Post on 10-Dec-2018
The World Justice ProjectRule of Law Index™
2010The World Justice Project | IIndIndee w exex Index®
Mark DDDavavavvidididi AAAAgrgrgrasasastJuan Carrrrlolololos s s BoBoBoBoottett roJoel Martititit nenenn zAlejandrooo PPPPoonoo ceChristine S. PrPrPrrattttt
2012 - 2013
The World Justice ProjectRule of Law Index™
2010
Mark David AgrastJuan Carlos BoteroJoel MartinezAlejandro PonceChristine S. Pratt
With the collaboration of: Kelly Roberts
2012-2013The World Justice Project | Rule of Law Index®
The World Justice Project
Board of Directors:
Officers:
Executive Director:
Chief Research Officer:
Rule of Law Index 2012-2013 Team:
ISBN (print version): 978-0-9882846-2-3 ISBN (online version): 978-0-9882846-3-0
Graphic design:
Suggested citation:
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
II
1 | Preface
2 | Executive Summary
5 | Part I: Constructing the WJP Index
21 | Part II: The Rule of Law Around the World
23 | Regional Highlights
57 | Country Profiles
157 | Data Tables
183 | Data Notes
191 | Part III: Statistical Audit
201 | Part IV: Contributing Experts
229 | Part V: Acknowledgments
233 | About The World Justice Project
Contents
Preface
“The rule of law is the foundation for communities of opportunity and equity—it is the predicate for the eradication of poverty, violence, corruption, pandemics, and other threats to civil society.”WILLIAM H. NEUKOM, FOUNDER, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT
97countries covered
More than
97,000people and
2,500experts participated
PR
EF
AC
E
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Executive Summary
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
2
USES OF THE INDEX
»
»
»
DEFINING THE RULE OF LAW
I.
II.
III.
IV.
THE WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX 2012-2013
EX
EC
UT
IVE
SU
MM
AR
Y
3
ABOUT THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT
» Comprehensiveness:
» New data:
» Rule of law in practice:
» Anchored in actual experiences:
» Action oriented:
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
4
Part I: Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index |
INTRODUCTION
Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index
DEFINING THE RULE OF LAW
PA
RT
I: CO
NS
TR
UC
TIN
G T
HE
WJP
RU
LE
OF
LA
W IN
DE
X |
7
Box 1 : The rule of law in everyday life
Suppose the owner of a small business has a dispute with a client over a large, unpaid bill. What if her only recourse to settle the dispute is through the threat of physical violence? Consider the bridges,roads, or runways we traverse daily—or the offices and buildings in which we live, work, and play. What if building codes governing their design and safety were not enforced? Or suppose someone broke intoyour home and stole your belongings, and there was no means to reclaim your property and bring the perpetrator to justice? Although we may not be aware of it, the rule of law is a profoundly important part of our lives. It is the foundation for a system of rules to keep us safe, resolve disputes, and enable us to prosper. Let’s consider a few examples:
a. Business environmentImagine an investor seeking to commit resources abroad. She would probably think twice before investing in a country where corruption is rampant, property rights are ill-defined,and contracts are difficult to enforce. Uneven enforcement of regulation, corruption,insecure property rights, and ineffective means to settle disputes undermine legitimatebusiness and drive away both domestic and foreign investment.
b. Public worksSafe and reliable physical structures are essential to a thriving economy and an efficientsociety. Yet corrupt practices in the construction process abound, discouraging honestpractitioners from entering the market through prohibitive bribery and kickback costs. Inmany cases, for instance, it has been alleged that government officials and contractors havebeen complicit in using low-quality materials in order to pocket the surplus. Transparency inthe procurement process and effectively enforced regulations and safety codes help curtailillegal practices and increase the reliability and security of physical infrastructure.
c. Public healthMaintaining the physical health of a society is hugely reliant on its health care deliverysystems. Absenteeism, mismanagement, bribes, and informal payments undermine healthcare delivery and waste scarce resources. Unfortunately, it is in poor countries that peopleare most likely to have to pay bribes to obtain medical attention. As a result, many people donot receive adequate medical care.
d. EnvironmentCountries around the world have laws to protect the environment. Unfortunately, theselaws are not always enforced. Weak enforcement of environmental laws can lead to major problems, including pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, natural disasters, and poorwaste management. Effective enforcement and appropriate management are useful toolsin protecting the environment and public health without unduly constraining economicdevelopment. Adherence to the rule of law is essential to hold the government, businesses,civil society organizations, and communities accountable for sound environmental policies.
The rule of law affects all of us in our everyday lives. It is not only important to lawyers and judges;it matters to businessmen, builders, consumers, doctors, and journalists. Every sector of society is a stakeholder in the rule of law.
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
8
»
»
»
[T]he apartheid government, its offio cers and agents were accountable in accordance withthe laws; the laws were clear; publicized, and stable, and were upheld by law enforcementoffio cials and judges. What was missing was thesubstantive component of the rule of law. The process by which the laws were made was notfair (only whites, a minority of the population, had the vote). And the laws themselves were not fair. They institutionalized discrimination, vested broad discretionary powers in the executive, and failed to protect fundamental rights. Without a substantive content there would be no answer to the criticism, sometimes voiced, that the rule of law is ‘an empty vessel into which any law could be poured.’
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:
> The government and its officials and agents areaccountable under the law.
> The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the securityof persons and property.
> The process by which the laws are enacted,administered and enforced is accessible, fair andefficient.
> Justice is delivered by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who areof sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
PA
RT
I: CO
NS
TR
UC
TIN
G T
HE
WJP
RU
LE
OF
LA
W IN
DE
X |
9
THE 2012-2013 WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX
Limited Government Powers
Box 3 : Updates to the Conceptual Framework
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2012-2013 report introducesseveral conceptual changes. First, several sub-factorsfrom the Index 2011 report have been adjusted in theIndex 2012-2013 report: sub-factor 7.1 (people are awareof available remedies), sub-factor 7.2 (people can access and afford legal advice and representation),and sub-factor 7.3 (people can access and afford civil courts) from the Index 2011 report have been merged toform sub-factor 7.1 (people have access to affordable civil justice) of the current report. Second, sub-factor5.1 (the laws are comprehensible to the public) andsub-factor 5.2 (the laws are publicized and widely accessible) have been combined into sub-factor 5.1(the laws are publicized and accessible) of this year’s report. Similarly, sub-factor 5.5 (official drafts of laws are available to the public) and sub-factor 5.6 (official information is available to the public) have been merged into sub-factor 5.4 (official information is available on request). Third, for the first time data has beencollected on sub-factor 2.4 (government officials in the legislative branch do not use public office for private gain). Finally, in the measurement of Factor 2 (Absence of Corruption), several variables related to the crime of embezzlement have been incorporated into the Index.
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
10
THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT RULE OF LAW INDEXThe rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:
> The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law.
> The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of cleapersons and property.prop
> The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, efficient, and fair.
> Justice is delivered by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
These four universal principles which comprise the WJP’s notion of the rule of law are further developed inthe nine factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index.
Factors & Sub-FactorsFACTOR 6: Regulatory Enforcement
6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced
6.2 Government regulations are applied and enforced without improperinfluence
6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delay
6.4 Due process is respected in administrative proceedings
6.5 The Government does not expropriate without adequatecompensation
FACTOR 7: Civil Justice7.1 People can access and afford civil justice7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption7.4 Civil justice is free of improper government influence7.5 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delays7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced7.7 ADRs are accessible, impartial, and effective
FACTOR 8: Criminal Justice8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective8.2 Criminal adjudication system is timely and effective8.3 Correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behavior8.4 Criminal system is impartial8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption8.6 Criminal system is free of improper government influence8.7 Due process of law and rights of the accused
FACTOR 9: Informal Justice9.1 Informal justice is timely and effective9.2 Informal justice is impartial and free of improper influence9.3 Informal justice respects and protects fundamental rights
FACTOR 1: Limited Government Powers1.1 Government powers are defined in the fundamental law1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary
1.4 Government powers are effectively limited by independent auditingand review
1.5 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct1.6 Government powers are subject to non-governmental checks1.7 Transition of power is subject to the law
FACTOR 2: Absence of Corruption2.1 Government officials in the executive branch do not use public office
for private gain
2.2 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use public office forprivate gain
2.3 Government officials in the police and the military do not use public office for private gain
2.4 Government officials in the legislative branch do not use public officefor private gain
FACTOR 3: Order and Security3.1 Crime is effectively controlled3.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited3.3 People do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances
FACTOR 4: Fundamental Rights4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination4.2 The right to life and security of the person is effectively guaranteed4.3 Due process of law and rights of the accused4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression is effectively guaranteed4.5 Freedom of belief and religion is effectively guaranteed
4.6 Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy is effectively guaranteed
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association is effectively guaranteed4.8 Fundamental labor rights are effectively guaranteed
FACTOR 5: Open Government5.1 The laws are publicized and accessible5.2 The laws are stable5.3 Right to petition the government and public participation5.4 Official information is available on request
PA
RT
I: CO
NS
TR
UC
TIN
G T
HE
WJP
RU
LE
OF
LA
W IN
DE
X |
11
Box 4 : The WJP Rule of Law Index methodology in a nutshell
The production of the WJP Rule of Law Index may be summarized in ten steps:
1. The WJP developed the conceptual framework summarized in the Index’s 9 factors and 48 sub-factors, in consultation with academics, practitioners, and community leaders fromaround the world.
2. The Index team developed a set of five questionnaires based on the Index’s conceptualframework, to be administered to experts and the general public. Questionnaires weretranslated into several languages and adapted to reflect commonly used terms and expressions.
3. The team identified, on average, more than 300 potential local experts per country torespond to the qualified respondents’ questionnaires, and engaged the services of leading local polling companies.
4. Polling companies conducted pre-test pilot surveys of the general public in consultation withthe Index team, and launched the final survey.
5. The team sent the questionnaires to local experts and engaged in continual interaction withthem.
6. The Index team collected and mapped the data onto the 48 sub-factors.
7. The Index team constructed the final scores using a five-step process:
a. Codified the questionnaire items as numeric values.
b. Produced raw country scores by aggregating the responses from several individuals(experts or general public).
c. Normalized the raw scores.
d. Aggregated the normalized scores into sub-factors and factors using simple averages.
e. Produced the final rankings using the normalized scores.
8. The data were subject to a series of tests to identify possible biases and errors. For example,the Index team cross-checked all sub-factors against more than 60 third-party sources,including quantitative data and qualitative assessments drawn from local and international organizations.
9. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by the Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, in collaboration with the Index team, to assessthe statistical reliability of the results.
10. Finally, the data were organized into country reports, tables, and figures to facilitate theirpresentation and interpretation.
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
12
Absence of Corruption
Order and Security
PA
RT
I: CO
NS
TR
UC
TIN
G T
HE
WJP
RU
LE
OF
LA
W IN
DE
X |
13
Fundamental Rights
Open government
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
14
Regulatory enforcement
Civil Justice
Criminal Justice
PA
RT
I: CO
NS
TR
UC
TIN
G T
HE
WJP
RU
LE
OF
LA
W IN
DE
X |
15
Table 1: Countries Indexed in 2012-2013
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
16
Informal Justice
Box 5 : Law in practice vs. law on books
In order to evaluate the rule of law in a given country, it is important to have an understanding of the country’s laws and institutions. However,this is not enough. It is necessary to look not only at the laws as written (de jure) but at how they are actually implemented in practice and experienced by those who are subject to them (de facto). The WJP’s Rule of Law Index methodology focuses entirely on adherence to the rule of lawin practice.
MEASURING THE RULE OF LAW
APPROACH
PA
RT
I: CO
NS
TR
UC
TIN
G T
HE
WJP
RU
LE
OF
LA
W IN
DE
X |
17
DATA AND AGGREGATION
USING THE WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
18
»
»
»
»
»
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PA
RT
I: CO
NS
TR
UC
TIN
G T
HE
WJP
RU
LE
OF
LA
W IN
DE
X |
19
7.
COMPLEMENTARITY WITH OTHER WJP INITIATIVES
»
»
»
»
»
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
20
Part II: The Rule of Law Around the World |
Regional Highlights
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD |
23
AustriaBelgiumCanadaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceItalyNetherlandsNorwayPortugalSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
COUNTRIES
AVERAGE RANKINGS FOR: WESTERN EUROPE & NORTH AMERICA
LIMITED GOVERNMENT POWERS
ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION
ORDER AND SECURITY
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OPEN GOVERNMENT
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
CIVIL JUSTICE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
12/97
13/97
17/97
12/97
14/97
14/97
14/97
14/97
Western Europe & North AmericaCountries in Western Europe and North America tend to outperform most other countries in all dimensions. These countries are characterized by relatively low levels of corruption, open and accountable governments, and effective criminal justice systems. The greatest weakness in Western Europe and North America appears to be related to the accessibility of the civil justice system, especially for marginalized segments of the population. This is an area that requires attention from both policy makers and civil society. While protection of fundamental rights in this region is the highest in the world, police discrimination against foreigners and ethnic minorities is an issue of concern in most countries.
Austria ranks among the top 10 globally in five dimensions of the rule of law and among the top 20 in the remaining categories. The government is accountable and free of corruption, and fundamental rights are strongly protected. Although the country is very open, people in Austria face more difficulties in accessing official documentation than do individuals in most developed nations. The country’s courts are accessible and free of improper influence. However, discrimination by judicial personnel and law enforcement officers against disadvantaged groups is perceived to be a problem.
Belgium ranks in the top 20 worldwide in seven of the eight dimensions measured by the Index. The country scores well in government accountability (ranking sixteenth) and protection of fundamental rights (eleventh), although police discrimination against foreigners
is perceived to be a significant problem. The judicial system is relatively independent, accessible, and affordable. However, judicial delays in civil cases are a source of concern.
Canada performs well in all eight dimensions of the rule of law. The government is accountable (ranking fifteenth), corruption is minimal (ranking twelfth) and the country generally observes fundamental rights (ranking eighteenth), although discrimination against immigrants and the poor is a source of concern. The country is relatively safe from crime, civil courts are accessible and independent, and the criminal justice system is effective in bringing offenders to justice. However, delays in court processes are perceived to be a problem.
Denmark is the world leader in two dimensions—government accountability and criminal justice—and places in the top 10 in all dimensions. Denmark’s public institutions are transparent, efficient, and free of corruption. The
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | W
ESTERN
EURO
PE & N
ORTH
AM
ERIC
A
25
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
26
Box 6 : Equal Access to Justice
As understood by the World Justice Project, access to justice refers to the ability of all peopleto seek and obtain effective remedies through accessible, affordable, impartial, efficient, effective, and culturally competent institutions of justice. Well-functioning dispute resolution systems enable people to protect their rights against infringement by others, including powerful parties and the state.
All around the world, people’s ability to uselegal channels to resolve their disputes is often impeded by obstacles such as financial barriers,language problems, complexity of procedures, or simply lack of knowledge, disempowerment,and exclusion. This problem is not restrictedto developing countries. In many developednations, the formal civil justice systems, althoughindependent and free of improper influence, remain largely inaccessible to disadvantagedgroups.
The cases of Finland and the United States provide an illustrative example. When facinga common civil dispute (in this case, an unpaid debt), most people in Finland, regardless of their socio-economic status, tend to use formaldispute-resolution channels, while only a few choose to take no action. The situation is quite
different in the United States. While high-incomeAmericans behave similarly to the Finnish, low-income people act very differently—only a fewuse the court system (including small-claimscourts), while many take no action to resolvetheir disputes. The variances between countriesmight be attributable to differences in attorney’sfees, availability of legal services, awareness of available remedies, disempowerment, differentinstitutional settings, or differences related tothe organization of the society, to mention justa few. For example, in the United States, amongthe low income litigants, 81% did not seek legal assistance because they felt that they could notafford the lawyer’s fees, compared to 48% of thehigh income litigants. In Finland, this differencebetween high and low income litigants is not aspronounced as in the United States. While thecauses of these patterns are subject to debate,few will disagree with the view that more workis needed to ensure that all people are able tobenefit from a functioning civil justice system.
Figure 2: Use of legal assistance in Finland and in the United States% of respondents who did not use legal assistance because they considered theycould not afford a lawyer’s fees
HIG
HIN
CO
ME
LOW
IN
CO
ME
UNITED STATES
HIG
H
INC
OM
E
LOW
INC
OM
EFINLAND
Figure 3: Use of formal dispute mechanisms in Finland and the United States% of respondents who filed a lawsuit in court (including small claims court) to resolve a civil dispute vs. % who took no action to resolve the dispute, grouped by household income level
UNITED STATES
HIG
H IN
CO
ME
LOW
IN
CO
ME
Filed Lawsuit
LOW
IN
CO
ME
HIG
H IN
CO
ME
Took no action
HIG
H IN
CO
ME
LOW
INC
OM
E
HIG
H IN
CO
ME
LOW
INC
OM
E
FINLAND
Filed Lawsuit Took no action
Figure 1: Access to civil justice in high income countriesScore of factor 7, where 1 signifies higher adherence to the rule of law
NORWAYNETHERLANDS
GERMANYSINGAPORE
FINLANDDENMARK
SWEDENJAPAN
NEW ZEALANDAUSTRIA
AUSTRALIACANADA
REPUBLIC OF KOREAESTONIA
HONG KONG SAR, CHINA
BELGIUM
CZECH REPUBLICSPAIN
PORTUGALGREECE
UAESLOVENIA
POLAND
ITALYHUNGARY
CROATIA
UNITED KINGDOM
FRANCE
UNITED STATES
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | W
ESTERN
EURO
PE & N
ORTH
AM
ERIC
A
27
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
28
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | W
ESTERN
EURO
PE & N
ORTH
AM
ERIC
A
29
COUNTRIESAustraliaCambodiaChinaHong Kong SAR, ChinaIndonesiaJapanRepublic of KoreaMalaysiaMongoliaNew ZealandPhilippinesSingaporeThailandVietnam
COUNTRIESAustraliaCambodiaChinaH K SAR Chi
AVERAGE RANKINGS FOR: EAST ASIA & PACIFIC
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
42/97
30
46/97
39
LIMITED GOVERNMENT POWERS
ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION40/97
ORDER AND SECURITY31/97
OPEN GOVERNMENT42/97
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT41/97
CIVIL JUSTICE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
46/97
33/97
East Asia & PacificThe East Asia and Pacific (EAP) region is one of the most diverse and complex regions in the world. Taken as a whole, the EAP region falls in the upper half of the global rankings in most categories; however, there are important differences in rule of law outcomes across countries encompassing the region. Wealthy nations, such as Australia, New Zealand, and Japan rank among the top 15 globally in nearly all categories measured by the Index, yet lag behind regional peers in guaranteeing equal treatment to disadvantaged groups. In contrast, middle income countries in the region face challenges in combating corruption, strengthening accountability, and improving how effectively and efficiently government agencies and courts function. In countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam, and China, judicial independence is an area in need of attention, as is the poor record on respect for fundamental rights, including labor rights, freedom of assembly, and freedom of opinion and expression. Accessibility of official information in East Asia and Pacific countries is lower than in other regions of the world.
Australia ranks among the top ten globally in five of the eight dimensions measured by the Index. The civil courts are efficient and independent, although access to affordable legal counsel remains limited, particularly for disadvantaged groups. The country ranks among the best in the world in protecting most fundamental rights, but lags behind most other high income countries in guaranteeing equal treatment and non-discrimination, especially for immigrants and low-income people.
Cambodia is ranked lower than most other countries in the region on all dimensions. The overall legal and institutional environment remains quite weak, which is highlighted by the low scores in key areas, including effective limits on government powers (ranking ninetieth); regulatory enforcement; access to civil justice; and absence of corruption (ranked eighty-fifth). Property rights are very weak, and police abuses remain a significant problem. On the other hand, Cambodia has lower crime rates than most countries in the low income group.
