0.31 111
Jamaica 0.56 37 Iran 0.47 74 Cambodia 0.27 112
Ghana 0.56 38 Guyana 0.47 75 Venezuela 0.22 113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Civil Justice
Factor 7 measures whether ordinary people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil
justice system. It measures whether civil justice systems are accessible; affordable; and free of discrimination, corruption,
and improper influence by public officials. It examines whether court proceedings are conducted without unreasonable
delays, and if decisions are enforced effectively. It also measures the accessibility, impartiality, and effectiveness of
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. For a further breakdown of Civil Justice by sub-factor, please refer to page 13.
Factor Factor
Score Rank
Netherlands 0.87 1 Belarus 0.59 39 Burkina Faso 0.49 76

Denmark 0.86 2 Trinidad & Tobago 0.59 40 Colombia 0.49 77
Germany 0.85 3 Grenada 0.59 41 Panama 0.48 78
Norway 0.85 4 Slovenia 0.59 42 Lebanon 0.47 79
Singapore 0.81 5 Argentina 0.58 43 Belize 0.47 80
Sweden 0.81 6 Croatia 0.57 44 Philippines 0.47 81
Finland 0.80 7 St. Vincent & Nepal 0.47 82
0.57 45
New Zealand 0.79 8 the Grenadines Moldova 0.47 83
Austria 0.79 9 Greece 0.57 46 Kyrgyzstan 0.46 84
Japan 0.79 10 Senegal 0.56 47 Kenya 0.46 85
Estonia 0.78 11 Macedonia, FYR 0.56 48 Ecuador 0.46 86
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.77 12 Bulgaria 0.56 49 Albania 0.45 87
Australia 0.75 13 Kazakhstan 0.56 50 Dominican Republic 0.45 88
United Kingdom 0.75 14 Malaysia 0.56 51 Uganda 0.45 89
Republic of Korea 0.74 15 Italy 0.56 52 Indonesia 0.45 90
Uruguay 0.74 16 Jamaica 0.54 53 Sri Lanka 0.45 91
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.74 17 Morocco 0.54 54 Vietnam 0.44 92
Belgium 0.73 18 Georgia 0.54 55 Peru 0.44 93
Czech Republic 0.72 19 Malawi 0.54 56 Turkey 0.44 94
Canada 0.72 20 China 0.54 57 Zimbabwe 0.43 95
Antigua & Barbuda 0.72 21 Mongolia 0.53 58 Liberia 0.43 96
France 0.70 22 Thailand 0.53 59 India 0.42 97
Portugal 0.69 23 Russia 0.53 60 Sierra Leone 0.41 98
United Arab Emirates 0.68 24 Brazil 0.53 61 Honduras 0.41 99
St. Lucia 0.68 25 Iran 0.52 62 Mexico 0.40 100
United States 0.67 26 Cote d'Ivoire 0.52 63 Madagascar 0.39 101
Spain 0.66 27 Guyana 0.51 64 Nicaragua 0.39 102
Barbados 0.65 28 Ukraine 0.51 65 Ethiopia 0.39 103
Romania 0.65 29 Tanzania 0.50 66 Afghanistan 0.38 104
Poland 0.64 30 Suriname 0.50 67 Egypt 0.38 105
Chile 0.63 31 Hungary 0.50 68 Bangladesh 0.37 106
Costa Rica 0.63 32 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.50 69 Pakistan 0.37 107
Ghana 0.62 33 Nigeria 0.50 70 Cameroon 0.37 108
Jordan 0.62 34 El Salvador 0.50 71 Myanmar 0.37 109
South Africa 0.61 35 Serbia 0.49 72 Guatemala 0.35 110
Botswana 0.61 36 Tunisia 0.49 73 Bolivia 0.34 111
Dominica 0.60 37 Uzbekistan 0.49 74 Venezuela 0.33 112
Bahamas 0.60 38 Zambia 0.49 75 Cambodia 0.20 113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
Criminal Justice
Factor 8 evaluates a country's criminal justice system. An effective criminal justice system is a key aspect of the rule
of law, as it constitutes the conventional mechanism to redress grievances and bring action against individuals for
offenses against society. An assessment of the delivery of criminal justice should take into consideration the entire
system, including the police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and prison officers. For a further breakdown of Criminal Justice
by sub-factor, please refer to page 13.
Factor Factor
Score Rank
Finland 0.85 1 Botswana 0.55 38 Cote d'Ivoire 0.39 76

Norway 0.83 2 Malaysia 0.55 39 Trinidad & Tobago 0.39 77
Denmark 0.82 3 Uruguay 0.54 40 Ecuador 0.38 78
Sweden 0.80 4 Dominica 0.54 41 Sierra Leone 0.38 79
Singapore 0.80 5 Greece 0.53 42 Kenya 0.38 80
Netherlands 0.80 6 South Africa 0.52 43 Pakistan 0.38 81
Germany 0.77 7 Suriname 0.52 44 Zimbabwe 0.38 82
Austria 0.77 8 Ghana 0.51 45 Ukraine 0.37 83
Czech Republic 0.74 9 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.51 46 Morocco 0.37 84
Canada 0.74 10 Georgia 0.51 47 Brazil 0.37 85
United Kingdom 0.74 11 Croatia 0.51 48 Lebanon 0.37 86
Japan 0.74 12 Jamaica 0.50 49 Madagascar 0.36 87
Australia 0.74 13 Mongolia 0.50 50 Peru 0.36 88
New Zealand 0.74 14 Belarus 0.50 51 Serbia 0.36 89
Belgium 0.72 15 Vietnam 0.49 52 Moldova 0.36 90
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.72 16 Sri Lanka 0.48 53 Indonesia 0.35 91
Republic of Korea 0.70 17 China 0.48 54 Colombia 0.34 92
United Arab Emirates 0.69 18 Hungary 0.47 55 Nicaragua 0.34 93
Estonia 0.68 19 Macedonia, FYR 0.47 56 Uganda 0.34 94
United States 0.65 20 Albania 0.47 57 Ethiopia 0.34 95
France 0.65 21 Burkina Faso 0.45 58 Bangladesh 0.34 96
Italy 0.64 22 Iran 0.45 59 Russia 0.33 97
Portugal 0.64 23 Uzbekistan 0.45 60 Belize 0.33 98
Spain 0.64 24 Argentina 0.43 61 Panama 0.33 99
Bahamas 0.63 25 Senegal 0.43 62 Dominican Republic 0.33 100
Poland 0.62 26 Nepal 0.43 63 Kyrgyzstan 0.32 101
Jordan 0.60 27 Malawi 0.43 64 Philippines 0.31 102
St. Vincent & Tunisia 0.43 65 Liberia 0.31 103
0.60 28
the Grenadines India 0.42 66 Guatemala 0.30 104
Barbados 0.59 29 Nigeria 0.42 67 Mexico 0.30 105
St. Lucia 0.59 30 Egypt 0.42 68 El Salvador 0.30 106
Antigua & Barbuda 0.59 31 Zambia 0.42 69 Myanmar 0.29 107
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.58 32 Kazakhstan 0.41 70 Afghanistan 0.28 108
Slovenia 0.58 33 Bulgaria 0.41 71 Cameroon 0.28 109
Romania 0.57 34 Thailand 0.40 72 Cambodia 0.27 110
Grenada 0.56 35 Guyana 0.40 73 Honduras 0.24 111
Costa Rica 0.56 36 Turkey 0.40 74 Bolivia 0.21 112
Chile 0.56 37 Tanzania 0.39 75 Venezuela 0.14 113
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

How to Read
the Country Profiles
The next section presents profiles for the 113 countries and jurisdictions included in the
WJP Rule of Law Index® 2017–2018 report.
Each profile presents the featured country's scores for The scores range from 0 and 1, where 1 signifies the
each of the WJP Rule of Law Index's factors and sub-factors, highest possible score (high adherence to rule of law) and
and draws comparisons between the scores of the featured 0 signifies the lowest possible score (low adherence to
country and the scores of other indexed countries in the rule of law). The country profiles consist of four sections,
same regional and income groups. outlined below.
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia

Macedonia, FYR Income Group: Upper Middle
Section 1: Displays the country’s overall rule of law score; Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
its overall global, income, and regional ranks; and its change
Constraints on
0.53 3/13 16/36 57/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6 1.3
in score and rank from 2016.

8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
Section 2: Displays the featured country’s individual factor

Constraints on 7.6 2.4
0.45 7/13 28/36 89/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
scores, along with the global, regional, and income group

Absence of Corruption 0.47 4/13 19/36 60/113 7.4 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
Open Government 0.49 5/13 19/36 64/113 Justice
rankings. The scores for the global rank, regional rank, and
7.2 3.4
Fundamental Rights 0.54 6/13 22/36 66/113 7.1 4.1
6.5 4.2
income rank are distributed across three tiers — high, Order and Security 0.78 5/13 6/36 35/113 6.4
6.3
6.2 4.5
4.4
4.3
Regulatory Enforcement
medium, and low — as indicated by the color of the box

0.46 7/13 28/36 77/113 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Civil Justice 0.56 2/13 12/36 48/113 Rights
Order and
where the score is found. Criminal Justice 0.47 4/13 16/36 56/113
Security
2017 Score 2016 Score

Trending up Trending down Low Medium High
Section 3: Displays the country’s disaggregated scores for

Macedonia, FYR Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice
each of the sub-factors that compose the WJP Rule of Law 1.1 Limits by legislature 0.55 4.1 No discrimination 0.61 7.1 Accessibility & affordability 0.56
Index. 1.2 Limits by judiciary 0.36 4.2 Right to life & security 0.57 7.2 No discrimination 0.64
1.3 Independent auditing 0.49 4.3 Due process of law 0.54 7.3 No corruption 0.42
The featured country’s score is represented by the

1.4 Sanctions for official 0.34 4.4 Freedom of expression 0.47 7.4 No improper gov't influence 0.37
misconduct
4.5 Freedom of religion 0.70 7.5 No unreasonable delay 0.58
purple bar and labeled at the end of the bar. The average
1.5 Non-governmental checks 0.47
4.6 Right to privacy 0.29 7.6 Effective enforcement 0.63
1.6 Lawful transition of power 0.49
score of the country’s region is represented by the orange

4.7 Freedom of association 0.58 7.7 Impartial & effective ADRs 0.74
Absence of Corruption 4.8 Labor rights 0.56
line. The average score of the country’s income group is Section 4: Presents the individual sub-factor scores
2.1 In the executive branch 0.40
Order and Security
Criminal Justice
8.1 Effective investigations 0.48
represented by the green line. 2.2 In the judiciary 0.55
underlying each of the factors listed in Section 3 of

2.3 In the police/military 0.69
5.1 Absence of crime 0.78
1.00
8.2 Timely & effective
adjudication
0.51
5.2 Absence of civil conflict
the country profile.

2.4 In the legislature 0.24
5.3 Absence of violent redress 0.57
8.3 Effective correctional
system
0.35
8.4 No discrimination 0.52

Open Government
Regulatory Enforcement 0.52
8.5 No corruption
Each of the 44 sub-factors is represented by a gray line

3.1 Publicized laws & gov't data 0.48
6.1 Effective regulatory 0.44
8.6 No improper gov't influence 0.36
3.2 Right to information 0.53
enforcement
drawn from the center to the periphery of the circle.

3.3 Civic participation 0.50 6.2 No improper influence 0.44
8.7 Due process of law 0.54
The center of the circle corresponds to the worst

3.4 Complaint mechanisms 0.45 6.3 No unreasonable delay 0.48
6.4 Respect for due process 0.38
possible score for each sub-factor (0), and the outer 6.5 No expropriation w/out
adequate compensation
0.57
edge of the circle marks the best possible score for each
sub-factor (1).
The featured country’s scores for 2017–2018 are

represented by the purple line. The featured country’s
scores for 2016 are represented by the gray line.

41
Part Four
Country Profiles

Region: South Asia
Afghanistan Income Group: Low
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank

Constraints on
0.34 6/6 12/12 111/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.43 5/6 9/12 95/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.27 6/6 11/12 109/113 7.4

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
Order and Security 0.32 5/6 12/12 112/113 6.4 4.3
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.34 6/6 11/12 109/113 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.28 6/6 12/12 108/113

Afghanistan South Asia Low
1.1 Limits by legislature 0.52 4.1 No discrimination 0.38 7.1 Accessibility & affordability 0.46
1.2 Limits by judiciary 0.35 4.2 Right to life & security 0.26 7.2 No discrimination 0.27
misconduct
Criminal Justice
Order and Security 8.1 Effective investigations 0.29
2.2 In the judiciary 0.18
5.1 Absence of crime 0.54 8.2 Timely & effective 0.36
adjudication
5.2 Absence of civil conflict 0.09
2.4 In the legislature 0.17 8.3 Effective correctional 0.26
5.3 Absence of violent redress 0.32 system

Open Government
0.22
8.5 No corruption
3.1 Publicized laws & gov't data
enforcement
6.5 No expropriation w/out 0.37

Albania Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.51 6/13 21/36 68/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.52 2/13 17/36 70/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Albania Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.45
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Antigua and Barbuda Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.63 7/30 31/35 34/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.04 -5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.59 13/30 33/35 46/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Antigua and Barbuda Latin America & Caribbean High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.28
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Argentina Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.58 12/30 10/36 46/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.03 5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.63 7/30 4/36 34/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Argentina Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.71
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: East Asia & Pacific
Australia Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.81 2/15 10/35 10/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.84 2/15 10/35 10/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Australia East Asia & Pacific High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.91
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Austria Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.81 7/24 8/35 8/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.83 10/24 12/35 12/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Austria EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.71
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Bahamas Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.6 10/30 33/35 40/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.61 11/30 32/35 43/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Bahamas Latin America & Caribbean High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.35
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: South Asia
Bangladesh Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.41 4/6 24/30 102/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.42 6/6 23/30 98/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Bangladesh South Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.37
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Barbados Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.65 5/30 28/35 30/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.66 5/30 28/35 31/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Barbados Latin America & Caribbean High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.22
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Belarus Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.51 5/13 20/36 65/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -8 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.34 11/13 34/36 105/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Belarus Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.22
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Belgium Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.77 11/24 15/35 15/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.81 11/24 13/35 13/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Belgium EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.68
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Belize Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.47 22/30 29/36 81/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.47 23/30 21/36 79/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Belize Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.36
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Bolivia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.38 29/30 27/30 106/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.36 28/30 26/30 104/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Bolivia Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.32
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Bosnia and Herzegovina Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.53 2/13 15/36 56/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.03 -6 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.46 4/13 23/36 82/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Bosnia and Herzegovina Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.44
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Botswana Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.58 3/18 9/36 45/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.55 5/18 14/36 58/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Botswana Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.22
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Brazil Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.54 15/30 12/36 52/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.58 14/30 10/36 50/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Brazil Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.72
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Bulgaria Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.53 24/24 14/36 55/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.45 23/24 26/36 87/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Bulgaria EU & EFTA & North America Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.58
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Burkina Faso Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.51 6/18 4/12 70/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.02 9 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.53 8/18 5/12 67/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Burkina Faso Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.29
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Cambodia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.32 15/15 30/30 112/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.32 15/15 30/30 110/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Cambodia East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.20
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Cameroon Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.37 18/18 28/30 109/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.39 16/18 24/30 102/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Cameroon Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.19
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Canada Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.81 8/24 9/35 9/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.84 7/24 8/35 8/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Canada EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.88
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Chile Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.67 3/30 26/35 27/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.71 3/30 20/35 22/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Chile Latin America & Caribbean High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.66
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

China Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 12/15 26/36 75/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.02 5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.40 14/15 32/36 100/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

China East Asia & Pacific Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.44
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Colombia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 19/30 24/36 72/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.53 19/30 15/36 65/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Colombia Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.67
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Costa Rica Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.68 2/30 1/36 24/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.79 1/30 1/36 15/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Costa Rica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.46
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Cote d'Ivoire Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.47 8/18 16/30 84/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.44 14/18 22/30 92/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Cote d'Ivoire Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.20
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Croatia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.61 21/24 4/36 35/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.59 22/24 9/36 47/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Croatia EU & EFTA & North America Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.55
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Czech Republic Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.74 12/24 17/35 17/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.74 15/24 19/35 20/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Czech Republic EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.67
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Denmark Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.89 1/24 1/35 1/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.94 1/24 1/35 1/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Denmark EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.84
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Dominica Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.6 11/30 7/36 41/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.57 16/30 12/36 53/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Dominica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.38
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Dominican Republic Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.47 24/30 33/36 90/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.45 25/30 27/36 88/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Dominican Republic Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.36
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Ecuador Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.47 23/30 30/36 85/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.02 6 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.43 26/30 30/36 96/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Ecuador Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.40
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: Middle East & North Africa
Egypt Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.36 7/7 29/30 110/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.33 7/7 27/30 107/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Egypt Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.28
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

El Salvador Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.48 21/30 13/30 79/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.48 21/30 16/30 76/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

El Salvador Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.42
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Estonia Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.8 10/24 12/35 12/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.84 9/24 11/35 11/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Estonia EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.86
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Ethiopia Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.38 16/18 10/12 107/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.33 17/18 11/12 106/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Ethiopia Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.19
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Finland Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.87 3/24 3/35 3/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.92 3/24 3/35 3/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Finland EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.90
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

France Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.74 13/24 18/35 18/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.02 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.76 14/24 16/35 17/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

France EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.86
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Georgia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.61 1/13 1/30 38/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.04 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.57 1/13 5/30 52/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Georgia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.49
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Germany Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.83 6/24 6/35 6/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.86 6/24 6/35 6/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Germany EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.75
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Ghana Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.59 1/18 3/30 43/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.72 1/18 1/30 21/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Ghana Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.25
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Greece Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.6 22/24 32/35 39/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.68 18/24 25/35 27/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Greece EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.56
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Grenada Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.61 8/30 5/36 36/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.05 -5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.61 12/30 8/36 44/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Grenada Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.29
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Guatemala Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.44 26/30 20/30 96/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.54 18/30 12/30 64/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Guatemala Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.27
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Guyana Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 20/30 25/36 73/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.55 17/30 13/36 57/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Guyana Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.29
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Honduras Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.4 28/30 25/30 103/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.39 27/30 25/30 103/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Honduras Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.28
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Hong Kong SAR, China Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.77 5/15 16/35 16/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.66 6/15 27/35 30/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Hong Kong SAR, China East Asia & Pacific High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.72
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Hungary Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.55 23/24 35/35 50/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.44 24/24 35/35 93/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Hungary EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.57
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: South Asia
India Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.52 3/6 7/30 62/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.63 1/6 3/30 36/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

India South Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.55
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Indonesia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.52 9/15 8/30 63/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.64 7/15 2/30 33/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Indonesia East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.36
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Iran Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.48 5/7 28/36 80/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 6 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.43 6/7 29/36 94/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Iran Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.36
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Italy Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.65 20/24 29/35 31/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.71 17/24 22/35 24/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Italy EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.61
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Jamaica Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.58 13/30 11/36 47/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.62 9/30 5/36 38/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Jamaica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.37
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Japan Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.79 4/15 14/35 14/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.74 3/15 18/35 19/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Japan East Asia & Pacific High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.74
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Jordan Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.6 2/7 2/30 42/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.56 3/7 7/30 56/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Jordan Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.35
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Kazakhstan Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.51 4/13 19/36 64/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 9 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.45 5/13 25/36 85/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Kazakhstan Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.53
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Kenya Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.45 12/18 19/30 95/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.02 5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.49 11/18 14/30 73/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Kenya Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.25
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Kyrgyzstan Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.47 10/13 14/30 82/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.48 3/13 15/30 75/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Kyrgyzstan Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.55
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Lebanon Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.47 6/7 31/36 87/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.49 5/7 18/36 72/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Lebanon Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.27
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Liberia Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.45 11/18 7/12 94/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.55 6/18 4/12 60/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Liberia Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.14
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Macedonia, FYR Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.53 3/13 16/36 57/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.45 7/13 28/36 89/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Macedonia, FYR Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.48
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Madagascar Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.44 14/18 8/12 98/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -8 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.45 13/18 8/12 90/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Madagascar Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.34
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Malawi Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.51 5/18 3/12 66/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.57 4/18 3/12 54/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Malawi Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.20
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Malaysia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.54 8/15 13/36 53/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.49 10/15 19/36 74/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Malaysia East Asia & Pacific Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.27
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Mexico Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.45 25/30 34/36 92/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.46 24/30 24/36 83/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Mexico Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.68
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Moldova Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.49 9/13 12/30 78/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.44 8/13 21/30 91/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Moldova Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.60
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Mongolia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.54 7/15 4/30 51/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.55 9/15 10/30 62/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Mongolia East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.41
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Morocco Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.51 4/7 9/30 67/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -7 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.55 4/7 9/30 61/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Morocco Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.37
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Myanmar Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.42 14/15 23/30 100/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.46 13/15 19/30 84/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Myanmar East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.19
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: South Asia
Nepal Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.53 1/6 2/12 58/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.61 2/6 1/12 42/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Nepal South Asia Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.28
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Netherlands Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.85 5/24 5/35 5/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.88 4/24 4/35 4/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Netherlands EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.79
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

New Zealand Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.83 1/15 7/35 7/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.85 1/15 7/35 7/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

New Zealand East Asia & Pacific High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.86
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Nicaragua Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.43 27/30 22/30 99/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.32 29/30 29/30 109/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Nicaragua Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.37
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Nigeria Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.44 13/18 21/30 97/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.55 7/18 11/30 63/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Nigeria Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.20
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Norway Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.89 2/24 2/35 2/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.94 2/24 2/35 2/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Norway EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.88
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: South Asia
Pakistan Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.39 5/6 26/30 105/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.53 4/6 13/30 66/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Pakistan South Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.26
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Panama Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.52 17/30 18/36 61/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.53 20/30 16/36 68/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Panama Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.42
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Peru Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.52 16/30 17/36 60/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.65 6/30 3/36 32/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Peru Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.37
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Philippines Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.47 13/15 17/30 88/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.04 -18 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.55 8/15 8/30 59/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Philippines East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.43
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Poland Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.67 17/24 24/35 25/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.04 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.61 21/24 31/35 40/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Poland EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.62
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Portugal Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.72 15/24 21/35 21/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.80 12/24 14/35 14/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Portugal EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.54
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Republic of Korea Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.72 6/15 20/35 20/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.70 5/15 24/35 26/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Republic of Korea East Asia & Pacific High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.70
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Romania Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.65 19/24 2/36 29/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.66 19/24 2/36 29/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Romania EU & EFTA & North America Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.61
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Russia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.47 11/13 32/36 89/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.39 10/13 33/36 101/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Russia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.53
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Senegal Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.55 4/18 1/12 49/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.58 3/18 2/12 48/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Senegal Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.34
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Serbia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 7/13 27/36 76/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.42 9/13 31/36 97/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Serbia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.53
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Sierra Leone Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.45 10/18 6/12 93/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.52 9/18 6/12 69/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Sierra Leone Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.11
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Singapore Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.8 3/15 13/35 13/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.70 4/15 23/35 25/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Singapore East Asia & Pacific High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.81
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Slovenia Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.67 18/24 25/35 26/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.63 20/24 29/35 35/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Slovenia EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.69
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

South Africa Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.59 2/18 8/36 44/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.61 2/18 7/36 41/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

South Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.54
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Spain Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.7 16/24 23/35 23/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.71 16/24 21/35 23/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Spain EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.70
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Region: South Asia
Sri Lanka Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.52 2/6 6/30 59/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 9 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.56 3/6 6/30 55/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Sri Lanka South Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.38
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

St. Kitts and Nevis Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.66 4/30 27/35 28/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.68 4/30 26/35 28/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

St. Kitts and Nevis Latin America & Caribbean High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.21
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

St. Lucia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.63 6/30 3/36 33/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.62 10/30 6/36 39/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

St. Lucia Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.32
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

St. Vincent and the Grenadines Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.61 9/30 6/36 37/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.57 15/30 11/36 51/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

St. Vincent and the Grenadines Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.26
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Suriname Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.51 18/30 22/36 69/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -10 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.47 22/30 20/36 78/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Suriname Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.30
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Sweden Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.86 4/24 4/35 4/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.88 5/24 5/35 5/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Sweden EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.79
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Tanzania Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.47 9/18 5/12 86/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.52 10/18 7/12 71/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Tanzania Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.24
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Thailand Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 10/15 23/36 71/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -7 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.47 11/15 22/36 80/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Thailand East Asia & Pacific Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.46
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Trinidad and Tobago Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.56 14/30 34/35 48/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.63 8/30 30/35 37/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Trinidad and Tobago Latin America & Caribbean High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.37
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Tunisia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.53 3/7 5/30 54/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.60 1/7 4/30 45/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Tunisia Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.36
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Turkey Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.42 13/13 35/36 101/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.30 13/13 35/36 111/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Turkey Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.44
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Uganda Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.4 15/18 9/12 104/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.42 15/18 10/12 99/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Uganda Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.12
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Ukraine Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.5 8/13 11/30 77/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.45 6/13 20/30 86/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Ukraine Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.61
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

United Arab Emirates Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.65 1/7 30/35 32/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.58 2/7 34/35 49/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

United Arab Emirates Middle East & North Africa High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.35
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

United Kingdom Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.81 9/24 11/35 11/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.84 8/24 9/35 9/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

