Global Integrity Report HomeGlobal Integrity Home
2007 Assessment

Russia: Integrity Indicators Scorecard

Russia: Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Whistle-blowing Measures
Indicators   Score
45 Are employees protected from recrimination or other negative consequences when reporting corruption (i.e. whistle-blowing)? 6
46 In law, is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption? 0
47 In practice, is the internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption effective? 0

Indicator and sub-Indicator Details

45 Are employees protected from recrimination or other negative consequences when reporting corruption (i.e. whistle-blowing)?
 
  45a: In law, civil servants who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences.
 
Score: YES  NO score
  Comments: There is no special law on whistle-blowing and no special procedures related to this issue. However, in spring 2006 Russia has adopted important international anti-corruption conventions produced by United Nations and Council of Europe that requires introducing similar regulation into national legislation. It is assumed whistle-blowing will be one of the concepts infused into Russian legislation.

In 2005, Russia passed a long-delayed law on witness-protection and allocated a significant amount of funding for its implementation in 2006-2008 (almost one billion Rubles, or almost US$40 million). However, fight against organized crime and not corruption was named the main objective of this program. Talk of the need for such a system started in the early 1990s. However, the law on state protection for victims, witnesses and other participants of criminal judicial procedures was passed only in summer 2004 and came into effect in 2005. In November 2006, the government approved rules for applying security measures to witnesses and victims who, if need be, may be provided with a new name, new place of residence and new job, and even a new face. Now witnesses are formally offered a broad range of "services" including bodyguards, changing of job, relocation, classification of data and finally such exotic measure as plastic surgery. By November 2006, no more than a thousand people have used the benefits provided by this law.

According to official data, 150,000 to 300,000 people that later are taken to courts became victims of illegal activities in Russia annually. Approximately 5,000 people or 2 percent need special protection. Minimum funding for witness protection program has to be at least 3.8 billion rubles annually.

According to Valeri Fedorov, one of the authors of the witness protection law, currently 10million people are criminal cases witnesses in Russia, and every fourth is threatened by criminals. According to the "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2006" report is submitted to the Congress by the Department of State in compliance with Section 665 of P.L. 107-228, the FY 03 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, on April 5, 2007, U.S. officials also worked with the presidential administration and the Ministry of Internal Affairs to develop implementing regulations for the countrys new witness protection program. During the year the program protected over 500 witnesses, including a small number of trafficking victims.

On November 8, 2006, Mayak Radio has conducted an interview with State Duma Deputy Victor Ilyukhin. He said that every year about 10 million people witness crimes, and more than half of victims do not go to police for fear of revenge by criminals. Almost one in five witnesses and their relatives get threatened during the investigation, and one in four changes his testimonies in court. According to Ministry of Interior of Russia, about 5,000 people need bodyguards, and about a thousand of them have to change the place of residence after court hearings.

References: [ LINK ] [ LINK ].

November 8, 2006, Mayak Radio interview with State Duma Security Committee Deputy Chairman Victor Ilyukhin, one of the main authors of the Witness Protection Law.

The law is available here: [ LINK ]

The Federal Witness protection Program is available here: [ LINK ].

An interesting if outdated interview with State Duma Security Committee Chairman Vladimir Vasiliev is available: [ LINK ]

  45b: In practice, civil servants who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences.
 
Score: 100  75  50  25  0  score
  Comments: In 2005, Russia passed Witness Protection Law and allocated a significant amount of funding for its implementation in 2006-2008 (almost one billion rubles or US$40 million). However, fight against organized crime and not corruption was named the main objective of this program. There is no data how many cases deal with whistle-blowers from public sector. According to experts, this program was applied largely to personal crimes, and not crimes against the state, i.e. bribery. However, there is a lack of funds for Witness Protection Program.

See more about it here: [ LINK ] and [ LINK ].

More on problems with implementation of this program see: [ LINK ]

References: [ LINK ].

November 8, 2006, Mayak Radio interview with State Duma Security Committee Deputy Chairman Victor Ilyukhin, one of the main authors of the Witness Protection Law.

Interesting discussion on implementation of Witness protection program is here: [ LINK ].

  45c: In law, private sector employees who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences.
 
Score: YES  NO score
  Comments: No, this field is not covered by private companies either.

References: An interview with Dr. Vasili A. Vlasikhin, legal expert (Moscow).

  45d: In practice, private sector employees who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences.
 
Score: 100  75  50  25  0  score
  Comments: The private sector does not cover this issue either, neither as a whole, nor individually.

References: An interview with Dr. Vasili A. Vlasikhin, legal expert (Moscow).

Peer Review Comments: They are doomed, and the cases are numerous.

46 In law, is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption?
 
  46: In law, is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption?
 
Score: YES  NO score
  Comments: The law doesn't specify any such mechanism. There are phone hotlines and e-mail addresses that the general public can use for placing complaints against public officials. However, General Prosecutor's Office under it's anti-corruption mandate is collecting such information regardless the position a person willing to report corruption holds.

For example, the Office of Prosecutor General in Sverdlovsk region in September 2007 opened a hotline through which citizens can report on corrupt officials. Though some experts claim this is nothing but an attempt to collect so-called "kompromat" on local bureaucrats on the eve of parliamentary December 2007 election and obtain an instrument of control over regional authorities. Very likely, this initiative will be replicated in other regions. (See more about it here: [ LINK ])

In February 2007, Ministry of Economic Development and Trade came up with a draft anti-corruption program that includes such a notion as setting up a hotline in every state body that citizens can use for reporting corruption among public officials (see more about it here: [ LINK ]).

References: Ministry of Economic Development and Trade Web site, Anti-corruption program for federal executive bodies, 2007-2008, available at [ LINK ].

47 In practice, is the internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption effective?
 
  47a: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption has a professional, full-time staff.
 
Score: 100  75  50  25  0  score
  Comments:

References: Interview with an Audit Chamber of Russia high-ranking official.

  47b: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption receives regular funding.
 
Score: 100  75  50  25  0  score
  Comments: No such mechanism exists.

References: An interview with a high-ranking official of Russian Audit Chamber.

  47c: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption acts on complaints within a reasonable time period.
 
Score: 100  75  50  25  0  score
  Comments: No such mechanism exists.

References: An interview with a high-ranking official of Russian Audit Chamber

  47d: In practice, when necessary, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption initiates investigations.
 
Score: 100  75  50  25  0  score
  Comments: No such mechanism exists.

References: An interview with a high-ranking official of the Russian Audit Chamber.

Global Integrity uses a Creative Commons licence, unless noted here: Terms of Use.
1029 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005 USA
Phone: 1.202.449.4100   -   Fax: 1.866.681.8047   -   info@globalintegrity.org