China scores well on public safety, ranking thirty-second overall and fourth among its income peers. The criminal justice system is relatively effective, but compromised by political interference and violations of due process of law. Administrative agencies are lax in enforcing regulations and vulnerable to improper influence (ranking eightieth). The civil court system is relatively speedy and accessible, but judicial
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
30
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | EA
ST ASIA
& PA
CIFIC
31
SOUTH ASIA
LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN
EASTERN EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA
EAST ASIA & PACIFIC
WESTERN EUROPE & NORTH AMERICA
Figure 4: Impunity around the world Regional sub-factor 1.5 scores, where higher marks signify higher adherence to the rule of law
Box 7 : Impunity
The principle that no one is above the law is fundamental to the rule of law, which requires that all people, including government officials and agents, be subject to the same legal rules.In countries where the rule of law is strong,government officials are held accountable for official misconduct. In countries where the rule of law is weak, those who are politically connected are rarely called to account for their misdeeds.
Impunity means denial of justice for systematic human rights violations; it prevents corruptofficials from being disciplined; and it undermines public confidence in the rule of law. The WJPRule of Law Index addresses impunity in Factor 1 under sub-factor 1.5 “Government officialsare sanctioned for misconduct.” The sub-factorapplies to all government officials, whether theyserve in the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judiciary, the police or the military.
To varying degrees, all countries struggle withthe problem of impunity. Worldwide, only 37% of people surveyed by the WJP in 2012 believe
that a high-ranking government officer who isexposed for stealing government money would be prosecuted and punished. But the extent of the problem varies substantially by country and region. In general, Western European and NorthAmerican countries receive the highest scores,followed by East Asia and Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Latin America and South Asia are in last place, with 12 of the 16 Latin American countries indexed by the World Justice Project in 2012 ranked in the 30% percentile or lower.
A culture of impunity undermines respect for fundamental rights, breeds corruption, and leadsto a vicious cycle of law-breaking, as it neutralizes the deterrent effect of punishment. Impunity alsoerodes public trust in state institutions, signalsto citizens that laws do not matter, and acts as a drag on development. With so much at risk, more needs be done in every country to hold officials accountable and build a culture that respects therule of law.
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
32
Table 2: Rule of law rankings in Brazil, China, India, and Russia (BRIC Economies)
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | EA
ST ASIA
& PA
CIFIC
33
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
34
COUNTRIES
LIMITED GOVERNMENT POWERS
AVERAGE RANKINGS FOR: EASTERN EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
57/97
52/97
37/97
45/97
51/97
51/97
49/97
50/97
ORDER AND SECURITY
ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CIVIL JUSTICE
OPEN GOVERNMENT
AlbaniaBelarusBosnia and HerzegovinaBulgariaCroatiaCzech RepublicEstoniaGeorgiaHungaryKazakhstanKyrgyzstanMacedoniaMoldovaPolandRomaniaRussiaSerbiaSloveniaTurkeyUkraineUzbekistan
Eastern Europe & Central AsiaPerformances vary greatly amongst countries in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region covered by the Index, with some nations scoring nearly the same as the strongest performers in the world. Accountability remains a major challenge throughout the region, with many countries failing to consolidate adequate systems for curtailing abuse of power. In addition, regulatory agencies and courts are often inefficient and subject to undue influence. The region’s best scores are in the area of order and security, due to relatively low crime rates and limited outbreaks of violence.
Albania has significant problems in a number of rule of law dimensions. Checks on executive power are weak, (ranking seventy-first) and official corruption is pervasive (ranking eighty-fourth). Rules and regulations are difficult to enforce, and the judiciary is plagued by corruption and political interference. Police abuses and harsh conditions at correctional facilities are also significant problems. On the other hand, Albania ranks first among lower middle-income countries in protection of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.
Belarus outperforms most of its income-level and regional peers in several rule of law dimensions, including order and security (ranking thirty-third globally), regulatory enforcement (ranking thirty-fifth), and civil and criminal justice (ranking twenty-sixth and thirty-fourth), respectively. On the other hand, the country shows severe deficiencies in government accountability (ranking ninety-first), very weak protection of fundamental rights (ranking eighty-fourth) and lack
of governmental openness (ranking eighty-seventh). Major problems include lack of independence of the judiciary and the legislature, severe restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression, privacy, and association, and limitations on citizens’ right to petition the government and to access official information.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks second among upper middle income countries in delivering effective criminal justice. The country ranks seventh among its income group in protecting fundamental rights and providing order and security. The country’s weakest performance is in the dimension of civil justice (ranking twentieth among upper middle income countries and sixty-fourth overall), mainly due to severe delays and ineffective enforcement mechanisms. Other areas of concern are official corruption, particularly among the executive and the legislature, lack of effective sanctions for official misconduct, and discrimination against ethnic minorities.
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | EA
STERN
EURO
PE & C
ENTR
AL A
SIA
35
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
36
Middle tercile
Bottom tercile
Not indexed
Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement
Top tercile
Modern societies use public enforcement of government regulations to ensure thatthe public interest is not subordinated to the private interests of regulated entities. Around the world, regulations vary widelydue to differences in policies, institutional environments, and political choices. Whatever those choices may be, regulations are futile if they are not properly enforced by authorities. Ensuring compliance with regulationsis thus a key feature of the rule of law.Effective regulatory enforcement depends, in turn, on accountability, independence, and transparency to ensure that regulatory institutions act within the limits authorizedby law.
The WJP Rule of Law Index addressesregulatory enforcement in Factor 6. This factor assesses the effectiveness of regulatory enforcement in practice; the absence of improper influence by public officials orprivate interests; adherence to due process in administrative procedures; and the absence of government expropriation of private property without adequate compensation. Rather than
analyzing specific statutes, the Index usessimple scenarios to explore the outcomesassociated with activities that are regulatedin all jurisdictions, such as environmentalstandards, public health, workplaceconditions, and permits and licenses.
Regulatory effectiveness varies greatly acrosscountries (see Figure 5). On a scale between0 and 1, where 1 signifies higher adherenceto the rule of law, the index of regulatoryenforcement has an average value of 0.72 inhigh-income countries, 0.51 in upper middleincome countries, 0.45 in lower-middle incomecountries, and 0.40 in low-income countries.In general, as economies develop, they findmore effective ways to implement existing regulations within the limits imposed by law,but this is not always the case. As countriesengage in regulatory reforms, special effortsshould be made to improve the mechanismsthat are used to guarantee that such laws are implemented and enforced in an efficient,effective, and accountable manner.
Box 8 : Regulatory compliance around the world
Figure 5: Regulatory enforcement around the worldCountries grouped in terciles according to their factor 6 score
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | EA
STERN
EURO
PE & C
ENTR
AL A
SIA
37
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
38
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | EA
STERN
EURO
PE & C
ENTR
AL A
SIA
39
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
40
EgyptIranJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaUnited Arab Emirates
COUNTRIES
CRIMINAL JUSTICE 54/97
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OPEN GOVERNMENT
AVERAGE RANKINGS FOR: MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA
53/97
46/97
48/97
76/97
57/97
49/97
46/97
LIMITED GOVERNMENT POWERS
ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION
ORDER AND SECURITY
CIVIL JUSTICE
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
Middle East & North AfricaThe WJP Rule of Law Index 2012-2013 report covers seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa region: Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. Overall, the region receives middling scores for most factors, although the Arab Spring has put several countries on the road towards establishing governments which are more open and accountable, and functioning systems of checks and balances. Compared to the rest of the world, crime is low. The region’s lowest scores are in the area of fundamental rights due to restrictions on freedom of religion and free speech, and discrimination against women and minorities.
Egypt is in the process of establishing a functioning system of checks and balances (ranked fortieth overall and first in the region) and an open government (ranking fifty-first overall and second in the region). Administrative agencies are inefficient, lax in enforcing regulations, and affected by improper influence. The civil justice system is slow and subject to political pressure. Security is the lowest in the region and people frequently resort to violence to resolve grievances. Violations of fundamental rights, most notably freedom of religion, privacy, due process, and discrimination against women and minorities are also areas of concern.
Iran’s system of law enforcement is relatively strong but is often used as an instrument to perpetrate abuses. The country ranks last in the world on protection of fundamental rights. Government accountability is weak (ranking eighty-fifth globally and last
within the region), and corruption persists. Administrative agencies are relatively effective in enforcing regulations (ranking forty-first overall and eleventh among upper-middle income countries), and courts are accessible and relatively speedy, but subject to political interference.
Jordan is in the top half of the rankings among upper-middle income countries in most dimensions, with relatively high marks in the areas of security, civil and criminal justice, absence of corruption, and effective regulatory enforcement. Property rights are also well protected. Protection of fundamental rights is weak (ranking seventy-fifth), particularly with regard to discrimination and labor rights.
Lebanon ranks first in the region on protection of fundamental rights (ranked thirty-ninth globally), and has relatively effective checks on government power (ranking forty-fourth), including a vibrant civil society and a free media. The country ranks poorly on measures
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | M
IDD
LE EAST &
NO
RTH A
FRIC
A
41
Box 9 : Value of Indicators
Indices and indicators are very useful tools. The systematic tracking of infant mortality rates, for instance, has greatly contributed to improving health outcomes around the globe. In a similar fashion, the WJP Rule of Law Index monitors the health of a country’s institutional environment—such as whether government officials are accountable under the law, andwhether legal institutions protect fundamental rights and provide ordinary people access tojustice. By producing independent, comprehensive, and policy-oriented rule of law indicatorsworldwide, the Index aims to be a reliable source of impartial data that can be used to measureand assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of law in practice, and help identify priorities forreform. In these ways, the Index can be a powerful tool for mobilizing efforts by policymakers and civil society to strengthen the rule of law.
One example of the usefulness of the Index in informing policy debates comes from thework of the WJP in Tunisia. In May 2012, the WJP hosted a small, country-level workshop inTunis, which convened more than two dozen well-placed representatives of Tunisia’s civilsociety, government, media, and business sectors to come together to assess rule of law challenges facing Tunisia and develop recommendations for the country’s ongoing reformprocess in the aftermath of the Tunisian revolution. At the meeting, new polling data fromthe WJP Rule of Law Index was used to help identify strengths and weaknesses of the rule of law in Tunisia. Workshop participants discussed the transition in Tunisia in light of the Index findings and international examples of constitutional transition processes in Afghanistan,Spain, Colombia, and South Africa. They developed a set of recommendations and presented them to the press and to Tunisian government leaders.
The outcome of this engagement was a document both produced and owned by Tunisians, which discussed the importance of the rule of law to Tunisia’s historic transition. This projectexemplifies the value of indices and indicators in informing policy discussions and the transformative power of multidisciplinary collaboration in strengthening the rule of law.
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
42
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | M
IDD
LE EAST &
NO
RTH A
FRIC
A
43
LIMITED GOVERNMENT POWERS
ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION
ORDER AND SECURITY
OPEN GOVERNMENT
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
CIVIL JUSTICE
AVERAGE RANKINGS FOR: LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
56/97
57/97
72/97
49/97
52/97
54/97
63/97
CRIMINAL JUSTICE 68/97
COUNTRIESArgentinaBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaPeruUruguayVenezuela
Latin America & the CaribbeanLatin America presents a picture of sharp contrasts. In spite of recent movements toward openness and political freedoms that have positioned many countries at the forefront of protecting basic rights and civil liberties, the region’s public institutions remain fragile. Corruption and a lack of government accountability are still prevalent, and the perception of impunity remains widespread. Furthermore, public institutions in Latin America are not as efficient as those of countries in other regions, and police forces struggle to provide protection from crime and to punish perpetrators for abuses. Crime rates in Latin American countries are the highest in the world and their criminal investigation and adjudication systems rank among the worst.
Argentina faces challenges in many dimensions of the rule of law. Government accountability is weak, partly because of the poor performance of government agencies in investigating allegations of misconduct, as well as political interference with law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. Regulatory agencies are perceived as ineffective (ranking seventy-fifth globally and fourth to last in the region) and property rights are weak. Another area of concern is the high incidence of crime. In contrast, Argentina performs well on protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and freedom of assembly and association. The court system, although slow and not fully independent, is relatively accessible.
Bolivia is one of the weakest performers in the region in many dimensions
of the rule of law. The country faces challenges in terms of transparency and accountability of public institutions, reflecting a climate characterized by impunity, corruption, and political interference. The judicial system is inefficient and affected by corruption. The country performs poorly in the areas of discrimination and respect for fundamental rights, most notably freedom of opinion and expression. Property rights are weak, and police abuses are a significant problem. Bolivia’s best performance is in the area of order and security, where it ranks sixty-third globally, and fourth among its regional peers.
Brazil follows Chile and Uruguay as the third-best performer in the region and has the highest marks overall among the BRIC economies. The country has a good system of checks on executive power (ranked thirty-fifth), although a perceived culture of impunity among government officials is a source of concern. Fundamental rights are generally respected, with Brazil ranking
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
44
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | LA
TIN A
MER
ICA
& TH
E CA
RIB
BEA
N
45
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
46
Figure 6: Burglary rates in Latin America% of people who have experienced a burglary
DO
MIN
ICA
N R
EPU
BLIC
BOLI
VIA
PAN
AM
A
NIC
ARA
GU
A
CH
ILE
CO
LOM
BIA
URU
GU
AY
ARG
ENTI
NA
JAM
AIC
A
EL S
ALV
AD
OR
MEX
ICO
BRA
ZIL
PERU
ECU
AD
OR
VEN
EZU
ELA
MID
DLE
-INCO
ME
COU
NTR
IES
GU
ATE
MA
LA
Figure 7: Conviction rates in Latin America% of perpetrators of burglaries who are captured, prosecuted, and punished
DO
MIN
ICA
N R
EPU
BLIC
MID
DLE
-INCO
ME
COU
NTR
IES
PAN
AM
AN
ICA
RAG
UA
CH
ILE
CO
LOM
BIA
URU
GU
AY
ARG
ENTI
NA
BOLI
VIA
EL S
ALV
AD
OR
MEX
ICO
BRA
ZIL
PERU
ECU
AD
OR
VEN
EZU
ELA
JAM
AIC
A
GU
ATE
MA
LA
Crime rates in Latin America are among the highest in the world (Figure 6). Although there are many different contributing factors, one of the most important relates to deficiencies in the criminal justice system. A well-functioning criminal justice system serves to inhibit crime by providing strong disincentives to potential lawbreakers. An ineffective and corrupt system, on the otherhand, provides little deterrence to criminal behavior.
With high crime rates prevalent throughout Latin America, the state of the region’s criminal justice system is a cause for concern. Criminal investigations in much of the region are ineffective and criminal adjudications are often unreliable, resulting in low arrest and conviction rates (Figure 7). Systemic corruption among judges and law enforcement officials (second only to sub-Saharan Africa) adds to the problem. In manycountries, the possibility for offenders to buy
their way out of punishment renders theentire system toothless. Moreover, in manycountries, when perpetrators are caughtand imprisoned, they continue to engagein criminal activity from within the prisonsystem. Sub-factor 8.3 measures whether acountry’s correctional system is effective inreducing criminal behavior. Latin Americaranks last overall, and contains seven of the 13 weakest performers.
An ineffective criminal justice system undermines public confidence and canlead to the adoption of harsh measuresthat violate rights without enhancingpublic safety. Reducing crime rates in Latin America requires, among other things,comprehensive reform of the criminaljustice system that embraces all the actorsin order to build a system that deters crime and incapacitates offenders whilerespecting human rights.
Box 10 : Crime rates in Latin America
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | LA
TIN A
MER
ICA
& TH
E CA
RIB
BEA
N
47
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
48
LIMITED GOVERNMENT POWERS
ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION
ORDER AND SECURITY
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OPEN GOVERNMENT
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
CIVIL JUSTICE
AVERAGE RANKINGS FOR: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
63/97
67/97
71/97
68/97
70/97
68/97
58/97
CRIMINAL JUSTICE 67/97
BotswanaBurkina FasoCameroonCôte d’IvoireEthiopiaGhanaKenyaLiberiaMadagascarMalawiNigeriaSenegalSierra LeoneSouth AfricaTanzaniaUgandaZambiaZimbabwe
COUNTRIES
Sub-Saharan AfricaWhen examined holistically as a region, Sub-Saharan Africa (AFR) lags behind other regions around the world in nearly all dimensions of the rule of law. Despite ongoing reforms, many countries lack adequate checks on executive authority, and government accountability is also weak. Many public institutions and courts throughout the region are inefficient and vulnerable to undue influence. Crime and vigilante justice also weigh heavily on the region. Although the region’s record on fundamental rights is mixed, most countries do relatively well in protecting the fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly. Top performers in the region include Botswana and Ghana, which have begun to outperform some higher income countries in several dimensions.
Botswana ranks first in the region in all dimensions of the rule of law but one. There is an effective system of checks and balances, including an independent judiciary and a free press. Corruption is minimal and all branches of government operate effectively. Fundamental rights are generally respected (ranking fifth in the region), although limitations on the right to privacy and discrimination against immigrants and ethnic minorities are areas of concern. Although the civil and criminal justice systems compare favorably to other countries in the region, delays and the poor condition of correctional facilities are areas in need of attention.
Burkina Faso outperforms most of its regional and income peers in all but one dimension of the rule of law. As compared to other countries in the region, the country scores well in the areas of
regulatory enforcement and civil justice, ranking third and fourth in the region, respectively. The country also performs relatively well in freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, and protection of fundamental labor rights. The country ranks seventy-ninth in government accountability due to the lack of rigorous checks on the executive and political interference among the different branches of government. Although not as pervasive as in other parts of Africa, corruption is commonplace, and crime and vigilante justice are significant challenges. The criminal justice system also requires attention (ranking sixty-third overall and ninth within the region), particularly as concerns the lack of due process and harsh conditions in correctional facilities.
Cameroon lags behind its regional and income peers in most categories. The country faces challenges in terms of accountability and the functioning of public institutions. Checks and balances are poor (ranking ninety-fourth overall
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | SU
B-SA
HA
RA
N A
FRIC
A
49
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
50
Box 11 : Fundamental Rights
Upper quartile
Lower quartile
Bottom quartile
Not indexed
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Top quartile
Figure 8: Fundamental Rights around the worldCountries grouped in quartiles according to their Factor 4 score.
In 1948, the United Nations General Assemblyadopted the Universal Declaration of HumanRights. Its Preamble explicitly recognizes thecentrality of fundamental rights to the ruleof law, stating that “it is essential, if man isnot to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny andoppression, that human rights should beprotected by the rule of law.”
The WJP Rule of Law Index addresses protectionof fundamental rights in Factor 4, measuringhow effectively countries uphold and protecta menu of rights and freedoms that are firmlyestablished under international law. These include: the right to equal treatment and the
absence of discrimination, the right to life and security of the person, due process of law andrights of the accused, freedom of opinion andexpression, freedom of belief and religion, theabsence of arbitrary interference with privacy,freedom of assembly and association, and the protection of fundamental labor rights.
Figure 8 illustrates the wide variations from region to region in the extent to whichfundamental rights are given effectiveprotection.
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | SU
B-SA
HA
RA
N A
FRIC
A
51
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
52
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | SU
B-SA
HA
RA
N A
FRIC
A
53
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
54
COUNTRIESBangladeshIndiaNepalPakistanSri Lanka
LIMITED GOVERNMENT POWERS
ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION
ORDER AND SECURITY
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OPEN GOVERNMENT
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
CIVIL JUSTICE
AVERAGE RANKINGS FOR: SOUTH ASIA
60/97
75/97
82/97
69/97
75/97
81/97
CRIMINAL JUSTICE 59/97
71/97
South Asia
Although many countries in the region have made efforts to strengthen governance, South Asia, as a region, is the weakest performer overall in most dimensions of the rule of law. These countries are characterized by high levels of corruption and a lack of government accountability. Administrative agencies are inefficient and civil courts are slow. Civil conflict and insecurity are major threats to stability and progress. The region has relatively low crime rates. Criminal justice systems, although not without problems, perform slightly better than those in other regions of the world.