United Kingdom EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.90
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

United States Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.73 14/24 19/35 19/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.77 13/24 15/35 16/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

United States EU & EFTA & North America High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.77
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Uruguay Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.71 1/30 22/35 22/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.76 2/30 17/35 18/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Uruguay Latin America & Caribbean High
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.71
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Uzbekistan Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.46 12/13 18/30 91/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.32 12/13 28/30 108/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Uzbekistan Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.29
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Venezuela Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.29 30/30 36/36 113/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.18 30/30 36/36 113/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Venezuela Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.23
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Vietnam Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.5 11/15 10/30 74/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -7 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.46 12/15 18/30 81/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Vietnam East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.54
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Zambia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.47 7/18 15/30 83/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.47 12/18 17/30 77/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Zambia Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.24
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

Zimbabwe Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.37 17/18 11/12 108/113 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1 Absence of

7.7 2.3

0.28 18/18 12/12 112/113
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security

Zimbabwe Sub-Saharan Africa Low
misconduct
Criminal Justice
adjudication

Open Government
0.17
8.5 No corruption
enforcement

155
Part Five
Behind the Numbers
156 Methodology
165 Contributing Experts
187 Acknowledgements
190 About the World Justice Project

Part Five: Behind the Numbers
Methodology
The WJP Rule of Law Index® is the first attempt to systematically and comprehensively
quantify the rule of law around the world, and remains unique in its operationalization
of rule of law dimensions into concrete questions.
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2017-2018 report presents The WJP Rule of Law Index systematically and comprehen-
information on eight composite factors that are further sively quantifies the rule of law in 113 countries around
disaggregated into 44 specific sub-factors (see pages 8–9). the world. The production of the WJP Rule of Law Index can
Factor 9, Informal Justice, is included in the conceptual be summarized in eleven steps:
framework, but has been excluded from the aggregated scores
and rankings in order to provide meaningful cross-country 1. The WJP developed the conceptual framework summarized
comparisons. To present an image that accurately portrays in the Index’s nine factors and 47 sub-factors, in consulta-
the rule of law as experienced by ordinary people, each tion with academics, practitioners, and community leaders
score of the Index is calculated using a large number of from around the world.
questions drawn from two original data sources collected
2. The Index team developed a set of five questionnaires
by the World Justice Project in each country: a General
based on the Index’s conceptual framework to be admin-
Population Poll (GPP) and a series of Qualified Respondents’
istered to experts and the general public. Questionnaires
Questionnaires (QRQs).
were translated into several languages and adapted to
reflect commonly used terms and expressions.
These two data sources collect up-to-date firsthand
information that is not available at the global level, and 3. The team identified, on average, more than 300 poten-
constitute the world’s most comprehensive dataset of tial local experts per country to respond to the QRQs and
its kind. They capture the experiences and perceptions engaged the services of leading local polling companies to
of ordinary citizens and in-country professionals concerning implement the household surveys.
the performance of the state and its agents and the actual
4. Polling companies conducted pilot tests of the GPP in
operation of the legal framework in their country. The
consultation with the Index team, and launched the final
country scores and rankings presented in this report
survey for full fieldwork.
are built from more than 500 variables drawn from the
assessments of more than 110,000 citizens and 3,000 legal 5. The team sent the questionnaires to local experts
experts in 113 countries and jurisdictions, making it the and engaged in continual interaction with them.
most accurate portrayal of the factors that contribute to
6. The Index team collected and mapped the data onto the
shaping the rule of law in a nation.
44 sub-factors with global comparability.
7. The Index team constructed the final scores using a five Data Sources
step process: Every year the WJP collects data from representative sam-
a. Codified the questionnaire items as numeric values ples of the general public (the General Population Polls or
b. Produced raw country scores by aggregating the GPPs) and legal professionals (the Qualified Respondents’
responses from several individuals (experts or general Questionnaires or QRQs) to compute the Index scores and
public) rankings. The GPP surveys provide firsthand information
c. Normalized the raw scores on the experiences and the perceptions of ordinary people
d. Aggregated the normalized scores into sub-factors regarding a range of pertinent rule of law information,
and factors using simple averages including their dealings with the government, the ease of
e. Produced the normalized scores, which are rounded interacting with state bureaucracy, the extent of bribery
to two decimal points, and the final rankings and corruption, the availability of dispute resolution sys-
tems, and the prevalence of common crimes to which they
8. The data were subject to a series of tests to identify are exposed. The GPP questionnaire includes 153 percep-
possible biases and errors. For example, the Index team tion-based questions and 191 experience-based questions,
cross-checked all sub-factors against more than 70 along with socio-demographic information on all respon-
third-party sources, including quantitative data and qual- dents. The questionnaire is translated into local languages,
itative assessments drawn from local and international adapted to common expressions, and administered by
organizations. leading local polling companies using a probability sample
of 1,000 respondents in the three largest cities of each
9. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by the Econometrics country.4 Depending on the particular situation of each
and Applied Statistics Unit of the European Commission’s country, three different polling methodologies are used:
Joint Research Centre, in collaboration with the Index team, face-to-face, telephone, or online. The GPP is carried out
to assess the statistical reliability of the results. in each country every other year. The polling data used in
this year’s report were collected during the fall of 2017 (for
10. To illustrate whether the rule of law in a country signifi- 52 countries), the fall of 2016 (for 57 countries), the fall of
cantly changed over the course of the past year, a measure 2014 (for 3 countries), and the fall of 2011 (for 1 country).
of change over time was produced based on the annual Detailed information regarding the cities covered, the poll-
difference in the country-level factor scores, the standard ing companies contracted to administer the questionnaire,
errors of these scores (estimated from a set of 100 boot- and the polling methodology employed in each of the 113
strap samples), and the results of the corresponding t-tests. countries is presented on page 161.
11. The data were organized into country reports, tables, The QRQs complement the household data with assess-
and figures to facilitate their presentation and interpre- ments from in-country professionals with expertise in civil
tation. For tables organized by income group, the WJP and commercial law, criminal justice, labor law, and public
follows the World Bank income classifications. health. These questionnaires gather timely input on a range
of topics from practitioners who frequently interact
A detailed description of the process by which data are
collected and the rule of law is measured is provided on the
following pages. (cont'd)
4
Last year, the WJP added 11 Latin American and Caribbean countries to the Index. Due to the small populations of many of these
countries and the difficulties of collecting enough respondents that met the quotas in the three largest cities, the sampling plan was
adjusted accordingly in some cases. One adjustment was to decrease the sample size to 500 respondents. A second was to conduct
a nationally representative poll that covered a larger portion of the country. For more information on the specific countries and
sample sizes, see page 161 on city coverage and polling methodology.

with state institutions. Such topics include information on A full picture of how questions are mapped onto indicators
the efficacy of courts, the strength of regulatory enforce- and how they are weighted is available on the Rule of Law
ment, and the reliability of accountability mechanisms. The Index page at worldjusticeproject.org.
questionnaires contain closed-ended perception questions Data Validation
and several hypothetical scenarios with highly detailed As a final step, data are validated and cross-checked against
factual assumptions aimed at ensuring comparability across qualitative and quantitative third-party sources to provide
countries. The QRQ surveys are conducted annually, and an additional layer of analysis and to identify possible
the questionnaires are completed by respondents selected mistakes or inconsistencies within the data. Most of the
from directories of law firms, universities and colleges, re- third-party data sources used to cross-check the Index
search organizations, and non-governmental organizations scores are described in Botero and Ponce (2011).5
(NGOs), as well as through referrals from the WJP global
Methodological Changes to this Year’s Report
network of practitioners, and vetted by WJP staff based on
Every year, the WJP reviews the methods of data collection
their expertise. The expert surveys are administered in four
to ensure that the information produced is valid, useful,
languages: English, French, Russian, and Spanish. The QRQ
and continues to capture the status of the rule of law in the
data for this report include over 3,000 surveys, which
world. To maintain consistency with previous editions and
represents an average of 26 respondents per country.
to facilitate tracking changes over time, this year’s ques-
These data were collected from May 2017 through early
tionnaires and data maps are closely aligned with those
November 2017.
administered in the past.
Data Cleaning and Score Computation
Once collected, the data are carefully processed to arrive In order to improve the accuracy of the QRQ results and
at country-level scores. As a first step, the respondent-level reduce respondent burden, proactive dependent inter-
data are edited to exclude partially-completed surveys, viewing techniques were used to remind respondents who
suspicious data, and outliers (which are detected using the participated in last year’s survey of their responses in the
Z-score method). Individual answers are then mapped onto previous year.
the 44 sub-factors of the Index (or onto the intermediate
categories that make up each sub-factor), codified so that This year, a few changes were made to some of the indica-
all values fall between 0 (least rule of law) and 1 (most tors and questions of the Index. These changes occurred in
rule of law), and aggregated at the country level using the sub-factors 2.2, 4.3, 8.1, 8.5, and 8.7.
simple (or unweighted) average of all respondents.
1. In the construction of sub-factor 2.2 “Government

This year, to allow for an easier comparison across years, officials in the judicial branch do not use public office for
the resulting 2017-2018 scores have been normalized private gain," five questions were added. Sub-factor 2.2
using the Min-Max method with a base year of 2015. now contains 18 questions.
These normalized scores were then successively aggregated
from the variable level all the way up to the factor level 2. In the construction of sub-factor 4.3 “Due process of the
to produce the final country scores, rounded to two law and rights of the accused," four questions were added.
decimal points, and rankings. In most cases, the GPP and Sub-factor 4.3 now contains 35 questions.
QRQ questions are equally weighted in the calculation of
the scores of the intermediate categories (sub-factors and 3. In the construction of sub-factor 8.1 “Criminal investi-
sub-sub-factors). gation system is effective," seven questions were added.
Sub-factor 8.1 now contains 24 questions. In the
5
Botero, J. and Ponce, A. (2011) "Measuring the Rule of Law": WJP Working Paper No.1, available at worldjusticeproject.org/publications.
construction of sub-factor 8.5 “Criminal justice system is standard errors. To calculate these errors, 100 samples of
free of corruption," five questions were added. Sub-fac- respondent-level observations (of equal size to the original
tor 8.5 now contains 26 questions. In the construction of sample) are randomly selected with replacement for each
sub-factor 8.7 “Due process of the law and rights of the country from the pooled set of respondents for last year
accused," four questions were added. Sub-factor 8.7 now and this year. These samples are used to produce a set of
contains 35 questions. 100 country-level scores for each factor and each country,
which are utilized to calculate the final standard errors.
Overall, 96% of questions remained the same between the These errors – which measure the uncertainty associated
2016 and 2017-2018 editions of the Index. A description with picking a particular sample of respondents – are then
of the new variables is available at worldjusticeproject.org. employed to conduct pair-wise t-tests for each country and
each factor.
In a few instances, the WJP uses data from third-party
sources to measure an element of the rule of law that is 3. Finally, to illustrate the annual change, a measure of
not possible to measure through the GPP or QRQs. Out of change over time is produced based on the value of the
more than 500 variables used to calculate the Index, five annual difference and its statistical significance (at the 95
variables are from third-party sources. percent level).
Tracking Changes Over Time Strengths & Limitations

This year’s report includes a measure to illustrate wheth- The Index methodology displays both strengths and limita-
er the rule of law in a country, as measured through the tions. Among its strengths is the inclusion of both expert
factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index, changed from 2016 and household surveys to ensure that the findings reflect
to 2017–2018. This measure is presented in the form of the conditions experienced by the population. Another
arrows and represents a summary of rigorous statistical strength is that it approaches the measurement of rule of
testing based on the use of bootstrapping procedures law from various angles by triangulating information across
(see below). For each factor, this measure takes the value data sources and types of questions. This approach not
of zero (no arrow) if there was no statistically significant only enables accounting for different perspectives on the
change in the score since last year, a positive value (upward rule of law, but it also helps to reduce possible bias that
arrow) if there was a change leading to a statistically might be introduced by any other particular data collection
significant improvement in the score, and a negative value method. Finally, it relies on statistical testing to determine
(downward arrow) if there was a change leading to a statis- the significance of the changes in the factor scores over the
tically significant deterioration in the score. This measure last year.
complements the numerical scores and rankings presented
in this report, which benchmark each country’s current With the aforementioned methodological strengths come
performance on the factors and sub-factors of the Index a number of limitations. First, the data shed light on rule of
against that of other countries. The measure of change over law dimensions that appear comparatively strong or weak,
time is constructed in three steps: but are not specific enough to establish causation. Thus,
it will be necessary to use the Index in combination with
1. First, last year’s scores are subtracted from this year’s other analytical tools to provide a full picture of causes and
to obtain, for each country and each factor, the annual possible solutions. Second, the methodology has only been
difference in scores. applied in three major urban areas in each of the indexed
countries for the General Population Poll. The WJP is
2. To test whether the annual changes are statistically therefore piloting the application of the methodology to ru-
significant, a bootstrapping procedure is used to estimate ral areas. Third, given the rapid changes occurring in some
(cont'd)

countries, scores for some countries may be sensitive to law dimensions in various countries.
the specific points in time when the data were collected.
2. The Index’s rankings and scores are the product of a
To address this, the WJP is piloting test methods of moving
rigorous data collection and aggregation methodology.
averages to account for short-term fluctuations. Fourth,
Nonetheless, as with all measures, they are subject to
the QRQ data may be subject to problems of measure-
measurement error.
ment error due to the limited number of experts in some
countries, resulting in less precise estimates. To address 3. Given the uncertainty associated with picking a particular
this, the WJP works constantly to expand its network of sample of respondents, standard errors have been calculat-
in-country academic and practitioner experts who contrib- ed using bootstrapping methods to test whether the annual
ute their time and expertise to this endeavor. Finally, due changes in the factor scores are statistically significant.
to the limited number of experts in some countries (which
4. Indices and indicators are subject to potential abuse and
implies higher standard errors) and the fact that the GPP is
misinterpretation. Once released to the public, they can
carried out in each country every other year (which implies
take on a life of their own and be used for purposes unan-
that for some countries, some variables do not change from
ticipated by their creators. If data are taken out of context,
one year to another), it is possible that the test described
it can lead to unintended or erroneous policy decisions.
above fails to detect small changes in a country’s situation
over time. 5. Rule of law concepts measured by the Index may have
different meanings across countries. Users are encouraged
Other Methodological Considerations to consult the specific definitions of the variables employed
A detailed presentation of the methodology, including in the construction of the Index, which are discussed in
a table and description of the more than 500 variables greater detail in the methodology section of the WJP Rule
used to construct the Index scores, is available at: of Law Index website.
worldjusticeproject.org and in Botero, J. and Ponce, A.
6. The Index is generally intended to be used in com-
(2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”: WJP Working Paper
bination with other instruments, both quantitative and
No.1, available at: worldjusticeproject.org/publications.
qualitative. Just as in the areas of health or economics, no
Using the WJP Rule of Law Index single index conveys a full picture of a country’s situation.
The WJP Rule of Law Index has been designed to offer a Policy-making in the area of rule of law requires careful
reliable and independent data source for policy makers, consideration of all relevant dimensions – which may vary
businesses, non-governmental organizations, and other from country to country – and a combination of sources,
constituencies to assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of instruments, and methods.
law as perceived and experienced by the average person, 7. Pursuant to the sensitivity analysis of the Index data
identify a nation’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison conducted in collaboration with the Econometrics and
to similarly situated countries, and track changes over time. Applied Statistics Unit of the European Commission’s Joint
The Index has been designed to include several features Research Centre, confidence intervals have been calcu-
that set it apart from other indices and make it valuable lated for all figures included in the WJP Rule of Law Index
for a large number of countries, thus providing a powerful 2017–2018. These confidence intervals and other relevant
resource that can inform policy debates both within and considerations regarding measurement error are reported
across countries. However, the Index’s findings must be in Saisana and Saltelli (2015) and Botero and Ponce (2011).
interpreted in light of certain inherent limitations.
1. The WJP Rule of Law Index does not identify priorities for The following pages (161–163) list the city coverage
reform and is not intended to establish causation or to and polling methodology for the GPP in the 113 indexed
ascertain the complex relationship among different rule of countries and jurisdictions.
Country/Territory Cities Covered Polling Company Methodology Sample Year
Afghanistan Kabul City, Kandahar City, Herat City ACSOR, a subsidiary of D3 Systems, Inc. Face-to-face 992 2017
Albania Tirana, Durres, Fier IDRA Research & Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2016
Antigua & Barbuda Nationally representative sample Mercaplan Face-to-face 510 2016
Argentina Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Rosario Statmark Group Face-to-face 1006 2016
Australia Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane Survey Sampling International Online 1000 2016
Austria Vienna, Graz, Linz YouGov Online 1008 2017
Bahamas Nassau, Freeport, Lucaya CID-Gallup Face-to-face 516 2016
Bangladesh Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna Org-Quest Research Face-to-face 1000 2016
Barbados Nationally representative sample Mercaplan Face-to-face 506 2016
Market Research & Polls - EURASIA

Belarus* Minsk, Gomel, Mogilev (MRP-EURASIA)/WJP in collaboration Face-to-face 1000/401 2014/2017
with local partner
Belgium Brussels, Antwerp, Liège YouGov Online 1001 2016
Belize Belize City, Belmopan, San Ignacio/Santa Elena CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1000 2017
Bolivia La Paz/El Alto, Santa Cruz, Cochabamba CAPTURA Consulting SRL Face-to-face 1000 2016
Bosnia & Herzegovina Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Tuzla Kantar TNS MIB Face-to-face 1000 2017
Botswana Molepolole, Gaborone, Francistown Intraspace Market Consultancy Ltd. Face-to-face 999 2016
Datum Internacional/About Brazil

Brazil São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador Face-to-face 1049 2017
Market Research
Bulgaria Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna Alpha Research Face-to-face 1001 2016
Burkina Faso Ouagadougou, Bobo Dioulasso, Koudougou Kantar TNS Face-to-face 1029 2017
Cambodia* Phnom Penh, Battambang, Kampong Cham Indochina Research Face-to-face 1000 2014
Cameroon Douala, Yaoundé, Bamenda Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1000 2016
Canada Toronto, Montreal, Calgary YouGov Online 1000 2017
Chile Santiago, Valparaíso/Viña del Mar, Antofagasta Datum Internacional S.A./Cadem S.A. Face-to-face 1011 2017
China Shanghai, Chongqing, Beijing WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1014 2016
Colombia Bogotá, Medellín, Cali Tempo Group Face-to-face 1007 2016
Costa Rica San José, Alajuela, Cartago Dichter and Neira Face-to-face 561 2017
Cote d'Ivoire Abidjan, Bouaké, Daloa Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1011 2017
Croatia Zagreb, Split, Rijeka Ipsos d.o.o. Face-to-face 1004 2016
Czech Republic Prague, Brno, Ostrava YouGov Online 1013 2017
Denmark Copenhagen, Aarhus, Aalborg YouGov Online 1016 2017
Dominica Nationally representative sample Statmark Group Face-to-face 500 2016
Dominican Republic Santo Domingo, Santiago, La Romana CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1016 2016
Ecuador Guayaquil, Quito, Cuenca Dichter and Neira Face-to-face 703 2017
Egypt Cairo, Alexandria, Giza WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1000 2017
El Salvador San Salvador, Santa Ana, San Miguel CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1004 2016
Estonia Tallinn, Tartu, Narva Norstat Eesti Online 1010 2017
Ethiopia Addis Ababa, Gonder, Nazret Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1037 2017
*Due to difficulties with data collection, the World Justice Project was unable to complete the 2017 General Population Poll in Belarus,
Cambodia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan. As a result, GPP data from previous years have been used for these four countries.
(cont'd)

Finland Helsinki, Espoo, Tampere YouGov Online 1014 2017
France Paris, Lyon, Marseille YouGov Online 1011 2016
ACT Market Research and Consulting

Georgia Tbilisi, Batumi, Kutaisi Face-to-face 1000 2017
Company
Germany Berlin, Hamburg, Munich YouGov Online 1012 2016
Ghana Kumasi, Accra, Sekondi-Takoradi FACTS International Ghana Limited Face-to-face 1016 2016
Greece Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras YouGov Online 1015 2017
Grenada Nationally representative sample Mercaplan Face-to-face 510 2016
Guatemala Guatemala City, Villa Nueva, Mixco CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1036 2016
Guyana Georgetown, Linden, New Amsterdam CID-Gallup Face-to-face 506 2016
Honduras Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1100 2017
Hong Kong SAR, China Hong Kong WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1004 2017
Hungary Budapest, Debrecen, Szeged Ipsos Hungary Face-to-face 1000 2017
India Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore DataPrompt International Pvt. Ltd. Face-to-face 1002 2016
Indonesia Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung MRI (Marketing Research Indonesia) Face-to-face 1004 2017
Iran Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad Ipsos Public Affairs Telephone 1005 2016
Italy Rome, Milan, Naples YouGov Online 1004 2017
Jamaica Kingston, Portmore, Spanish Town Dichter and Neira Face-to-face 401 2017
Japan Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya Survey Sampling International Online 1000 2016
Jordan Amman, Irbid, Zarqa WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1000 2016
Kazakhstan Almaty, Astana, Shymkent WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1000 2017
Kenya Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru Infinite Insight Face-to-face 1085 2016
Kyrgyzstan Bishkek, Osh, Jalalabad WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1000 2016
Lebanon Beirut, Tripoli, Sidon REACH SAL Face-to-face 1000 2017
Liberia Monrovia, Gbarnga, Kakata FACTS International Ghana Limited Face-to-face 1008 2016
Macedonia, FYR Skopje, Kumanovo, Bitola Ipsos dooel Skopje Face-to-face 1017 2017
Madagascar Antananarivo, Toamasina, Antsirabe DCDM Research Face-to-face 1000 2017
Malawi Lilongwe, Blantyre, Mzuzu Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1039 2017
Acorn Marketing & Research Consultant

Malaysia Klang Valley, Johor Bahru, Ipoh Face-to-face 1000 2017
(M) Sdn Bhd
Mexico Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey Data Opinión Pública y Mercados Face-to-face 1000 2017
Georgian Opinion Research Business

Moldova Chisinau, Balti, Cahul Face-to-face 520 2017
International (GORBI)
Mongolian Marketing Consulting Group

Mongolia Ulaanbaatar, Erdenet, Darkhan Face-to-face 1000 2017
LLC
Morocco Casablanca, Fes, Tangier WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1000 2017
Myanmar Mandalay, Yangon, Naypyidaw APMI Partners Face-to-face 1008 2016
Nepal Kathmandu, Pokhara, Lalitpur Solutions Consultant Face-to-face 1000 2017
Netherlands Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague YouGov Online 1017 2016
New Zealand Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch Big Picture Online 1000 2017
Nicaragua Managua, León,, Masaya CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1100 2017
Nigeria Lagos, Kano, Ibadan Marketing Support Consultancy Face-to-face 1050 2016
Norway Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim YouGov Online 1007 2017
Gallup Pakistan (affiliated with Gallup

Pakistan Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad Face-to-face 1840 2017
International)
Panama Panama City, San Miguelito, La Cumbres Gallup Panamá Face-to-face 1000 2017
Peru Lima, Arequipa, Trujillo Datum Internacional S.A. Face-to-face 1007 2016
Philippines Manila, Cebu, Davao APMI Partners Face-to-face 1008 2016
Poland Warsaw, Krakow, Lodz IQS Sp. z o.o. Face-to-face 1000 2016
Portugal Lisbon, Porto, Amadora YouGov Online 1016 2017
Republic of Korea Seoul, Busan, Incheon Survey Sampling International Online 1025 2016
Romania Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Timisoara Ipsos S.R.L. Face-to-face 1000 2016
Russia Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1000 2016
Senegal Pikine, Dakar, Thiès Kantar TNS Face-to-face 1012 2017
Serbia Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis Ipsos Strategic Marketing d.o.o. Face-to-face 1002 2017
Sierra Leone Freetown, Bo, Kenema Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1000 2016
Singapore Singapore Survey Sampling International Online 1000 2017
Slovenia Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje Ipsos d.o.o. Face-to-face 1006 2017
South Africa Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1000 2016
Spain Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia YouGov Online 1005 2016
Sri Lanka Colombo, Kaduwela, Maharagama Kantar LMRB Face-to-face 1010 2017
St. Kitts & Nevis Basseterre, St. Peter, St. Thomas Middle Island UNIMER Face-to-face 508 2016
St. Lucia Castries, Vieux Fort, Micoud Statmark Group Face-to-face 1004 2016
St. Vincent & the

Calliaqua, Kingstown, Kingstown Park UNIMER Face-to-face 501 2016
Grenadines
Suriname Paramaribo, Brokopondo, Lelydrop CID-Gallup Face-to-face 507 2016
Sweden Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmo YouGov Online 1002 2016
Tanzania Mwanza, Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar Consumer Options Ltd. Face-to-face 1017 2016
Thailand Bangkok, Nakhon Ratchasima, Udon Thani Infosearch Limited Face-to-face 1005 2016
Trinidad & Tobago Changuanas, San Fernando, Port of Spain CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1005 2016
Tunisia Big Tunis, Sfax, Sousse BJKA Consulting Face-to-face 1001 2017
Turkey Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir TNS Turkey Face-to-face 1011 2016
Uganda Kampala, Kira, Mbarara TNS-RMS Cameroon Face-to-face 1078 2016
Ukraine Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa Gfk Ukraine Face-to-face 1079 2017
Feedback Market Research/Dolfin

United Arab Emirates* Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah Market Research & Consultancy Face-to-face 1011/200 2011/2017
(DolfinX)
United Kingdom London, Birmingham, Manchester YouGov Online 1024 2016
United States New York, Los Angeles, Chicago YouGov Online 1004 2017
Uruguay Montevideo, Salto, Paysandú Datum Internacional S.A. Face-to-face 1000 2016
Market Research & Polls - EURASIA

Uzbekistan* Tashkent, Samarkand, Fergana Face-to-face 1000 2014
(MRP-EURASIA)
Venezuela Caracas, Maracaibo, Barquisimeto WJP in collaboration with local partner Face-to-face 1000 2016
Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Noi, Hai Phong Indochina Research (Vietnam) Ltd. Face-to-face 1000 2017
Zambia Lusaka, Kitwe, Chipata Intraspace Market Consultancy Ltd. Face-to-face 1014 2017
Zimbabwe Harare, Bulawayo, Chitungwiza Intraspace Market Consultancy Ltd. Face-to-face 1008 2016
*Due to difficulties with data collection, the World Justice Project was unable to complete the 2017 General Population Poll in Belarus,
Cambodia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan. As a result, GPP data from previous years have been used for these four countries.