Bangladesh scores poorly in government accountability (ranking eighty-third globally and twelfth among low-income countries), and administrative agencies and courts are extremely inefficient and corrupt. The country faces serious challenges in the dimension of civil justice, in which it ranks last in the world, mainly because of the lengthy duration of cases and judicial corruption. Human rights violations and police abuses are also a significant problem. Bangladesh’s best performance is in the area of order and security, where it ranks seventy-second globally and ninth among low-income countries. The country has lower crime rates than many countries with higher levels of economic development, although mob justice is a persistent problem.
India has a robust system of checks and balances (ranked thirty-seventh worldwide and second among lower middle income countries), an independent judiciary, strong protections for freedom of speech, and a relatively open
government (ranking fiftieth globally and fourth among lower-middle income countries). Administrative agencies do not perform well (ranking seventy-ninth), and the civil court system ranks poorly (ranking seventy-eighth), mainly because of deficiencies in the areas of court congestion, enforcement, and delays in processing cases. Corruption is a significant problem (ranking eighty-third), and police discrimination and abuses are not unusual. Order and security — including crime, civil conflict, and political violence— is a serious concern (ranked second lowest in the world).
Nepal outperforms its regional peers and most other low income countries in several dimensions of the rule of law. The country’s best scores are in the areas of criminal justice (ranking first among low income countries and second in the region), protection of fundamental rights (ranking third among low income countries and second in the region), and absence of crime. Rule of law areas of particular concern in the c o u n t r y
PAR
T II: THE R
ULE O
F LAW
AR
OU
ND
THE W
OR
LD | SO
UTH
ASIA
55
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
56
Country Profiles |
HOW TO READ THE COUNTRY PROFILES
1 Section 1—Scores for the Rule of Law Factors
2 Section 2— Disaggregated Scores
Country Profiles
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
58
Highest possible score (1.00)Highest possible score (1.00)
A sub-factor is representedby a radius from the center of the circle to theperiphery
Lowest possible score (0.00)Lowest possible score (0.00)
Purple Line: Featured Country
Green Line: Regional Peers Regional Peers
Orange Line: Income level PeersIncome-level Peers
HOW TO READ THE COUNTRY PROFILES
2 Section 2
1 Section 1
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES |
59
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
53% Urban 19% in threelargest cities
3m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
ALBANIA
Key Lower middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Albania
Tirana, Durres, Elbasan
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
60
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
93% Urban 13% in three largest cities
42m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
ARGENTINA
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Argentina
Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Rosario
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | A
RG
ENTIN
A
61
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
89% Urban50% in threelargest cities
22m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Pacific
Region
AUSTRALIA
Key High income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Australia
Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
62
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
68% Urban 27% in three largest cities
8m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
& North America
Region
AUSTRIA
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Austria
Vienna, Graz, Linz
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | A
USTR
IA
63
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
28% Urban 7% in three largest cities
161m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
South AsiaRegion
BANGLADESH
Key Low income South AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Bangladesh
Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
64
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
75% Urban 28% in three largest cities
9m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
BELARUS
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Belarus
Minsk, Gomel, Mogilev
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | B
ELARU
S
65
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
97% Urban18% in three largest cities
10m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
& North America
Region
BELGIUM
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Belgium
Brussels, Antwerp, Gent
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
66
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
67% Urban 49% in threelargest cities
10m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
BOLIVIA
Key Lower middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Bolivia
La Paz, Santa Cruz, Cochabamba
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | B
OLIV
IA
67
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
48% Urban 14% in threelargest cities
4m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Tuzla
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
68
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
49% Urban18% in three largest cities
2m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
BOTSWANA
Key Upper middle income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Botswana
Gaborone, Francistown, Molepolole
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | B
OTSW
AN
A
69
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
87% Urban 19% in threelargest cities
199m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
BRAZIL
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Brazil
São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
70
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
71% Urban27% in three largest cities
7m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
BULGARIA
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Bulgaria
Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | B
ULG
AR
IA
71
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
26% Urban13% in three largest cities
17m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
BURKINA FASO
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Burkina Faso
Ouagadougou, Bobo-Dioulasso, Dedougou
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
72
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
20% Urban17% in threelargest cities
15m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
CAMBODIA
Key Low income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Cambodia
Phnom Penh, Battambang, Kampong Cham
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | C
AM
BO
DIA
73
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
58% Urban 20% in threelargest cities
20m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
CAMEROON
Key Lower middle income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Cameroon
Douala, Yaoundé, Bamenda
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
74
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
81% Urban 34% in threelargest cities
34m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
CANADA
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Canada
Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | C
AN
AD
A
75
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
89% Urban40% in three largest cities
17m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
CHILE
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Chile
Santiago, Valparaíso, Concepcion
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
76
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
49% Urban4% in three largest cities
1343m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
CHINA
Key Upper middle income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
China
Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | C
HIN
A
77
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
75% Urban 35% in threelargest cities
45m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
COLOMBIA
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Colombia
Bogota, Medellin, Cali
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
78
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
51% Urban32% in three largest cities
22m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
COTE D’IVOIRE
Key Lower middle income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Cote d’Ivoire
Abidjan, Bouake, San Pedro
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | C
OTE D
’IVO
IRE
79
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
58% Urban 37% in threelargest cities
4m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
CROATIA
Key High income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Croatia
Zagreb, Split, Rijeka
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
80
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
74% Urban 34% in threelargest cities
10m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
CZECH REPUBLIC
Key High income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Czech Republic
Prague, Brno, Ostrava
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | C
ZEC
H R
EPUB
LIC
81
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
87% Urban 61% in three largest cities
6m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
DENMARK
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Denmark
Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
82
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
70% Urban 47% in threelargest cities
10m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Dominican Republic
Gran Santo Domingo, Santiago de los Caballeros, San Cristobal
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | D
OM
INIC
AN
REPU
BLIC
83
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
68% Urban 42% in threelargest cities
15m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
ECUADOR
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Ecuador
Quito, Cuenca, Guayaquil
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
84
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
44% Urban31% in threelargest cities
84m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Middle East &North Africa
Region
EGYPT
Key Lower middle income Middle East & North AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Egypt
Cairo, Alexandria, Giza
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | EG
YPT
85
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
65% Urban 49% in threelargest cities
6m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
EL SALVADOR
Key Lower middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
El Salvador
San Salvador, Soyapango, Santa Ana
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
86
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
70% Urban 46% in threelargest cities
1m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
ESTONIA
Key High income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Estonia
Tallinn, Tartu, Narva
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | ESTO
NIA
87
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
17% Urban7% in three largest cities
91m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
ETHIOPIA
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Ethiopia
Addis Ababa, Dire Dawa, Mek’ele
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
88
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
84% Urban38% in threelargest cities
5m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
FINLAND
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Finland
Helsinki, Tempere, Turku
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | FIN
LAN
D
89
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
86% Urban 20% in threelargest cities
65m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
FRANCE
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
France
Paris, Marseille, Lyon
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
90
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
53% Urban 41% in threelargest cities
5m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
GEORGIA
Key Lower middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Georgia
Tbilisi, Kutaisi, Batumi
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | G
EOR
GIA
91
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
74% Urban 15% in threelargest cities
81m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
& North America
Region
GERMANY
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Germany
Berlin, Hamburg, Munich
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
92
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
52% Urban20% in threelargest cities
25m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
GHANA
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Ghana
Accra, Kumasi, Tamale
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | G
HA
NA
93
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
61% Urban 46% in threelargest cities
11m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
GREECE
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Greece
Athens, Salonica, Patras
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
94
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
50% Urban39% in threelargest cities
14m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
GUATEMALA
Key Lower middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Guatemala
Guatemala City, Villa Nueva, Mixco
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | G
UA
TEMA
LA
95
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
100% Urban99% in three largest cities
7m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
HONG KONG SAR, CHINA
Key High income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Hong Kong SAR, China
Hong Kong
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
96
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
70% Urban 37% in threelargest cities
10m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
HUNGARY
Key High income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Hungary
Budapest, Debrecen, Miskolc
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | H
UN
GA
RY
97
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
31% Urban4% in three largest cities
1205m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
South AsiaRegion
INDIA
Key Lower middle income South AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
India
Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
98
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
49% Urban17% in threelargest cities
249m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
INDONESIA
Key Lower middle income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Indonesia
Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | IN
DO
NESIA
99
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
71% Urban17% in threelargest cities
78m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Middle East &North Africa
Region
IRAN
Key Upper middle income Middle East & North AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Iran
Teheran, Mashad, Isfahan
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
100
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
68% Urban 8% in threelargest cities
61m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
ITALY
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Italy
Rome, Milan, Naples
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | ITA
LY
101
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
52% Urban44% in threelargest cities
3m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
JAMAICA
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Jamaica
Kingston, Portmore, Spanish Town
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
102
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
67% Urban 33% in three largest cities
127m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
JAPAN
Key High income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Japan
Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | JA
PAN
103
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
79% Urban49% in threelargest cities
7m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Middle East &North Africa
Region
JORDAN
Key Upper middle income Middle East & North AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Jordan
Amman, Irbid, Zarqa
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
104
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
59% Urban16% in threelargest cities
17m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
KAZAKHSTAN
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Kazakhstan
Almaty, Astana, Shymkent
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | KA
ZA
KHSTA
N
105
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
24% Urban 10% in threelargest cities
43m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
KENYA
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Kenya
Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
106
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
35% Urban23% in three largest cities
5m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
KYRGYZSTAN
Key Low income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Kyrgyzstan
Bishkek, Osh, Jalalabad
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | KYR
GYZ
STAN
107
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
87% Urban 42% in threelargest cities
4m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Middle East &North Africa
Region
LEBANON
Key Upper middle income Middle East & North AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Lebanon
Beirut, Tripoli, Sidon
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
108
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
48% Urban 25% in three largest cities
4m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
LIBERIA
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Liberia
Monrovia
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | LIB
ERIA
109
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
59% Urban35% in threelargest cities
2m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
MACEDONIA
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Macedonia
Skopje, Bitola, Kumanovo,
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
110
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
33% Urban 8% in threelargest cities
22m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
MADAGASCAR
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Madagascar
Antananarivo, Antsirabe, Toamasina
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | M
AD
AG
ASC
AR
111
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
20% Urban10% in threelargest cities
16m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
MALAWI
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Malawi
Lilongwe, Blantyre, Mzuzu
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
112
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
73% Urban 35% in threelargest cities
29m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
MALAYSIA
Key Upper middle income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Johor Bahru
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | M
ALA
YSIA
113
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
78% Urban 25% in three largest cities
115m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
MEXICO
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Mexico
Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
114
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
48% Urban 27% in three largest cities
4m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
MOLDOVA
Key Lower middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Moldova
Chisinau, Balti, Cahul
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | M
OLD
OV
A
115
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
62% Urban43% in three largest cities
3m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
MONGOLIA
Key Lower middle income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Mongolia
Ulaanbaatar, Erdenet, Darkhan
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
116
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
57% Urban 32% in three largest cities
32m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Middle East &North Africa
Region
MOROCCO
Key Lower middle income Middle East & North AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Morocco
Casablanca, Rabat, Fes
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | M
ORO
CC
O
117
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
19% Urban10% in threelargest cities
30m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
South AsiaRegion
NEPAL
Key Low income South AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Nepal
Kathmandu, Morang, Rupandehi
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
118
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
83% Urban29% in three largest cities
17m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
NETHERLANDS
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Netherlands
Amsterdam, s’Gravenhage, Rotterdam
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | N
ETHER
LAN
DS
119
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
86% Urban 53% in three largest cities
4m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
NEW ZEALAND
Key High income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
New Zealand
Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
120
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
58% Urban 47% in threelargest cities
6m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
NICARAGUA
Key Lower middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Nicaragua
Managua, León, Esteli
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | N
ICA
RA
GU
A
121
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
50% Urban8% in threelargest cities
170m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
NIGERIA
Key Lower middle income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Nigeria
Lagos, Kano, Ibadan
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
122
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
79% Urban43% in three largest cities
5m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
NORWAY
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Norway
Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | N
OR
WA
Y
123
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
36% Urban 15% in threelargest cities
190m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
South AsiaRegion
PAKISTAN
Key Lower middle income South AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Pakistan
Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
124
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
75% Urban 44% in threelargest cities
4m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
PANAMA
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Panama
Panama City, Colón, David Chiriquí
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | PA
NA
MA
125
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
77% Urban 34% in threelargest cities
30m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
PERU
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Peru
Lima, Trujillo, Arequipa
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
126
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
49% Urban18% in three largest cities
104m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
PHILIPPINES
Key Lower middle income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Philippines
Manila, Davao, Cebu
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | PH
ILIPPINES
127
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
61% Urban 14% in threelargest cities
38m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
POLAND
Key High income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Poland
Warsaw, Lodz, Cracow
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
128
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
61% Urban 45% in three largest cities
11m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
PORTUGAL
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Portugal
Lisbon, Porto, Braga
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | PO
RTUG
AL
129
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
83% Urban61% in three largest cities
49m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Key High income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Republic of Korea
Seoul, Busan, Incheon
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
130
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
57% Urban 15% in threelargest cities
22m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
ROMANIA
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Romania
Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | RO
MA
NIA
131
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
74% Urban 13% in three largest cities
142m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
RUSSIA
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Russia
Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
132
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
43% Urban 22% in threelargest cities
13m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
SENEGAL
Key Lower middle income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Senegal
Dakar, Thies, Diourbel
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | SEN
EGA
L
133
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
56% Urban 31% in threelargest cities
7m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
SERBIA
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Serbia
Belgrade, Novi Sad,Nis
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
134
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
39% Urban27% in three largest cities
5m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
SIERRA LEONE
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Sierra Leone
Freetown, Kenema, Makeni
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | SIER
RA
LEON
E
135
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
100% Urban100% in threelargest cities
5m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
SINGAPORE
Key High income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Singapore
Singapore
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
136
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
50% Urban21% in three largest cities
2m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
SLOVENIA
Key High income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Slovenia
Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | SLO
VEN
IA
137
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
62% Urban16% in threelargest cities
49m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
SOUTH AFRICA
Key Upper middle income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
South Africa
Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
138
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
77% Urban 29% in three largest cities
47m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
SPAIN
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Spain
Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0 1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | SPA
IN
139
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
15% Urban8% in threelargest cities
21m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
South AsiaRegion
SRI LANKA
Key Lower middle income South AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Sri Lanka
Colombo, Negombo, Kandy
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
140
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
85% Urban 41% in threelargest cities
9m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
SWEDEN
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Sweden
Stockholm, Goteborg, Malmo
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | SW
EDEN
141
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
27% Urban 10% in threelargest cities
43m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
TANZANIA
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Tanzania
Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, Shinyanga
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
142
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
34% Urban22% in threelargest cities
67m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
THAILAND
Key Upper middle income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Thailand
Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Pak Kret
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | TH
AILA
ND
143
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
66% Urban 27% in three largest cities
11m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Middle East &North Africa
Region
TUNISIA
Key Upper middle income Middle East & North AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Tunisia
Tunis, Sfax, Sousse
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
144
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
70% Urban 27% in three largest cities
80m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
TURKEY
Key Upper middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Turkey
Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | TU
RKEY
145
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
84% Urban99% in three largest cities
5m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Middle East &North Africa
Region
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Key High income Middle East & North AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
United Arab Emirates
Dubai, Sharjah, Abu-Dhabi
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
146
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
13% Urban 5% in three largest cities
34m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
UGANDA
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Uganda
Kampala, Mukono, Wakiso
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | U
GA
ND
A
147
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
69% Urban14% in threelargest cities
45m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
UKRAINE
Key Lower middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Ukraine
Kiev, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
148
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
80% Urban 32% in three largest cities
63m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
UNITED KINGDOM
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
United Kingdom
London, Birmingham, Glasgow
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | U
NITED
KING
DO
M
149
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
82% Urban 13% in three largest cities
314m (2012)
Population
HighIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Western Europe & North America
Region
UNITED STATES
Key High income Western Europe & North AmericaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
United States
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
150
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
93% Urban 45% in three largest cities
3m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
URUGUAY
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Uruguay
Montevideo, Salto, Paysandu
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | U
RUG
UA
Y
151
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
36% Urban 11% in threelargest cities
28m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Region
UZBEKISTAN
Key Lower middle income Eastern Europe & Central AsiaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Uzbekistan
Fergana, Samarkand, Tashkent
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
152
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
94% Urban 38% in threelargest cities
28m (2012)
Population
Upper middleIncome
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Latin America & Caribbean
Region
VENEZUELA
Key Upper middle income Latin America & CaribbeanTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Venezuela
Caracas, Maracaibo, Barquisimeto
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | V
ENEZ
UELA
153
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
31% Urban17% in threelargest cities
92m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
East Asia & Pacific
Region
VIETNAM
Key Lower middle income East Asia & PacificTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Vietnam
Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Noi, Hai Phong
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
154
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
36% Urban 20% in threelargest cities
14m (2012)
Population
Lower middle Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
ZAMBIA
Key Lower middle income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Zambia
Lusaka, Kitwe, Ndola
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
CO
UN
TRY
PR
OFILES | Z
AM
BIA
155
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
39% Urban41% in threelargest cities
13m (2012)
Population
Low Income
2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possiblescore for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00).
WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX FACTORS SCOREGLOBAL
RANKINGREGIONALRANKING
INCOME GROUP RANKING
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Factor 3: Order and Security
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Factor 5: Open Government
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 7: Civil Justice
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Region
ZIMBABWE
Key Low income Sub-Saharan AfricaTop Score
Accountable Government
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
Delivery of Justice
Zimbabwe
Harare, Bulawayo, Chitungwiza
5.1 Laws are publicized
5.2 The laws are stable
5.3 Right to petition and publicparticipation
5.4 Officialinformation is available
6.1 Governmentregulations effectivelyenforced
6.2 Government regulationsapplied without improperinfluence
6.3Administrativeproceedingsconductedwithoutunreasonabledelay
6.4 Due process inadministrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriatewithout adequate compensation
0.0
1.0
0.5
8.4 Criminalsystem is free of discrimination
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice isfree of impropergovernmentinfluence
7.5 Civil justiceis not subject to unreasonable delays
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 ADRs are accessible,impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
8.2 Criminal adjudicationsystem is timely and effective
8.3 Correctionalsystem is effective
8.6 Criminal systemis free of improper governmentinfluence
8.5 Criminal system is free of corruption
8.7 Due process of law
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion
4.3 Due process of law
4.2 Right to life and security of the person
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
3.3 People do not resortto violenceto redresspersonalgrievances
3.2 Civil conflict iseffectively limited
3.1 Absence of crime
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association
4.8 Fundamental labor rights
Security and Fundamental Rights
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.1 Absence of corruption in theexecutive branch
2.3 Absence of corruption by the police andthe military
2.2 Absence of corruption in the judicial branch
1.7 Transition of power subject to the law
1.6 Government powersare subject to non-governmental checks
1.5 Government officialssanctioned for misconduct
1.4 Independentauditing andreview
1.3 Government powerslimited by the judiciary
1.2 Government powers limited by legislature
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.4 Absence of corruption in the legislative branch
7.1 People have access to affordable civil justice
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
| TH
E W
JP R
ULE
OF
LAW
IND
EX
156
Data Tables |
Countries Ranked by FactorFACTOR 1: LIMITED GOVERNMENT POWERS FACTOR 2: ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
158
FACTOR 3: ORDER AND SECURITY FACTOR 4: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| CO
UN
TR
IES
RA
NK
ED
BY
FA
CT
OR
159
FACTOR 5:OPEN GOVERNMENT FACTOR 6: REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
160
FACTOR 7: CIVIL JUSTICE FACTOR 8: CRIMINAL JUSTICE
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| CO
UN
TR
IES
RA
NK
ED
BY
FA
CT
OR
161
FA
CT
OR
1:
LIM
ITE
D G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T P
OW
ER
S
Factors & Subfactors
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
162
FA
CT
OR
1:
LIM
ITE
D G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T P
OW
ER
S
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| FA
CT
OR
S &
SU
BF
AC
TO
RS
163
FA
CT
OR
2:
AB
SE
NC
E O
F C
OR
RU
PT
ION
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
164
FA
CT
OR
2:
AB
SE
NC
E O
F C
OR
RU
PT
ION D
AT
A T
AB
LE
S | F
AC
TO
RS
& S
UB
FA
CT
OR
S
165
FA
CT
OR
3:
OR
DE
R A
ND
SE
CU
RIT
Y
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
166
FA
CT
OR
3:
OR
DE
R A
ND
SE
CU
RIT
Y
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| FA
CT
OR
S &
SU
BF
AC
TO
RS
167
FA
CT
OR
4:
FU
ND
AM
EN
TA
L R
IGH
TS
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
168
FA
CT
OR
4:
FU
ND
AM
EN
TA
L R
IGH
TS
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| FA
CT
OR
S &
SU
BF
AC
TO
RS
169
FA
CT
OR
5:O
PE
N G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
170
FA
CT
OR
5:O
PE
N G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| FA
CT
OR
S &
SU
BF
AC
TO
RS
171
FA
CT
OR
6: R
EG
UL
AT
OR
Y E
NF
OR
CE
ME
NT
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
172
FA
CT
OR
6: R
EG
UL
AT
OR
Y E
NF
OR
CE
ME
NT D
AT
A T
AB
LE
S | F
AC
TO
RS
& S
UB
FA
CT
OR
S
173
FA
CT
OR
7:
CIV
IL J
US
TIC
E
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
174
FA
CT
OR
7:
CIV
IL J
US
TIC
E
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| FA
CT
OR
S &
SU
BF
AC
TO
RS
175
FA
CT
OR
8:
CR
IMIN
AL
JU
ST
ICE
FA
CT
OR
8:
CR
IMIN
AL
JU
ST
ICE
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
176
FA
CT
OR
8:
CR
IMIN
AL
JU
ST
ICE
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| FA
CT
OR
S &
SU
BF
AC
TO
RS
177
Rankings by Income
Upper Middle Income
High Income
The following tables include countries and their ranking for their specific income group.
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
178
Low Income
Lower Middle Income
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| RA
NK
ING
S B
Y IN
CO
ME
179
Rankings by Region
East Asia & Pacific
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Western Europe & North America
The following tables include countries and their ranking for their specific region.
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
180
Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin America & the Caribbean
Middle East & North Africa
South Asia
DA
TA
TA
BL
ES
| RA
NK
ING
S B
Y R
EG
ION
181
Data Notes |
OUTCOMES VS. INPUTS
Data Notes
DA
TA
NO
TE
S |
185
LAW IN PRACTICE VS. LAW ON THE BOOKS
A NEW DATA SET
»
»
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
186
Table 3: City Coverage and polling methodology in the 97 indexed countries
DA
TA
NO
TE
S |
187
COMBINING SEVERAL QUESTIONS TO MEASURE A COMPLEX CONCEPT
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
188
BUILDING INDICATORS
DATA VALIDATION AND CROSS-CHECKS
LIMITATIONS
DA
TA
NO
TE
S |
189
OTHER METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
190
Part III: JRC audit on the WJP Rule of Law Index 2012-2013 |
SUMMARY
CONCEPTUAL AND STATISTICAL COHERENCE IN THE WJP RULE OF LAW FRAMEWORK
Statistical AuditMICHAELA SAISANA AND ANDREA SALTELLI
European Commission Joint Research Centre (Ispra, Italy)
PA
RT
III: JRC
AU
DIT
ON
TH
E W
JP R
UL
E O
F L
AW
IND
EX
20
12-2
013 | S
TA
TIS
TIC
AL
AU
DIT
193
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
194
IMPACT OF MODELING ASSUMPTIONS ON THE WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX RESULTS
Source: Saisana and Saltelli, European Commission Joint Research Centre; WJP Rule of Law 2012-2013.Notes: (1) Numbers represent the kernel estimates of the Pearson correlation ratio (n2), as in Paruolo et al., 2012. Min-max estimates for the n2 derive from the choice of the smoothing parameter. (2) Sub-factors that have much lower contribution to the variance of the relevant Dimension scores thanthe equal weighting expectation are marked with an asterisk. (3) D1: Limited Government Powers, D2: Absence of Corruption, D3: Order and Security,D4: Fundamental Rights, D5: Open Government, D6: Regulatory Enforcement, D7: Civil Justice, D8: Criminal Justice.
Table 4: Importance measures (variance-based) for the 44 sub-factors in the eight dimensions of the WJP Rule of Law Index 2012-2013
PA
RT
III: JRC
AU
DIT
ON
TH
E W
JP R
UL
E O
F L
AW
IND
EX
20
12-2
013 | S
TA
TIS
TIC
AL
AU
DIT
195
Source: Saisana and Saltelli, European Commission Joint Research Centre; WJP Rule of Law 2012-2013.
Table 5: Uncertainty parameters (missing values, weights and aggregation function)
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
196
Figure 9: Uncertainty analysis(WJP dimension ranks vs. median rank, 90% intervals)
OR
DER
AN
D S
ECU
RIT
Y (
D3)
— WJP D3 RANK
JORDAN
INDONESIA
IRAN
JAMAICA
PHILIPPINESETHIOPIAETHIOPIA
SRI LANKA
COUNTRIES
AB
SEN
CE
OF
CO
RR
UP
TIO
N(D
2)
— WJP D2 RANK
COUNTRIES
THAILAND
Source: Saisana and Saltelli, European Commission Joint Research Centre; WJP Rule of Law 2012-2013.Notes: Countries with wide intervals –more than 15 positions– across 4,000 simulations related to estimation of missing data, weighting and aggregation formula are flagged.
PA
RT
III: JRC
AU
DIT
ON
TH
E W
JP R
UL
E O
F L
AW
IND
EX
20
12-2
013 | S
TA
TIS
TIC
AL
AU
DIT
197
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
198
PA
RT
III: JRC
AU
DIT
ON
TH
E W
JP R
UL
E O
F L
AW
IND
EX
20
12-2
013 | S
TA
TIS
TIC
AL
AU
DIT
199
Part IV: Contributing Experts |
Contributing Experts
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
203
ALBANIA
Ervin BanoTonucci & Partners
Jona BicaKalo & Associates
Raimonda BozoTirana Legal Aid Society (TLAS)
Jonida BrajaWolf Theiss
Dorant EkmekaçiuHoxha, Memi & Hoxha
Sokol ElmazajBoga & Associates
Valbona GjoncariBoga & Associates
Shirli Gorenca GorencaKalo & Associates
Emel HaxhillariKalo & Associates
Eris HoxhaHoxha, Memi & Hoxha
Ilir JohollariHoxha, Memi & Hoxha
Andi MemiHoxha, Memi & Hoxha
Blerta NeshoWolf Theiss
Anteo PapaOptima Legal & Financial
Artila RamaBoga & Associates
Klodian RjepajMinistry of Health
Genci Terpo
Gerhard VelajBoga & Associates
Anonymous Contributors
ARGENTINA
Valeria AmelongSanatorio de Niños
Alejo Baca CastexG. Breuer
Fernando BaschGuillermo Jorge & Asociados
Paola BergalloUniversidad de San Andrés
Marcelo Bombau
Federico A. Borzi CirilliDefensas Penales
Diego CarboneAlesina Gatti Taubas Bellani Carbone Vibes Abogados
Hernán Jorge DanziEstudio Juridico Penal Danzi
Roberto DurrieuEstudio Durrieu Abogados
Alberto Justo GilesColegio de Abogadosde la Provincia de Buenos Aires
Adrián GoldinSociedad Internacional de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social
Gonzalo HernándezM. & M. Bomchil
Santiago LegarrePontificia Universidad Católica Argentina
Jorge Luis LeguizaUniversidad ISALUD
Monica LupiSanchez Lupi & Assoc.
Gabriel Alejandro Martoglio
Pablo MazzaMinisterio de Salud de la Nacion
Rosa María OllerEstudio Jurídico Oller López & Asoc.
Claudio J. SantagatiPontificia Universidad Católica Argentina
Diego Silva OrtizSilva Ortiz, Alfonso, Pavic & Louge
Santiago Gerardo SpadaforaUniversidad ISALUD
Adrián R. Tellas
Maria Paola TrigianiAlfaro Abogados
Mariano Vaquero
Anonymous Contributors
AUSTRALIA
Lee Ann BasserLa Trobe University
Peter CashmanUniversity of Sydney
Joseph CatanzaritiClayton Utz
Sean CooneyMelbourne Law School, University of Melbourne
Nicholas Cowdery AM QCSydney Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney
Breen CreightonRMIT University
Carol DalglishQueensland University of Technology
Evelyne de LeeuwDeakin University
Michael DodsonNational Centre for Indigenous Studies, Australian National University
Shelley DunstoneLegal Circles
Patrick EmertonFaculty of Law, Monash University
Thomas FaunceAustralian National University
James Fitz SimmonsClayton Utz
Andrew FrazerUniversity of Wollongong
Jeffrey FullerSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, Flinders University
Chunchai GiugniRoyal Thai Government
Paghona Peggy KerdoLa Trobe University
Vivian LinLa Trobe University
Fiona McDonaldSchool of Law, Queensland University of Technology
Mary Anne NooneSchool of Law, La Trobe University
Simon RiceAustralian National University
Esther SternFlinders University of South Australia
Greg TaylorMonash University
Penelope WellerMonash University
Daniel WilliamsMinter Ellison
Anonymous Contributors
AUSTRIA
Franz Amler
Julian FeichtingerCHSH Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten
Arpad GeredMaybach Görg Lenneis Gered Zacherl Rechtsanwälte GmbH
C. HablAustrian Health Institute ÖBIG
Thomas HofmannPALLAS Rechtsanwaelte Partnerschaft
Robert KertCriminal Law Department, University of Vienna
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
204
Manfred KetzerHausmaninger Kletter Rechtsanwälte GmbH
Andreas LehnerConstitutional Court of Austria
ÖGB
Isabelle PellechMag. Isabelle Pellech LL.M. Rechtsanwältin
Martin ReinischBrauneis Klauser Prändl Attorneys-at-Law
Martin RisakDepartment of Labour Law and Law of Social Security, University of Vienna
David Schnaiter
Jernej SekolecLondon Court of International Arbitration
Karl StoegerUniversity of Graz
Doris WydraSalzburg Centre of European Union Studies
Stefan ZleptnigUniversity of Vienna
Anonymous Contributors
BANGLADESH
ASM AlamgirWorld Health Organisation (WHO)
Bilqis Amin HoqueEnvironment and Population Research Centre (EPRC)
Abdul AwalNRDS
M. R. I. ChowdhuryM. R. I. Chowdhury & Associates
Mirza Farzana Iqbal ChowdhuryDaffodil International University
A.B.M. Nasirud DoulahDoulah & Doulah
Debra EfroymsonHealthBridge
S M Shajedul HaqueEminence
Arif ImtiazFox Mandal
Saira Rahman KhanBRAC University
Shusmita KhanEminence
Ashiquddin Mohammad MarufNorthern University Bangladesh
Mahbub ParvezDaffodil International University
Sheikh Abdur RahimDaffodil International University
Abu Sayeed M. M. RahmanUnited Hospital Limited
Mir Shamsur RahmanDepartment of Law and Human Rights, University of Asia Pacific
Mohammad Mostafizur RahmanHeidelbergCement Bangladesh Limited
S. A. RazzakAMDA Bangladesh
K.A.R. SayeedUnited Hospital Limited
Anonymous Contributors
BELARUS
Alexandr BondarSysouev, Bondar, Khrapoutski Law Firm
Antonina IvanovaDICSA Law Firm
Vitaly KachelyaGLIMSTEDT Law Firm
Sergey KalininBelarussian State University
Nina KnyazevaBusinessconsult Law Firm
Anastasiya MalakhovaSysouev, Bondar, Khrapoutski Law Firm
Valentina OgarkovaStepanovski, Papakul & Partners LLC
Elena SelivanovaSysouev, Bondar, Khrapoutski Law Firm
Artsemyeu SiarheiBelarussian State University
Olga ZdobnovaVlasova Mikhel and Partners Law Firm
Anonymous Contributors
BELGIUM
Jean-Pascal AbayoCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège
J. AcoltyPhilippe & Partners
Alexia AutenneUniversité Catholique de Louvain
A. ClaesDe Broeck Van Laere & Partners
Michel CornetteElegis Advocaten
Daniël CuypersUniversité d’Anvers
Jan De Greef
Olivier De WitteUniversité Libre de Bruxelles
Michel De WolfUniversité Catholique de Louvain
Elise DermineUniversité Catholique de Louvain
Ledoux DidierCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège
Jean-François GerkensUniversité de Liége
Séverine LauwickCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège
Jacques LiboutonGérard & Associés
Etienne MonteroUniversité de Namur
Karel MulMul Law Offices
Sakalihasan NatziCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège
Emmanuel Plasschaert
Pieter Vandekerckhove
Patrick WauteletFaculté de droit - Université de Liège
Christian WillemsLoyens & Loeff
Anonymous Contributors
BOLIVIA
Maria Eugenia AntezanaCriales, Urcullo & Antezana - Abogados
Pedro BarrientosCayo Salinas & Asociados
Cesar Burgoa RodriguezBufete Burgoa
Cristian BustosFerrere Abogados
Rosario Baptista CanedoComisión Andina de Juristas - Asociación Americana de Juristas, rama Bolivia
Carlos Derpic SalazarGarrón Bozo Abogados
Arturo GerenteAlpha SG.Consultores Legales
Carlos L. GerkeEstudio Jurídico Gerke, Soc. Civ.
Primitivo Gutiérrez SanchezGuevara & Gutiérrez S.C.
Carlos Ibañez GuzmanCNS - UMSA
Jorge Luis InchausteGuevara & Gutierrez S.C.
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
205
Ricardo IndacocheaIndacochea & Asociados, Abogados
Ivan Lima MagneCEJIP INECIP
Ernesto Marcelo Malaga VasquezONG Kurt Godel
Javier Mir PeñaMir & Asoc.
Ariel Morales VasquezCRF Rojas Abogados
Josè Marcelo Ortuste GonzalesEstudio Jurìdico Ortuste & Asociados
Sergio ReynoldsBufete Reynolds Legal Advice
Hugo RiveraOPS/OMS
Jose Luis Rosas SalazarFiscalía Departamental la Paz - Bolivia
Maria Salete TejerinaClínica del Sur
Cayo SalinasCayo Salinas & Asociados
Miguel Ángel Sandoval ParadaIndacochea & Asociados, Abogados
Carola SerrateSerrate Paz & Asociados
Rene Soria SaucedoBoston University
Magdalena Vilte FernandezHospital Regional “San Juan de Dios”
Anonymous Contributors
BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINAAdis ArapovicCCI
Adisa Omerbegovic ArapovicSarajevo School of Science and Technology
Alisa Bergovic
Darko BrkanUG Zasto ne / CA Why not
Zoran DakicHealth Center Bijeljina
Vjekoslav DomljanCentre for Regional Economic Studies (CRES)
Adnan DurakovicFaculty of Law, University of Zenica
Mehmed GanicInternational University of Sarajevo
Adis GazibegovicCMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz
Hana KoraaUniversity of Travnik
Esad OrucInternational Burch University
Danijela Saller Osenk
Denis Pajic
Lejla SijercicLejla Sijercic Law Firm
Osman SinanovicDepartment of Neurology, University Clinical Center Tuzla
Nedzad SmailagicUniversity of Sarajevo
Mehmed SpahoLaw Office Spaho
Boris StojanovicBoris Stojanovic Law Office
Milos TrifkovicUniversity Vitez
Meškic Zlatan
Anonymous Contributors
BOTSWANA
M. Buhle
Tatenda DumbaArmstrongs Attorneys
Lethogonolo Innocent MakganeYS Moncho Attorneys
Doreen KhamaDoreen Khama Attorneys
Rekha A. KumarUniversity of Botswana
Motsomi Ndala MarobelaUniversity of Botswana
John McAllisterUniversity of Botswana
Kiven MvududuArmstrongs Attorneys
Abdoul RahimRahim Khan & Company
Joanne RobinsonRahim Khan & Company
Naomi SeboniSchool of Nursing, University of Botswana
Dorothy Tafadzwa MatizaRahim Khan & Company
Marvin T. TortoSalbany & Torto Attorneys
Anonymous Contributors
BRAZIL
Gabriel Alves da CostaShell Brasil Petróleo Ltda.
Abel S. AmaroVeirano Advogados
Sergio C. ArenhartMinistério Público Federal
Ordélio Azevedo SetteAzevedo Sette Advogados
Rogerio Carmona BiancoLilla Huck Otranto Camargo Advogados
Maria Celina Bodin de MoraesUERJ & PUC-Rio
Thiago BottinoFundação Getúlio Vargas - Direito GV
Nancy CardiaCenter for the Study of Violence - University of São Paulo
Rodrigo CastroPeixoto e Cury Advogados
Carlos Henrique da Silva AyresTrench, Rossi e Watanabe Advogados
Elival da Silva RamosSão Paulo University
João Carlos A.C. de MendonçaVeirano Advogados
Rodrigo de Souza CostaUniversidade Federal Fluminense
Mario B. Duarte GarciaDuarte Garcia, Caselli Guimaraes e Terra Advogados
Heloisa EstellitaFundação Getúlio Vargas - Direito GV
Fernando Smith FabrisAdvocacia Smith Fabris
Joaquim FalcãoFundação Getúlio Vargas - Direito GV
Mauricio FaragoneFaragone Advogados
Luciano FeldensPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
Boriska Ferreira RochaCFA Advogados
Tiago FigueiroVeirano Advogados
Alexandre Fragoso SilvestreMiguel Neto Advogados
Isabel FrancoKLA - Koury Lopes Advogados
Pedro FreitasVeirano Advogados
Werner GrauPinheiro Neto Advogados
Ludmila GrochIDDD - Instituto de Defesa do Direito de Defesa
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
206
HP Legal
Maria-Valeria Junho PennaFederal University of Rio de Janeiro
Carolina Korbage
Rosa Lima2nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office
Adelmo MachadoVeirano Advogados
Jorge MagalhãesFIOCRUZ
Estêvão MalletUniversity of São Paulo
Sergio MannheimerAndrade & Fichtner Advogados
Luiz Guilherme MarinoniMarinoni Advocacia
Daniela Muradas ReisFederal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG)
Fabio Martins Di JorgePeixoto e Cury Advogados
Anna Thereza Monteiro de BarrosPinheiro Neto Advogados
Adriano A.S. PedrosaUniversidade Federal de Alagoas (UFAL)
Luiz Paulo Pieruccetti MarquesVieira, Rezende, Barbosa e Guerreiro Advogados
João Otavio Pinheiro OliverioCampos Mello Advogados
Claudio A. PinhoInstituto Belo Horizonte de Ensino Superior
Angela Pires PintoUniversity of Brasilia
Victor PolizelliKLA - Koury Lopes Advogados
Luiz Guilherme PrimosPrimos e Primos Advocacia
Jose Ricardo dos Santos Luz JúniorDuarte Garcia, Caselli Guimaraes e Terra Advogados
Eduardo SotoVeirano Advogados
Mariana Tavares de AraujoLevy & Salomão Advogados
Mauricio VedovatoLilla Huck Otranto Camargo Advogados
Oscar Vilhena VieiraFundação Getúlio Vargas - Direito GV
Rafael Villac Vicente de CarvalhoPeixoto e Cury Advogados
Teresa WambierPUC/SP
Anonymous Contributors
BULGARIA
J. CromboisAmerican University in Bulgaria
Nikolai HristovMedical University - Sofia
Stanislav HristovLegal Office Slavi Slavov
Gergana IlievaNovel Consult Law Firm
Dimitar IvanovDimitrov Ivanov & Partners, Attorneys-at-Law
Vladimir NatchevArsov Natchev Ganeva Attorneys and Counsellors at Law
Marina Nenova-PopovaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital
Lachezar RaichevPenkov, Markov & Partners
Jenia RusanovaCMS Cameron McKenna LLP
Elina RusevaTsvetkova, Bebov & Partners Attorneys-at-Law
Petko SalchevNational Center of Public Health and Analyses
Christian Schrobsdorff, Esq.NBLO Law
Atanas SlavovUniversity of Sofia
Anonymous Contributors
BURKINA FASO
Norbert Enoch DabireBarreau du Burkina Faso
Julien LalogoEtude de Maitre Julien Lalogo Avocat a la Cour
Ali NeyaCabinet d’Avocats Ali Neya
Amadou Sagnon
Paulin SalambereSCPA Ouattara-Sory & Salambere
Moussa Sogodogo
Georges SomeCabinet d’avocats Abdoul Ouedraogo
Marcellin SomeBarreau du Burkina-Faso
Richard Traore
Amado YoniSCPA Legalis
Sosthene Adrien M. ZongoCabinet d’Avocats Sostene A.M. Zongo
Anonymous Contributors
CAMBODIA
Narin ChumCommunity Legal Education Center
Nhim DalenAdvanced Research Consultant Team (ART)
Antoine FontaineBun & Associates
Teilee KuongNagoya University
Kem LeyAdvanced Research Consultant Team (ART)
Sia PhearumHousing Rights Task Force
Fil B. Tabayoyong, Jr.BMAP
Anonymous Contributors
CAMEROON
Roland AbengThe ABENG Law Firm
Tazoacha AsonganyiUniversité de Yaounde I
Charles-Olivier Boum-BissaÏ
Epee EmilieneCHU
José EssiFaculté de Médecine et de Sciences Biomédicales - UYI
Marie-José EssiFaculté de Médecine et de Sciences Biomédicales - UYI
Philip Forsnang NdikumNdikum Law Offices
Benjamin Fomba KamgaUniversité de Yaoundé II-SOA
Cecile H. NantchouangNantch & Associates, LLP.