Contributing
Experts
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2017–2018 was made possible by the generous
contributions of academics and practitioners who contributed their time and expertise.
The names of those experts wishing to be acknowledged individually are listed in the
following pages.
This report was also made possible by the work of the polling companies who
conducted fieldwork, and the thousands of individuals who have responded to the
General Population Poll around the world.
Afghanistan Brunilda Subashi Dante Omar Graña Esther Stern Johann Brunner
Universiteti Ismail Qemali Fundación Avedis Donabedian Flinders University of South Johannes Kepler University
Baryalai Hakimi Vlorë Australia Linz
Kabul University Diego Silva Ortiz
Dorant Ekmekçiu Silva Ortiz, Alfonso, Pavic & Fiona McDonald Julian Feichtinger
Belquis Ahmadi Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Louge Australian Centre for Health CHSH
USIP Law Research
Drini Hakorja Enrique Mariano Stile Karl Stöger
Hashmat Khalil Nadirpor Marval, O'Farrell & Mairal Fiona McLeay University of Graz
Legal Education Support Eris Hoxha Justice Connect
Program Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Federico A. Borzi Cirilli Manfred Ketzer
Estudio Ceballos y Ceballos Greg Patmore Hausmaninger Kletter
Khalid C. Sekander Esa Hala University of Sydney
Federico M. Basile Martin Reinisch
M. Khalid Massoudi Gentiana Tirana M. & M. Bomchil Abogados John Denton Brauneis Klauser Prändl
Masnad Legal Consultancy Tirana Law Firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth Rechtsanwälte GmbH
Humberto Federico Rios
Mohammad Shafiq Gjergji Gjika Estudio Rios Abogados Kate Burns Martin Risak
Hamdam Gjika & Associates University of New South University of Vienna
Anti-Corruption Watch Joaquín E. Zappa Wales
Organization Irv Vaso J.P. O'Farrell Abogados Rupert Manhart
Kalo & Associates Mary E Crock Manhart Einsle Partner
Niamatullah Brakzai María Eugenia Cantenys Sydney Law School Rechtsanwälte; ÖRAK; CCBE
Lex Ferghana Jonida Braja Melani Marval, O'Farrell & Mairal
Wolf Theiss Merrilyn Walton Stefan Schumann
Rahmanullah Shahab María Paola Trigiani University of Sydney Johannes Kepler University
Afghan Anglo Legal Romeo Merruko Alfaro Abogados Linz
Consultancy Services Kalo & Associates Neil James
Company Marta Pardini Australia Defence Association Stefan Zleptnig
Shirli Gorenca Estudio Pardini Abogados University of Vienna
Saeeq Shajjan Kalo & Associates Nicholas Cowdery
Shajjan & Associates P.A. Martín Langsam University of Sydney; Thomas Frad
Anonymous Contributors Universidad Isalud University of New South Karasek Wietrzyk
Sanzar Kakar Wales Rechtsanwälte GmbH
Afghanistan Holding Group Antigua & Barbuda Maximo Julio Fonrouge
Será Justicia Peter Sainsbury Thomas Hofmann
Sayed Ramiz Husaini Craig L. Jacas PALLAS Rechtsanwälte
Afghanistan Sustainable Stapleton Chambers Mercedes Balado Roy Baker Partnerschaft
Education Organization Bevilacqua Macquarie Law School
E. Ann Henry MBB Abogados Anonymous Contributors
Selay Ghaffar Henry & Burnette Sean Cooney
Mercedes Lorenzo University of Melbourne Bahamas
Shahrzad Shamim Janeille Zorina Matthews Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Shajjan & Associates P.A. University of the West Indies, Simon Rice G Deon Thompson
Mona Nicolás Soler Australian National Univeristy Sturrup, Thompson & Co.
Shamsi Maqsoudi
Shajjan & Associates P.A. Kema M. L. M. Benjamin Omar Eidelstein Sonia Allan Shavon D. Bethel
Marshall & Co. LKEC Abogados Deakin University Douglas Sands & Associates
Tareq Eqtedary
G+ Generation Positive Mark H. Harris Pablo Alejandro Pirovano Thomas Faunce Tavares K. LaRoda
Marshall & Co. P&BA Pirovano & Bello Australian National University Sunshine Holdings Limited
Zabihullah
CAHPO Anonymous Contributors Sandra Guillan Anonymous Contributors Wayne R. Munroe
De Dios & Goyena Abogados Munroe & Associates
Zamira Saidi Argentina Consultores Austria
Shajjan & Associates P.A. Anonymous Contributors
Adolfo Rouillon Santiago Legarre Andreas Hable
Anonymous Contributors Poder Judicial Pontificia Universidad Católica Binder Grösswang Bangladesh
Argentina
Albania Alberto Justo Giles Christoph Konrath A. H. M. Belal Chowdhury
Walter Fernando Godoy Austrian Parliamentary FM Consulting International
Agron Alibali Analia Duran Administration
Frost & Fire Consulting MBB Abogados Anonymous Contributors A. S. A. Bari
Claudia Habl A.S & Associates
Albana Fona Andres Sanguinetti Australia Gesundheit Österreich GmbH
Legal and Professional Estudio Moltedo A. S. M. Alamgir
Services Albania Benedict Coyne Clemens Egermann Institute of Epidemiology,
Carlos Dodds Australian Lawyers for Human Barnert Egermann Illigasch Disease Control and Research
Ana Spahiu Baker & McKenzie Rights
LPA Law Firm Albania Gerhard Jarosch Abu Sayeed M M Rahman
Carlos María Ferrer Deheza Breen Creighton Austrian Association of United Hospital, Dhaka
Andi Mani Estudio Ferrer Deheza RMIT University Prosecutors
K&H Law Firm Ajmalul Hossain
Carlos Martínez Sagasta E. Tursan d'Espaignet Ivo Greiter A Hossain & Associates
Aurela Saliaj Universidad del Salvador University of Newcastle Greiter Pegger Kofler &
Universiteti Ismail Qemali Partners Al Amin Rahman
Vlorë Caros José Laplacete FM Associates
Cassagne Abogados

Bilqis Amin Hoque Barbados Illia Salei Olivier De Witte Juan Pablo Alvarez
Environment and Population Borovtsov & Salei Law Firm Université Libre de Bruxelles Belmonte
Research Centre Jaydene O. Thomas Lima & Asociados
Capital Law Chambers Katerina Akinschewa Patrick Goffaux
Bulbul Ahmed Panna Université Libre de Bruxelles Julio César Landívar Castro
Lis And Lex Jefferson O'B Cumberbatch Lada Maisenia Guevara & Gutiérrez S.C.
University of the West Indies Borovtsov & Salei Law Firm Valerie Flohimont
Farhana Islam Khan Unamur Karen Jimena Montaño
Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed & Lalu Hanuman Liliya Katkovskaya Valenzuela
Associates Synagogue Chambers Walter P. Verstrepen LABIMED UMSS
Nadezhda Elegis
Ferdaus Rahman Natasha D.S. Green Uridicheskaya Companiya Manuel Urenda
A.S & Associates Charlton Chambers Fact Anonymous Contributors Urenda Abogados
Gazi Md Rokib Bin Hossain Shazard Mohammed Oksana Puchkovskaya Belize Miguel Guzman-Rivero
The Legal Circle Stepanovski, Papakul and Universidad Mayor de San
T. Alafia Samuels Partners Andrea McSweaney Mckoy Simón
Imran Anwar University of the West Indies Mckoy Torres LLP
Tanjib Alam and Associates Sergey Demianenko Mirko Rojas Cortez
Westmin R.A. James Verkhovodko & Partners LLC David S. Morales
Imteaz Ibne Mannan University of the West Indies, Morales Peyrefitte LLP Nicolás Soliz Peinado
Save the Children Cave Hill Tatiana Ignatovskaya Salazar & Asociados
Stepanovski, Papakul and Marvin L. Manzanero
Kamruzzaman Anonymous Contributors Partners Ministry of Health Pablo Marin
Daffodil International Lima & Asociados
University Belarus Tomashevski Kirill Oneyda K. Flores Piper
International University Pedro Barrientos Loayza
Khandaker Mashfique Alesia Vladimirovna MITSO Rodwell R. A. Williams
Ahmed Karpitskaya Barrow & Williams LLP Raul A Baldivia
Rahman's Chambers Legal Consultation of Vadzim Samaryn Baldivia Unzaga & Asociados
Dribinsky District Belarusian State University VMD Lizarraga
Mir Shamsur Rahman Rene Soria-Saucedo
University of Asia Pacific Alexander Botian Valentina Ogarkova Wayne A. Piper University of Florida
Borovtsov & Salei Law Firm Stepanovski, Papakul and Musa & Balderamos LLP
Mohammad Rafiqul Islam Partners Rodrigo Jimenez Cusicanqui
Chowdhury Alexander Liessem Anonymous Contributors Salazar & Asociados
M. R. I. Chowdhury & BNT Legal & Tax Viachaslau Shastak
Associates Bolivia Rosario Baptista Canedo
Alexandre Khrapoutski Anonymous Contributors
Mohammed Mutahar Sysouev, Bondar, Khrapoutski Carlos Gerke S Sandra Salinas
Hossain Law Office Belgium Estudio Jurídico Gerke C.R. & F. Rojas
Hossain & Khan Associates
Alexey Korol Adrien Masset Cesar Burgoa Rodriguez Victor Vargas Montaño
Saira Rahman Khan Stepanovski, Papakul and Uliège Bufete Burgoa Herrera & Abogados
BRAC University Partners
Andrée Puttemans Edgar Jaime Eguino William Herrera Añez
Sanwar Hossain Alexsander Korsak Université Libre de Bruxelles IT-Legal Bolivia
S Hossain & Associates Arzinger Attorneys at Law Anonymous Contributors
Anna Gibello Ernesto Rojas Cabrera
Sayeed Abdullah Al Mamun Anastasiya Bykouskaya Flinn Law Universidad Mayor de San Bosnia & Herzegovina
Khan Stepanovski, Papakul and Simón
A.S & Associates Partners Christoph Van der Elst Adis Arapovic
Tilburg University; Gent Gary Marcos Méndez Avilés Centres for Civic Initiatives
Sheikh Abdur Rahim Andrei Famenka University Universidad de Aquino
Daffodil International WHO Country Office Belarus Adnan Duraković
University Delvaux Ivan B. Cáceres Ibañez University of Zenica
Antonina Ivanova Elegis Caceres & Asoc.
Sheikh Faisal Shahrier Ziad Andrea Zubović-Devedžić
Next Legal Diana Ivanova Emmanuel Ruchat Ivan Lima Magne
Belarusian State University Lexial Centro de Estudios de Justicia Darko Brkan
Tanim Hussain Shawon y Participación Civic Association Why Not
Supreme Court Dmitry Kovalchik Jean Bornet
Stepanovski, Papakul and Javier Mir Peña Denis Pajić
Tanvir Quader Partners Jean François Brichant Mir & Asociados University of Mostar Džemal
Vertex Chambers CHU de Liège Bijedić
Dmitry Semashko Jorge Luis Inchauste
Tanzeer Ahmad Stepanovski, Papakul and Jean Jacqmain Guevara & Gutiérrez S.C. Edin Halapic
Rahman's Chambers Partners Université Libre de Bruxelles University of Sarajevo
Jorge Omar Mostajo
Tasmiah Nuhiya Ahmed Elena Sapego Jean-François van Barrios Goran Šimić
Bangladesh Institute of Law Stepanovski, Papakul and Drooghenbroeck Universidad Mayor de San International University of
and International Affairs Partners Université catholique de Andrés Sarajevo
Louvain
Anonymous Contributors Elena Sheleg José Carlos Bernal Rivera Hajrija Sijercic-Colic
Stepanovski, Papakul and Michel De Wolf Guevara & Gutiérrez S.C. University of Sarajevo
Partners Université catholique de
Louvain Hana Korać
University of Travnik
Lana Bubalo Mphoentle Molaodi Elival Ramos Luiz Guilherme Primos Raquel Betty de Castro
University of Mostar Džemal Desai Law Group Universidade de São Paulo Primos e Primos Advogados Pimenta
Bijedić Tribunal Regional do Trabalho
Munyaka Wadaira Emilio Peluso Neder Meyer Luiz Gustavo Ribeiro da 3ª Região
Mehmed Ganic Makuyana Federal University of Minas Augusto
International University of Makuyana Legal Practice Gerais Tribunal Regional do Trabalho Raquel Lima Scalcon
Sarajevo da 2ª Região Uniritter School of Law
Neo Thelma Moatlhodi Eraldo Silva Júnior
Mehmed Spaho Y S Moncho Attorneys Defensoria Pública da União Marcelo Maciel Ramos Roberta de Freitas Campos
Law Office Spaho Ltd. Universidade Federal de Oswaldo Cruz Foundation
Patient S Thuto Fabio Martins Di Jorge Minas Gerais
Miodrag N. Simović Chibanda, Makgalemele & Co. Peixoto & Cury Advogados Rodrigo Ghiringhelli de
Constitutional Court of Bosnia Maria Celina Bodin de Azevedo
and Herzegovina Patrick Akhiwu Fabio Queiroz Pereira Moraes Pontifícia Universidade
Pakmed Pty Ltd. Universidade Federal de Universidade do Estado do Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
Mirela Cokic Dzinic Minas Gerais Rio de Janeiro; Pontifícia
University of Tuzla Piyush Sharma Universidade Católica do Rio Rodrigo Giordano de Castro
Piyush Sharmna Attorneys Fabio Ulhoa Coelho de Janeiro Peixoto & Cury Advogados
Mirjana Šarkinović & Co. Pontifícia Universidade
Católica de São Paulo Maria Clara Oliveira Santos Rômulo Soares Valentini
Osman Sinanović Tshekiso Tshekiso Universidade Federal de São Universidade Federal De
University of Tuzla Tshekiso Ditiro & Jani Felipe Dutra Asensi João del-Rei Minas Gerais; Tribunal
Universidade do Estado do Regional do Trabalho da 3a
Randzana Hadzibegovic Anonymous Contributors Rio de Janeiro Maria-Valéria Junho Penna Região
Haracic Federal University of Rio de
Općinski sud Bugojno Brazil Fernanda V Terrazas Janeiro Sérgio Cruz Arenhart
Conselho Nacional de Universidade Federal do
Samil Ramić Alexandre Fragoso Silvestre Secretarias Municipais de Marilia Bense Othero Paraná
Basic court in Bugojno Briganti Advogados Saúde Premier Hospital - São Paulo
Sergio Mannheimer
Selma Demirović-Hamzić Ana Paula de Barcellos Fernando Aith Mário de Barros Duarte
Marić & Co. Law Firm Ltd. Universidade do Estado do University of São Paulo Garcia Soraia Ghassab Saleh
Rio de Janeiro Duarte Garcia, Caselli Saleh Advogados Associados
Slaven Dizdar Flávia Souza Máximo Guimarães e Terra Advogados
André de Melo Ribeiro Pereira Sueli Dallari
Tijana Milačić Dias Carneiro Advogados Federal University of Ouro Matheus Cherulli Alcantara CEPEDISA, Universidade de
Law Firm Sajić Preto Viana São Paulo
André Gustavo Isola Viana e Azevedo Sociedade de
Zijad Dzafic Fonseca Gabriel Costa Advogados Suzana De Queiroz Alves
University of Tuzla Koury Lopes Advogados Shell Brasil Petróleo Ltda. Defensoria Pública da União
Mauricio Faragone
Zoran Dakic Bruno Carazza dos Santos Gerson Luiz Carlos Branco Faragone Advogados Thiago Bottino
Bijeljina Folha de S. Paulo Universidade Federal do Rio FGV Law School
Grande do Sul Ordelio Azevedo Sette
Anonymous Contributors Caitlin Mulholland Azevedo Sette Advogados Victor Hugo Criscuolo
Pontifícia Universidade Guilherme Bier Barcelos Boson
Botswana Católica do Rio de Janeiro Bier Barcelos Advogados Paulo Brancher Universidade Federal de
Azevedo Sette Advogados Minas Gerais
A. R. Khan Carlos Ayres Heloisa Estellita
Rahim Khan & Co. Maeda, Ayres e Sarubbi FGV DIREITO SP Paulo Prado Anonymous Contributors
Advogados Koury Lopes Advogados
Abel Modimo Igor Parente Bulgaria
Modimo & Associates Carolina G. F. Korbage de Shell Brasil Petróleo Ltda. Paulo R. Sehn
Castro Trench, Rossi e Watanabe Delchev & Partners
Angelica Bojosi Korbage de Castro Advocacia Isabel Franco Advogados
Desai Law Group Koury Lopes Advogados Denitsa Sacheva
Carolina Haber Paulo Sergio João International Healthcare and
Atang Hilton Latelang Defensoria Pública RJ José Ricardo dos Santos Paulo Sergio João Sociedade Health Insurance Institute
Piyush Sharmna Attorneys Luz Júnior de Advogados
& Co. César Rossi Machado Braga Nascimento e Zilio Desislava Anastasova
Demarest Advogados Advogados Associados Pedro Aguiar de Freitas CMS Sofia
Boikaego N Mogae Veirano Advogados
Collins Newman & Co. Clara Iglesias Keller Juliana Cesario Alvim Desislava Todorova
Universidade do Estado do Gomes Pedro Augusto Gravatá CMS Sofia
Buhle Ncube Rio de Janeiro Universidade do Estado do Nicoli
LegalWise Botswana Rio de Janeiro Universidade Federal de Gergana Ilieva
Daniel Bushatsky Minas Gerais Kolcheva, Smilenov, Koev &
Kagiso Jani Advocacia Bushatsky Leandro Bonini Farias Partners
Tshekiso Ditiro & Jani Coutinho e Farias Sociedade Rafael Villac Vicente de
Daniela Muradas Reis de Advogados Carvalho Ivelina Vassileva and
Kwadwo Osei-Ofei Universidade Federal de Peixoto & Cury Advogados Stefana Tsekova
Osei-Ofei Swabi & Co. Minas Gerais Lília Carvalho Finelli Schönherr
Federal University of Minas Raoni Macedo
Lethogonolo Makgane David Braga Jr. Gerais Bielschowsky Ivo Baev
Makgane Attorneys Hospital dos Servidores Universidade Federal de Ivo Baev and Partners
Públicos do Estado de São Luciano Feldens Uberlândia
Motsomi Ndala Marobela Paulo Pontifícia Universidade
University of Botswana Católica do Rio Grande do Sul

Jean Crombois N. Marcellin Somé Laurent Dongmo Gaynor Roger Eduardo González Lara
American University in Associé Cabinet Jing & Shibley Righton LLP Universidad de Valparaíso y
Bulgaria Ouedraogo Stephane Marie Partners Andrés Bello
Ibrahim Glen E Luther
Jenia Dimitrova Lekeanyi Nkengasong Epse University of Saskatchewan Fabio Jordan
CMS Cameron McKenna Samuel Ibrahim Guitanga Asibong Queenta Poder Judicial
Nabarro Olswang Barreau du Burkina Faso The Abeng Law Firm Jabeur Fathally
University of Ottawa Fernando Lolas Stepke
Lachezar Raichev Wilfried Zoundi Mbanda Epanty Agbor Nde Universidad de Chile
Penkov, Markov & Partners Conseil National des OSC D. Moukouri & Partners Jason Foster
Athabasca University Fernando Maturana Crino
Lidia Georgieva Anonymous Contributors Njini Rose Futrih Ngong Eyzaguirre y Compañía
Medical University, Sofia Regional Hospital Bamenda John M. Buhlman
Cambodia WeirFoulds LLP Gabriela Novoa
Lucia F. Miree Nyamboli Joyce Ngwe Red de Salud UC CHRISTUS
American University in Allen Prak Pheap Destiny Chambers Karen Busby
Bulgaria P&A Asia Law Office University of Manitoba Gonzalo Hoyl M.
Roland Abeng Hoyl Alliende & Cía. Abogados
Momyana Guneva Billy Chia-Lung Tai The Abeng Law Firm Lise Desmarais
Burgas Free University Université de Sherbrooke Humberto Sánchez
Fil B. Tabayoyong, Jr. Serges Doumtsop Pacheco
Nikolai Hristov Pannasastra University of Louis Letellier de St-Just
Medical University, Sofia Cambodia Stanley Abane Jorge A. Canales González
The Abeng Law Firm Michel Drapeau Peralta, Gutiérrez & Asociados
Pavel Petkov Kit Touch Michel Drapeau Law Office
Community Legal Education Tarh Frambo Jorge Bofill Genzsch
Peter Petrov Centre The Global Citizens' Initiative Nayha Acharya Bofill Escobar Abogados
Yosifova, Ivanov & Petrov Schulich School of Law
Samnang Sun Tsamayem Dongkeu Oscar Juan Enrique Vargas
Petko Salchev Sotheaphal, Samnang, Sophy The Abeng Law Firm Rick Molz Viancos
National Center of Public & Partners Concordia University Universidad Diego Portales
Health and Analyses Woumbou Nzetchie Alain
Sek Sophorn Bruno Sonny Goldstein Juan Pablo Cox Leixelard
Stanley B Gyoshev Rights & Business Law Office Cabinet d'Avocats Josette Goldstein Financial Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez
University of Exeter Kadji Consultants
Sia Phearum Luis Felipe Hubner
Stela Ivanova Housing Rights Task Force Yatchet Youndja Georges Anonymous Contributors Uribe, Hubner & Canales
Institut für Ostrecht München; Patric Abogados
Neupert Ivanova & Koledi Sopheap Chak Prudent Law Consulting Chile
Cambodian Center for Human Luis Parada
Anonymous Contributors Rights Anonymous Contributors Alberto Alcalde H. BAZ | DLA Piper
PUGA ORTIZ Abogados
Burkina Faso Vichuta Ly Canada Manuel Jiménez
LSCW Alfonso Canales Undurraga Pfingsthorn
Abdoulaye Soma Brian Etherington Uribe, Hubner & Canales Jara del Favero Abogados
Société Burkinabé de Droit Anonymous Contributors University of Windsor Abogados
Constitutionnel Manuel José Fernández B.
Cameroon Brian Langille Andrés Milano García
Ali Karambiri University of Toronto CMZ Abogados Marcelo Soto U.
Barreau du Burkina Faso Barthélemy Tchepnang UH&C; Universidad de los
Centre d'Appui à la Justice Brian M. Pukier Benjamin Ferrada Andes
Ali Neya et d'Animation pour le Stikeman Elliott LLP Ferada y Cia.
Cabinet d’Avocats Ali Neya Développement María Elena Santibáñez
Charlyn Black Carlos Ossandón Salas Torres
Apollinaire Joachimson Charles Harold Kooh University of British Columbia Eluchans y Compañía Pontificia Universidad Católica
Kyélem de Tambèla The Abeng Law Firm Abogados de Chile
Barreau du Burkina Faso Craig R. Janes
Etakong Tabeyang University of Waterloo Catalina Salem Gesell María Inés Horvitz Lennon
Boubacar Nacro Ministry of External Relations Pontificia Universidad Católica Universidad de Chile
CHUSS Bobo-Dioulasso Daniel M. Campbell de Chile
Gilbert Awah Bongam Cox & Palmer María Norma Oliva Lagos
Boubakar Toure Bongam and Youmbi Law Firm Caterina Guidi Moggia Corporación de Asistencia
Université Ouaga I Pr Joseph Del Atwood Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Judicial
Ki-Zerbo J. J. Claude Siewe Nova Scotia Judiciary
Siewe & Partners Claudio Fuentes Maureira Martín Besio Hernández
Constance Kyelem-Terrah Domenic A. Crolla Universidad Diego Portales Universidad Diego Portales
Cabinet d'Avocat Kyelem- Jean-Aimé Kounga Gowling WLG LLP
Terrah The Abeng Law Firm Daniela Horvitz Lennon Matías Donoso Lamas
Dwight Newman Horvitz & Cia Abogados Urenda & Cia.
Habib Ahmed Djiga John Esandua Morfaw University of Saskatchewan
Université Ouaga II Strategic Development Daniela Pérez Michele Daroch Sagredo
Initiatives Fabien Gélinas Abdala & Cia. Abogados
Koulika Arnaud Nikiema McGill University Domingo Eyzaguirre
Centre d'études et de Justin Njifack Della Maggiora Eyzaguirre Omar Morales
recherche sur les TIC et la UNV, UNDP South Sudan Finn Makela Ferrada Abogados Montt y Cía. S.A.
cyberactivité Université de Sherbrooke
Kouagnang Nana Claude
Lalogo Julien Manuella
Patricio Morales Aguirre David F. Varela Paula Samper Salazar Luis Ángel Sánchez Joachim Bilé-Aka
Estudio Jurídico Pérez Donoso Pontificia Universidad Gómez-Pinzón Zuleta Montero Bilé-Aka, Brizoua-Bi &
Javeriana Abogados S.A.S. Facio & Cañas Associes
Paulo Larrain
NLD Diego Felipe Valdivieso Rafael Tuesca Molina M. Enrique Lizano Jules Gotre
Rueda Universidad del Norte Lizano Pacheco Abogados ONG Amepouh
Ramón García VS+M Abogados
Universidad Católica Raúl Alberto Suárez Arcila María del Rocío Quirós Louis Metan
Santísima Concepción Eduardo Cárdenas Suárez Arcila Abogados Arroyo
Dentons Cárdenas & Asociados Bufete AG Legal Raphael Abauleth
Raúl Novoa Galán Cárdenas
Ricardo Posada-Maya Miguel Ruiz Séritouba Gnangue
Ricardo Lillo Elizabeth Castillo Castillo Universidad de los Andes Lex Counsel Barreau de Côte d'Ivoire
Universidad Diego Portales Municipio de Santiago de Cali
Santiago Martínez Méndez Rafael Angel Rodriguez Souleymane Sakho
Roberto Guerrero V. Enrique Alvarez P. Universidad de los Andes; Salazar SCPA Sakho-Yapobi-Fofana
Pontificia Universidad Católica Lloreda Camacho & Co. Godoy Córdoba Abogados La Firma de Abogados CR
de Chile Théodore Hoegah
Felipe Aristizabal Tatiana Gacés Randall Madrigal Madrigal Cabinet Théodore Hoegah &
Rodolfo Fuenzalida Nieto & Chalela Abogados Baker & McKenzie Colegio de Abogados y Michel Etté
Sanhueza Abogadas de Costa Rica
GFSU Abogados Fernando Arteaga-Suárez William Javier Araque Anonymous Contributors
Universidad del Valle Jaimes René Ramos Carmon
Rodrigo Zegers Reyes Gómez-Pinzón Zuleta Croatia
Rivadeneira Colombara Zegers Fernando Pabon Santander Abogados S.A.S. Rodrigo Campos Esquivel
Pabon Abogados Poder Judicial Alan Bosnar
Anonymous Contributors Anonymous Contributors University of Rijeka
Gustavo Tamayo Sergio Amador Hasbun
China Lloreda Camacho & Co. Costa Rica Batalla Salto Luna Alan Soric
Soric & Tomekovic Dunda
Jonathan Isaacs Ignacio Santamaría Adrian Alvarenga Silvia Alvarado Quijano Attorneys
Baker & McKenzie Lloreda Camacho & Co. Batalla Salto Luna Bufete AG Legal
Anita Krizmanic
Matthew Murphy Joe Bonilla Gálvez Armando A. Guardia Thelma Petrucci Macesic & Partners LLC
MMLC Group Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados Guardia & Cubero BLP Abogados
Arsen Bacic
Qingjie He Jorge Acosta Reyes Arnoldo André Vivian Liberman University of Split
Universidad del Norte Lexincorp BLP Abogados
Yongping Xiao Boris Kozjak
Wuhan University Institute of Jorge Diaz Cardenas Arturo Herrera Barquero Wilber Elias Montenegro Boris Kozjak Law Office
International Law Diaz Cardenas Abogados Caja Costarricense de Seguro Reyes
Social Bufete AG Legal Boris Savoric
Anonymous Contributors Jorge Enrique Galvis Tovar Savoric & Partners LLC
Lloreda Camacho & Co. Carlos Humberto Góngora Anonymous Contributors
Colombia Fuentes Darko Jurišić
Jorge Lara Urbaneja Cote d’Ivoire General Hospital Dr. Josip
Alba Yaneth Rincón LaraConsultores Carlos José Valerio Monge Benčević
Méndez Abdramane Fofana
Universidad Industrial de Lucas Fajardo Gutiérrez David Gutierrez Floriana Bulic-Jakus
Santander Brigard & Urrutía Abogados BLP Abogados Alexandre Baïro University of Zagreb
SCPA
Ana Liliana Rios Garcia Luis Alberto Tafur Calderón Emilia Saborio Pozuelo KlemetSawadogoKouadio Hrvoje Banfic
Universidad del Norte Universidad del Valle Bufete Soley, Saborio & University of Zagreb
Asociados Arsene Dable
Andrés Esteban Naranjo Luis Fernando Ramírez Hrvoje Kraljičković
Barrera Contreras Enrique López Jiménez Assa Akoh Simone Hrvoje Kraljičković Law Office
ARI Consulting Group S.A.S. Sala Penal Tribunal Superior Dentons Muñoz - Costa Rica Association des Femmes
de Bogotá Juristes de Côte d'Ivoire Ivan Kos
Angela María Ruiz Erick Ramos Fallas PETOŠEVIĆ
Sternberg Manuel Mejía Florez Charles Kignima
Universidad del Rosario Hewlett Packard Enterprise Fátima Porras Moya Barreau de Côte d'Ivoire Ivan Vuljanić
Martínez & Porras Abogados Hrvoje Kraljičković Law Office
Camilo Torres Serna Marcela Castro-Ruiz Eric Bably
Universidad Libre de Cali Universidad de los Andes Fernán Vargas BK & Associes Ivo Grga
Lex Counsel Law Office Ivo Grga
Carlos Andrés Gómez Maria Transito Diaz del Françoise Angeline Assi-
González Castillo Francinie Obando Porras Kaudjhis-Offoumou Marko Lovrić
Universidad Jorge Tadeo Universidad del Valle; ANEC Association Internationale Marko Lovrić Law Office
Lozano Francisco José Aguilar-de pour la Démocratie
Martha Eugenia Uribe B. Urbina Neven Cirkveni
Carlos Mario Molina Mutis Publicola Project Geneviève Diallo-Sissoko Law Office Cirkveni
Arrubla Universidad Libre de Cali Barreau de Côte d'Ivoire; Paix
Molina Diaz & Abogados Jimmy Solano et Sécurité pour les Femmes Rudolf Gregurek
Miguel Angel Ramirez de l'Espace CEDEAO University of Zagreb
Catalina Herrera von Gaitan José Antonio Muñoz
Norden World Legal Corporation Dentons Muñoz - Costa Rica Isabelle Sokolo-Boni
ARI Consulting Group S.A.S. Bilé-Aka, Brizoua-Bi &
Associes

Višnja Drenški Lasan Jacob Hjortshøj Jaime Roca Ana Belen Posso Mario I. Armendáriz Y.
Law Firm Višnja Drenški Lasan Bech-Bruun Law Firm J. J. Roca & Asociados Ontaneda & Posso Abogados Armendáriz & Andino
Abogados
Zoran Vujasin Jacob Schall Holberg Jesus Feris-Iglesias Avelina Ponce Gómez de
Vujasin & Patners Bech-Bruun Law Firm; Hospital Infantil Dr. Robert la Torre Nathaly Alexandra Salazar
University of Copenhagen Reid Cabral Ponce & Ponce Abogados Ulloa
Anonymous Contributors Consultores
Jakob S. Johnsen Jesus Francos Rodriguez Pablo Andino Fiallos
Czech Republic HjulmandKaptain Medina Garrigo Abogados Carlos Carrasco Yepez Armendáriz & Andino
AC Abogados & Consultores Abogados
Hedvika Hartmanova Jens Rye-Andersen José Cruz Campillo
Hartmanova & Steininger Advokatfirmaet Eurojuris Jiménez Cruz Peña Carlos Solines Coronel Pablo Mencías Cisneros
Aalborg Jurídico Asociado Solines Sempértegui Ontaneda
Helena Hangler Juan Carlos Ortiz Abreu Abogados
Schönherr Lars Lindencrone Petersen Ortiz & Comprés Ciro Pazmino Zurita
Bech-Bruun Law Firm P&P Abogados Santiago Solines
Jan Hurdík Loraine Maldonado Solines & Asociados
Masaryk University Brno Marianne Granhøj Mesa & Mesa Claudia Storini
Kromann Reumert Universidad Pública de Simón Santiago Dávalos
Jan Hurdík Lupo Alfonso Hernandez Navarra Ochoa
Okresní soud v Třebíči Morten Broberg Contreras
University of Copenhagen David Ponce Gómez de la Tatiana Villacres
Jan Poláček Lupo Hernández Bisonó Torre Quantics Cia. Ltda.
Poláček, Tryznová & Prudlová Natalie Videbaek Ponce & Ponce Abogados
Munkholm Magdalena Rathe Consultores Washington Bolivar Trujillo
Lukáš Prudil Aarhus University Fundación PLENITUD Realpe
AK PRUDIL a spol., S.R.O. Edgar Neira Orellana
Poul Hvilsted Manuel E. Colomé Hidalgo Gallegos, Valarezo & Neira Anonymous Contributors
Matej Smolar Horten Law Firm Hospital Pediátrico Dr. Hugo
Felix a spol. Mendoza Edmundo Bodero Cali Egypt
Anonymous Contributors Estudio Jurídico Bodero &
Michal Peškar Manuel Fermín Cabral Bodero Abdel Aziz Zaki
Dominica Fermín & Guerrero Eldib & Co.
Miloslav Jančík Francisco Dávalos Morán
Rose-Anne Charles Maria Esther Fernandez A. González Peñaherrera & Ayman Sherif Nour
Ondřej Dušek Alick Lawrence Chambers de Pou Asociados Nour & Selim in association
Peterka & Partners with Al Tamimi & Co.
Dominican Republic Mary Fernández Gabriel Pinto Navarrete
Pavel Holec Headrick Rizik Alvarez & Estudio Jurídico Prado Bassem S Wadie
Holec, Zuska & Partners Alberto E. Fiallo-Billini S. Fernández Urology & Nephrology Center
Fiallo-Billini Scanlon Abogados Gustavo Ortega Trujillo
Pavel Urban Rafael Antonio Santana Ortega Abogados & Asociados Ibrahim Ahmad Ibrahim
National Institute of Public Alberto Hernández Herrera Goico
Health Loren-Rouse-Hernández & H.R.A.F., S.R.L. James Stanley Pilco Khaled El Shalakany
Asoc. Luzuriaga Shalakany Law Office
Radek Matouš Rodolfo Mesa Chavez Universidad del Azuay
Dvořák Hager & Partners Alfredo I. Lachapel Mesa & Mesa Mohamed Abdelaal
Lachapel Toribio Abogados José Alberto Ontaneda Alexandria University
Simona Stocesova Rosa Ypania Burgos Minaya Andrade
University of West Bohemia Arismendi Díaz Santana Universidad Autónoma de Ontaneda & Posso Abogados Mohamed Hanafi
(Pilsen) Santo Domingo Mahmoud
Arturo J. Ramirez Juan Carlos Riofrío Ministry of Justice
Štěpán Holub Ibert & Ramirez Samir R. Chami Isa Martínez-Villalba
Holubová Advokáti S.R.O. Participación Ciudadana Universidad de los Hemisferios Mohamed Kandel
Domingo Suzaña Abreu Ibrachy & Dermarkar Law
Tomas Cihula Suzaña & Asociados Stalin Ciprián Juan José Campaña Firm
Kinstellar Ciprian Arriaga & Asocs. SMARTLEXSERVICES S.A.
Erika Julissa Suero Feliz Mohamed T. Elrafie
Tomas Matejovsky Virgilio A. Mendez Amaro Leonardo Sempertegui Alliance Law Firm
CMS Cameron McKenna Francisco Alvarez Valdez Mendez & Asociados Sempértegui Ontaneda
Nabarro Olswang Participación Ciudadana Abogados Anonymous Contributors
Yamil Musri Canalda
Vojtech Steininger Georges Santoni Recio Luis Ponce Palacios El Salvador
Hartmanova & Steininger Russin Vecchi & Heredia Anonymous Contributors Estudio Jurídico Quevedo &
Bonetti Ponce Benjamin Valdez Iraheta
Anonymous Contributors Ecuador Benjamin Valdez & Asociados
Gilberto Objío Subero Marcelo Guerra
Denmark Medical Law RD Alberto Vivanco Aguirre Universidad Católica de Carlos Enrique Castillo
González Peñaherrera & Cuenca García
Anette Storgaard Iván A. Cunillera Asociados Romero Pineda & Asociados
Aarhus University Alburquerque Marcelo Proaño Paredes
Ivan Cunillera y Asociados Alfredo G. Brito Romero Arteta Ponce Carlos R. Urbina Blandón
Anne Brandt Christensen Brito & Pinto Asociados Valdes, Suárez & Velasco,
Advokatfirmaet Brandt Jaime M. Senior Fernández Ltda.
Christensen Headrick Rizik Alvarez & Alvaro José Freile Franco María Sol Sevilla
Fernández Universidad de los Hemisferios Sempértegui Ontaneda Carolina Lazo
Hans Henrik Edlund Abogados Arias Law
Aarhus University
Christian Bara Cousin Mardoqueo J. Tóchez Melita Sogomonjan Tamrat Assefa Elisabeth Grabli
Bara Legal Corporation Molina Tallinn University of Tamrat Assefa Liban Law Barreau de Paris
Lawyers Corp Technology Office
David Ernesto Claros Flores Francis Tartour
García & Bodán Mariana Fermina Bolaños Merle Erikson Tegegne Zergaw
Meardi University of Tartu Bahir Dar University Gauthier Chassang
David Osvaldo Toledo García & Bodán Inserm
Marroquín Mihkel Gaver Temesgen Sisay
Universidad Católica de El Mario Cativo Advokaadibüroo RS Bahir Dar University Isabelle Carbuccia
Salvador Bufete Cativo MERCATORIA IVCH Paris Law Firm
Anonymous Contributors
Delmer Edmundo Marta Celina Rodriguez de Rauno Ligi Jean Louis Brochen
Rodríguez Cruz Parada Law Office COBALT Estonia Finland Barreau de Lille
Escuela Superior de Economía
y Negocios Oscar Torres Cañas Senny Pello Ari Miettinen Le Maigat Patrice
García & Bodán Advokaadibüroo Concordia Fimlab Laboratories Ltd. Université de Rennes 1
Diego Martín-Menjívar
Consortium Legal Piero Rusconi Tanel Kerikmäe Jukka Peltonen Marie Christine Cimadevilla
Central Law El Salvador Tallinn University of Asianajotoimisto DLA Piper Cimadevilla Avocats
Ernesto Sánchez Technology Finland Oy
Arias Law Porfirio Diaz Fuentes Nicolas Mathieu
DLM Abogados Tanel Küün Jussi Tapani Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
Feridee Hazel Alabí TARK Law Firm University of Turku and Flom LLP
Romero Pineda & Asociados Rebeca Atanacio de
Basagoitia Anonymous Contributors Katja Lindroos Philippe Marin
Guillermo Alexander Escalon & Atanacio University of Eastern Finland Cabinet Imavocats
Parada Gámez Ethiopia
Parada Josa & Asociados Rommell Sandoval Markku Fredman Sébastien Ducamp
I&D Consulting; SBA Firma Abdurahman Seid Asianajotoimisto Fredman & Sesame Avocats
Ivan Séassal Legal Månsson Oy
I&D Consulting Aberra Degefa Nagawo Stolowy
Teresa Beatriz Merino Addis Ababa University Matti Ilmari Niemi HEC PARIS
Jackson Parada Benítez University of Eastern Finland
Romero Pineda & Asociados Abiyou Girma Tamrat Anonymous Contributors
Jonathan Menjivar Matti Reinikainen
Central Law El Salvador Yudy Aracely Jiménez Abrham Yohannes Hailu Kolari & Co. Oy Georgia
Rivera Abrham Law Office
José Eduardo Barrientos Gold Service S.A. de C.V. Matti Tolvanen Abashidze Ana
Aguirre Belay Ketema Homa University of Eastern Finland NGO Partnership for Human
Sandoval-Barrientos & Anonymous Contributors Rights
Asociados S.A. de C.V. Biniam Shiferaw Ayalew Mika J. Lehtimäki
Estonia Global Center on Cooperative Attorneys-at-Law Trust Anna Arganashvili
José Eduardo Tomasino Security NGO Partnership for Human
Hurtado Andres Vutt Mika Launiala Rights
Consortium Legal University of Tartu Debebe Hailegebriel University of Eastern Finland
Debebe Hailegebriel Law Ekaterina Aleksidze
José Roberto Romero Ene Soop Office Patrick Lindgren BGI Legal
Romero Pineda & Asociados Law Firm Narlex ADVOCARE Law Office
Endalkachew Geremew Giorgi Beraia
Josué Reyes Gaabriel Tavits Negash Paula Bock Institute for Development of
Arias Law ADVISE Attorneys-at-law Olli Freedom of Information
Hannes Küün G. Khalid Kebede Pohjakallio Ltd
Juan José Pilía Alberto TARK Law Firm Bahir Dar University Gocha Svanidze
Pilía - Santos & Asociados Raimo Isoaho Law Firm Svanidze & Partners
Janika Aben Girma Kassa Kumsa University of Turku
Juan José Planas Carías Tallinn University of Adama Science and Grigol Gagnidze
Escuela Superior de Economía Technology Technology University Tatu Hyttinen Georgian Bar Asociation;
y Negocios University of Turku Georgian Barristers & Lawyers
Kaimo Räppo Guadie Sharew W. International Observatory
Karla Patricia Alas de RS MERCATORIA Law Firm Bahir Dar University Anonymous Contributors
Duarte Guram Imnadze
Romero Pineda & Asociados Kaja Põlluste Hiruy Wubie France Human Rights Education and
University of Tartu Gebreegziabher Monitoring Center
Kelly Beartiz Romero Monash University Barral Bruno
Nassar Abogados El Salvador Kari Käsper CHU Lyon Ivdity Chikovani
Estonian Human Rights Mehari Redae Curatio International
Laura Elizabeth Urrutia Centre Addis Ababa University Bien Foundation
Vásquez Groupe ESC Clermont-
Laboratorios Vijosa, S.A de Kristel Urke Mekdem Belayneh Ferrand Kakha Sharabidze
C.V. Ellex Raidla Law Firm Woldeselassie Business Legal Bureau
Mekdem Law Office Bottini Fabien
Lourdes Dueñas Margit Vutt Université Le Havre- Lasha Gogiberidze
Asociación Salvadoreña de Supreme Court of Estonia Michael Teshome Normandie BGI Legal
Infectologia
Martin Hirvoja Tameru Wondm Agegnehu David Levy Lina Ghvinianidze
Luis Hector Alberto Perez Tameru Wondm Agegnehu Barreau de Paris Human Rights Education and
Aguirre Law Offices Monitoring Center