Fansi NgamouSCP Ngassam Njike & Associés
Ngassam Njike VirgileSCP Ngassam Njike & Associés
Nana Philip NjotangMaternite Principale, Hopital Central Yaounde
Samuel Nko’o AmveneCHU
Samuel TakongmoCHU
I. TakougangUniversité de Yaounde I
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
207
Nzectchie Alain Bruno WoumbouCabinet d’avocats Josette Kadji
Njoumemi ZakariaouFaculté de Médecine et de Sciences Biomédicales - UYI
Anonymous Contributors
CANADA
Zayid Al-BaghdadiZayid Al-Baghdadi, Avocat - Lawyer
Bruce P. ArchibaldDalhousie University
Carol AylwardSchulich School of Law, Dalhousie University
Charlyn BlackUniversity of British Columbia
Sarah P. BradleySchulich School of Law, Dalhousie University
Karen BusbyFaculty of Law, University of Manitoba
Karen A. CampbellCox & Palmer
Daniel M. Campbell QCCox & Palmer
Christian DroletHeenan Blaikie
Brenda EliasUniversity of Manitoba
Patrick EssiminyStrikeman Elliott LLP
Jabeur FathallyUniversity of Ottawa
Fabien GelinasFaculty of Law, McGill University
H. Patrick GlennFaculty of Law, McGill University
Sonny GoldsteinGoldstein Financial Consultants
Elise Groulx DiggsInternational Criminal Defence Attorneys Association
Charles G. HarrisonFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Clyde HertzmanUniversity of British Columbia
Elizabeth HughesSchulich School of Law, Dalhousie University
Jula HughesUniversity of New Brunswick
Michelle KellyCox & Palmer
Brian LangilleUniversity of Toronto
Katherine LippelUniversity of Ottawa
Vanessa MacDonnellFaculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Constance MacIntoshDalhousie Health Law Institute
Finn MakelaFaculty of Law, University of Sherbrooke
Anne McGillivrayFaculty of Law, University of Manitoba
Bradley MitchellMcDougall Gauley LLP
Rick MolzConcordia University
Ronalda M. MurphySchulich School of Law
Orie NiedzvieckiEllyn Law LLP
Darrel PinkNoava Scotia Barristers’ Society
Nicolas PlourdeBarreau du Québec
Heather RavenFaculty of Law, University of Victoria
Graham ReynoldsSchulich School of Law, Dalhousie University
George S. RigakosCarlton University
Colin L. SoskolneUniversity of Alberta
Maxime St-HilaireUniversity of Sherbrooke’s Law Faculty
France M. TenailleCassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Barbara Von TigerstromUniversity of Saskatchewan
Anonymous Contributors
CHILE
Alberto AlcaldePuga Ortiz Abogados
Luis Alberto AninatAninat Schwencke y Cia
Gustavo Balmaceda HoyosUniversidad de los Andes
Jorge Baraona GonzalezFacultad de Derecho, Universidad de los Andes
Jorge BofillBofill Mir & Alvarez Jana Abogados
Miguel Ángel Chaves PérezChaves Awad Contreras Schürmann Abogados
Alexandra de Grenade ErrázurizEyzaguirre & Cía
Gabriel del RíoAninat Schwencke y Cia
Cristián FabresGuerrero, Olivos, Novoa y Errázuriz
Ruth Gabriela Lanata FuenzalidaUniversidad de Concepcion
Sergio Gamonal ContrerasUniversidad Adolfo Ibáñez
Davor HarasicUniversidad de Chile
Manuel Jimenez PfingsthornJara Del Favero
Beatriz LarrainUniversidad de Concepcion
Juan Pablo Cox LeixelardUniversidad Adolfo Ibáñez
Fernando Lolas StepkeUniversidad de Chile
José Ignacio MartínezFacultad de Derecho, Universidad de los Andes
Omar MoralesMontt & Cía. S.A.
Carlos OssandonEluchans & Cia.
Germán OvalleUniversidad de Chile
Gonzalo Pantoja AckermannBiomer
Luis ParadaBahamondez, Álvarez & Zegers
Pablo ParedesAlbagli Zaliasnik
Daniela Pérez
Carmenmaría PobleteCarey y Cía Ltda.
Jaime Portales Y.Universidad de Concepción
Carla Robledo M.
Juan Manuel Rodríguez
Pablo Ruiz-TagleFacultad de Derecho, Universidad de Chile
Marcelo SanfeliuCarey y Cía Ltda.
Luis A. SilvaUniversidad de los Andes
Cristóbal Silva BengoleaBahamondez, Alvarez & Zegers Ltda.
Cristóbal SmytheBahamondez, Alvarez & Zegers Ltda.
Carlos Stevenson
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
208
Luis Eugenio Ubilla GrandiUniversidad Católica de la Ssma Concepción
Oscar Gajardo UribeEyzaguirre & Cía
Juan Enrique VargasFacultad de Derecho, Universidad Diego Portales
Jorge S. WahlLarrain & Asociados
Anonymous Contributors
CHINA
David C. BuxbaumAnderson & Anderson LLP
Ming DongJunhe Law Offices
Yu DuMMLC Group
Xiao Gong
Liu KaimingThe Institute of Contemporary Observation
Jia PingChina Global Fund Watch
Wei ShenLaw School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Anonymous Contributors
COLOMBIA
Felipe AristizabalNieto & Chalela Abogados
Guillermo Hernando Bayona Combariza
Mauricio A. Bello GalindoBaker & McKenzie Colombia
Eduardo CardenasCardenas y Cardenas Abogados
Marcela CastroFacultad de Derecho, Universidad de Los Andes
Camilo CortesCardenas y Cardenas Abogados
Jorge Diaz-CardenasDiaz Cardenas Abogados
Lucas Fajardo GutierrezBrigard & Urrutia Abogados S.A.
Carlos Andreas Gomez GonzalezUniversidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano
Nancy Gore SaraviaCIDEIM
Mildred HartmannUniversidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano
Fredy Andrei Herrera OsorioUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
Isabel Cristina Jaramillo SierraFacultad de Derecho, Universidad de los Andes
Monica LombanaBaker & McKenzie Colombia
Gloria Patricia Lopera MesaUniversidad Eafit
Blanca Patricia Mantilla UribeUniversidad Industrial de Santander
Santiago Martínez MéndezGodoy Córdoba
Manuel Mejia
Juan Mendoza
Tatiana Molina VelasquezUniversidad CES
Carlos Molina-ArrublaMolina Diaz y Cïa
Patricia Moncada RoaFacultad de Derecho, Universidad de los Andes
Maria Fernanda Navas-HerreraNavasherrera & Associated Legal Consultants
Luis NietoNieto & Chalela Abogados
Julian OsorioUniversidad CES
Martha PeñuelaUniversidad del Norte
Carolina PosadaPosse Herrera & Ruiz
Ricardo Posada MayaUniversidad de los Andes
Gustavo Quintero Navas
Luis Fernando Ramirez ContrerasRama Judicial
Gabriel SanchezPosse Herrera & Ruiz
Fredy A. SandovalFredy A. Sandoval Abogados
Juan Oberto Sotomayor AcostaUniversidad Eafit
Raúl Alberto Suárez ArcilaSuárez Arcila & Abogados Asociados
Carlos Arturo Toro Lopez
Rafael Tuesca MolinaUniversidad del Norte
Carlos UmañaBrigard & Urrutia Abogados S.A.
Jorge Lara UrbanejaLara Consultores
Diego Felipe Valdivieso Rueda
Universidad de los Andes
Anonymous Contributors
COTE D’IVOIRE
Raphaël Abauleth
Alexandre BairoKSK Société d’Avocats
Vanie Bi TaCabinet Medical Le Belier
Arsene DableSCPA Dogue Abbe Yao et Associes
M. Fadika DelafosseCabinet FDKA
K. FadikaCabinet FDKA
C. KacoutiéCabinet FDKA
Hermann KouaoIKT Law Firm
Mohamed Lamine FayeCabinet Faye
M. SoroUniversité Montesquieu Bordeaux IV
Adama YeoUniversité de Bouaké
Anonymous Contributors
CROATIA
Bruno Barsic
Bojan BiocinaSchool of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Clinical Hospital Center
Bozidar FeldmanLaw Firm Matic & Feldman
Marijana JelicLaw Office Jelic
Darko JurisicCounty Hospital “Dr.J.Bencevic”
Ivan KosPETOŠEVIC
Luka KovacicAndrija Stampar School of Public Health, Medical School, University of Zagreb
Boris KozjakLaw Office Kozjak
Anita KrizmanicLaw Offices Macesic & Partners
Natasa NovakovicCroatian Employer Association
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
209
Matko PajcicFaculty of Law, Split
Aleksandra PirjavecUniversity Hospital Center Rijeka
Dalida RittossaFaculty of Law, University of Rijeka
Boris SavoricSavoric & Partners
Alan SoricAttorneys Soric & Tomekovic Dunda
Zvonko SosicAndrija Stampar School of Public Health, Medical School, University of Zagreb
Ana Stavljenic-Rukavina
Jelena ZjacicMacesic & Partners Law Firm
Anonymous Contributors
CZECH REPUBLIC
Tomas CihulaKinstellar
Jan FilipFaculty of Law, Masaryk University
Pavel HolecHolec, Zuska & Partners, Attorneys-at-Law
Marie JanšováGlatzova & Co., s.r.o.
Tomas MatejovskyCMS Cameron McKenna LLP
Radek MatousBalcar Polansky Eversheds
Robert NerudaHavel, Holásek & Partners
Lukáš Prudil
Nataša RandlováRandl Partners
Nadezda RozehnalovaFaculty of Law, Masaryk University
Ladislav SmejkalWhite & Case (Europe) LLP
Simona StocesovaFaculty of Law, University of West Bohemia
Martin StrnadHavel, Holásek & Partners
Pavel UrbanNational Institute of Public Health
Zilvarová Ctibor Hladký v.o.s.
Anonymous Contributors
DENMARK
Per AndersenDepartment of Law, Aarhus University
Lars Bracht AndersenAarhus University
Morten BrobergFaculty of Law, University of Copenhagen
Ole HammerslevDepartment of Law, University of Southern Denmark
Renao Franz HenschelDepartment of Law, Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University
Poul HvilstedHorten Law Firm
Paul Kruger AndersenAarhus University
Lars Lindencrone PetersenBech-Bruun Law Firm
Thomas NeumannDepartment of Law, Aarhus University
Jesper NoergaardDahl Lawfirm Copenhagen
Dr. OleAarhus University
Henrik Aasted PaulsenClemens Advokater
Arja R.University of Southern Denmark
Jens Rye-AndersenJens Rye Andersen
Jacob SandGorrissen Federspiel
Klaus SogaardGorrissen Federspiel
Henning Fuglsang SorensenAarhus University
Anette StorgaardAarhus University
Tina SvanbergDelacourdania
Kim TranskowKromann Reumert
Jørn VestergaardFaculty of Law, University of Copenhagen
Anonymous Contributors
DOMINICAN
REPUBLICJesus R. AlmanzarDMK - Central Law
Carla AlsinaBiaggi & Messina
Ana Isabel CaceresTroncoso y Caceres
Dalia Castillo SanchezOrganizacion Panamericana de la Salud
Ismael ComprésOrtiz & Comprés
Alberto E. S. FialloFiallo-Billini Scanlon Associates
Virgilio Bello GonzálezBello Rosa & Bello González, Abogados
Nestor Julio VictorinoNJ Victorino & Associates
Virgilio A. Méndez AmaroMendez & Asociados, Abogados y Consultores
Enmanuel MontasMS Consultores
Maria Elena Moreno GraterauxGratereaux Delva & Asoc.
Jose ML. G. PaezBufete Paez-Mueses-Castillo
Rafael Antonio Santana GoicoHeadrick, Rizik, Alvarez & Fernandez
Georges Santoni RecioRussin, Vecchi & Heredia Bonetti
Angeanette Tejeda GarciaOMG
Pedro TroncosoTroncoso y Caceres
Anonymous Contributors
ECUADOR
Vanesa Aguirre GuzmánUniversidad Andina Simón Bolívar
Xavier AndradeAbogado Profesor Juez
Rommel M. ArtiedaINSCORA S. A.
Rodrigo Bermeo-AndradeBermeo & Bermeo Law Firm
Jorge Cevallos-JacomePerez Bustamente Y Ponce Abogados
Maria Rosa Fabara VeraFabara & Compañía Abogados
Juan Carlos GallegosGallegos, Valarezo & Neira
Caesar Molina NovilloMolina & Compañía Abogados S.A.
Ximena Moreno EcheverriaPontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador
Jorge Vicente PaladinesCentro de Política Criminal y Estudios Socio-jurídicos
Patricio Peña RomeroEstudio Noboa, Peña, Larrea & Torres Abogados
Marcelo ProañoRomero Arteta Ponce Abogados
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
210
Gladis Proaño ReyesComandancia General de Policia
Verónica RegaladoEstudio Juridico Vivanco & Vivanco
Juan Carlos RiofríoCoronel y Pérez Abogados
Raul Riquelme CardenasHerrera, Olalla & Riquelme Abogados
Leonardo Sempértegui VallejoSempértegui Ontaneda Abogados
Rafael SerranoSerrano Puig Abogados
Farith SimonUniversidad San Francisco de Quito
Anonymous Contributors
EGYPT
Mohamed AbdelaalFaculty of Law, Alexandria University
Haytham AliHafez
Ibrahim AwadSchool of Global Affairs and Public Policy (GAPP), American University in Cairo (AUC)
Kilian BaelzAmereller - Mena Associates
Ghada BarsoumAmerican University in Cairo
Khaled El ShalakanyShalakany Law Office
Habiba Hassan Hassan-WassefWorld Health Organization
Somaya HosnyFaculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University
Ibrahim KharboushHigh Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University
Mohamed Hanafi MahmoudEgyptian Ministry of Justice
Ibrahim SalehUniversity of Cape Town
Ahmed TawfikEl Gamal & Tawfik International Law Firm
Bassem S. WadieUrology and Nephrology Center
Hossam YounesEgyptian International Trade Point
Ayman ZohryEgyptian Society for Migration Studies
Anonymous Contributors
EL SALVADOR
Rebecca Atanacio de BasagoitiaAsesores Legales
Ana Yesenia Granillo de TobarEscuela Superior de Economía y Negocios
David GruterArias & Muñoz - El Salvador
Roberto Enrique HernándezValenciaLatinalliance
Yudy Aracely Jiménez de GuerreroGold Service S.A.
Diego Martín-MenjivarConsortium Centro América Abogados
Juan Jose Planas CariasBanco Agrícola
Juan Jose Rodriguez FloresUniversidad Católica de El Salvador
Rommell Ismael Sandoval RosalesSBA Legal Firm & Consulting
José Freddy Zometa Segovia
Anonymous Contributors
ESTONIA
Urmas ArumäeEstonian Business School
Tiit ElenurmEstonian Business School
Carri GinterUniversity of Tartu
Maksim GreinomanAdvokaadibüroo Greinoman & Co.
Helen HäälConcordia Attorneys at Law
Pirkko-Liis HarkmaaLAWIN Attorneys at Law
Triinu HiobLAWIN Attorneys at Law
Kari KasperTallinn University of Technology
Tanel KerikmäeTallinn University of Technology
Liisa LinnaHedman Partners
Valdo LipsBorenius Attorneys at Law
Aare MartsonTartu University Hospital, University of Tartu
Marianne MeiorgEstonian Human Rights Centre
Merle MudaUniversity of Tartu
Senny PelloAdvokaadibüroo Concordia
Mari Ann SimovartInstitute of Private Law, University of Tartu
Gabriel TavitsUniversity of Tartu
Paul VarulUniversity of Tartu
Andres VuttUniversity of Tartu
Anonymous Contributors
ETHIOPIA
Tameru Wondm AgegnehuTameru Wondm Agegnehu, Law Offices
M. AmanHaramaya University
Sileshi BedasieHaramaya University
Aberra DegefaAddis Ababa University
Tilahun EsmaelCollege of Law, Haramaya University
Abrham Yohannes HailuAbrham Law Office
Wondwossen Kassa
Lubo Teferi KerorsaAdama Science and Technology University
Alemu MeheretuJimma University
Eyoel Berhan MekonenMekelle University
Mehari RedaeAddis Ababa University
Yordanos SeifuAddis Ababa University
Seyoum Y. TesfayAddis Ababa University
Wondimu Shanko YirgaCollege of Health Sciences, Haramaya University
Anonymous Contributors
FINLAND
HP Legal
Nina IsokorpiRoschier, Attorneys Ltd.
Jussi JärvensivuJusteria Attorneys Ltd
Mike J. LehtimäkiAttorneys-at-Law TRUST
Ari MiettinenFimlab Laboratories Ltd.
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
211
Johanna NiemiUniversity of Helsinki
Jukka PeltonenPeltonen LMR Attorneys Ltd.
Iikka SainioAttorneys-at-Law Juridia Ltd.