Mariam Tutberidze Dirk Vielhuber Roberto Kunz-Hallstein Kwame Owusu Agyeman Nigel Bowen-Morris
Institute for Development of Berufsgenossenschaft der University of Cape Coast Stephenson Harwood
Freedom of Information Bauwirtschaft Roland Gross
Nana Esi Aferba Ahlijah Nikolaos Kondylis
Mariam Vashakidze Friederike Lemme S. Beckmann-Koßmann Ariel Avery Law N. Kondylis & Partners Law
Business Legal Bureau Kanzlei Lemme Office
Sebastian Reinsch Nana Tawiah Okyir
Maya Mtsariashvili Gernot A. Warmuth Janke & Reinsch Ghana Institute of Panagiotis Gioulakos
Business Legal Bureau Scheiber & Partner Rechtsanwaelte Management and Public e-nomos Business Consultants
Administration
Nata Kazakhashvili Gregor Dornbusch Stefan Huster Stefanos Tsimikalis
Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State Ruhr-Universität Bochum Nii Nortey Hanson-Nortey Tsimikalis Kalonarou
University Helmuth Jordan Ghana Health Service
Kanzlei Jordan Gaensheidestr Stefan Müller-Römer Stelios Grigoriou
Nino Merebashvili Richmond Aryeetey Gregoriou & Associates Law
N(N)LE; Institute for Henning Rosenau Thilo Mahnhold University of Ghana Firm
Development of Freedom of Martin-Luther-Universität Justem
Information Halle-Wittenberg Sam Okudzeto Yota Kremmida
Thomas Feltes Sam Okudzeto & Associates Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Nona Kurdovanidze Hermann Bietz Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Georgian Young Lawyers' Shirley Somuah Anonymous Contributors
Association Ingo Friedrich Thomas Jürgens Ntrakwah & Co.
Dr. Friedrich und Partner Jürgens Grenada
Revaz Beridze Rechtsanwaelte mbB Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Anonymous Contributors
McGill mbH Darshan Ramdhani
Ingo Klaus Wamser Greece Law Office of Ramdhani and
Vakhtang Natsvlishvili Tobias Singelnstein Associates
Open Society Georgia Jessica Jacobi Ruhr-Universität Bochum Anthony Mavrides
Foundation Kliemt & Vollstädt Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates Dawn De Coteau
Ulrich Keil L.P.C. EMA Solutions Legal Services
Anonymous Contributors Juergen Nazarek University of Muenster
Christina Papadopoulou James Bristol
Germany Jürgen Baumann Ulrike Köllner Centre for Media Freedom Henry, Henry & Bristol
in the Middle East & North
Alexander Putz Kerstin Niethammer- Volker von Moers Africa Karen M. M. Samuel
Putz und Partner, Jürgens Lawyers von Moers Samuel Phillip & Associates
Steuerberater & Rechtsanwalt Jürgens Damaskou Anna
Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Wolf Stahl Transparency International Martin Forde
Andreas Grillo mbH St. George's University
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Wolfgang Hau Dionyssis Balourdos
Lars Rieck University of Passau National Centre for Social Skeeta A. Chitan
Anna Lindenberg IPCL Rieck & Partner Research Mitchell & Co.
Rechtsanwälte Anonymous Contributors
Annegret Berne Effimia Tsangalidou Tanya K. Lambert
Anwaltskanzlei Berne Marc Seifert Ghana Effimi Tsangalidou & Partners
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Law Firm Anonymous Contributors
Antje Schwarz Abena Ntrakwah-Mensah
Daimler AG Martin Reufels Ntrakwah & Co. Fotini N Skopouli Guatemala
Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek Harokopio University
Bernd Weller Akosua Akoma Asiama Alejandro Cofino Rodriguez
Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek Martin Sträßer Ntrakwah & Co. George Ballas QIL+4 Abogados
Sträßer Rehm Barfield, Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates
Burkhard Klüver Chemnitz Azanne Kofi Akainyah L.P.C. Alfredo Rodríguez Mahuad
Ahlers & Vogel Rechtsanwälte A & A Law Consult Consortium Legal
PartG mbB Matthias Nodorf Grace Katsoulis
Clement Kojo Akapame Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates Alvaro Ricardo Cordon
Carsten Momsen Michael Staudenmayer Ghana Institute of L.P.C. Cordon & Ovalle Law Firm
Freie Universitaet Berlin Management and Public
Monika Hagen Administration Ilias Anagnostopoulos Ana Gisela Castillo
Christian E. Naundorf Anagnostopoulos Law Firm Saravia y Muñoz
Nicola Kreutzer Comfort Nyameba Opoku
Christian Wolff Kreutzer & Kreuzau Ghana Health Service; Lekma Konstantinos Andrés Hernández
Schock Rechtsanwälte GbR Hospital Apostolopoulos Martínez
Oliver Bolthausen Apostolopoulos Law Office Bufete LITISGROUP
Christina Reifelsberger DWF Dinah Baah-Odoom
HessenChemie Ministry of Health Konstantinos Valmas- Carlos Roberto Cordón
Oliver Schellbach Vloutis Krumme
Christof Kerwer Schellbach Rechtsanwälte Esi Tawia Addo-Ashong Cordón Krumme & Asociados
Julius-Maximilians-Universität Ashong Benjamin and Kostoula Mazaraki
Würzburg Othmar K. Traber Associates Nomos Law Firm David Erales Jop
Ahlers & Vogel Rechtsanwälte Consortium Legal
Christoph Dirk Hexel PartG mbB Isidore Tufuor Magda Tazedaki Kapoti
Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek Ghana Institute of Tazedakis Law Firm David Ernesto Chacón
Rainer M. Hofmann Management and Public Estrada
Christoph Lindner Kanzlei im Hofhaus Aachen Administration Melina Avagianou Universidad de San Carlos de
Klimaka Ngo Guatemala
Reinhard Arndts Joyce Franklyn Thompson
Mittelstein Rechtsanwälte Ntrakwah & Co.
Diego Alejos Rivera Mario Roberto Guadron Melvin Tejada András Jakab Rajas Kasbekar
Consortium Legal Rouanet CCSHH Pázmány Péter Catholic
Palomo & Porras University Ruchi Sinha
Edson López Odir Aaron Fernández Tata Institute of Social
Integrum Marvin Javier Dávila Daniel Gera Sciences
Villegas Patricia A. Solorzano
Emanuel Callejas A. Gábor Baruch Sachidananda Kannarnuji
Carrillo & Asociados Pedro Mendoza Montano Ricardo A. Padilla P. Baruch Law Office
Iurisconsulti Abogados y Central Law Honduras Sanjay R Hegde
Enrique Möller Notarios Nóra Nagy-Baranyi Supreme Court of India
EY Law Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira JSLO Legal Services
Rodolfo Alegría Toruño Casco-Fortin, Cruz y Saurabh Misra
Fredy Anibal Quinteros Carrillo & Asociados Asociados Petra Bárd Saurabh Misra & Associates
Sagastume National Institute of
Asociación Derecho Somos Vilma Chavez De Pop Valerya Theodoracopoulos Criminology Shankar Das
Todos IBFAN Guatemala Lopez Tata Institute of Social
Arias Law Réka Mező Sciences
Gabriel Arturo Muadi Anonymous Contributors
Garcia Vanessa Oquelí Viktor Lorincz Subhash Bhatnagar
Muadi, Murga & Jimenez Guyana García & Bodán Hungarian Academy of Indian Institutes of
Sciences Management
Gonzalo Menendez Park Esther Sam Anonymous Contributors
Lexincorp Zsolt Zengődi Subhrarag Mukherjee
Eusi Anderson Hong Kong SAR, China Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Harvey Álvarez Pacay Gabriel Anderson Law Anonymous Contributors
HP Abogados Christopher R J Hooley Vipender Mann
Eva Rawana Scott Oldham, Li & Nie India KNM & Partners
Jorge Rolando Barrios Rawana-Scott and Associates
Bonilla, Montano, Toriello & Danny Chan A P S Narula Yadlapalli Kusuma
Barrios Mahendra Satram Century Chambers AIIMS
Satram & Satram Amit Vijaykar
José Arturo Rosales Cano David C. Donald Hewlett Packard Enterprise Yashomati Ghosh
García & Bodán Anonymous Contributors The Chinese University of National Law School of India
Hong Kong Anil Fernandes University
José Eduardo Martí Guilló Honduras Anil Fernandes & Associates
Universidad Rafael Landívar Edward Alder Yazdi P Dandiwala
Claudia Marcela Midence Prince's Chambers Anil Kumar K Mulla and Mulla and Craigie
José Federico Zelada Soto Tata Institute of Social Blunt and Caroe
Cifuentes Arias Law Farzana Aslam Sciences
Consortium Legal University of Hong Kong Anonymous Contributors
David Israel Díaz Anil Paleri
José Miguel Argueta Bone Hernández Ian Scott Indonesia
Universidad de San Carlos de García & Bodán City University of Hong Kong Anuvinda Varkey
Guatemala Christian Coalition for Health Alamo D. Laiman
Edilka Ramos James A. Rice Legisperitus Lawyers
Juan José Porras Castillo Lingnan University Apar Gupta
Palomo & Porras Ely Abel Pinto Jimenez Law Offices of Apar Gupta Alexandra Gerungan
James L.W. Wong Makarim & Taira S.
Juan Pablo Nimatuj Erick Fernando Lezama Century Chambers Ashima Das
Mansilla Lainez AHIS, Mumbai Erinda Resti Goesyen
Bufete Castro Basteguieta & Arias Law Michael Chai Leks&Co
Asociados Bernacchi Chambers Ashok N. Ramgir
J. Humberto Medina Alva Harsh Impex Gilang Mursito Aji
Luis Enrique Solares Central Law Honduras Michael Vidler AM Oktarina
Larrave Vidler & Co Solicitors Bontha V. Babu
Asensio Andrade Flores Jessica Marleni Palma Hanim Hamzah
Abogados Olivares Rick Glofcheski Damodhar Padmanabha ZICOlaw
University of Hong Kong DXC Technology
Luis Pedro Cazali Jorge Lopez Immanuel A. Indrawan
Susan Kendall Drushya Sridhar Indrawan Darsyah Santoso
Marco Antonio Palacios Jorge Roberto Urmeneta Baker & McKenzie Hewlett Packard Enterprise
López Andres Marco Kumar
Palacios & Asociados Universidad Nacional Victor Yang Ishwar Chandra Dwivedi AM Oktarina
Autonoma de Honduras Zhong Lun Law Firm
Marco Antonio Villeda Nagarathna A. Noverizky Tri Putra
Sandoval José Ángel Lara Pinto Yat Hung Tam National Law School of India Pasaribu
Universidad Nacional University AM Oktarina
Marcos Palma Autonoma de Honduras Yun Zhao
Integrum University of Hong Kong Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti Poltak Arif
Juan José Alcerro Milla Kiit University Bahar & Partners
María Mercedes Castro Aguilar Castillo Love Anonymous Contributors
Guerra Pramod Singh Rahayu Ningsih Hoed
García & Bodán Karla Gabriela Aguilar R. Hungary Lux Veritas Makarim & Taira S.
BLP Abogados
Mario Archila Ákos Bajorfi Pravarshini Palanivel Sandi Adila
Arias Law Leobildo Cabrera Cabrera Noerr & Partners Law Office Mochtar Karuwin Komar
Puneet Misra

Sianti Candra Carlo Casonato Jamaica Hiroshi Nishihara Tareef Nabeel
Roosdiono & Partners University of Trento Waseda University Nabeel Law Offices
(ZICOlaw) Alan T Barnett
Davide Cacchioli University of the West Indies, Junko Ogushi Zaid Al-Aqaileh
Sunardjo Sumargono Pedersoli Studio Legale Mona Atsumi & Sakai Mu'tah University
Law Office of Semar
Suryakencana Cipta Emanuele Cortesi Anthony Clayton Junko Suetomi Anonymous Contributors
Justiceindo Caffii, Maroncelli & Associati University of the West Indies Baker & McKenzie
Kazakhstan
Tauvik M Soeherman Emanuele Scafato Antoinette Barton-Gooden Masanori Iwasa
Società Italiana di Alcologia University of the West Indies, The Law Offices of Takashi Artem Timoshenko
Tristam Pascal Moeliono Mona Takano Unicase Law Firm
Catholic University of Francesco Maria Avato
Parahyangan-Bandung University of Ferrara Audrey Brown Masanori Tanabe Bolat Miyatov
Sakai Law Office GRATA International
Anonymous Contributors Gianfranco Di Garbo Carla-Anne Harris-Roper
Baker & McKenzie Nobuo Koinuma Dmitriy Chumakov
Iran Devine White Tohoku Medical and Sayat Zholshy & Partners
Giovanni Nardulli Westmoreland Parish Court Pharmaceutical University
Ahmad Daryani Legance - Avvocati Associati Ivan Omarov
Emile G.R. Leiba Sayaka Hara SION & Partners International
Arash Izadi Giuseppe Lorenzo Rosa DunnCox Japan Federation of Bar Law Firm
Izadi Law Firm Giuseppe L. Rosa, Esq. & Association
Associated Counsels Eris Schoburgh Larissa Orlova
Ehsan Hosseinzadeh University of the West Indies, Shigeji Ishiguro Michael Wilson & Partners,
Educated Lawyers Law Firm Luigi Mori Mona Oguri & Ishiguro Law Office Ltd.
Biolato Longo Ridola & Mori
Encyeh Seyed Sadr Hadrian R. Christie Shigetoshi (Toshi) Hirano Maxim Sukhoterin
Bayan Emrooz Law Firm Marco Esposito Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners SION & Partners International
Università Parthenope J Peter Figueroa Law Firm
Farhad Derhami University of the West Indies, Tomohisa Muranushi
Bayan Emrooz Law Firm Mariano Cingolani Mona Baker & McKenzie Perizat Nurlankyzy
University of Macerata SIGNUM Law Firm LLP
Hamid Bagherzadeh Jacqueline D Goulbourner Toshiaki Higashi
Farama Law Firm Mario Perini University of the West Indies University of Occupational Sergei Vataev
Università degli Studi di Siena and Environmental Health Dechert Kazakhstan Ltd.
Mahnaz Mehrinfar Joanne Wood Rattray
Behrooz Akhlaghi & Associates Micaela Vitaletti DunnCox Yasuhiro Fujii Sofiya Zhylkaidarova
University of Teramo Toranomon Square Law Office SIGNUM Law Firm LLP
Mohammad Rahmani Kevin O. Powell
Bayan Emrooz Law Firm Patrizio Ivo D'Andrea Hylton Powell Yuki Mukaeda Svetlana Sylkina
University of Ferrara LTE Law Offices Kazakh National University of
Sara Tajdini Marie Freckleton al-Farabi
Gheidi Law Office Pierpaolo Martucci University of the West Indies Anonymous Contributors
University of Trieste Tajibaev Shamil Saginovich
Soheila Rahimi Narda Graham-Laird Jordan Kazakh Academy of Nutrition
Educated Lawyers Law Firm Pietro Faraguna DunnCox
LUISS Guido Carli University Ahmad Faleh Tamimi Vitaliy Vodolazkin
Soroosh Falahati Orville W. Beckford Jordan University Hospital Sayat Zholshy & Partners
Bayan Emrooz Law Firm Riccardo Del Punta University of the West Indies,
University of Florence Mona Ali Mohammad Aldabbas Yerjanov Timur
Anonymous Contributors University of Petra Kazakh National University
Roberto Bin Paul D Brown
Italy Università di Ferrara University of the West Indies Anwar Batieha Yerzhan Yessimkhanov
Jordan University of Science GRATA International
Alberto Fantini Roberto Caranta Sharon White and Technology
Tonucci & Partners University of Turin University of the West Indies, Anonymous Contributors
Mona George Hazboun
Alessia-Ottavia Cozzi Roberto Ceccon International Consolidated for Kenya
Area Science Park Ceccon & Associati Sonia Gatchair Legal Consultations
University of the West Indies, Aabid A. Ahmed
Anna Mastromarino Roberto Rosapepe Mona Hisham Ababneh Bomu Hospital
Università di Torino Salerno University Dentons
Verona Henry-Ferguson Abbas A. Esmail
Anna Simonati Roberto Toniatti University of the West Indies, Ibrahim Aldmour Anjarwalla & Khanna
University of Trento University of Trento Mona
Kamal Jamal Awad Abdulhafeez Noorani
Antonella Antonucci Rocchina Staiano Anonymous Contributors Alawamleh Daly & Inamdar Advocates
Università degli Studi Aldo Università di Teramo University of Petra
Moro - Bari Japan Alex Inyangu
Sergio Bartole Khaled Atwan Ameli Inyangu & Partners
Antonio Cassatella University of Trieste Daichi Kiriyama Atwan & Partners
University of Trento Baker & McKenzie Atiq S. Anjarwalla
Simone Boneschi Omar Qutishat Anjarwalla & Khanna
Astolfo Di Amato UNDP Hikaru Oguchi H.Q Law Firm
Naples University Nishimura & Asahi Benjamin M Musau and
Anonymous Contributors Rasha Laswi Teresia M Munywoki
Zalloum and Laswi Law Firm B M Musau & Co
Beryl Orao Stephen Mallowah Saltanat Moldoisaeva Wissam Kabbara Elena Dimova - Ivanoska
Kenya National Commission TripleOKLaw Advocates, LLP Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic Lebanese American University Cakmakova Advocates
on Human Rights University
Tabitha Joy Raore Anonymous Contributors Emilija Lokvenec
Dennis Mung'ata Anjarwalla & Khanna Saniia Toktogazieva
Gichimu Mung'ata & American University of Liberia Ilija Nedelkoski
Company Advocates Thomas N. Maosa Central Asia Cakmakova Advocates
Maosa and Co. Advocates Alfred Hill
Elizabeth Wangari Sanzhar Aldashev International Development Katerina Atanasovska
Odhiambo Wangui Kaniaru and Mary GRATA International Law Organization
University of Nairobi Waititu Leonid Trpenoski
Anjarwalla & Khanna Ulan Tilenbaev Cecil B. Griffiths Trpenoski Law Firm
Eric Kibet Kalikova & Associates Liberia National Law
Lexlink Consulting Wilfred N. Nderitu Enforcement Association Ljupka Noveska Andonova
Nderitu & Partners Advocates; Zhanyl Abdrakhmanova
Francis Gichuhi Kamau PILLARS Centil Law Firm Christiana Tah Mišo Dokmanović
Ss. Cyril and Methodius
Fred Ondieki Mogotu Yvonne Wangui Machira Anonymous Contributors F. Augustus Caesar University
Anjarwalla & Khanna Tafiti Research Group Ltd. Caesar Architects Inc.
Lebanon Nikolco Lazarov
George Muchiri Mwangi Anonymous Contributors Hannan J Karnley-Bestman Law Office Lazarov
Daly & Inamdar Advocates Antoine G. Ghafari New World Partners
Kyrgyzstan Olivera Grozdanovska
Harrison Mbori Carlos Abou Jaoude Kula L. Jackson Cakmakova Advocates
Strathmore University Aikanysh Jeenbaeva Abou Jaoude & Associates Heritage Partners &
Academy of Public Law Firm Associates, Inc. Risto Novakovski
Jacqueline Nyabwa Administration Godzo, Kiceec & Novakovski
Anjarwalla & Khanna Elias Chalhouba Lucia D.S. Gbala
Akbar Suvanbekov Arab Center for the Heritage Partners & Sinisha Dimitrovski
John Morris Ohaga Ministry of Health Development of the Rule of Associates, Inc. Law Firm TEMIS SB
TripleOKLaw Advocates, LLP Law and Integrity
Alexander Orehov Malcolm W. Joseph Stefan Chichevaliev
John Mudegu Vulule Elias Matar Center for Media Studies and Centre for Regional Policy
Kenya Medical Research Azamat Kerimbaev Abou Jaoude & Associates Peacebuilding Research and Cooperation
Institute ABA ROLI Law Firm Studiorum
Mark M. M. Marvey
Josephine L. M. Righa Baktygul Kubanychbekova Jean E. Akl Heritage Partners & Svetlana Veljanovska
Igeria & Ngugi Advocates Osh oblast Collegium of Akl Law Practice Associates, Inc. St. Clement of Ohrid
Advocates University
Karim S. Anjarwalla Jihad Irani Robert Numehni Gbarbea
Anjarwalla & Khanna Bekchoro Aliiaskarov University of Balamand The Carter Center Vesna Gavriloska
Cakmakova Advocates
Kiingati Ndirangu Chinarbek Kurmanbekov Joelle Choueifati T. Debey Sayndee
Kairu Mbuthia & Kiingati Kofi Annan Institute, Anonymous Contributors
Advocates Chynara Esengeldieva Khatoun Haidar University of Liberia
Lorenz Law Synergy-Takamol Madagascar
Lyla Latif Anonymous Contributors
George & Lydeen Company Elida K. Nogoibaeva Mary E. Deeb Alain Ramanarivo
Advocates American University of Lebanese American University Macedonia, FYR L'Ordre des Avocats de
Central Asia Madagascar
Marabu Fidelis Limo Moahamad Ziad Ramadan Aleksandar Godzo
TripleOKLaw Advocates, LLP Elvira Maratova Elaref Intrernational Law Godzo, Kiceec & Novakovski Alexandra Rajerison
GRATA International Office Barreau de Madagascar
Milly Lwanga Aleksandra Baleva
Markallan Consulting Agency Ermek Mamaev Pierre Obeid Grozdanova Andry Herisoa
Kalikova & Associates University of Balamand Godzo, Kiceec & Novakovski Andrianasolo
Naeem Hirani Institut Pasteur de
Iskender Batyrbekov Ramy Torbey Aleksandra Gruevska Madagascar
Njeri Wagacha and Milly GRATA International Eptalex Drakulevski
Minayo Mbedi Bakoly Razaiarisolo
Anjarwalla & Khanna Jyldyz Tagaeva Rany Sader Ardit Memeti Rakotomalala
Kalikova & Associates SADER & Associates
Opundo Samson Leonard Darko Nikodinovski Claude Fanohiza
Kanat Seidaliev Roula Zayat Trpenoski Law Firm Transparency International
Paul Wanjohi Kihori GRATA International Arab Center for the
Anjarwalla & Khanna Development of the Rule of Darko Spasevski Jean Pierre Rakotovao
Kerim Begaliev Law and Integrity Iustinianus Primus Skopje Jhpiego Madagascar
Protas Saende Centil Law Firm
Meritad Law Africa LLP Salah S. Mattar Deljo Kadiev Jeannot Julien Padoue
Klara Sooronkulova Mattar Law Firm Rafanomezana
Remigeo P. Mugambi International University of Doncho M. Donev Barreau De Madagascar,
Muthoga Gaturu & Company Central Asia Souraya Machnouk Ss. Cyril and Methodius C.A.M.M.
Abou Jaoude & Associates University
Salima Mohammed Musabekova Chynara Law Firm Ketakandriana Rafitoson
Kenya Red Cross Society Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic Dori Kimova Liberty 32
University Tony G. Zreik Kimova Law Office
Sarah Mukuhi Lebanese American University
Anjarwalla & Khanna

Lala Ratsiharovala James Admson Peter Suganthi Singam Guillermo A. Gatt-Corona Teresa Carmona Arcos
Ministère de la Justice de Mwaisemba Shearn Delamore & Co. Iteso; Universidad Consultores Jurídicos
Madagascar Sanctuary Dental Clinic Panamericana
Yusramizza Md Isa @ Yusuff Valente Damián Fuentes
Lalao Rasoamiaramanana Jean Rosemary Kayira Universiti Utara Malaysia Guillermo Piecarchic Tello
Malawi Judiciary PMC GROUP Maqueo, De Garay y Aguilar,
Laza Andrianirina Zainal A. Ayub S.C.
Académie des Arts, Lettres et Kamudoni Nyasulu Universiti Utara Malaysia Gustavo Morante Aguirre
Sciences de Madagascar Kamudoni Nyasulu Law Torres Morante Victor Manuel Ortega
Consultants Anonymous Contributors Gonzalez
Mamy Rakolonandria Hugo Hernández-Ojeda
Khumbo Bonzoe Soko Mexico Alvírez Anonymous Contributors
Marie Mélanie Soko & Co. Hogan Lovells
Rapenitrarivo Alejandra Moreno
Tribunal de Première Instance Krishna Savjani Altamirano Iván García Gárate Moldova
d'Ankazobe Savjani & Co. Universidad Nacional Universidad del Claustro de
Autónoma de México Sor Juana Adrian Belii
Nelly Rakotobe Mike Chinoko State University of Medicine
Ralambondrainy Law Commission Alfonso Rodriguez-Arana Jorge Berlin Acosta and Pharmacy Nicolae
Association Magistrats – Legalmex S.C. Testemitanu
Antananarivo Patrick Mphatso Chinguwo Jorge Luis Silva
Alfredo Kupfer Domínguez Banco Mundial Alexei Croitor
Olivia Rajerison Rachel Sophie Sikwese Attorney Office Alexei Croitor
Cabinet RAJERISON High Court of Malawi Alonso González-Villalobos José Alberto Campos
Vargas Ana Galus
Rapelanoro Rabenja Redson E. Kapindu Ana Paula Berlin Sánchez DeVanny, Eseverri, Turcan Cazac Law Firm
Université Antananarivo High Court of Malawi Olavarrieta S.C.
Madagascar Fundación Cultural Baur Andrei Briceac
Shepher Mumba José Rodrigo Moreno PB & Partners
Raymond Rakotomanga Golden & Law Carlos de Buen Unna Rodríguez
Jhpiego Madagascar Bufete de Buen Notaría Pública No. 108 Baciu Inga
Sosten Chilumpha Alecu Russo Balti State
Rija Ramarijaona Christian Alan Bello Juan Carlos Hernández University
PRIMELEX William Mtchayabweka Melchor Martínez
Chibwe Jr. Notarias 92 y 145 Hernández Torres Abogados Chifa Felicia
Rindra Hasimbelo Wilson and Morgan
Rabarinirinarison Cinthya Castillero Vera Juan Manuel Juarez Meza Constantin Etco
CNM William Yakuwawa Msiska Gerbera Capital; Universidad Contramar Abogados State University of Medicine
Malawi Law Commission Nacional Autónoma de and Pharmacy Nicolae
Saholiniaina Njivasoa México L. Alberto Balderas Testemitanu
Nathalie Rambeloson Wongani Mvula Jáuregui y Del Valle, S.C.
Barreau de Madagascar Malawi Law Commission Daniel Carranca de la Mora Corina Oprea
IMJUS Luciano Mendoza Cruz Efrim, Roşca şi Asociaţii
Tsantatiana S. Anonymous Contributors Universidad Nacional
Randrianarimanana Daniel Cruz González Autónoma de México Daniel Martin
Tribunal Administratif Malaysia Notarias 92 y 146 BAA ACI Partners
d'Antananarivo Marco Antonio González
Anand Ponnudurai Emiliano Baidenbaum Reynoso Eduard Scutaru
Tsarazara Andrianasoavina Messrs Bodipalar Ponnudurai Hewlett Packard Enterprise GRND Abogados
De Silva Galina Obreja
Velozandry Léonard Enrique Camarena Mario Alberto Rocha State University of Medicine
Barreau de Madagascar Ashgar Ali Ali Mohamed Domínguez PricewaterhouseCoopers, S.C. and Pharmacy Nicolae
International Islamic Maqueo, De Garay y Aguilar, Testemitanu
Anonymous Contributors University S.C. Mónica Jazmín Martínez
Pérez Graur Eugeniu
Malawi Aspalella A. Rahman Esteban Maqueo Barnetche Fundación Civitas A.C. AO CISTE Certitudine
Universiti Utara Malaysia Maqueo Barnetche, Aguilar y
Adamson S. Muula Camarena, S.C. Monica Schiaffino Perez Ion Galus
University of Malawi Azmi & Associates Littler Mexico, S.C. IMSP SR Sangerei
Esteban Puentes
Allan Hans Muhome Harlida Abdul Wahab Epidemiólogo Sanofi Pasteur Oliva López Arellano Iulia Furtuna
Malawi Law Society Universiti Utara Malaysia Universidad Autónoma Turcan Cazac Law Firm
Francisco Javier Tiburcio Metropolitana
Bruno Paul Matumbi Mohd Munzil Muhamad Celorio Marica Dumitrasco
Excellence Law Partners Universiti Kebangsaan Basham, Ringe y Correa, S.C. Pablo Medina Magallanes Academy of Sciences of
Malaysia Medina Abogados Moldova
Chikosa M. Silungwe Franz E. Oberarzbacher
The Mizumali Foundation Obijiofor Aginam Instituto Tecnológico Rodrigo Lazo Mihail Durnescu
International Institute for Autónomo de México Lazo, Villa, Moel y García, S. C. CA Mihail Durnescu
Fresier Chidyaonga-Maseko Global Health
Univesity of Malawi Gerardo Moheno Gallardo Salvador Pasquel Villegas Oleg Efrim
Rizal Rahman Moreno Rodríguez y Baker & McKenzie Efrim, Roşca şi Asociaţii
Gabriel Kambale Universiti Kebangsaan Asociados, S.C.
GK Associates Malaysia Sergio López Moreno Patricia Handraman
Gilberto Miguel Valle Universidad Autónoma Gladei & Partners
Jack N'riva Sharon Kaur Zulbarán Metropolitana
Malawi Judiciary University of Malaya Basham, Ringe y Correa, S.C. Ropot Veaceslav Nicolae
Serghei Cozma Munkhjargal Ragchaakhuu Nesrine Roudane Madhab Raj Ghimire JAC Meeuwissen
Serghei Cozma Law Firm Batbayar and Partners LLP Nero Boutique Law Firm PSM Global Consultants Trimbos Institute
(P). Ltd.
Spinei Larisa Nandinchimeg Banzragch S. Fenjiro Jacqueline van den Bosch
State University of Medicine Tsogt and Nandin LLP Narayan Prasad Ghimire Ivy Advocaten
and Pharmacy Nicolae Tarik Mossadek Center for Rule of Law
Testemitanu Naransukh Damiran University Hassan I Jeroen Bijnen
Mongolian National University Narayan Shrestha DXC Technology
Svetlana Doltu of Medical Sciences Anonymous Contributors Shrestha Legal Service Center
NGO AFI M.J. de Heer
Nominchimeg Odsuren Myanmar Nil Mani Upadhyay Vakbond De Unie
Vanu Jereghi Nepalese Army Institute of
Moldovan Institute for Human Oyunchimeg Dovdoi Aung Htoo Health Sciences S.F.H. Jellinghaus
Rights Public Participation for Legal Aid Network Tilburg University; De Voort
Sustainable Development Nilambar Jha Lawyers and Mediators
Vasile Gherasim Chester Toh B. P. Koirala Institute of
Popa & Associates Saranchimeg Byambaa Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Health Sciences Thomas Timmermans
National Statistical Office of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
Victor Burac Mongolia Christophoros Politis Prabin Subedi
Burac and Associates UNDP Paramount Legal Advisory Anonymous Contributors
Sugarnyam Peljee Services Pvt. Ltd.
Vieru Vadim MDS KhanLex LLP Kari Ann Rotkin and Anjali New Zealand
Promo-LEX Mohan Gelbort Rabin Subedi
Zanaa Jurmed Justice Base National Law College AJ Forbes
Vladimir Palamarciuc Center for Citizens' Alliance Clarendon Chambers
Turcan Cazac Law Firm Kyaw Kyaw Han Rudra Prasad Pokhrel
Anonymous Contributors DFDL Myanmar Ltd. R P Pokhrel & Associates Alan Knowsley
Zama Vitalie Rainey Collins Lawyers
Lawyers for Human Rights Morocco Lucas Chen Sajjan Bar Singh Thapa
Thanlwin Legal Legal Research Associates Alberto Costi
Anonymous Contributors Abdelaziz Bakkali Victoria University of
Barreau de Tanger Lucy Wayne & Associates Shankar Limbu Wellington
Mongolia Lawyers' Association for
Abdelghani Khannous Min Thein Human Rights of Nepalese Asha Stewart
Ariuntuya Rentsen Rajah & Tann NK Legal Indigenous Peoples Quigg Partners
MahoneyLiotta LLP Abdellah Bakkali Myanmar Co., Ltd.
Bakkali Law Firm Shirshak Ghimire Brian Keene
B. Enkhbat Mya Thein Dhakal and Ghimire Law
MDS KhanLex LLP Ali Badi Constitutional Tribunal Rtd. Offices Pvt. Ltd. Campbell Roberts
Association Nationale pour The Salvation Army
Badamragchaa Purevdorj la Dèfense des Droits de Nickey Diamond Shiva Prd. Rijal
Open Society Forum l'Homme au Maroc Fortify Rights Pioneer Law Associates D J Lyon
Lyon O'Neale Arnold Lawyers
Batbayar Ganbayar Ali Lachgar Essahili Nyein Kyaw Shringa Rishi Kafle
Batbayar and Partners LLP Lachgar Essahili Law Firm Rajah & Tann NK Legal Merit Legal Consultancy Pvt. Danny Jacobson
Myanmar Co., Ltd. Ltd. Employment Lawyers
Batjargal Gombosuren Amin Hajji and Kaoutar
MDS KhanLex LLP Faress Scott Ciment Subarna K Khatry Denise Arnold
Hajji & Associés UNDP Nepal Nutrition Intervention Lyon O'Neale Arnold Lawyers
Bayar Budragchaa Project
ELC Advocates LLP Anis Mouafik Thu Ya Zaw Frances Joychild
Mouafik Law Firm MLE Law Firm Sudeep Gautam Queens Counsel
David C. Buxbaum and
Otgontuya Davaanyam Azzedine Kettani Tin Sein Anonymous Contributors Gay Morgan
Anderson and Anderson LLP Kettani Law Firm Polastri Wint & Partners Legal University of Waikato
Services Ltd. Netherlands
Dorjdamba Zumberellkham Benmakhlouf Abdelhamid Gordon Anderson
Mongolian Bar Association Win Naing Arnold C. Hoegen Dijkhof Victoria University of
El Mernissi Mohamed Win & Cho Law Firm Hoegen Dijkhof Attorneys & Wellington
Erdenebalsuren Damdin Figes Mernissi Tax Counsellors
The Supreme Court of Anonymous Contributors Grace Haden
Mongolia Ibrahim Tanfouss Arnold Versteeg Transparency New Zealand
Nepal Macro & Versteeg Advocaten Ltd.
Ganbat Byambaa Khachie Abdelmajid
Bijay Singh Sijapati Eugenie Nunes Ian Gault
Gunbileg Boldbaatar Lhassan M'Barki Tribhuvan University Dentons Boekel Bell Gully
Mongolian Bar Association South for Studies and
Sustainable Development Bijaya Prasad Mishra Gabriel Meijers Jeremy N. Bioletti
Indermohan S Narula Kalyan Law Firm Meijers Canatan Advocaten
Global Fund Mimoun Charqi Jyostana Haria
Charqi Lex Consulting Budhi Karki Gerben den Hertog Amicus Law
Khishigsaikhan Batchuluun Galavazi Den Hertog
Open Society Forum Mohamed Baske Manar Gourish Krishna Kharel Kevin Riordan
Faculté des Sciences Kto Inc. Hansko Broeksteeg Office of the Judge Advocate
Khunan Jargalsaikhan Juridiques, Economiques et Radboud University Nijmegen General
Sociales Marrakech Legal Aid and Consultancy
Munkhdorj Badral Center Hoegen Dijkhof Attorneys M B Rodriguez Ferrere
Mongol-Advocates LLP Moummi Saad & Tax Counsellors University of Otago