Matti TolvanenUniversity of Eastern Finland
Anonymous Contributors
FRANCE
M. Augier
Bruno BarralHospices Civils de Lyon
M. BerlandSCP Berland/Sevin
M. BoicheCBBC
M. CastetsHospices Civils de Lyon
Catherine CathiardJeantet et Associés
M. CesariniAss. Sécurité Solaire
M. ChassangInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
Veronique ChauveauCBBC
Marie-Christine CimadevillaCimadevilla Avocats
Olivier de BoutinyBBG Associés
Francois-Paul DebionneCommunaute Urbaine de Strasbourg
Jacques DelgaESSEC
Halley des FontainesFaculta de Medecine Pierre et Marie Curie
Yann DuboisCHRU Brest
S. DucampWinston & Strawn Selarl
Patrick DunaudWinston & Strawn Selarl
Nataline FleuryAshurst
Elisabeth GrabliElisabeth Grabli
J. HerbetWinston & Strawn Selarl
Dr. HerreraUniversité de Cergy-Pontoise
M. KempfHospices Civils de Lyon
Mathieu NicolasSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Jacques-Antoine RobertSimmons & Simmons LLP
M. RoosProskauer Rose LLP
M. SamsonHospices Civils de Lyon
Nicole StolowyHEC Paris
M. Tartour
Pr. ValetteHospices Civils de Lyon
Anicee Van EngelandSOAS - University of London
Anonymous Contributors
GEORGIA
Revaz BeridzeEristavi Law Group
Ketevan ChkhatarashviliCuratio International Foundation
Ketevan DadianiIv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
George GotsadzeCuratio International Foundation
David ImnadzeCaucasus School of Law
Ted JonasDLA Piper Georgia
Nata KazakhashviliIv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Mr. KetevanEPEC
Julieta MukhadzeUniversiti Iveria
Giorgi NanobashviliUNDP
Mikheil VashakidzeVBAT Law Firm
Akaki ZoidzeConsulting Group Curatio
Anonymous Contributors
GERMANY
Cornelius AntorBridgehouseLaw
Alexander Baron von Engelhardt
Oliver BolthausenBridgehouseLaw
Thomas F. FeltesRuhr-University Bochum
Wolfgang HauUniversity of Passau
Burkhard HessUniversity Heidelberg
HP Legal
Jessica JacobiKliemt & Vollstaedt
Christof KerwerWürzburg University
Thomas MelletatMelletat - Rechtsanwalte
Andreas Meyer-LindenbergZentralinstitut für seelische Gesundheit
Andreas MichaeliBORN Rechtsanwaltssozietã
Carsten MomsenLeibniz Universitaet Hannover
Dr. OppermannLeibniz Universität Hannover
Stefanie PrehmLuther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
Martin ReufelsHeuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek
Henning RosenauLaw Faculty, University of Augsburg
Stephan SanderTerhedebrügge Heyn Sander
Stefan SasseGöhmann Rechtsanwälte
MIchael StaudenmayerStaudenmayer Fachanwalts- u. Steuerkanzlei
Ms. Sachsenberg
M. TraberAhlers & Vogel
Manfred WeissGoethe University
Bernd WellerHeuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek
Peter ZurielStrafrechtskanzlei
Anonymous Contributors
GHANA
Azanne Kofi AkainyahA & A Law Consult
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
212
Franklin CudjoeIMANI Center for Policy & Education
Nii Nortey Hanson-NorteyGhana Health Service
Constant K. HometowuUN - International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Sam PokuBusiness Council for Africa (GH)
Araba Sefa-DedehUniversity of Ghana Medical School
Anonymous Contributors
GREECE
Ilias AnagnostopoulosAnagnostopoulos
Ioanna Chryssiis ArgyrakiI.K. Rokas & Partners Law Firm
Costas BakourisTransparency International Greece
Antonis BavasStephenson Harwood
Nigel Bowen-MorrisStephenson Harwood
Andreas DelopoulosDNP Law
Stephanos DiamandisForest Research Institute
Passas DimitrisMoratis-Passas
Panagiotis Gioulakos
HP Legal
Konstantinos Kanellakis
Athanasios KikisKikis & Partners Law Office
Nikolaos KondylisN.M. Kondylis & Partners Law Office
Stratos KonstandinidisKonstandinidis & Associates
Apostolopoulos KonstantinosApostolopoulosPatrasLaw
Pandora Manolidi
Anthony MavridesBallas, Pelecanos & Associates
Victoria MoutzouridouMoutzouridou - Sakellariou & Associates Law Firm
Kanakis NikitasDoctors of the World
Christina PapadopoulouGreek National Human Rights Commission
Fotini N. SkopouliHarokopio University
Anastasia TsakatouraKTlegal Law Office
E. TsangalidouE.Tsangalidou & Co Law Company
Anonymous Contributors
GUATEMALA
Mario Augusto Alcántara VelásquezCarrillo & Associates
Mario ArchilaConsortium Centro America Abogados
Elias José Arriaza SáenzConsortium Centro America Abogados
Emanuel Callejas
Alvaro CordonCordón, Ovalle y Asociados
Angel Estuardo de Leon MonroyADSS
David Erales JopConsortium Centro America Abogados
Julio Roberto Garia MerlosUniversidad Francisco Marroquin
Liz GordilloArias & Muñoz
Kristine KlanderudUniversidad Francisco Marroquín
Guillermo Lopez DavisBufete Lopez Cordero
Jose E. QuiñonesQuiñones, Ibargüen, Lujan & Mata, S.C.
Evelyn RebuliQuiñones, Ibargüen, Lujan & Mata, S.C.
Mario Roberto Guadron RouanetPalomo & Porras
Saravia y Muñoz
Erick WongCordón, Ovalle y Asociados
Fernando ZeladaArias & Muñoz
Anonymous Contributors
HONG KONG SAR,
CHINAShahla F. AliFaculty of Law, University of Hong Kong
Patricia E. AlvaHong Kong Bar Association
Ruy Barretto
Danny ChanCentury Chambers
Jessica W. Y. ChanBernacchi Chambers
Kay K.W. ChanAdmiralty Chambers
Anne S.Y. CheungThe University of Hong Kong
Diana Cheung
Rick GlofcheskiFaculty of Law, University of Hong Kong
Lok Sang HoLingnan University
Christopher HooleyOdham, Li & Nie
A. K. C. KooFaculty of Law, University of Hong Kong
Yue MaDepartment of Economics, Lingnan University
Rebecca OngCity University of Hong Kong
John Kong ShanSchool of Law, City University of Hong Kong
Benny Y. T. TaiFaculty of Law, University of Hong Kong
Yun ZhaoUniversity of Hong Kong
Anonymous Contributors
HUNGARY
Katalin Barta
Gábor BaruchBaruch Law Office
Barnabas BuzasiWolf Theiss
Laszlo HajduHajdu and Pazsitka Law Office
Judit KapasUniversity of Debrecen
Verónika MoraHungarian Environmental Partnership Foundation
Tamas L. PaalInstitute of Drug Regulatory Affairs, University of Szeged
Anonymous Contributors
INDIA
B.V. BabuICMR
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
213
Shivani BhardwajSathi All for Partnerships
Lalit BhasinBhasin & Co., Advocates
Subhash BhatnagarIndian Institute of Management
N.K. ChakrabartiKIIT University
Jhelum ChowdhuryCrystal Research and Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
S.M.S. DevadossKochhar & Co., Advocates and Legal Consultants
E.N. Thambi DuraiDurai Group Companies
Yashomati GhoshNational Law School of India University
Arundhuti GuptaMentor Together
Pankaj Jain
Srilatha JuvvaTata Institute of Social Sciences
Sachidananda KannarnujiLEXPROFICIENCY
Rajas KasbekarLittle & Co., Advocates and Solicitors
Shomona KhannaSupreme Court of India
Uday Khare
P.R. Krishnan
Yadlapalli S. KusumaAll India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
Vipender MannKNM & Partners, Law Offices
Puneet MisraAll India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
Saurabh MisraSaurabh Misra & Associates, Advocates & International Legal Consultants
Shantanu Mohan PuriSMA Legal
J. L. N. MurthyJonnalagadda LLP
A. NagarathnaNational Law School of India University
PM NairGovernment of India
Anil Paleri
Eugene PereiraMigrant Forum
Sushil Raj
Sankaran Ramakrishnan
Jegan Rupa Subramanian
Prakash Singh
Ruchi SinhaTata Institute of Social Sciences
Suhas SrinivasiahKochhar & Co., Advocates and Legal Consultants
S.R. SubramanianIndian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Anonymous Contributors
INDONESIA
Karen MillsKarimSyah Law Firm
Rahayu Ningsih HoedMakarim & Taira S. Counsellors at Law
Mardjono ReksodiputroUniversity of Indonesia
Rully SandraHRRC
M. SartonoLaw Firm Hanafiah Ponggawa & Partners
Frans H. WinartaFrans Winarta & Partners
Anonymous Contributors
IRAN
Ardeshir AtaiAtai & Associates Law Firm
Mohammad BadamchiHAMI Legal Services
Amir Karbasi MilaniMilani Law Firm
Seyed Mahmoud KashaniShahid Beheshty University
Dr. MajidNational Nutrition & Food Technology Research Institute of Iran (NNFTRI)
Yahya RayeganiFarjam Law Office
M. Ebrahim Tavakoli
Anonymous Contributors
ITALY
Antonella AntonucciUniversity of Bari
Monica BarbieriPirola Pennuto Zei & Association
Gianantonio BarelliCaffi Maroncelli Law Firm
Paola BilanciaUniversitry of Milano
Roberto BinUniversity of Ferrara
Sabrina BrunoUniversity of Calabria
Carlo CasonatoUniversity of Trento
Antonio CassatellaUniversity of Trento
Mariano CingolaniUniversity of Macerata
Emanuele CortesiCaffi Maroncelli e Associati
Corrado De MartiniUnion Internationale des Avocats
Alessio Di AmatoUniversity of Salerno
Astolfo Di AmatoUniversity of Naples
Serena ForlatiUniversity of Ferrara
Mitja GialuzUniversity of Trieste
Ajani GianmariaDepartment of Law, University of Turin
Francesco GongoloDirezione Centrale Salute Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
Paolo GrecoUniversity of Salerno
Alberto LamaAncarani Studio Legale
Giuseppe Lorenzo RosaGiuseppe L Rosa, Esq. & Associated Counsels
Paola LucarelliUniversity of Florence
Pierpaolo MartucciUniversity of Trieste
Marco OrofinoUniversity of Milan
Fulvio Maria PalombinoFaculty of Law, University of Naples
Roberto RosapepeUniversity of Salerno
Riccardo SalomoneUniversity of Trento
Emanuele ScafatoSocieta’ Italiana di Alcologia SIA
M. ScarponiUniversity of Trento
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
214
Giuseppe Scassellati-SforzoliniCleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Annita Larissa SciacovelliUniversity of Bari
Anna SimonatiUniversity of Trento
Roberto ToniattiLaw School, University of Trento
Francesca ValentDirezione Centrale Salute Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
Domenico VitaleStudio Associato Paulli-Pironti-Laratro
Alberto ZucconiIstituto dell’Approccio Centrato sulla Persona
Anonymous Contributors
JAMAICA
Sylvia Adjoa MitchellUniversity of the West Indies
Anthony ClaytonUniversity of the West Indies
Colette Cunninghom-MyrieUniversity of the West Indies
Pauline E. DawkinsUniversity of the West Indies
Paula DawsonUniversity of the West Indies
J. Peter FigueroaUniversity of the West Indies
Horace FletcherUniversity of the West Indies
Damian K. FrancisUniversity of the West Indies
Marie FreckletonUniversity of the West Indies
Carron GordonUniversity of the West Indies
Linton GordonFrater Ennis & Gordon
Verona Henry-FergusonUniversity of the West Indies
Rachael IrvingUniversity of the West Indies
Shelly McFarlaneUniversity of the West Indies
Donovan McGrowderUniversity of the West Indies
Aisha Mulendwe
Cynthia PitterUniversity of the West Indies
Dalip RagoobirsinghUniversity of the West Indies
Tana Ricketts-RoomesUniversity of the West Indies
Eris SchoburghUniversity of the West Indies
Lester ShieldsUniversity of the West Indies Health Centre
Norman WaldronUniversity of the West Indies
Lloyd WallerUniversity of the West Indies
Steve WeaverUniversity of the West Indies
Sharon WhiteUniversity of the West Indies
Allan S. Wood
Anonymous Contributors
JAPAN
Yasuhiro FujiiBaker & McKenzie
Kaoru HaraguchiHaraguchi International Law Office
Yasushi HigashizawaKasumigaseki Sogo Law Offices
HP Legal
Shigetoshi (Toshi) HiranoOh-Ebashi LPC & Partners
Shigeji IshiguroOguri & Ishiguro Law Offices
Masakazu IwakuraNishimura & Asahi
Nobuo KoinumaTohoku University
Mark NakamuaInt’l Education Information Centre
Hiroshi NishiharaWaseda-University
Anonymous Contributors
JORDAN
Hazar Saleh Al KhasawnehInstitute for Leadership Excellence (ILE)
Tarik AridaArida Law Firm
Abatah D. DaherJordan University
Ms. IhssanJudiciary Court of Appeals
Firas Yosef KasassbehYarmouk University
Nisreen MahasnehYarmouk University
Dr. MushashaAl-Albyte University
Mahmoud N. Quteishat
Dima Yousef
Anonymous Contributors
KAZAKHSTAN
Valery ChechulinMichael Wilson & Partners Ltd.
Roman NurpeissovKIMEP University
Alida TuyebekovaMichael Wilson and Partners, Ltd.
Timur YerjanovKazakh National University
Arlan YerzhanovGRATA Law Firm
Anonymous Contributors
KENYA
Yaw AfraneKenya Medical Research Institute
L. Obura AlooMwaura & Wachira Advocates
Peter GachuhiKaplan and Stratton Advocates
Anthony GrossA. F. Gross Advocate
Nigel V. JeremyDaly & Figgis Advocates
Jacqueline KamauLaibuta, Kamau & Co Advocates
Mugambi LaibutaES-EA
Thomas N. MaosaMaosa & Company Advocates
Aisha Maulana
John Mudegu VululeKEMRI
Dennis Mung’ataGichimu Mung’ata & Co Advocates
Martin MunyuIseme Kamau & Maema Advocates
Rachel MuthogaPhysicians for Human Rights
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
215
Kiingati NdiranguKairu Mbuthia & Kiingati Advocates
Anthony NjoguDaly & Figgis Advocates
Angela OchumbaNew York University School of Law
Leonard Samson OpundoOpundo & Associates Advocates
James Otieno OdekSchool of Law, University of Nairobi
Sonal SejpalAnjarwalla & Khanna Advocates
Anonymous Contributors
KYRGYZSTAN
Albanova Aizhan
Valentin Chernyshev
Asel DzhamankulovaABA Rule of Law Initiative
Guljan EsenalievaAmerican University in Central Asia
Begaiym EsenkulovaAmerican University of Central Asia
Azamat KerimbaevABA Rule of Law Initiative
Saltanat MoldoisaevaNGO “For Rational and Safety Use of Medicines”
Gulnaz NaamatovaAmerican University in Central Asia
Nazik SatkeyevaARTE Law Firm
Akbar SuvanbekovRepublican Center for Health System Development and IT
Anonymous Contributors
LEBANON
Charbel DagherBaroudi & Associates Law Firm
Khatoun HaidarSynergy-Takamol
Joelle KhaterBadri and Salim El Meouchi Law Firm
Souraya MachnoukAbou Jaoude & Associates
Elias MattarAJA Law Firm
Hikmat RizkLebanese American University
Georges SaadFaculty of Law, Lebanese University
Joseph SaaibyHMB & Partners Law Firm
Rany SaderSADER & Associates (Advocates & Legal Consultants)
Ramy TorbeyAziz Torbey Law Firm
Hafez ZakhourZakhour Ali & Partner
Tony ZreikLebanese American University
Anonymous Contributors
LIBERIA
Sam M. AdorowaChildFund - Liberia
Luke L. BawoMinistry of Health and Social Welfare
F. Augustus CaesarCaesar Architects Inc.
Mohamedu F. JonesMohamedu F. Jones, Esq
Hannan Karnley-BestmanIMaD/MCDI - Liberia
Anonymous Contributors
MACEDONIA
Besa ArifiFaculty of Law, South East European University
Aleksandra BalevaAdvokatsko drustvo Godzo, Kiceec i Novakovski Ohrid
Doncho DonevFaculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University
Dennis FarringtonSEE University
Shterjovski GoceShterjovski
Aleksandar GodzoGodzo, Kiceec & Novakovski
Marija GulijaAD Dr. Panovski
Dr. JadrankaUniversity “Goce Delcev” Stip
Maja JakimovskaCAKMAKOVA Advocates
Adnan JashariSouth East European University
Deljo KadievKadiev Law Office
Trajce KitanovskiLaw Firm Kitanovski
Sami MehmetiSouth East European University
Neda Milevska-KostovaCentre for Regional Policy Research and Cooperation ‘Studiorum’
Svetlana NecevaLaw Office Pepeljugoski
Ilija NedelkoskiCAKMAKOVA Advocates
Aleksandar PulejkovAleksandar Pulejkov Judgments Law Enforcement Office
Dr. StarskoUniversity “Goce Delcev” Stip
Aleksandar TrajkovskiLaw Office Pepeljugoski
Leonid TrpenoskiLaw Firm Trpenoski
Svetlana VeljanovskaFaculty of Law UKLO Bitola, Kichevo
Anonymous Contributors
MADAGASCAR
Andrianjaka AdriamanalinaOffice Notarial de Tamatave
M. Andriamadison
Jacques RakotomalalaCabinet d’Avocats Rakotomalala
Rija RakotomalalaCabinet d’Avocats Rakotomalala
Mamison RakotondramananaJurisConsult Madagascar Law Firm
M. RazaiarisoloCabinet d’Avocats Razaiarisolo Rakotomalala
Anonymous Contributors
MALAWI
Justin Goodwin Kusamba DzonziKainja & Dzonzi
Victor Makhubalo JereChurchill, Norris & Foster
Gabriel KambaleGK Associates
Andrews Dowell KatuyaDowell & Jones, Attorneys-at-Law
Kenneth Mphatso MaletaUniversity of Malawi, College of Medicine
Charles MhangoMalawi Human Rights Commission
Allan Hans MuhomeMalawi Law Society
Adamson S. MuulaUniversity of Malawi, College of Medicine
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
216
Jack NrivaMalawi Judiciary
Anonymous Contributors
MALAYSIA
Azmi Mohd AliAzmi & Associates
Ashgar Ali bin Ali MohamedInternational Islamic University Malaysia
Aishah BidinNational University of Malaysia
HP Legal
Ashran bin Haji IdrisUniversiti Teknologi Mara Malaysia
S.B. CheahS.B.Cheah & Associates
Sharon KaurFaculty of Law, University of Malaysia
Rooshida Merican
Chew Phye KeatRaja, Darryl & Loh
Rizal RahmanNational University of Malaysia
Anonymous Contributors
MEXICO
Ma Guadalupe Alvear-GalindoFacultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Iker ArriolaWhite & Case LLP
L. Alberto BalderasJauregui y Navarrete, S.C.
Esteban Maqueo BarnetcheMaqueo Abogados, S.C.
Jose Alberto Campos VargasSánchez de Vanny Eseverri, S.C.
Maria Teresa Cantú ReusCantúReus Abogados, S.C.
Teresa Carmona ArcosConsultores Jurídicos
Daniel Carrancia de la MoraCarranca, Araujo, Acosta y Riquelme Abogados
Jorge A. de RegilBaker & McKenzie
Aldo González MeloCarranca, Araujo, Acosta y Riquelme Abogados
Alonso Gonzalez-Villalobos
Yves Hayaux-du-TillyNader, Hayaux & Goebel
Michel Hernández
Julio Hernández BarrosBufete Hernández Pliego Abogados A.C.
Julio Hernández PliegoBufete Hernández Pliego Abogados A.C.
Hugo Hernández-Ojeda AlvírezBarrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa, S.C.
HP Legal
Juan Manuel Juarez MezaR&N Abogados
Angel M. JunqueraJunqueray Forcada
David Gustavo LamoyiAeromexico
Olivia Lopez-ArellanoUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana Xochimilco
Luciano Mendoza CruzFacultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Sergio Lopez MorenoUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana Xochimilco
Guillermo Piecarchic CohenPMC LAW, S.C.
Carlos RiquelmeCarranca, Araujo, Acosta y Riquelme Abogados
David Arturo Rocha GarciaFIMPE
Bernardo Rodriguez
César RojasBasham, Ringe y Correa, S.C.
Ivonne M. RojasPMC LAW, S.C.