Malcolm Rabson Trevor Daya-Winterbottom Nigeria Maryam Belgore Ahmed Norway
Law University of Waikato Kwara State Magistracy
Margaret Wilson Abdulfattah Adewale Baker Arild Vaktskjold
University of Waikato W. John Hopkins Legal Aid Council of Nigeria Michael Abayomi Bisade Høgskulen i Innlandet;
University of Canterbury Alliyu Sjukehuset Innlandet
Marie Bismark Abdulhamid Abdullahi Chief Yomi Alliyu & Co.
University of Melbourne W.M. Thomson Bagara Bent Endresen
University of Otago Community Health and Michael C Asuzu EBT AS
Marie J Grills Research Initiative University of Ibadan
RPB Law William Akel Carl A. Christiansen
Simpson Grierson Adamu M. Usman Nelson C.S Ogbuanya Ræder
Mark Bennett F. O. Akinrele & Co. Nocs Consults
Victoria University of Anonymous Contributors Erling Lind
Wellington Adebola Sobowale Nnenna Ejekam Advokatfirmaet Wiersholm
Nicaragua Olisa Agbakoba Legal Nnenna Ejekam Associates
Mark Winger Frank S. Thrana
Holmden Horrocks Ana Teresa Rizo Briseño Adewale Akande Obiajulu Nnamuchi MedBase
Arias Law Auxilium Attorneys University of Nigeria
Mary-Rose Russell Geir Steinberg
Tauranga Angelica Maria Toruño Aina Precious Aderemi Oghogho Makinde, Aluko & Advokatfirmaet Haavind AS
Garcia Babalakin & Co. Oyebode
Matt Berkahn Universidad Evangelica Gunnar Tellnes
Massey University Nicaraguense Martin Luther Bisi Bright Oladejo Olowu University of Oslo
King Jr. LiveWell Initiative American University of Nigeria
Michael Bott Harald B. Ciarlo
David Jose Sanchez Soza Bolanle O. Jibogun Olaniyi Felix Olayinka
Nick Crang Consortium Legal Legal Aid Council of Nigeria The Polytechnic Ibadan Ivar Alvik
Duncan Cotterill University of Oslo
Dayana Trejos Cunningham Chioma Kanu Agomo Olasupo Olaibi
Nigel Hampton Centro Nicaraguense de University of Lagos Supo Olaibi & Co. Jan Frich
Conservación Ambiental University of Oslo
Pam Nuttall Chukwunweike A. Olumide Ekisola
Auckland University of Edgard Leonel Torres Ogbuabor Adejumo & Ekisola Karl Harald Søvig
Technology Mendieta University of Nigeria University of Bergen
Arias Law Oluwadamilare Yomi-Alliyu
Paul Michalik Enoch Mozong Azariah Chief Yomi Alliyu & Co. Magne Strandberg
Gerardo Martin Hernandez Legal Aid Council of Nigeria University of Bergen
Paul Roth Consortium Legal Osuntogun Abiodun Jacob
University of Otago Felicia Nwanne Monye University of Ibadan Niels R. Kiaer
John Lordsal Minnella- University of Nigeria Rime Advokatfirma DA
Penny Bright Romano Ozofu Olatunde Ogiemudia
Minnella Romano and Femi David Ikotun Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie Ola Mestad
Peter Watts Associates Ikotun Temowo & Co. University of Oslo
University of Auckland (Ziongates Chambers) Peter K. Fogam
Juan Ramón Avilés Molina Universty of Lagos Olaf Halvorsen Rønning
Petra Butler Festus Okechukwu University of Oslo
Victoria University of Luis Manuel Perezalonso Ukwueze Pontian N Okoli
Wellington Lanzas University of Nigeria University of Dundee Rajvinder Bains
Bufete Jurídico y de Mediación Advokatfirmaet Haavind AS
Robin W Ord Festus Onyia Seyi Akinwunmi
Luis Mariano Chavarria Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie Akinwunmi & Busari Stella M. Tuft
Roderick Mulgan Orozco Microsoft
Laboratorios Procaps Gbenga Odusola Taiwo Elijah Adewale
Roger Brooking Acme Law Partners in Adekunle Ajasin University Terje Einarsen
VUW Maryeling Suyen Guevara association with Gbenga University of Bergen
Sequeira Odusola & Co. Terrumun Z. Swende
Scott Wilson Arias Law Benue State University Tor Vale
Duncan Cotterill Gbenga Oyebode
Roger Guevara Mena Aluko & Oyebode Titilola Ayotunde-Rotifa Ulf Stridbeck
Simon Ladd CORPLAW Valuespeak Solicitors University of Oslo
Bell Gully Godwin Anthony Etim
Soraya Arbella Montoya AELEX Uju Obuka Anonymous Contributors
Sonja M Cooper Herrera University of Nigeria
Cooper Legal CR Consultores Ibrahim Imam Pakistan
University of Ilorin Wahab Egbewole
Stephen Eliot Smith Urania Ruiz Condega University of Ilorin Agha Xaher Gul
University of Otago John Oluwole A. Akintayo Marie Stopes International
Víctor Jesús Méndez University of Ibadan Yomi Dare
Stephen Franks Dussán Checkers Consultancy Asim Nasim
Franks Ogilvie ANSAP Joseph E.O. Abugu Services Orr, Dignam & Co.
Abugu & Co.
Steven Zindel Yali Molina Palacios Yusuf Ali Faisal Mahmood Ghani
Zindels Central Law Nicaragua Keji Osilaja Yusuf Ali San Mahmood Abdul Ghani & Co.
Susanne Ruthven Yaser Gabriel Bonilla Laura Omolola Ikwuagwu Anonymous Contributors Faiza Muzaffar
Harbour Chambers Central Law Nicaragua George Ikoli & Okagbue Punjab Health Initiative
Management Company
Hasan Hameed Bhatti Jose Alberto Barraza Evan E. Morgan Ciriaco S. Calalang Krzysztof Kowalczyk
Lahore Waste Management Serracin Evan Morgan & Asociados; Calalang and Associates BSJP Brockhuis Jurczak Prusak
Company Universidad Metropolitana Centro de Proyeccion Legal Sp. K.
Castro Carazo y Social Emerico O. De Guzman
Imdad Ali Soomro ACCRALAW Krzysztof Rastawicki
Marie Stopes International José Rigoberto Acevedo C. Fernando Meléndez Rastawicki Mianowski Sawicki
Universidad Latina Fernández Enriquito J. Mendoza Sp.K.
Kausar S Khan ROMULO Law Firm
Aga Khan University; Kurt Louis Beermann Gonzalo Garcia Calderon Małgorzata Grzelak
Interactive Research & Hermmerling Francis Tom Temprosa Squire Patton Boggs
Development & Indus Hospital Beermann & Bocharel Gustavo Victor de los Ríos Ateneo de Manila University
Network Abogados Woolls Michał Bitner
Rey & de los Ríos Abogados James Fulton B. Almagro Warsaw University
Mohammad Akmal Wasim Liriola Pérez Broce Almagro Law Office
Supreme Court of Pakistan Pérez Broce & Pino-Pinto Héctor Ignacio Zúñiga Luy Michał Raczkowski
Rey & de los Ríos Abogados Javier University of Warsaw
Mohammad Akram Sheikh Mario Adolfo Rognoni Javier Law; Integrated Bar of
Akram Sheikh Law Associates Arosemena Noriega & Jean Paul Borit the Philippines Piotr Jakub Rastawicki
Contreras Hewlett Packard Enterprise Rastawicki Mianowski Sawicki
Muhammad Farhad Tirmazi Jesusito G Morallos Sp.K.
Muhammad Farhad & Mayte Sanchez Gonzalez Manuel Villa-García Follosco Morallos & Herce
Associates Morgan & Morgan Estudio Olaechea Piotr Sadownik, Krzysztof
Jonathan Sale Ciepliński, Paweł Meus, and
Muhammad Nouman Ramón Ricardo Arias Marcos Ricardo Revatta Aleksandra Połatyńska
Shams Galindo, Arias & López Salas Jose Cochingyan III Gide Tokarczuk Grześkowiak
Qazi Law Associates Universidad Nacional San Luis Cochingyan & Peralta Law Sp. K.
Roberto Moreno Gonzaga de Ica Offices
Muzaffar Islam Universidad Especializada de Radoslaw T. Skowron
The Urban Unit las Américas Marino Costa Bauer Karen S. Gomez Dumpit KKPW Law Office
Commission on Human Rights
Shahid Raza Xavier Saez Llorens Mario Castillo Freyre of the Philippines Stefan Jaworski
Orr, Dignam & Co. Hospital del Niño Dr. José Estudio Mario Castillo Freyre
Renán Esquivel Krisanto Karlo Nicolas Szymon Kubiak
Shams ul Haq Qazi Myriam Velarde I Nicolas & De Vega Law Wardynski & Partners
Qazi Law Associates Anonymous Contributors Instituto Médico de Lenguaje y Offices
Aprendizaje Wojciech Babicki
Shams-ul-Haque Joiya Peru Ma. Louisa M. Viloria-Yap Miller Canfield
Right Law Company Ricardo Antonio Pauli Garcia Iñigo & Partners
Alberto Varillas C. Montenegro Anonymous Contributors
Tariq Rahim García Sayán Abogados Maita Chan-Gonzaga
Tariq Rahim Law Associates Romy Chang Kcomt Ateneo de Manila University Portugal
Arturo Gárate Salazar Padilla & Chang Abogados
Umer Farooq Universidad Nacional Federico Ramil E. Bugayong Ana Cláudia Cavaco de
Ayub Medical College Villareal Rossana Maccera PJS Law Sousa
Universidade Atlântica
Zahid Jamil Carlos Felipe Palacios Teodoro German Jimenez Reginald A. Tongol
Rosado Borra TOVEN & Associates Ana Maria de São Pedro
Anonymous Contributors IREN SUR Muñiz, Ramirez, Perez Taiman Pires
& Olaya Ronahlee A. Asuncion Universidade Atlântica
Panama Carlos Margary Brignole University of the Philippines
Salas Rizo Patron & Margary Walter Albán Diliman António José Casa Nova
Alberto H. Gonzalez Abogados Transparencia Internacional Escola Superior de Saúde de
Herrera Anonymous Contributors Portalegre
Universidad de Panama Cecilia Melba Ma Cardenas Yrma Quispe Zapana
Ministerio de Economía y INCN Poland António Vaz de Castro
Alcides Castillo Rivera Finanzas Universidade de Coimbra
Acabogadopty Anonymous Contributors Agnieszka Helsztyńska
César Puntriano Carlos Pinto de Abreu
Alexis Carles Barraza Estudio Muñiz Philippines Andrzej Brodziak Carlos Pinto de Abreu e
Carles-Barraza Abogados Institute of Occupational Associados SP, RL
Dennis Oswaldo Vilchez Afdal B. Kunting Medicine and Environmental
Arlene Calvo Ramirez Zamboanga City Medical Health Catia Barata Martins
University of South Florida Estudio Ghersi Abogados Center MDM Legal
Bogusław Lackoroński
Ernesto Shirley Eduardo Benavides Alfredo Z. Pio de Roda, III University of Warsaw Eduardo Buisson Loureiro
Shirley & Asociados Berninzon & Benavides Quasha Ancheta Pena &
Abogados Nolasco Jacek Wierciński Eduardo Correia de
Evans A. Loo Wierciński Law Office Azevedo
Escritorio Juridico Loo Eduardo Herrera Velarde Augusto San Pedro Jr. Chaves, Roquette, Matos,
Escudo Azul S.A. Villaraza & Angangco Jerzy Lachowski Azevedo & Associados
Ibis Sánchez-Serrano Nicolaus Copernicus
Core Model Corporation, S.A. Elena Victoria Timoteo Carmelita Gopez Nuqui University Fernando Alves Correia
Quispe Development Action for Universidade de Coimbra
Jaime A. Jácome de la Women Network Joanna Kosińska-
Guardia EsSalud Wiercińska Inês Reis
Jácome de la Guardia y Cesar L. Villanueva PBBR
Asociados Villanueva Gabionza & Dy
Law Firm

Isabel Rocha Hong Bok Ki Dragos Daghie Simona Petrina Gavrila St. Kitts & Nevis
Rocha, Miranda, Vieira & Yonsei University Daghie & Asociatii Dunărea de Jos University
Associados, RL Galati Charles Wilkin
Hwang Lee Felicia Rosioru Kelsick, Wilkin and Ferdinand
Joana Barrilaro Ruas Korea University Babeș-Bolyai University Stefania Stanciu
Ferreira da Conceição, Magda Volonciu and Dia C. Forrester
Menezes & Associados Jaehyuk Ahn Florentin Timoianu Associates Daniel Brantley
Kim & Chang Rubin Meyer Doru & Trandafir
Joao Tavares Ribeiro Law Firm Valeriu M. Ciuca Leonora Walwyn
JTR Advogado Jaeseop Song Alexandru Ioan Cuza WalwynLaw
Shin&Kim Florin Streteanu University
José Alves do Carmo Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai Michella Adrien
AVM Advogados Jeong-Oh Kim Anonymous Contributors Michella Adrien Law Offices
Yonsei University George Nedelcu
Libertário Teixeira Russia Morton Robinson, L.P.
LTCF Sociedade de Advogados Jiyong Park Ioana Maria Dumitru and
RL Yonsei Law School Madalina-Beatrice Tatu Alexei Kasatkin Rayana Dowden
Popovici Nitu Stoica & ZKS, Attorneys-at-Law WEBSTER
Luis Brito Correia Junsok Yang Asociatii SCA
Luis Brito Correia Advogados The Catholic University of Andrey Neznamov Theodore L. Hobson
Korea Iulian Alexander Stoia Dentons Theodore L. Hobson &
Luis Miguel Amaral Bucharest Bar Association Associates
Luis Miguel Amaral Advogados Sang hoon Han Andrey Zelenin
Yonsei University Larion Alina-Paula Lidings Law Offices Anonymous Contributors
Manuel Nobre Correia Ştefan cel Mare University
FCB Sociedade de Advogados Sang Won Lee Eduard Margulyan St. Lucia
Seoul National University Laura Lazar Margulyan & Kovalev
Margarida Lucas Rodrigues Babeș-Bolyai University Andie George
ACE Sociedade de Advogados, Sangbong Lee Elena Gerasimova George & Co. Chambers
RL Hwang Mok Park P.C. Lazar Ioan National Research University
Baroul Alba Higher School of Economics Candace Natalie Polius
Maria do Rosário Anjos Sung Kyu (Scott) Lee Polius & Associates
Anjos, Martins & Associados Kim & Chang Lucian Bondoc Galina Osokina
SP, RL Bondoc si Asociatii SCA Тomsk State University Daniel E.J. Francis
Anonymous Contributors Norman Francis Chambers
Miguel Andrade Marius Balan Gleb Glinka
Romania Alexandru Ioan Cuza Glinka, Rubinstein & Partners Leandra Gabrielle Verneuil
Paulo Sá e Cunha University Jennifer Remy & Associates
Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Andrei Danciu Maria Filatova
Pereira SCA Cataniciu & Asociatii Mihai Carabas National Research University Samanthia George
Carabas, Lungu Attorneys
Pedro Miguel Branco Andrei Mircea Zamfirescu Maria Voskobitova Tamara Foster
PMB Advogado Gilescu, Valeanu, Nathanzon Mihai Dunea ABA ROLI Andra Gokool-Foster's
& Partners Alexandru Ioan Cuza Chambers
Pedro Rodrigues da Mata University Natalia G. Prisekina
PRM & Associados Aurora Ciuca Russin & Vecchi LLC Trudy O. Glasgow
Ştefan cel Mare University Mihail Romeo Nicolescu Trudy O. Glasgow &
Raul Soares da Veiga Romeo Nicolescu Law Office Natalya Morozova Associates
Raul Soares da Veiga & Batranu Ciuca Cezara Vinson & Elkins LLP
Associados Cab. av. Cezara Batranu Ciuca Miloiu Ciprian Virginia Joseph
Miloiu Ciprian Cabinet de Nikolai Kostenko Spartan Health Sciences
Rui Tavares Correia Bogdan C. Stoica Avocat Moscow Helsinki Group University School of Medicine
Abreu & Marques e Popovici Nitu Stoica &
Associados Asociatii SCA Nestor Alina Olga Fonotova Anonymous Contributors
Bar of Suceava Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
Sandrine Bisson Marvão Campeanu Aura St. Vincent & the
Bisson Marvão PETOŠEVIĆ Nicolae-Bogdan Bulai Romanov Alexander Grenadines
University of Bucharest RANEPA
Spencer Dohner Ciprian Dragomir Israel R. Bruce
MDM Legal Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații Ovidiu Podaru Sergey Stepanov Bruce Law Chambers Inc.
Babeș-Bolyai University The Institute of Private Law
Vânia Costa Ramos Dan Oancea J. H. Bayliss Frederick
Carlos Pinto de Abreu e Dan Oancea Law Office Radu Chiita Sinelnikova Elena Fredericks Attorneys &
Associados SP, RL Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai Saint-Petersburg State Notaries Public
Daniel Nitu Pediatric Medical University
Anonymous Contributors Babeș-Bolyai University Radu Rizoiu Jozelle Miller
University of Bucharest Vladimir Dubyanskiy Ministry of Health, Wellness
Republic of Korea Dariescu Cosmin Stavropol Plague Control and the Environment
Alexandru Ioan Cuza Roxana Iordachescu-Nitu Research Institute
Changwoo Lee University Iordachescu & Associates Marcia Shirlan Barnwell
Donghwa Labor Consulting Vyacheslav Chasnyk Legal Ease SVG Inc.
Company Diana Agafiței Sergiu Bogdan Saint-Petersburg State
Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații Babeș-Bolyai University Pediatric Medical University Mikhail Charles
Duk Yeon Lee Eastern Caribbean Supreme
Yonsei Law School Diana Lavinia Botau Sergiu Golub Anonymous Contributors Court
Babeș-Bolyai University Babeș-Bolyai University
Haksoo Ko
Seoul National University
Roxann F. Williams Djordje Djurisic Anonymous Contributors Primož Rožman Mildred Bekink
Knights & Co. Law Office of Djordje Djurisic Blood Transfusion Centre of University of South Africa
Singapore Slovenia
Stephen Williams Dragan Nikolić Milton Seligson
Williams & Williams Institute for Public Health Chia Boon Teck Tine Mišic Cape Bar
Chia Wong LLP ODI Law Firm
Anonymous Contributors Dragan Psodorov Mpfariseni Budeli-
Joksovic, Stojanovic & Dan W. Puchniak Tjasa Drgan Nemakonde
Senegal Partners National University of Law Office Drnovsek University of South Africa
Singapore
Ameth Ba Dušan Stojković Anonymous Contributors Neil Cameron
SCP BA & TANDIAN Ortačko Advokatsko Društvo Elizabeth Ng Siew Kuan Stellenbosch University
Stojković National University of South Africa
Anta Marie Anne Diop Singapore Ntombifikile Mtshali
Ivan Kovacevic Altair Richards University of KwaZulu-Natal
Christian Faye Lalin Law Office Novi Sad Eric Tin Keng Seng ENSafrica
Cabinet d'Avocats Christian Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP Peter Jordi
E. Faye Ivan Krsikapa Bart Willems Wits Law Clinic
Ninkovic Law Office Eugene K B Tan Sellenbosch University
Ciré Clédor Ly Singapore Management Philip Stoop
Liliana Ristic University Birgit Kuschke University of South Africa
Clément Diarga Basse Liliana Ristic Law Office University of Pretoria
Ministère de la Santé et de Foo Cheow Ming Pierre de Vos
l'Action Sociale Nadica Figar Templars Law LLC Christa Rautenbach University of Cape Town
North-West University
Diéne Kolly A. Ousseynou Nebojsa Stankovic Harry Elias PJ Schwikkard
Diouf Stankovic & Partners Law Eversheds-Harryelias LLP Derek Adriaan Hellenberg University of Cape Town
Université de Ziguinchor Office University of Cape Town
Scott Gordon Wheeler René Koraan
Hassane Kone Petar Bulat Francois Venter North-West University
Geni & Kébé University of Belgrade Simon Chesterman North-West University
National University of Riette du Plessis
Magna Brice Sylva Petar Stojanovic Singapore Funmi Abioye University of the
LPS Law Joksovic, Stojanovic & University of South Africa Witwatersrand
Partners Stefanie Yuen Thio
Mamadou Ba TSMP Law Corporation Gugu Mchunu Rolien Roos
United States African Simonida Sladojevic- University of KwaZulu-Natal North-West University
Development Foundation Stanimirovic Anonymous Contributors
Gusha Xolani Ngantweni Rudolph Zinn
Meissa Toure Srdja M. Markovic Slovenia University of South Africa Unisa
Euromed Université Law Offices Markovic
Alenka Sagmeister Helen Kruuse SS Terblanche
Moustapha Ndoye Violeta Mitrovic Ranzinger Rhodes University University of South Africa
Radovic & Ratkovic Attorneys
Ndeye Khoudia Tounkara Andrej Bukovnik Hugh Corder Susan Goldstein
SCPA Me Mayacine Tounkara Vladimir Marinkov PETOŠEVIĆ University of Cape Town Soul City Institute for Social
et Associés Guberina-Marinkov Law Office Justice
Anton Gradišek J. Berning
Ndiouma Ndour Zoran V. Radovic Dagra D.O.O. University of South Africa Victoria Bronstein
Universite Assane Seck de Radovic & Ratkovic Attorneys University of the
Ziguinchor Borut Bernik Bogataj Johann Kriegler Witwatersrand
Anonymous Contributors Odvetniška Pisarna Freedom Under Law
Paul Babacar Faye W du Plessis
SCPA Sow-Seck-Diagne & Sierra Leone Grega Strban John Brand North-West University
Associes University of Ljubljana Bowmans
Ady Macauley Wayne Mentz
Rahimine Toure Anti Corruption Commission Josip Sever Lesiba Lolly Motsepe
Geni & Kébé Sierra Leone University of South Africa Werner D. van Straaten
Katja Šumah University of Pretoria
Samba Cor Sarr Alhaji Mohamed Warisay Miro Senica and Attorneys, Lourens J. Erasmus
Ministère de la Santé et de Democracy Sierra Leone Ltd. North-West University Anonymous Contributors
l'Action Sociale
Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Luka Ticar Margaretha Engelbrecht Spain
Semou Ndiaye Marrah University of Ljubljana Johannesburg Society of
Université Cheikh Anta Diop Yada Williams and Associates Advocates Alfonso Pedrajas Herrero
de Dakar Matija Repolusk Abdón Pedrajas & Molero
Ibrahim Sorie Koroma RepoluskLaw Marlize I van Jaarsveld
Anonymous Contributors M.S. Turay and Associates Fairleigh Dickinson University Alfonso Trallero
Nina Persak Bajo & Trallero Abogados
Serbia Lornard Taylor Institute for Criminal-Law Martin Brassey
Taylor & Associates Ethics and Criminology Antonio Pedrajas Quiles
Aleksandar Milosavljevic Martin van Staden Abdón Pedrajas & Molero
Law Office Milosavljevic Patrick Ngenda Johnbull Peter Fašun Free Market Foundation
Centre for Access to Justice FMMS Araceli Peláez Rodríguez
Branislav Majstorović Peace and Human Rights, Bo. Norman M. Davis De Castro Gabinete Jurídico
Law Office Majstorovic Peter Stanovnik Free Market Foundation
Rowland S. V. Wright Institute for Economic August Tora Barnadas
Wright & Co. Research JAUSAS

Carlos Alvarez Dardet Joan R Villalbí Manuel Álvarez Feijoo Remedios Aranda Raja Goonaratne
Universidad de Alicante Agència de Salut Pública de Uría Menéndez Abogados, Rodríguez The Open University of Sri
Barcelona S.L.P. Universidad Carlos III de Lanka
Carlos Campillo-Artero Madrid
Universitat Pompeu Fabra Jorge Medialdea Cuevas Manuel Ángel de las Heras S. Ruchira Lakshan Rosa
García Remedios Menéndez Calvo The Open University of Sri
Carlos Pinilla Domínguez Jorge Sirvent García Universidad de Alicante Universidad de Alcalá Lanka
J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. Universidad Carlos III de
Madrid Manuel Cachón Cadenas Roberto Mazorriaga Las S.S. Jayasundera
Carlos Ramón Fernández Universitat Autònoma de Hayas
Liesa José Cid Barcelona Rambla Abogados y Asesores Savantha De Saram
Universidad Carlos III de Universitat Autònoma de S.L. D. L. & F. De Saram
Madrid Barcelona Manuel Cancio Meliá
Universidad Autónoma de Rosario Vicente Martínez Sugath Hettiarachchi
Carmen Sáez Lara José Fernández-Rañada Madrid Universidad de Castilla-La
Universidad de Córdoba J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. Mancha Thidas Herath
Margarita Isabel Ramos Sudath Perera Associates
César Aguado Renedo José Luis Cembrano Reder Quintana Santiago Fernández
Universidad Autónoma de Asociación Española de Universidad de La Laguna Redondo Anonymous Contributors
Madrid Abogados de Familia Hospital Universitario La
María Acale Sánchez Princesa Suriname
Daniel Marin, Carla Palau José Luis de Peray Universidad de Cádiz
and Ariadna Galimany Sebastián Cantallops Mir Anne-Marel Linger
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo José Luis Goñi Sein María Barberá Riera Rambla Abogados y Asesores 4 Justice Advocaten
Abogados, S.L.P. Universidad Pública de Sociedad Española de Sanidad S.L.
Navarra Ambiental Araldo Codrington
Eduardo Santamaría Moral Teresa Martin Zuriaga Lim A Po Law Firm
J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. José Mª Ordóñez Iriarte María Cristina Pumar Atrio Salud Pública del Gobierno
Sociedad Española de Sanidad Rambla Abogados y Asesores de Aragón Elleson M. Fraenk
Elena Espinosa Ambiental S.L. Schurman Advocaten
Xavier Castells
Emilio Díaz Ruiz José Manuel Mateo Sierra María Elena Sánchez Jordán Universitat Autònoma de Eloa van der Hilst
J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. Universidad de La Laguna Barcelona N.V. 4 Justice Advocaten
Enric Fossas Espadaler
Universitat Autònoma de José María Labeaga Azcona María José Aguilar Idáñez Anonymous Contributors Hugo. A.M. Essed
Barcelona Universidad Nacional de Universidad de Castilla-La Law Firm Essed & Sohansingh
Educación a Distancia Mancha Sri Lanka
Esther Fernández Molina Humphrey R. Schurman
Universidad de Castilla-La José R. Repullo María José Benítez Jiménez Ajithaa Edirimane Schurman Advocaten
Mancha Escuela Nacional de Sanidad Universidad de Málaga
Anusha Wickramasinghe Ramesh Malahe
Federico A. Rodriguez José-Vicente Martí Boscà Marina Lorente Lara Law Firm Malahe Advocaten
Morata Universitat de Valéncia J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. Ayendra Wickremesekera
Universidad de Castilla-La and Thuwaraka Ganeshan Ruby C.A. Bleau
Mancha Josefa Cantero Martínez Martín Godino Tiruchelvam Associates Advokatenkantoor Lim A Po
Universidad de Castilla-La Asociación Nacional de
Federico Durán López Mancha; Asociación de Laboralistas Chandravathany Vasavan Anonymous Contributors
Universidad de Córdoba Juristas de la Salud Selvaa and Vasavan
Matilde Fourey González Assocaites Sweden
Fernando Alberich Arjona Juan Alberto Díaz López Uría Menéndez Abogados,
De Castro Gabinete Jurídico S.L.P. Chrishantha Abeysena Birgitta Nyström
Juan Antonio Lascuraín University of Kelaniya Lund University
Fernando Bondía Román Universidad Autónoma de Montserrat Casamitjana
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Abella Dhanushka Dissanayake Björn Ohde
Madrid Consorci Sanitari de Barcelona Sudath Perera Associates Advokataktiebolagaet
Juan Francisco Aguiar Roslagen
Ignacio de Castro García Rodriguez Orlanda Díaz-García Gamini Perera
De Castro Gabinete Jurídico Consejeria de Sanidad del Universidad de Castilla-La International Law Chambers Boel Flodgren
Gobierno de Canarias Mancha Lund University
Jacobo Dopico Gómez-Aller Kandiah Neelakandan
Universidad Carlos III de Juan M. Terradillos Basoco Oscar Morales Neelakandan & Neelakandan Catherine Lions
Madrid Universidad de Cádiz Uría Menéndez Umea University
N Sivarajah
Jaime Flores Pérez-Durías Juan Oliva-Moreno Pablo López Ferrer University of Jaffna Christer Thordson
J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. Universidad de Castilla-La Uría Menéndez Legal Edge
Mancha Nalin Kumudu Ashubodha
Javier Melero Paz Mercedes de la Cuesta Kolonnawa Nursing Home Christian Diesen
Melero & Gené Abogados Juan Roca Guillamón Aguado Stockholm University
Universidad de Murcia Universidad de Cantabria Nihal Gamini Balasooriya
Javier Paz Esquete Sudath Perera Associates Fredrik Gustafsson
Complejo Hospitalario Luis Gaite Rafael Ortiz Cervello Advokatfirma DLA Piper
Universitario de Pontevedra Observatorio de Salud Pública J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. PB Mudannayake Sweden KB
de Cantabria
Jesús Padilla Gálvez Rebeca Benarroch R. Surenthirakumaran Gunilla Lindmark
Universidad de Castilla-La M. Ciprian Benarroch University of Jaffna University of Uppsala
Mancha Auxmundus Abogados Ciudad Autonoma de Ceuta
Gustaf Sjöberg
Stockholm University
Henrik Wenander Maulana Ayoub Ali Ronnakorn Bunmee Aymen Zaghdoudi Turkey
Lund University Sharda University Thammasat University University of Gabes
Cagatay Yilmaz
Jack Ågren Oliva Mkula Mkanzabi Ruengrit Pooprasert Ben Nasr Mohamed Mehdi Yilmaz Law Offices
Stockholm University Gabriel&Co. Blumenthal Richter & Sumet Cabinet Ben Nasr
Limited Esenyel Barak Bal
Jessika van der Sluijs Patricia Boshe Bessem Ben Salem Cailliau & Colakel Law Firm
Stockholm University The Open University of Sumet Sirikunchoat Ben Salem Law Firm
Tanzania Thammasat University Eser Tekeli Soylu
Johan Sangborn Hamza Wajdi Adana Bar Association
The Swedish Bar Association Salum Mshamu Thananan Sangnuan Hamza Wajdi Business
CSK Research Solutions Baker & McKenzie Lawyers Fatih Selim Yurdakul
Jur Claes Sandgren Limited Yurdakul Law Office
Stockholm University Timothy R. Wales Hassine Fekih Ahmed
Saudin J. Mwakaje Tilleke & Gibbins International Idil Isirkan
Karl-Arne Olsson NexLaw Advocates Ltd. Hechmi Louzir Schindhelm Turkey
Wesslau Söderqvist Institut Pasteur de Tunis
Advokatbyrå Stella Ndikimi Woraphong Leksakulchai Mahmut Kacan
East African Law Chambers Hughes Krupica Consulting Hedia Kedadi MK Law Office
Karol Nowak Ltd.
Lund University Thomas Mihayo Sipemba Imed Oussaifi Murat Volkan Dülger
East African Law Chambers Anonymous Contributors Cabinet Maître Oussaifi Dülger Law Firm
Laura Carlson
Stockholm University Vintan Willgis Mbiro Trinidad & Tobago Ines Mustafa Alp
Breakthrough Attorneys Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi
Maria Lindegård Eiderholm Asaf Hosein Karim Ben Hamida
Advokatfirman Lindberg & Anonymous Contributors Karim Ben Hamida Law Firm Nuray Gökçek Karaca
Saxon Christopher Sieuchand Anadolu University
Thailand M.G. Daly & Partners Khadija Anane
Mats Hellström Orhan Yavuz Mavioğlu
Hellström Law Firm Anant Akanisthaphichat Gerard Hutchinson Knani Houda ADMD Law Office
Thai Law Firm University of the West Indies, Zaanouni Law Firm
Mauro Zamboni St. Augustine Osman Hayran
Stockholm University Apinop Atipiboonsin Lassâad Dhaouadi İstanbul Medipol University
Thammasat University Gina Maharaj Institut Tunisien des
Mikael Johansson Organization for Abused and Conseillers Fiscaux Ozer Tuncay
Raoul Wallenberg Institute Chacrit Sitdhiwej Battered Individuals Tuncay Law Office
of Human Rights and Thammasat University Lejmi Zied
Humanitarian Law Hasine Shaikh Zaanouni Law Firm Sinan Aslan
Chanvit Tharathep
Olle Marsater Ministry of Health Jonathan Walker Mahmoud Yacoub Teoman Akünal
University of Uppsala M. Hamel-Smith & Co. Ordre National des Avocats Akunallawfirm
Chulapong Yukate de Tunisie
Reinhold Fahlbeck ZICOlaw Kaveeta Persad Ufuk Aydin
Lund University Fitzwilliam, Stone, Furness- Mounir Baatour Anadolu University
Chusert Supasitthumrong Smith & Morgan Association Shams
Staffan Michelson Tilleke & Gibbins International Anonymous Contributors
Hellström Advokatbyrå Ltd. Keri A. Kitson Nadhir Ben Ammou
Faculté de Droit et des Uganda
Sverker Jönsson Henning Glaser Linda A. Greene Sciences Politiques de Tunis
Lund University German-Southeast Asian Penco Court Law Chambers Adrian Jjuuko
Center of Excellence for Public Nadhir Ben Yedder Human Rights Awareness and
Thomas G. Lindqvist Policy and Good Governance M. Glenn Hamel-Smith Reseau National de Lutte Promotion Forum
Hammarskiöld & Co. M. Hamel-Smith & Co. Contre la Corruption
Ittichai Prasongprasit Alan Shonubi
Ulf Maunsbach R&T Asia (Thailand) Ltd. Mark Ramkerrysingh Nizar Sdiri Shonubi, Musoke & Co.
Lund University Fitzwilliam, Stone, Furness- Nizar Sdiri Law Firm
Jakkrit Kuanpoth Smith & Morgan Albert Turyahabwe
Vilhelm Persson Thailand Development Rachida Jelassi Agaba Muhairwe & Co.
Lund University Research Institute; Tilleke and Michelle T. Ramnarine Conseil Supérieur de la Advocates
Gibbins International Magistrature; Université de
Anonymous Contributors Natalie Persadie Tunis El Manar Alexander Kibandama
Jeeranun Klaewkla University of Trinidad and ENSafrica
Tanzania Mahidol University Tobago Radhouane Elaiba
Augustine M Kaheeru
Anne Outwater Munin Pongsapan Nisha K. Persad Ridha Mezghani Bahemuka
Muhimbili University of Health Thammasat University N. K. Persad & Co. R. Mezghani Law Office M/S Kahuma, Khalayi &
and Allied Sciences Kaheeru Advocates
Panu Patani Tamara Jackson Samir Abdelly and Salma
Asina Omari Panu & Partners Chaari Bernard Mukasa
Anonymous Contributors Abdelly & Associates ENSafrica
Eliud Kitime Pisut Rakwong
The Open University of Pisut & Partners Tunisia Sarra Elloumi Brian Kalule
Tanzania Bowmans
Ploynapa Julagasigorn Amel Gorbej Anonymous Contributors
Kheri R. Mbiro Tilleke & Gibbins International Brigitte Kusiima Byarugaba
Breakthrough Attorneys Ltd. Amine Hamdi Sendi
Barreau de Tunis Shonubi, Musoke & Co.

C. K. Kalumiya Igor Svechkar Mirza R. Baig Tony Ward Kepler B. Funk
Kampala Associated Asters Law Firm Dubai Pharmacy College Northumbria Univeristy Funk, Szachacz & Diamond,
Advocates LLC
Iryna Senyuta Nazanin Aleyaseen Anonymous Contributors
Emmanuel Luyirika Foundation of Medical Law K&L Gates LLP Leonard A. Sandler
African Palliative Care and Bioethics of Ukraine United States University of Iowa
Association Stuart Paterson
Ivan Horodyskyy A. Renee Pobjecky Marcela Horvitz-Lennon
Evelyn Atim Ukrainian Catholic University Tarek Nakkach Pobjecky and Pobjecky, LLP Cambridge Health Alliance
Buwembo and Co. Advocates Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Ivchuk Viktoriia Andrea J. Boyack Mary Kreiner Ramirez
Francis Gimara Regional Medical Center for Anonymous Contributors Washburn University Washburn University
Uganda Law Society Health and Sports Medicine
United Kingdom Arthur Hunter Matthew T. Lockaby
Francis Opedun Lyubomyr Drozdovskyy Orleans Parish District Court Lockaby PLLC
EVAMOR International Ltd. Khasin & Drozdovskyy Adam Winchester
Barristers Association Lancaster University Barbara J. Fick Michael S. Blass
Irene Ovonji-Odida University of Notre Dame Arent Fox LLP
The Uganda Association of Oksana Voynarovska Alan J. Masson
Women Lawyers Vasil Kisil & Partners Anderson Strathern LLP Christopher R. Drahozal Michele Forzley
University of Kansas Forzley & Associates
Isaac Newton Kyagaba Oleksandr Denysenko Albert Sanchez-Graells
Kampala Associated Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm University of Bristol Christopher R. Kelley Paul Bender
Advocates University of Arkansas Arizona State University
Oleksandr Skliarenko Alexander Mills
J.B. Rwakimari Skliarenko, Sydorenko and City, University of London Claudia Rast Renaldy J. Gutierrez
Partners Butzel Long PLLC Gutierrez & Associates
Joaninne Nanyange Christopher May
Human Rights Awareness and Olexander Martinenko Lancaster University D. Majeeda Snead Renée M. Landers
Promotion Forum CMS Cameron McKenna Loyola University Suffolk University Law School
Nabarro Olswang J. Mulder
Kwikiriza Benson A University of Bristol Elise Groulx Diggs Reynolds, Swartz, Crouse,
Insurance Regulatory Pavlo Lukomskyi Doughty Street Chambers Anderson, Walker, Katz,
Authority of Uganda Salkom Law Firm Jill Stavert and Levine
Edinburgh Napier University Foeng Toan "Bill" Tham Attorneys Judicial Mediators
Laura Nyirinkindi Roman Maydanyk Global Oral, Legal & Dental Consulting Team
Pro Initiatives Agency Kyiv National Taras Jonathan Nguyen-Van-Tam Helping Hands Foundation
Shevchenko University University of Nottingham Robert J. Collins Jr.
Lilian Keene-Mugerwa H. David Kelly, Jr. University of Pennsylvania
Platform for Labour Action Sergii Dvoriak Katie Bales Beins, Axelrod, P.C.
Ukrainian Institute of Public University of Bristol Roy M Poses
Lydia Bwiite Health Policy Jaime Ramon Brown University
Platform for Labour Action Kiron Reid Dykema Cox Smith
Sergiy Gryshko University of Liverpool Sara Elizabeth Dill
Mercy Odu Redcliffe Partners James F. Cleary American Bar Association
AF Mpanga Advocates M. Reynolds and Team UW Carbone Cancer Center
Taras Tsymbrivskyy Attorneys Judicial Mediators Sherman L. Cohn
Mpiima Jamir Ssenoga Ukrainian Catholic University Consulting Team James H. Pietsch Georgetown University
Kiwanuka & Mpiima University of Hawaii
Advocates Tarasov Andrey Mark Lubbock Stephen Allan Saltzburg
Tarasov and Partners Ashurst LLP Jason Coates George Washington University
Naboth Muhairwe American Public Health
Agaba Muhairwe & Co. Valentyn Gvozdiy Marvin Hanna Association Stephen C. Veltri
Advocates GOLAW Smith Bean & Co. Ohio Northern University
Jeffrey Aresty
Namusobya Salima Valeriia V. Gudiy Nigel Duncan InternetBar.org Institute, Inc. Steven A. Ramirez
Initiative for Social and Partners Law Firm City, University of London Loyola University
Economic Rights Joanne Katz
Vitalii Gatseliuk Peter Hungerford-Welch Johns Hopkins University Taryn Vian
Rachel Musoke National Academy of Sciences City, University of London Boston University
ENSafrica John Hummel
Yaroslav Ognevyuk Peter McTigue Deschutes County Oregon Therese McGinn
Ronald Tusingwire Doubinsky & Osharova Nottingham Trent University District Attorney Columbia University
ENSafrica
Zoryana Chernenko Richard Ashcroft John Pollock Thomas D. Haney
Susan Baluka National University of Kyiv- Queen Mary University of Public Justice Center Stevens and Brand LLP
Human Rights Awareness and Mohyla Academy London
Promotion Forum John R. LaBar Tim Ken Mackey
Anonymous Contributors Richard W Whitecross Henry, McCord, Bean, Miller, UC San Diego
Tracy Kakongi Nkwanzi Edinburgh Napier University Gabriel & LaBar, P.L.L.C.
ENSafrica United Arab Emirates Timothy E. Dolan
Sara Fovargue Jonathan Hiatt Policy Foresight
Anonymous Contributors Bashar Malkawi Lancaster University
University of Sharjah Karen Lash Anonymous Contributors
Ukraine Tonia Novitz American University
Essam Al Tamimi University of Bristol
Armen G. Khachaturyan Al Tamimi & Company
Asters Law Firm
Uruguay Ricardo Mezzera Gilberto A Guerrero-Rocca Danny Duy Vo Zimbabwe
Mezzera Abogados Florida International Santa Lawyers Company
Alejandro Rey Jiménez de University Abraham Mateta
Aréchaga Santiago Pereira Campos Derek Phan Van Cong Danh Muvingi and Mugadza
Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Rueda Abadi Pereira; Gonzalo Himiob Santomé LE & TRAN
Universidad de Montevideo Foro Penal Venezolano Andrew Makoni
Alfredo Taullard and Sandra Hannah Huynh Thi My Mbidzo Muchadehama &
Garín Tomás Guerrero Costa Gregory Odreman Hanh Makoni Legal Practitioners
Hughes & Hughes Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Odreman & Asociados LE & TRAN
Abogados Ashton Mufari
Amalia Laborde Anonymous Contributors Hoang Quoc Nhat Trung Zimbabwe Human Rights
University of the Republic Gustavo Adolfo Parra Advocates
Uzbekistan Delgado Huu Phuoc Nguyen
Ana Ines Alfaro De Parra & Salas Phuoc & Partners Law Firm Bellinda R. Chinowawa
Hegedus Alisher K. Zaynutdinov Ltd. Zimbabwe Lawyers for
Fischer & Schickendantz Virtus Leo Law Firm Jaime Martínez Estévez Human Rights
Rodner, Martínez & Asociados Kent Wong
Beatriz Murguía Firuza Bobokulova VCI Legal Brighton Mahuni
Murguía - Aguirre Zarifovna Jennifer Jean Jahnke Scanlen & Holderness
Westminster International Marshall Denning Kieu Anh Vu
Camilo Martinez Blanco University, Tashkent KAV Lawyers Caroline Kudzai Tandi
Universidad de Montevideo Jesus Alejandro Loreto C.
M. Ahmedov Lê An Hải Casper Pound
Carlos Noble Tabarez Jesus Escudero Phuoc & Partners Law Firm Family AIDS Support
Ferrere Abogados Shahin Huseynov Torres, Plaz & Araujo Ltd. Organisation
WHO
Carlos Pittamiglio José Alberto Ramírez León Ngo Huu Nhi Dzinomwa T
Bartesaghi Abogados Anonymous Contributors Hoet, Pelaez, Castillo & Duque Thien An Law Office NUST
Abogados
Escandor El Ters Venezuela Pham Van Phat Edwin Isaac Manikai
Instituto Nacional de Juan Carlos Garantón- An Phat Pham Law Firm Dube, Manikai and Hwacha
Oncología Alberto Blanco-Uribe Blanco
Quintero Quang Nguyen Nhan Emilia Mandaza
Federico Formento Universidad Central de Juan Manuel Raffalli Muhonde Attorneys
Fischer & Schickendantz Venezuela RDHOO Abogados Stephen Le Hoang Chuong
LE & TRAN Fraser Edkins
Fischer & Schickendantz Alberto Jurado Leonel Alfonso Ferrer Coghlan Welsh and Guest
ALC Penal Universidad Central de Tran Thanh Tung
Gonzalo Gari Irureta Venezuela Phuoc & Partners Law Firm Gavin Gomwe
Goyena Alexander Marcano Ltd. Clairwood Chambers
Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Montero Luis Ortiz Alvarez
Lawyers Group Vu Dzung Godfrey Sibanda
Joaquin Reyes Puig Luis Rafael Ávila López Mbidzo Muchadehama &
Estudio Reyes Rius Alexis E. Aguirre S. Badell & Grau Vu Kieu Anh Makoni Legal Practitioners
ARAQUEREYNA Apolat Legal
Juan Andrés Fuentes Manuel A Gomez Godman Chingoma
Arcia Storace Fuentes Medina Alvaro Badell Madrid Florida International Anonymous Contributors Dube, Manikai and Hwacha
Abogados Badell & Grau University
Zambia Gregory Nyamupanedengu
Juan Diego Menghi Andreina Peláez E. Nathalie González Mageza and Nyamwanza
Arburúas Badell & Grau Escritorio Jurídico Rodríguez & Anne Namakando-Phiri
Pérez del Castillo & Asociados Mendoza University of Zambia John T. Burombo
Andrés L. Halvorssen Maja & Associates
Julio Lens RDHOO Abogados Rafael de Lemos Chifumu K Banda
LENS Mordecai Pilate Mahlangu
Andrés Linares Benzo Raul Sanchez Urribarri Fares Phiri Gill Godlonton & Gerrans
Manuel Reyes Puig Hoet, Pelaez, Castillo & Duque La Trobe University Nodi Trust School
Estudio Reyes Rius Abogados Obey Shava
Ricardo J. Cruz Rincón John P. Sangwa Mbidzo Muchadehama &
María Durán Arturo De Sola Escritorio Chumaceiro Simeza, Sangwa & Associates Makoni Legal Practitioners
Hughes & Hughes De Sola Pate & Brown González
Melvin Leslie Mbao Patience Chair
Mariana Fernández Fasciolo Carlos Alberto Henríquez Simon Jurado-Blanco North-West University
Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Salazar ARAQUEREYNA Philemon Mutukwa
Mulopa Ndalameta Musengi and Sigauke
Martín Fridman Carlos Simón Bello Rengifo Vicente González De La Musa Dudhia & Co
Ferrere Abogados Universidad Central de Vega Philip Givemore
Venezuela Universidad Central de Naomy Lintini Nyakutombwa
Martín Risso Ferrand Venezuela; Universidad RayBeam Enterprises Nyakutombwa Mugabe Legal
Universidad Católica del Catherina Gallardo Metropolitana Counsel
Uruguay Gallardo Vaudo y Asociados Pamela Sibanda Mumbi
Anonymous Contributors Charles Siamutwa Legal Roselyn Hanzi
Nicolás Mariano Pallas Eugenio Hernandez-Breton Practitioners Zimbabwe Lawyers for
Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Universidad Central de Vietnam Human Rights
Venezuela Tiziana Marietta
Pedro Montano Chi Mai Sharpe & Howard Simon Sadomba
Scelza & Montano Gill Godlonton & Gerrans