Fabian Sanchez Matusi(dh)eas, Litigio Estratégico en Derechos Humanos, A.C.
Pietro StraulinoSanchez DeVanny Eseverri, S.C
Juan Francisco Torres Landa R.Barrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa, S.C.
Anonymous Contributors
MOLDOVA
Octavian CazacTurcan Cazac Law Firm
Alexei CroitorAlexei Croitor Law Firm
Marica DumitrascoAcadamy of Sciencies of Moldova
Victor DurlesteanuDurlesteanu & Partners
Iulia FortunaTurcan Cazac Law Firm
Ana GalusTurcan Cazac Law Firm
HP Legal
Cristina MartinACI Partner
Daniel MartinBAA Avornic & Partners
Alexandru SavvaTurcan Cazac Law Firm
Anonymous Contributors
MONGOLIA
Enkhbat BatsukhKhan Lex Partners
Volodya BolormaaGRATA Law Firm
Bayar BudragchaaELC
M. GankhuyagGN & Co., Ltd.
Darin HoffmanMahoneyLiotta
Luke LkhaasurenLogos Avocates
Erdenejargal PerenleiOpen Society Forum
Badamragchaa PurevdorjOpen Society Forum
Batragchaa RagchaaA & A Global Law Firm
Gerelmaa SanduiUmug Kholch LLC
Anonymous Contributors
MOROCCO
Sion AssidonTransparency MAROC
M. Boukasri
M. Briou
Richard D. CantinJuristructures LLP
Mimoun CharqiJURISPOL
Kenza CherifCabinet D’Avocats Cherif
Amin HajjiHajji & Associés
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
217
Zineb Idrissia HamziHamzi Law Firm
Nassri IlhamInstitut National de Santé Publique
Mehdi KettaniKettani Associés
Anis MahfoudAB Avocats & Associés
Tarik MossadekUniversité Hassan I
Saâd Moummi
Driss MoussaouiCentre Psychiatrique Universitaire Ibn Rochd
Mohamed NakhliCabinet Maitre Nakhli
Adbdelaziz NouyadiAdala Association
Soulaymani RachidaCentre Anti Poison et de Pharmacovigilance du Maroc
Houcine SefriouiEtude de Notariat Moderne
Fenjiro Soulaimane, Esq
Anonymous Contributors
NEPAL
Sangha R. BajracharyaNational Centre for Health Professions’ Education
Damodar GajurelNepal Medical Council
Bishwa Nath KhanalShrestha Legal Service Center
Gourish K. KharelKto Inc.
Bishnu LuitelBG Law Foundation
Bijaya Prasad MishraNepal Bar Association
Balkrishna NeupaneNeupane Law Associates
Paras K. PokharelBP Koirala Institute of Health Sciences
Rudra Prasad PokhrelR.P. Pokhrel & Associates
Rudra SharmaPradhan & Associates
Narayan ShresthaShrestha Legal Service Center
Nil Mani UpadhyayNepal Medical Council
Anonymous Contributors
NETHERLANDS
W.H.E. BuntinxBuntinx Training & Consultancy
Duco de BoerStibbe
Daan de LangeBrinkhof
Mark GoversMaastricht University
HP Legal
Hans J. Hoegen DijkhofHoegen Dijkhof Attorneys & Tax Counsellors
Joost ItalianerNautaDutilh
Frans SijbersWladimiroff
Carel StolkerLeiden University
Sjef van ErpMaastricht University
Anton van KalmthoutTilburg University
Lars van VlietMaastricht University
Arnold VersteegBrinkhof
Anonymous Contributors
NEW ZEALAND
Philip AhernMorrison Kent
William AkelSimpson Grierson
Gordon AndersonVictoria University
Denise ArnoldLyon O’Neale Arnold
Sylvia BellHuman Rights Commission
Mark BennettVictoria University of Wellington, Faculty of Law
Matthew BerkahnMassey University
Michael BottMichael Bott Barrister
David BromellInstitute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington
WJ BrookbanksUniversity of Auckland
Sonja CooperCooper Legal, Barristers and Solicitors
Alberto CostiVictoria University of Wellington
Nicholas CrangBuddle Findlay
Francisc DeliuAmicus Barristers Chambers
Tony Ellis
James Gardner-HopkinsRussell McVeagh
D J GatesDJ Gates
Andrew GeddisFaculty of Law, University of Otago
Kris GledhillFaculty of Law, University of Auckland
Paul GoobyCavell-Leitch Law
Earl GraySimpson Grierson
Kathryn GuiseHesketh Henry
Geoff HallffUniversity of Otago
Nigel Hampton Q CNigel Hampton Q C
Christopher HareFaculty of Law, University of Auckland
Dan Harrison
Donald HarrisonHaigh Lyon
Colin HenryC.S. Henry, Barrister, and Associates
Robert HeskethOffice of Human Rights Proceedings
Brian KeeneBrian Keene Queens Counsel
Dean KilpatrickAnthon Harper
Alan KnowsleyRainey Collins Lawyers
Simon LaddBell Gully
Paul Michalik
Simon Moore QCMeredith Connell
Joanna MossopVictoria University of Wellington
Pam NuttallAUT University Law School
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
218
Evgeny OrlovEquity Law
Michael QuiggQuigg Partners
Kevin RiordanNew Zealand Defence Force
Paul RothUniversity of Otago
Mary-Rose RussellLaw School, Auckland University of Technology
Feona SaylesMassey University
Stephen Eliot SmithUniversity of Otago
W. Murray ThomsonUniversity of Otago
Rob TownerBell Gully
David Underwood
Peter WattsFaculty of Law, University of Auckland
Nicola WheenUniversity of Otago
David V. WilliamsUniversity of Auckland
Kim WorkmanRobson Hanan Trust
Steven ZindelZindels
Anonymous Contributors
NICARAGUA
Marco Antonio Benavente GómezGarcía & Bodán
Luis Manuel Canales PerezJarquin Garcia
Gerardo Martín HernándezConsortium Centro America Abogados
Andre Herrera RodriguezCIDS, UNAN-Leon
Roberto JoseArias & Muñoz
Angelica Maria Toruno GarciaUniversidad Evangelica Nicaraguense Martin Luther King Jr.
Edgard Torres MendietaArias & Muñoz
Soraya Montoya HerreraMolina & Asociados, S.A.
Luis Manuel Perezalonso LanzasOficina de Leyes
Ramiro RodriguezGarcia & Bodan
Christian Alemán SotomayorAlemán Abogados y Notarios
Anonymous Contributors
NIGERIA
Abdulhamid Abdullahi BagaraCommunity Health and Research Initiative
Joseph E.O. AbuguAbugu & Co., Solicitors
Wale-Adewale AdelekeOndo State Government
Onjefu AdogaBrooke Chambers
Chioma Kanu AgomoDepartment of Commercial and Industrial Law, University of Lagos
Olumide O. AjuF.O.Akinrele & Co.
Seyi AkinwunmiAkinwunmi & Busari, Legal Practitioners
Yomi AlliyuChief Yomi Alliyu & Co.
Nonye AniebueUniversity of Nigeria, Nsukka
Ige AsemudaraPUNUKA Attorneys & Solictors
Yomi DareYomi Dare and Company
Idowu Durosinmi-EttiAdepetun Caxton-Martins Agbor & Segun
Efena EfetieNational Hospital
Olumide EkisolaAdejumo Ekisola & Ezeani
Godwin EtimAELEX Legal Practitioners & Arbitrators
Joy Ngozi EzeiloWomenAid Collective (WACOL)
Anse Agu EzetahLaw Agu Ezetah & Co.
Vitalis Chukwunalu IhedigboPUNUKA Attorneys & Solicitors
Ayo KusamotuKusamotu & Kusamotu
Emmanuel Amaechi NwobiUniversity of Nigeria
Chinyere NwokoroLegal Luminaries Solicitors
Godwin OblaObla and Co, Barristers and Solicitors
Gbenga OdusolaGbenga Odusola & Co., LP
Nelson OgbuanyaNocs Consults
Chudi Nelson OjukwuNigerian Law School
Patrick OkonjoOkonjo, Odiawa & Ebie
Ndubuisi OkontaPunuka Attorneys & Solictors
Olasupo OlaibiSupo Olaibi & Company
Bolaji OlaniranJustice Group of Nigeria
Ayotunde OlogeSYNERGY Legal Practitioners and Consultants
Ehijeagbon OseroghoOserogho & Associates
Akin OsinbajoAbdulai, Taiwo & Co., Solicitors
Gbenga OyebodeAluko & Oyebode
Festus Okechukwu UkwuezeFaculty of Law, University of Nigeria
Anonymous Contributors
NORWAY
Carl A. ChristiansenRaeder DA
Terje EinarsenGulating High Court
Birthe EriksenFaculty of Law, University of Bergen
Jan Fridthjof BerntFaculty of Law, University of Bergen
Eirik HolmøyvikFaculty of Law, University of Bergen
Erling Johannes HusabøUniversity of Bergen
Erling LindWiersholm
Eivind SmithUniversity of Oslo
Tina SøreideFaculty of Law, University of Bergen
Karl Harald SovigFaculty of Law, University of Bergen
Ulf StridbeckFaculty of Law, University of Oslo
Stella TuftMicrosoft
Arild VaktskjoldIHA, Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap
Tor ValeAdvokatfirmaet Hartsang DA
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
219
Anonymous Contributors
PAKISTAN
Mohammad Akram SheikhSupreme Court of Pakistan
Zia Ahmed AwanLawyers for Human Rights & Legal Aid
Rai Muhammad Saleh AzamAzam & Rai Advocates & Legal Consultants
Shahbaz Ahmad CheemaUniversity of the Punjab
Umer FarooqAyub Medical College
Shams ul Haque JoiyaRight Law Company
Parvez HassanHassan and Hassan Advocates
Muzaffar IslamLahore Waste Management Company
Anees JillaniJillani & Hassan
Muhammad KhanLahore General Hospital
Shereen MasoudMasud Law Associates
Nasir Ul MulkSupreme Court of Pakistan
Muhammad MunirInternational Islamic University, Islamabad
Faiza MuzaffarLegis Inn Attorneys & Corporate Consultants
Adnan Aslam QureshiQureshi Law Associates
Tariq RahimTariq Rahim Law Associates
Salman SafdarChamber of Barrister Salman Safdar
Fatima Sajjad
Shahzadi Samreen TariqSociety for Enforcement of Rule of Law
Muhammad Irfanullah SiddiquiUmm Al-Qura University
Iftikhar Ahmad TararPunjab University
S.M.Farhad TirmaziTirmazi & Associates
Mohammad Zakaria
Anonymous Contributors
PANAMA
Víctor DelgadoUniversidad Católica Santa María La Antigua
Carlos Ernesto González RamírezFundación Libertad
Gisela JuliaoLegal Invest Solutions
Ivette MartinezPatton Moreno & Asvat
Mario RognoniArosemena, Noriega & Contreras
Raul SotoANORCO
Anonymous Contributors
PERU
Marco AlarconEstudio Echecopar
Eduardo BenavidesBerninzon & Benavides
Raquel CancinoUniversidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia
Cecilia Melba Ma CardenasConsult Salud
Shirley CárdenasGarcía Sayán Abogados
Dino Carlos Caro CoriaCaro & Asociados, Especialistas en Derecho Penal Económico y de la Empresa
Maria Sofia Cuba FuentesSociedad Peruana de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria
Jaime DurandGarcía Sayán Abogados
Martin Gavidia
Carmen Heck FrancoSociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental
David LiraClinica Internacional
Rossana Maccera
Elfren MoralesHospital Nacional Hipólito Unanue
Evan E. MorganEvan Morgan & Asociados Abogados
Yesenia NuñezInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Neurológicas (INCN)
Gabriel Ortiz de ZevallosAPOYO Comunicación Corporativa S.A.
Jorge Martín Paredes PérezParedes & Asociados
Ricardo M. Pauli
Miguel Angel Porras CarriónInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Neurológicas (INCN)
César PuntrianoEstudio Muñiz
Marcos Ricardo Revatta SalasUnica Universidad Nacional San Lus Gonzaga De Ica Peru
Miguel Rubio AyllonMuñiz, Ramirez, Perez - Taiman & Olaya
Alberto VarillasGarcía Sayán Abogados
Jose Luis Velarde LazarteEstudio Olaechea
Anonymous Contributors
PHILIPPINES
Luther Z. CalderonKabalikat ng Migranteng Pilipino Inc. (KAMPI)
Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Jelson GarciaBank Information Center
Karen S. Gomez DumpitCommission on Human Rights of the Philippines
Nancy Joan M. JavierIntegrated Bar of the Philippines
Carmelita G. NuquiDevelopment Action for Women Network (DAWN)
Olivier L. Pantaleon
Jeanie S. PulidoLaw Office of Jeanie S. Pulido
Mary Grace R. QuintanaDepartment of Justice
Ramon G. Samson
Isagani R. SerranoPhilippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)
Reginald A. Tongol
Ma. Louisa M. Viloria-YapLaw Firm of Garcia Inigo & Partners
Anonymous Contributors
POLAND
Katarzyna Batko-TolucThe Association of Leaders of Local Civic Groups
Andrzej BrodziakInstitute of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
Joanna KobzaSilesian Medical University
Agnieszka LisieckaWardynski and Partners sp. k.
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
220
Piotr MajerAaszczuk & Partners Sp.k.
Andrzej MichalowskiMichalowski Stefanski Adwokaci Spólka Komandytowa
Malgorzata Muc-WierzgonSilesian Medical University
Jerzy Naumann
Michal RaczkowskiFaculty of Law and Administration, University of Warsaw
Krzysztof RastawickiRMS Rastawicki Sawicki Sp.K.
Lechoslaw StepniakDomanski Zakrzewski Palinka sp.k.
Tomasz TrojanowskiIFMSA
Jerzy WolinskiLaw Office JW
Anonymous Contributors
PORTUGAL
Luis Miguel AmaralLuis Miguel Amaral - Advogados
Fernando Antas da CunhaACFA
Joana Barrilaro Ruas
Anja BotheUniversidade Atlântica
Eduardo J. Buisson VB LoureiroLegal Affairs Bureau (Macau)
Octavio Castelo PauloSRS Advogados
Pedro Rodrigues de MataPRM & Associados
Henrique DoroteiaHenrique Doroteia Advogados
Andre Lamas LeiteFaculty of Law, University of Porto
Sandrine Bisson Marvao
Pedro PintoPBBR
Goncalo Pinto FerreiraAlbuquerque & Associates
Teresa Pizarro BelezaLaw School, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Carlos Lopes Ribeiro
Isabel RochaRMV & Associates Law Firm
Libertário TeixeiraLTCF Sociedade de Advogados RL
Anonymous Contributors
ROMANIA
Cristina AlexePopovici Nitu & Asociatii Attorneys at Law
Marius-Nicolae BalanThe Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi
Cristian BogaruHammond, Bogaru & Associates
Anca Lulia CimpeanuRubin Meyer Doru & Trandafir LPC
Miloiu CiprianMiloiu Ciprian Private Law Office
Valeriu CiucaThe Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi
Madalina ConstantinVoicu & Filipescu SCA
Dariescu CosminThe Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi
Cosmin Flavius CostasFaculty of Law, Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca
Andrei DanciuSCA Cataniciu & Asociatii
Daghie DragosDaghie & Asociatii
Ioana DumitruSCA Popovici Nitu & Asociatii
Diana Maria IonescuBabes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca
HP Legal
Ioan LazarAlba County Bar Association
Raul MihuVoicu & Filipescu SCA
Flaviu NanuWhite & Case
Vlad NeacsuSCA Popovici Nitu & Asociatii
George NedelcuNedelcu George - Law Office
Daniel NituBabes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca
Dan Oancea
Septimiu PanainteLaw Faculty, The Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi
Gavrila Simona PetrinaUniversity Dunarea de Jos Galati
Radu RizoiuRizoiu & Asociatii
Mihail Romeo NicolescuRomeo Nicolescu Law Office
Felicia RosioruFaculty of Law, Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca
Bogdan Sergiu
Florin StreteanuFaculty of Law, Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca
Simina TanasescuUniversity of Bucharest
Andrei ZamfirescuGilescu & Partenerii CHSH
Anonymous Contributors
RUSSIA
Sergey AlexeevInstitute of Private Law
HP Legal
Nikolai KostenkoMoscow Helsinki Group
Eduard MargulyanMargulyan & Kovalev
Andrey NeznamovThe Ural State Law Academy
Alexander RomanovThe Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Elena SapeginaBeiten Burkhardt
Vladimir ShoukhovMoscow State Medico-Stomatological University
Anonymous Contributors
SENEGAL
Mbaye DieneConsortium pour la Recherche Economique et Sociale(CRES)
Diene Ousseynou DioufUniversité de Ziguinchor
Elhadji Mame Gning
Serigne Magueye GueyeUniversité Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar
Mamadou MbayaSCP Mame Adama Gueye & Associés
Moustapha Ndoye
Moustapha NgaidoUniversité Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar
Dr. SarrMinistere de la Santé
El Hadji Omar YoumSCP Mame Adama Gueye & Associés
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
221
Anonymous Contributors
SERBIA
Vera Bajic
Dusan S. Dimitrijevic
Djordje DjurisicLaw Office of Djordje Djurisic
Veljko GuberinaGuberina-Marinkov Law Office
Valentina KrkovicLaw office Valentina Krkovic
Zach KuvizicKuvizic & Tadic Law Office
Jane PaunkovicFaculty of Management Zajeccar
Vladan SimeunovicLaw Office Simeunovic-Ikonovic-Isailovic
Petar StojanovicJoksovic, Stojanovic & Partners, Attorneys at Law
Nenad VujicVujic Law Office
Anonymous Contributors
SIERRA LEONE
Anthony BrewahBrewah and Co.
Michael Imran KanuStreamline Consultancy
Simeon KoromaTIMAP for Justice
Ady MacauleyAnti-Corruption Commission
Editayo Pabs-GarnonRenner-Thomas & Co.
Nancy SesayOpen Society Initiative for West Africa
Rowland WrightWright& Co.
Anonymous Contributors
SINGAPORE
Simon ChestermanFaculty of Law, National University of Singapore
Kelvin ChiaKelvin Chia Partnership
Harry EliasHarry Elias Partnership LLP
HP Legal
Tan Cheng HanNational University of Singapore
Koon-Hou Mak
Dan W. PuchniakFaculty of Law, National University of Singapore
Elizabeth Siew-Kuan NgFaculty of Law, National University of Singapore
Josephus TanPatrick Tan LLC
Patrick TanPatrick Tan LLC
Chia Boon TeckChia Wong LLP
Jack Tsen-Ta LeeSchool of Law, Singapore Management University
Stanley YeoNational University of Singapore
Anonymous Contributors
SLOVENIA
Bojko BucarUniversity of Ljubljana
Ales GalicUniversity of Ljubljana
Erik KersevanUniversity of Ljubljana
Andrej KirmAvbreht, Zajc & Partners, Ltd.
Rajko KnezFaculty of Law, University of Maribor
Suzana KraljicFaculty of Law, University of Maribor
Matija RepoluskRepolusk Law Firm
Primoz RozmanBlood Transfusion Centre of Slovenia
Josip Sever
Peter StanovnikInstitute for Economic Research
Grega StrbanFaculty of Law, University of Ljubljana
Luka TicarFaculty of Law, University of Ljubljana
Anonymous Contributors
SOUTH AFRICA
Johan Beukes
Victoria BronsteinSchool of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Fawzia CassimUniversity of South Africa
Tamara CohenUniversity of KwaZulu Natal
Daphney Nozizwe ConcoDENOSA Professional Institute
Hugh CorderUniversity of Cape Town
Pieter du ToitNorth-West University
Sieg EiselenUniversity of South Africa
Chantelle FeldhausNorth-West University
Henri FoucheUniversity of South Africa
Wilhelmina GermishuysUniversity of South Africa
Susan GoldsteinSoul City
James GrantSchool of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Jacqueline HeatonUniversity of South Africa
Derek HellenbergUniversity of Cape Town
Paul HoffmanThe Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa
Rene KoraanNorth-West University, Potchefstroom
Johann KrieglerFreedom Under Law
Johan KrugerCentre for Constitutional Rights
Peter LeonWebber Wentzel
A. LeonardUniversity of South Africa
Leon LouwLaw Review Project
J. Mahler-CoetzeeNelson Mandela School of Law
Vuyokazi MatshayaAfrican Medical & Research Foundation
Stephen MonyeUniversity of South Africa
Kasturi MoodaliyarUniversity of Witwatersrand
Budeli MpfariseniUniversity of South Africa
Dejo OlowuNorth-West University
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
222
Matome M. RatibaUniversity of South Africa
Altair RichardsEdward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc.