Simplicio Bhebhe
Kantor & Immerman Legal
Practitioners
Sonja Vas
Scanlen & Holderness
Tamuka Moyo
Tamuka Moyo Attorneys
Tarisai Mutangi
Donsa-Nkomo & Mutangi
Legal Practice
Taurai Blessed Kativu

Practitioners
Tavonga George
Chigudugudze
Chihambakwe, Mutizwa &
Partners
Tawanda Tandi
Practitioners
Terence Hussein
Hussein Ranchhod & Co.
Wellington Chimwaradze
Acknowledgements
The World Justice Project’s Honorary Chairs, Directors, Officers, Staff, Financial
Supporters, and Sponsoring Organizations are listed in the last section of this report.
Polling companies, research organizations, and contributing experts are listed in the
Methodology section of this report.
Academic Advisors Harb, Arab Center for the Development of Rule of Law and
Mark David Agrast, American Society of International Integrity; Nathaniel Heller, Open Government Partnership;
Law; Jose M. Alonso, World Wide Web Foundation; Rolf Vanessa Herringshaw, Transparency and Accountability
Alter, OECD; Eduardo Barajas, Universidad del Rosario; Initiative; Susan Hirsch, George Mason University; Ronald
Maurits Barendrecht, Tilburg University; Tonu Basu, Open Janse, University of Amsterdam Law School; Erik G. Jensen,
Government Partnership; Lowell Bergman, University of Stanford University; Haroon Khadim, PAE; Rachel Kleinfeld,
California, Berkeley; Tim Besley, London School of Econom- Carnegie Endowment; Jack Knight, Duke University; Harold
ics; Christina Biebesheimer, The World Bank; Paul Brest, H. Koh, Yale University; Margaret Levi, Stanford University;
Stanford University; Jose Caballero, IMD Business School; Iris Litt, Stanford University; Clare Lockhart, The Institute
David Caron, Kings College, London; Thomas Carothers, for State Effectiveness; Zsuzsanna Lonti, OECD; Diego
Carnegie Endowment; Marcela Castro, Universidad de Lopez, Universidad de los Andes; William T. Loris, Loyola
los Andes; Peter Chapman, Open Society Justice Initia- University; Lauren E. Loveland, National Democratic Insti-
tive (OSJI); Eduardo Cifuentes, Universidad de los Andes; tute (NDI); Paul Maassen, Open Government Partnership;
Sherman Cohn, Georgetown University; Christine M. Cole, Beatriz Magaloni, Stanford University; Jenny S. Martinez,
Crime & Justice Institute; Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Stanford University; Toby McIntosh, FreedomInfo.org; Toby
Stanford University; Helen Darbishire, Access Info Europe; Mendel, Centre for Law and Democracy; Nicholas Menzies,
Nicolas Dassen, Inter-American Development Bank; Larry The World Bank; Ghada Moussa, Cairo University; Sam
Diamond, Stanford University; Claudia J. Dumas, Trans- Muller, HiiL; Robert L. Nelson, American Bar Foundation
parency International USA; Sandra Elena, Ministerio de and Northwestern University; Alfonsina Peñaloza, Hewlett
Justicia y Derechos Humanos; Brad Epperly, University of Foundation; Harris Pastides, University of South Caroli-
South Carolina; Julio Faundez, Warwick University; Hazel na; Randal Peerenboom, La Trobe University and Oxford
Feigenblatt, Global Integrity; Todd Foglesong, Munk School University; Angela Pinzon, Universidad del Rosario; Pascoe
of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto; Tom Gins- Pleasence, University College London; Shannon Portillo,
burg, University of Chicago; Joseph Foti, Open Govern- George Mason University; Michael H. Posner, New York
ment Partnership; James Goldston, Open Society Justice University; Roy L. Prosterman, University of Washington;
Initiative (OSJI); Jorge Gonzalez, Universidad Javeriana; Anita Ramasastry, University of Washington; Mor Rubin-
Alejandro Gonzalez-Arriola, Open Government Partnership; stein, Open Knowledge Foundation; Angela Ruiz, Universi-
Jon Gould, American University; Martin Gramatikov, HiiL; dad del Rosario; Audrey Sacks, The World Bank; Lutforah-
Brendan Halloran, Transparency and Accountability Initia- man Saeed, Kabul University; Michaela Saisana, EU-JRC;
tive; Linn Hammergren; Tim Hanstad, Landesa; Wassim Andrea Saltelli, EU-JRC;

Moises Sanchez, Alianza Regional por la Libertad de Bubacar Jallow; Sunil Kumar Joshi; Marie-Therese Julita;
Expresión; Andrei Shleifer, Harvard University; Jorge Luis Megan Kabre; Jessica Kane; Rashvin Kaur; Anne Kelley;
Silva, The World Bank; Gordon Smith, University of South Howard Kenison; Junaid Khalid; Elsa Khwaja; Se Hwan
Carolina; Christopher Stone, Open Society Foundations; Kim; Stuti Kokkalera; Laurie Kontopidis; Simeon Koroma;
John Temple, University of California, Berkeley; Rene Steven H. Kraft; Larry D. Kramer; Jack Krumholtz; Lianne
Uruena, Universidad de los Andes; Stefan Voigt, University Labossiere; Jeremy Levine-Drizin; Samantha Liberman;
of Hamburg; Barry Weingast, Stanford University; Michael Joanna Lim; Deborah Lindholm; Hongxia Liu; Annie Living-
Woolcock, The World Bank. ston; Jeanne L. Long; Carlos López; Clarissa Lopez-Diarte;
Stephen Lurie; Biola Macaulay; Ahna B. Machan; Maha
Roland Abeng; Lukman Abdul-Rahim; Mame Adjei; Priya Mahmoud; Biawakant Mainali; Andrew Makoni; Dijana
Agarwal-Harding; Mariam Ahmed; Lina Alameddine; Sarah Malbaša; Ermek Mamaev; Frank Mantero; Madison Marks;
Alexander; Jessica Álvarez; Erica Jaye Ames; Rose Karikari Roger Martella; Vivek Maru; John Mason; Elisa Massimino;
Anang; Evelyn Ankumah; Jassim Alshamsi; Jessica Álvarez; Hiroshi Matsuo; Michael Maya; Bethany McGann; Matthew
Lindsay Aramayo-Lipa; Amanda Arcaya; Ekaterina Baksano- Mead; Sindi Medar-Gould; Ludmila Mendonça; Nathan Me-
va; Hamud M. Balfas; Laila El Baradei; Sophie Barral; April non; Ellen Mignoni; Aisha Minhas; María Cristina Montaño;
Baskin; Ivan Batishchev; Rachael Beitler; Laurel Bellows; Jorge Antonio Morales Alfaro; Claros Morean; Liliana More-
Ayzada Bengel; Dounia Bennani; Clever Bere; Loveridge no; Junichi Morioka; Carrie Moore; Katrina Moore; Marion
Bere; Rindala Beydoun; Karan K. Bhatia; Eric C. Black; Muller; Xavier Muller; Jenny Murphy; Rose Murray; Norha-
Cherie Blair; Rob Boone; Juan Manuel Botero; Oussama yati Mustapha; Reinford Mwangonde; Doreen Ndishabandi;
Bouchebti; Raúl Izurieta Mora Bowen; Ariel Braunstein; Ilija Nedelkoski; Niku Neshati; Javier Nicolás; Daniel Nitu;
Kathleen A. Bresnahan; Michael Brown; Susanna Brown; Elida Nogoibaeva; Victoria Norelid; Justin Nyekan; Sean
William R. Brownfield; David Bruscino; Carolina Cabrera; O’Brien; Peggy Ochanderena; Bolaji Olaniran; Joy Olson;
Ted Carrol; Javier Castro De León; John Catalfamo; Fahima Mohamed Olwan; Fernando Omedé; Gustavo Alanis Or-
Charaffeddine; David Cheyette; Nabiha Chowdhury; Jose tega; Bolaji Owasanoye; Pablo Parás; Kedar Patel; Angeles
Cochingyan, III; Kate Coffey; Sonkita Conteh; Barbara Melano Paz; Karina Pena; Valentina Pérez Botero; Ronen
Cooperman; Hans Corell; Adriana Cosgriff; Ana Victoria Plechnin; Kamal Pokhrel; John Pollock; Mercy Alejandra
Cruz; Alexander E. Davis; Beth Davis; Néstor de Buen; Portillo; Cynthia Powell; Humberto Prado Sifontes; Nath-
Bryce de Flamand; James P. DeHart; Brackett B. Denniston, alie Rakotomalia; Javier Ramirez; Eduardo Ramos-Gómez;
III; Russell C. Deyo; Surya Dhungel; Adama Dieng; Andrew Daniela Rampani; Alex Randall; Richard Randerson; Claudia
Domingoes; Alyssa Dougherty; Megan Duffy; Sandra Elena; Rast; Yahya Rayegani; Nick Rehmus; Adrian F. Revilla; Sal-
Roger El Khoury; Sanal Enkhbaatar; Adele Ewan; Juan vador Reyes; Lopes Ribeiro; Kelly Roberts; Nigel H. Roberts;
Farré; Fatima Fettar; Steve Fisher; Eric Florenz; Abderrahim Amir Ron; Maria Rosales; Liz Ross; Steve Ross; Faith Rotich;
Foukara; Kristina Fridman; Morly Frishman; Viorel Furdui; Patricia Ruiz de Vergara; Irma Russell; Rosemarie Sandino;
Minoru Furuyama; Daniel Gamboa Rinckoar; Amir Gal- Marc Sepama; Adam Severance; Bruce Sewell; Uli Parmlian
ván; William H. Gates, Sr.; Anna Gardner; Dorothy Garcia; Sihombing; Hajrija Sijerčić-Čolić; William Sinnott; Lumba
Sophie Gebreselassie; Dwight Gee; Sujith George; Adam Siyanga; Brad Smith; Julie Smith; Joshua Steele; Lourdes
Gerstenmier; Jacqueline Gichinga; Suzanne E. Gilbert; Brian Stein; Thomas M. Susman; Elizabeth Thomas-Hope; Jinni
Gitau; Travis Glynn; Arturo Gomez; Felipe Gómez; Nengak Tran; Laurence Tribe; Martha Uc; Christina Vachon; Patricia
Daniel Gondyi; Lindsey Graham; Deweh Gray; Michael S. van Nispen; Robert Varenik; Jessica Villegas; Maria Vinot;
Greco; Elise Groulx; Paula F. Guevara; Heena Gupta; Arkady Quinn Walker; Raymond Webster; Robin Weiss; Doroth-
Gutnikov; Karen Hall; Margaret Halpin; Kunio Hamada; ee Wildt; Jennifer Wilmore; Jason Wilks; Malin Winbom;
Mohammad Hamze; Leila Hanafi; Sana Hawamdeh; Kate Russom Woldezghi; Nazgul Yergalieva; Hunter Zachwieja;
Helms; Alvaro Herrero; Sheila Hollis; Michael Holston; R. Stephen Zack; Keyvan Zamani; Jorge Zapp-Glauser; Roula
William Ide, III; Murtaza Jaffer; Chelsea Jaeztold; Hassan Zayat; Fanny Zhao.
Altus Global Alliance; APCO Worldwide; Fleishman-Hil- Program, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism; The
lard; The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Legal Department of Hewlett-Packard Limited; The Legal
Sciences, Stanford University; The Center on Democracy, Department of Microsoft Corporation; The Whitney and
Development, and the Rule of Law, Stanford Universi- Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies,
ty; The German Bar Association in Brussels; Governance Yale University; Rule of Law Collaborative, University of
Data Alliance; Google Inc.; The Hague Institute for the South Carolina; The University of Chicago Law School; Vera
Internationalisation of Law (HiiL); Investigative Reporting Institute of Justice.

About the
The World Justice Project (WJP) is an independent, multidisciplinary
organization working to advance the rule of law around the world. Effective rule of
law reduces corruption, combats poverty and disease, and protects people from
injustices large and small. It is the foundation for communities of equity, opportunity,
and peace—underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for
fundamental rights.
Founded by William H. Neukom in 2006 as a presidential WJP Rule of Law Index

initiative of the American Bar Association (ABA), and with The WJP Rule of Law Index® provides original, impartial data
the initial support of 21 other strategic partners, the World on how the rule of law is experienced and perceived by the
Justice Project transitioned into an independent 501(c)(3) general public in 113 countries around the globe. It is the
non-profit organization in 2009. Its offices are located in most comprehensive index of its kind. To date, more than
Washington, DC and Seattle, WA, USA; Mexico City, Mexi- 330,000 households and experts have been interviewed
co; and Singapore. worldwide. Index findings have been referenced by heads
of state, chief justices, business leaders, public officials, and
Our Approach the press, including media outlets in over 125 countries
Traditionally, the rule of law has been viewed as the domain worldwide.
of lawyers and judges. But everyday issues of safety, rights,
Engagement
justice, and governance affect us all; everyone is a stake-
Engagement efforts include connecting and developing
holder in the rule of law. Based on this, WJP’s mutual-
a global network, organizing strategic convenings, and
ly-reinforcing lines of business employ a multi-disciplinary
fostering practical, on-the-ground programs. At our World
approach through original research and data, an active
Justice Forum, regional conferences, and single-country
and global network, and practical, locally-led programs to
engagements, citizens and leaders come together to learn
advance the rule of law worldwide.
about the rule of law, build their networks, and design
Research & Scholarship pragmatic solutions to local rule of law challenges. In
The WJP’s Research & Scholarship work supports research addition, the World Justice Challenge provides seed grants
about the meaning and measurement of the rule of law, to support practical, on-the-ground programs addressing
and how it matters for economic, socio-political, and hu- discrimination, corruption, violence, and more.
man development. The Rule of Law Research Consortium
(RLRC) is a community of leading scholars from a variety of
fields harnessing diverse methods and approaches to pro-
duce research on the rule of law and its effects on society.
Honorary Chairs World Justice Project Funders
The World Justice Project has the support of outstanding The World Justice Project thanks the following major cur-
leaders representing a range of disciplines around the rent funders for their generous support:
world. The Honorary Chairs of the World Justice Project
Anonymous
are:
Anonymous
Madeleine Albright; Giuliano Amato; Robert Badinter; Apple, Inc.
James A. Baker III; Cherie Blair; Stephen G. Breyer; Sharan BGC3
Burrow; David Byrne; Jimmy Carter; Maria Livanos Cattaui; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Arthur Chaskalson;* Emil Constantinescu; Hans Corell; City of The Hague
Hilario G. Davide, Jr.; Hernando de Soto; Adama Dieng; European Commission
William H. Gates, Sr.; Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Richard J. Gold- Ford Foundation
stone; Kunio Hamada; Lee H. Hamilton; Mohamed Ibrahim; Microsoft Corporation
Tassaduq Hussain Jillani; Anthony M. Kennedy; Beverley Neukom Family Foundation
McLachlin; George J. Mitchell; John Edwin Mroz;* Indra Sally & William H. Neukom
Nooyi; Sandra Day O’Connor; Ana Palacio; Colin L. Pow- Open Society Justice Initiative
ell; Roy L. Prosterman; Richard W. Riley; Mary Robinson; Singapore Ministry of Law
Richard Trumka; Desmond Tutu; Antonio Vitorino; Paul A. United States Department of State
Volcker; Harold Woolf; Andrew Young; Zhelyu Zhelev.* Diana Walsh & Kent Walker
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Board of Directors
Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad; Kamel Ayadi; William C. Hub- A list of previous funders can be found at:
bard; Hassan Bubacar Jallow; Suet-Fern Lee; Mondli Makh- worldjusticeproject.org
anya; William H. Neukom; Ellen Grace Northfleet; James R.
Strategic Partners
Silkenat; Petar Stoyanov.
American Bar Association; American Public Health Associ-
Directors Emeritus ation; American Society of Civil Engineers; Arab Center for
President Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai the Development of the Rule of Law and Integrity; Avocats
Sans Frontières; Canadian Bar Association; Club of Madrid;
Officers & Staff
Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law; Human
William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board; William H.
Rights First; Human Rights Watch; Inter-American Bar
Neukom, Founder and CEO; Mark D. Agrast, Vice President;
Association; International Bar Association; International
Deborah Enix-Ross, Vice President; Judy Perry Martinez,
Chamber of Commerce; International Institute for Applied
Vice President; James R. Silkenat, Director and Treasurer;
Systems Analysis; International Organization of Employers;
Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel and Secretary.
International Trade Union Confederation; Inter-Pacific Bar
Staff: Juan Carlos Botero, Executive Director; Alejandro
Association; Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human
Ponce, Chief Research Officer; Kate Adams; Rebecca Billings;
Rights; Landesa; NAFSA: Association of International
Josiah Byers; Killian Dorier; Alicia Evangelides; Radha Fried-
Educators; Norwegian Bar Association; People to People
man; Amy Gryskiewicz; Camilo Gutiérrez Patiño; Matthew
International; Union Internationale des Avocats; Union
Harman; Roberto Hernández; Alexa Hopkins; Clara Jiang;
of Turkish Bar Associations; U.S. Chamber of Commerce;
Priya Kholsa; Sarah Chamness Long; Ahna Machan; Debby
The World Council of Religious Leaders; World Federation
Manley; Rachel Martin; Joel Martinez; Jorge Morales;
of Engineering Organisations; World Federation of Public
Layda Negrete; Nikki Ngbichi-Moore; Afua Ofosu-Barko;
Health Associations
Christine Pratt; Adriana Rios; Leslie Solís; Gerard Vinluan;
Nancy Ward.
deceased
*

“Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, “Treat the people equally in your court and give them
established… That the strong might not injure the weak, equal attention, so that the noble shall not aspire to your
in order to protect the widows and orphans..., in order to partiality, nor the humble despair of your justice.”
declare justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal
all injuries.” Judicial Guidelines from ‘Umar Bin Al-Khattab,
The Second Khalifa of Islam’
Codex Hammurabi
“No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised

“I could adjudicate lawsuits as well as anyone. But I would
of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs,
prefer to make lawsuits unnecessary.”
or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we
Analects of Confucius go against such a man or send against him save by lawful
judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To
no-one will we sell or deny or delay right or justice.”

“It is more proper that law should govern than any one of Magna Carta
the citizens.”

Aristotle, Politics (350 BCE)

“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins.”
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1689)
“If someone disobeys the law, even if he is (otherwise)
worthy, he must be punished. If someone meets the
standard, even if he is (otherwise) unworthy, he must be
found innocent. Thus the Way of the public good will be “Good civil laws are the greatest good that men can give
opened up, and that of private interest will be blocked.” and receive. They are the source of morals, the palladium
of property, and the guarantee of all public and private
The Huainanzi 139 BCE (Han Dynasty, China)
peace. If they are not the foundation of government, they
are its supports; they moderate power and help ensure
respect for it, as though power were justice itself.”
“We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be
free.” Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis, Discours
Préliminaire du Premier Projet de Code Civil
Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
“The Law of Nations, however, is common to the entire
rights… Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms
human race, for all nations have established for them-
set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any
selves certain regulations exacted by custom and human
kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political
necessity.”
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth
Corpus Juris Civilis or other status.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

WJP ROLI 2017-18 Online-Edition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WJP ROLI 2017-18 Online-Edition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neth

Un Urug an d’I ica

kis ela ire

World Justice Project

Lead graphic designer for this report was Priya Khosla.

The World Justice Project

Directors Emeritus: President Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai

Executive Director: Juan Carlos Botero

Chief Research Officer: Alejandro Ponce

IBSN (print version): 978-0-9882846-2-3 IBSN (online version): 978-0-9882846-3-0

30 Overview of Factor Changes 155

32 Factor 1: Constraints on Government Powers

38 Factor 7: Civil Justice

39 Factor 8: Criminal Justice

World Justice Project

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 2

Afghanistan 0.34 111 – 0.00 Kenya 0.45 95 5 0.02

Country-Specific Data and Online Tools

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 4

Rule of Law in Practice New Data Anchored in Actual Experiences

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 5

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 6

Four Universal Principles of the Rule of Law

1. Accountability 3. Open Government

2. Just Laws 4. Accessible & Impartial Dispute Resolution

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 7

independent auditing and review

Factor 2 4.3 Due process of the law and rights of the

Absence of Corruption accused

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 8

Factor 6 7.5 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delay

Regulatory Enforcement 7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced

proceedings 8.2 Criminal adjudication system is timely and effective

8.5 Criminal justice system is free of corruption

8.6 Criminal justice system is free of improper

8.7 Due process of the law and rights of the accused

Informal Justice and the Rule of Law Factor 9

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 9

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 10

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 11

guaranteed unreasonable delay

Measures the effective enforcement of fundamen- Measures whether administrative proceedings at

5.3 People do not resort to violence to redress

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 12

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 13

18 Rule of Law by Region

26 Rule of Law Performance & Changes

Denmark 0.89 1 Antigua & Barbuda 0.63 34

*Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal points.

2017–2018 WJP Rule of Law Index I 17

Rule of Law Around the

East Asia & Pacific 0.60 2/7 New Zealand

Eastern Europe & Central Asia 0.50 5/7 Georgia

EU & EFTA & NA 0.74 1/7 Denmark

Latin America & Caribbean 0.54 3/7 Uruguay

South Asia 0.45 7/7 Nepal

Sub-Saharan Africa 0.47 6/7 Ghana

East Asia & Pacific

New Zealand 1/15 0.83 7/113 1 0.00

Singapore 3/15 0.80 13/113 4 -0.02 0.54 0.60

Japan 4/15 0.79 14/113 1 0.01

Mongolia 7/15 0.54 51/113 4 0.00

Cambodia 15/15 0.32 112/113 – 0.00

*Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal points.