Milton SeligsonSouth African Bar
Sandhiya SinghUniversity of KwaZulu Natal
Elizabeth Snyman-Van DeventerUniversity of the Free State
Philip StoopUniversity of South Africa
Clarence I. TshooseUniversity of South Africa
Andreas van WykStellenbosch University
Jeannie van WykUniversity of South Africa
Francois VenterFaculty of Law, North-West University, Potchefstroom
Tania VergnaniUniversity of the Western Cape
R. ZinnUniversity of South Africa
Anonymous Contributors
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Woo Young ChoiHwang Mok Park
HP Legal
Haksoo KoSchool of Law, Seoul National University
Hwang LeeKorea University School of Law
Sang Won LeeSchool of Law, Seoul National University
YangHee LeeSungyunkwan University
Jaeseop SongShin & Kim
Junsok YangCatholic University of Korea
Michael YuKim & Chang
Sung Whan LeeAhnse Law Offices
Anonymous Contributors
SPAIN
Maria Acale SanchezUniversidad de Cádiz
Caesar Aguado RenedoUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid
Juan Francisco Aguiar RodriguezServicio Canario de Salud - Gobierno de Canarias
Maraa Jose Aguilar IdañezUniversidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Carlos Alvarez-DardetUniversidad de Alicante
Josefa Cantero MartínezUniversidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Montserrat CasamitjanaSociedad Salud Pública de Catalunya i Baleares
Xavier Castells OliveresHospital del Mar
Charles C. Coward BatesUria Menéndez
Paz M. de la CuestaUniversidad de Cantabria
Francisco Javier Dávila GonzálezUniversidad de Cantabria
HP Legal
Gustavo de las HerasUniversidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Manuel Angel de las Heras GarciaFacultad de Derecho, Universidad de Alicante
Federico Durán LópezGarrigues Abogados
Santiago Fernández RedondoHospital Universitario La Princesa
Antonio Fernández RodríguezGarrigues Abogados
Jose Fernandez-RanadaGarrigues Abogados
Luis GaiteHospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla
Roman Gil AlburquerqueJunta de Gobierno del Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid
Martin Godino ReyesSagardoy Abogados
Carlos Gómez-JaraUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid
Pablo Guárez TricaricoDepartamento de Derecho Penal, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Ana GutiérrezUniversidad de Cantabria
María Gutiérrez RodríguezUniversidad Carlos III
Juan Antonio Lascuraín SánchezUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid
Josep Lluís de PerayDepartament de Salut
Maria del Mar Carrasco AndrinoUniversidad de Alicante
Jose Martí BoscàUniversitat de Valencia
Juan Oliva-MorenaAsociación de Economía de la Salud
José María Ordóñez IriarteComunidad de Madrid
Rafael Ortiz CervelloGarrigues Abogados
Rocio Ortiz MoncadaUniversidad de Alicante
Jesús Padilla GálvezUniversidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Vicente Pastor y AldeguerHospital Universitario La Princesa
Manuel PorteroUniversidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Felipe Renart GarciaUniversidad de Alicante
Jose Ignacio RodriguezUniversidad de Alcala
Federico Rodríguez MorataUniversidad de Castilla-La Mancha
August Torà Barnadas
Yolanda ValdeolivasUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid
Rosario Vicente MartínezUniversidad Castilla-La Mancha
Anonymous Contributors
SRI LANKA
Chrishantha AbeysenaUniversity of Kelaniya
A. PathmeswaranUniversity of Kelaniya
Gamini PereraSupreme Court of Sri Lanka
Dr. RajendiraFaculty of Medicine Jaffna
Asoka SilvaDepartment of Legal Studies, The Open University of Sri Lanka
Manuj WeerasingheFaculty of Medicine, University of Colombo
Anusha WickramasingheThe Open University of Sri Lanka
Anonymous Contributors
SWEDEN
Jack ÅgrenStockholm University
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
223
Bengt AhgrenNordic School of Public Health
Carl-Olof BouvengAdvokatfirman Lindahl
Laura CarlsonFaculty of Law, Stockholm University
Daniel DrottAdvokatfirman Delphi
Reinhold FahlbeckLund University
Boel FlodgrenLund University
Peder GrandinsonHammarskiöld & Co.
HP Legal
Peder HammarskiöldHammarskiöld & Co.
Petter HolmGärde Wesslau Advokatbyrå
Mikael JohanssonRaoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
Lennart KahlerNordic School of Public Health
Gunilla LindmarkUppsala University
Bengt LundellLund University
Olov MarsaterFaculty of Law, Uppsala University
Ulf MaunsbachFaculty of Law, Lund University
Christoffer MonellMannheimer Swartling Advokatbyrå
Karol NowakFaculty of Law, Lund University
Birgitta NyströmFaculty of Law, Lund University
Bjorn OhdeAdvokataktiebolaget Roslagen
Karl-Arne OlssonGärde Wesslau Advokatbyrå
Johan SangbornThe Swedish Bar Association
Gustaf SjöbergStockholm University
Dennis TöllborgUniversity of Gothenburg
Mauro ZamboniFaculty of Law, Stockholm University
Ola ZetterquistGothenburg University
Anonymous Contributors
TANZANIA
Salim AbubakarBLC Advocates
Grace KazobaIFM
Francis KiwangaMatrix Consulting Advocates
Melkizedeck LeshabariUniversity of Health and Allied Sciences
Florens LuogaFK Law Chambers
Fadhili Nathan LwendoZenith Attorneys
Samwel Gard MadulangaMrosso & Associates Advocate
Annmarie Mavenjina NkelameActionAid Tanzania
Cheggy C. MzirayBrickHouse Law Associates
Eustard Athanace NgatalePrime Ministers Office Regional Administration and Local Government
Juvenalis NgowiEast African Law Chambers
Eliud WandwaloManagement Sciences for Health
Anonymous Contributors
THAILAND
Paul ConnellyInternational Legal Counsellors Thailand Limited
Wonpen KeawpanFaculty of Public Health
Jeeranun KlaewklaFaculty of Public Health, Mahidol University
Usa Lek-UthaiMahidol University
Siriporn SkrobanekFoundation for Women
Chanvit TharathepMinistry of Public Health
Anonymous Contributors
TUNISIA
Hamdi AmineZaanouni Law Firm
Ben AmmarBen Ammar Law Firm
Amel BchiniBchini Avocat Conseil
Nadhir Ben AmmouCabinet Nadhir Ben Ammou
Kais Ben BrahimTunisia Legal
Elies Ben LetaifaJuris International Lawyers
Bessem Ben SalemBSLF
Elyes ChafterChafter Raoudi Law Firm
Mohammed EnnaceurAssociation Tunisienne de Droit Social
Zied GallalaGallala Law Firm
Zouhaier GhediraOrdre National des Avocats de Tunisie
Amel Gorbej
Donia Hedda EllouzeCabinet Maitre Donia Hedda Ellouze
Hedio KedadiHedio Kedadi Legal
Kouki KhaledKBN Avocats
Brahim LatrechDr. Brahim Latrech Law Office
Hechmi LouzirInstitut Pasteur de Tunis
Amin MahfoudhBarreau de Tunisie
Ridha Mezghani
Asma NouiraFaculté de Droit et de Sciences Politiques
Nizar SdiriNizar Sdiri Law Firm
Anonymous Contributors
TURKEY
Ufuk AydinFaculty of Law, Anadolu University
Cem BeharBogaziçi University
Bahir BozcaliBozcali Law Offices
Gökçe ÇelenÇelen Law Office
Murat Volkan DülgerDulger Law Firm
Ece GöztepeBilkent University
HP Legal
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
224
Osman HayranYeditepe University
Nuray Galkasek KaracaAnadolu University
Orhan YavuzADMD Law Firm
Anonymous Contributors
UGANDA
Patrick A. AlungaBarugahare & Co. Advocates
D.J. BakibingaMakerere University
Eva BerindaFIDA Uganda
Jude ByamukamaTwesigye, Namanya & Co. Advocates
Brigitte Byarugaba KusiimaShonubi, Musoke & Co. Advocates
Ahumuza CharityRefugee Law Project, School of Law, Makerere University
Adrian JjuukoHuman Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF)
Peter KabatsiKampala Associated Advocates
David KaggwaKaggwa & Kaggwa Advocates
Brian KaluleNsubuga & Co. Advocates
Kakembo KatendeJN Kirkland & Associates
Regina Kawooya-JunjuKawwoya Junju & Co. Avocate
Emmanuel Meta AloroLex Uganda Advocates & Solicitors
Damalie Naggita-MusokeMakerere University
Salima NamusobyaRefugee Law Project, School of Law, Makerere University
Laura NyirinkindiUganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA Uganda)
George OmunyokolOmunyokol And Company Advocates
Arthur K. SsempebwaKatende, Sssempebwa and Company Advocates
Mpiima Jamir SsenogaKiwanuka, Lubega, Mpiima & Co. Advocates
Winifred Tarinyeba KiryabwireSchool of Law, Makerere University
Ronald TusingwireM/S Synergy Solicitors and Advocates
Anonymous Contributors
UKRAINE
Alexander BodnarukYuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University
Timur BondaryevArzinger Law Firm
Zoryana Chernenko
HP Legal
Nick V. KarchevskiyLugansk State University
Julia KondratskaMoskalenko & Partners Law Firm
Oleksandr KostenkoNational University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
Andrey KubkoSalkom Law Firm
Pavlo LukomskyiSalkom Law Firm
Andrii MisiatsNGO “Podilska Legal League”
Yaroslav OgnevyukDoubinsky & Osharova Law Firm
Alexandr SubbotinTarasov & Partners
Anna TyshchenkoIntegrites
Vladimir N. ZakhvataevSalans
Anonymous Contributors
UNITED ARAB
EMIRATESCamille ChamounBSA LLP
Ibrahim ElsadigSNR Denton
Oliver HarrisonHealth Authority Abu Dhabi
Abhimanyu JalanClyde and Co.
Jennifer PageAl Tamimi & Company
Kavitha S. PanickerPanicker Partners
Abdul Karim PharaonCourt of Cassation
Amer SaadeddinDubai Community Health Center
Mohammed ZaheeruddinUnited Arab Emirates University
Anonymous Contributors
UNITED KINGDOM
Khadija AliTooks Chambers
Richard E. AshcroftQueen Mary, University of London
James BellSlater and Gordon UK LLP
David CabrelliSchool of Law, University of Edinburgh
Nigel DuncanCity University London
Julio FaundezUniversity of Warwick
Sara FovargueLancaster University
Jeffrey GoldenLondon School of Economics and Political Science
Richard GriffithSwansea University
Samantha HallidayUniversity of Liverpool
Simon HoneyballUniversity of Exeter
Peter Hungerford-WelchCity Law School, City University London
Alan J. MassonAnderson Strathern LLP
Gerard McCormackUniversity of Leeds
Peter McTigueNottingham Trent University
Tonia NovitzUniversity of Bristol
Hannah QuirkUniversity of Manchester
Kiron ReidUniversity of Liverpool
Katja SamuelHuman Rights Law Centre, Nottingham University
Keith SyrettCardiff University
Cassam TengnahSwansea University
Steve UglowKent Law School, University of Kent
Samantha VellutiSchool of Law, University of Lincoln
Tony WardUniversity of Hull
Richard WhitecrossEdinburgh Napier University
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
225
Anonymous Contributors
UNITED STATES
Jane AikenGeorgetown Law
David E. BirenbaumFried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
Robert A. BurtYale University
Sara Elizabeth DillLaw Offices of Sara Elizabeth Dill
Timothy DolanAmerican University in Cairo
Anjali Bajaj DooleyLaw Office of Anjali B. Dooley, LLC
Addisu DubaleUniversity of Washington School of Law
Steven EckhausKatten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Barbara J. FickUniversity of Notre Dame Law School
M. FitzgeraldAttorney Johnson-Reynolds-Fitzgerald
Michele ForzleyGeorgetown Law
Ricks Frazier
Norman M. GleichmanService Employees International Union
Thomas L. HafemeisterUniversity of Virginia School of Law
Charles HarrellDuane Morris LLP
Alan W. HousemanCenter for Law & Social Policy
Arthur Hunter Jr.Orleans Parish Criminal District Court
Earl Johnson Jr.California Court of Appeal
Theodore A. KittilaElliott Greenleaf
Frederick KrimgoldVirginia Tech
Sherman L. CohnGeorgetown University
John R. LaBarHenry, McCord, Bean, Miller, Gabriel & LaBar, P.L.L.C.
Renee M. LandersSuffolk University Law School
M. LevineAttorney Johnson-Reynolds-Fitzgerald
Michael W. McConnellStanford University
Frank MichelmanHarvard University
Elizabeth PendoSaint Louis University School of Law
Li QiangChina Labor Watch
David RanneyVitalize Consulting Solutions
Maryellen ReynoldsAttorney Johnson-Reynolds-Fitzgerald
Christopher David Ruiz CameronSouthwestern Law School
Lois ShepherdUniversity of Virginia
Toan Foeng ThamGlobal Oral, Legal and Dental(GOLD) Foundation
David UdellNational Center for Access to Justice
John L. WilkersonArkansas Municipal League
Anonymous Contributors
URUGUAY
Maria DuránHughes & Hughes
Escandor El Ters
Haroldo EspalterHughes & Hughes
Horacio FernándezBado, Kuster, Zerbino & Rachetti
Martín FridmanFerrere Abogados
Juan Andrés FuentesArcia Storace Fuentes Medina Abogados
Diego GamarraPosadas, Posadas & Vecino
Gabriel GariQueen Mary University of London
Andrés HessdörferArcia Storace Fuentes Medina Abogados
Camilo MartínezUniversidad de Montevideo
Ricardo MezzeraEstudio Dr. Mezzera
Cristina MuñozFerrere Abogados
Santiago Pereira CamposRueda Abadi Pereira
Martin ThomassetGalante & Martins
Anonymous Contributors
UZBEKISTAN
Shukhrat KhudayshukurovAdvokat-Himoya Law Firm
Akmaljon A. UmirzakovWestminster International University in Tashkent
Anonymous Contributors
VENEZUELA
Jorge Acedo
Pablo BenaventeEscritorio Jurídico Mangieri Benavente & Asociados
Dorelys CoraspeDLA Interjuris
Ricardo J. Cruz RincónEscritorio Chumaceiro-Gonzalez Rubio
Rafael de LemosRaffalli de Lemos Halvorssen Ortega y Ortíz
Jesus E. EscuderoTorrez, Plaz & Araujo
Juan C. GarantonUniversidad Católica Andrés Bello
Andrés L. HalvorssenRDHOO
Andrés Hernández Lossada
Luis Eduardo López DuránHoet Peláez Castillo & Duque
Jaime Martínez EstévezRodner, Martínez & Asociados
Mark A. Melilli S.Mangieri Benavente & Asociados
Gregory Odreman OrdozgoittyOdreman & Associates
Irene Rivas Gómez
Anonymous Contributors
VIETNAM
Nguyen Gia Huy ChuongPhuoc & Partners Law Firm
Kevin HawkinsMayer Brown JSM
Nguyen Thanh HuongHanoi School of Public Health
Ngo Huu NhiThienan Law Office
Loc LeYKVN Lawyers
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
226
Tung NgoVILAF - Hong Duc
Pham Van PhatAnphat Pham Law Firm
Nguyen Huu PhuocPhuoc & Partners Law Firm
Ngoc TranIndochine Counsel
Anonymous Contributors
ZAMBIA
Chifumu K. Banda S.C.Chifumu Banda and Associates
Lizzy Nkole ChandaAfya Mzuri
Ernest KakomaMinistry of Health
Masaiti KatebeCommunity Markets for Conservation Limited
Michael Munalula LiweleyaMML Legal Practitioners
Anonymous Contributors
ZIMBABWE
Simplicio BhebheKantor and Immerman
Reginald ChidawanyikaMessrs Chitere Chidawanyika & Partners
Paul FraserLofty & Fraser
Adam Kara
Andrew MakoniZimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
Christopher MhikeAtherstone & Cook Legal Practitioners
Tarisai MutangiDonsa-Nkomo & Mutangi Attorneys
Archford RutanhiraScanlen & Holderness
John Tawanda BuromboInternational Bridges to Justice
Anonymous Contributors
PA
RT
IV: C
ON
TR
IBU
TIN
G E
XP
ER
TS
|
227
Part V: Acknowledgments |
Acknowledgments
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
230
PA
RT
V: A
CK
NO
WL
ED
GM
EN
TS
|
231
About the WJP |
GOALS AND PROGRAM AREAS
»
»
About The World Justice Project
AB
OU
T T
HE
WJP
|
235
»
»
»
»
»
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
236
Honorary Chairs
Board of Directors
Officers and Staff
Financial Supporters
AB
OU
T T
HE
WJP
|
237
| Th
e W
JP R
ule
of L
aw In
dex
238
Strategic Partners
AB
OU
T T
HE
WJP
|
239
“Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established… That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans..., in order to declare justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries.”
CODEX HAMMURABI
“I could adjudicate lawsuits as well as anyone. But I would prefer to make lawsuits unnecessary.”
ANALECTS OF CONFUCIUS
“The Law of Nations, however, is common to the entire human race, for all nations have established for themselves certain regulations exacted by custom and human necessity.”
CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS
“Treat the people equally in your court and give them equal attention, so that the noble shall not aspire to your partiality, nor the humble despair of your justice.”
JUDICIAL GUIDELINES FROM ‘UMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB, THE SECOND KHALIFA OF ISLAM
“No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we 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.”
MAGNA CARTA
“Good civil laws are the greatest good that men can give and receive. They are the source of morals, the palladium of property, and the guarantee of all public and private 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. They affect every individual; they mingle with the primary activities of his life; they follow him everywhere. They are often the sole moral code of a people, and they are always part of its freedom. Finally, good civil laws are the consolation of every citizen for the sacrifices that political law demands of him for the city, protecting, when necessary, his person and his property as though he alone were the whole city.”
JEAN-ÉTIENNE-MARIE PORTALIS. DISCOURS PRÉLIMINAIRE DU PREMIER PROJET DE CODE CIVIL
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights… Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
“The rule of law is the foundation for communities of opportunity and equity—it is the predicate for the eradication of poverty, violence, corruption, pandemics, and other threats to civil society.”
WILLIAM H. NEUKOM, FOUNDER, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT
“The Rule of Law Index provides an unparalleled mechanism to help understand how law functions in countries around the world and assess where there are areas for improvement or praise. It is ripe with original, independent, and interesting data – some surprising and some that finally confirms what societies have known intuitively for a long time. In all cases, I am optimistic that the Index will advance necessary debates to improve the policies, procedures, and practices that shape rule of law around the world.”
BILL GATES SR., CO-CHAIR, BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
“As the most comprehensive measurement tool currently available to legal and judicial reformers, the Rule of Law Index highlights the strengths and weaknesses of national systems, thereby enabling comparisons among countries within a region or of similar GDP and, hopefully, will be widely accepted as a means of improving judicial services.”
ELLEN GRACIE NORTHFLEET, FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF BRAZIL
“When we talk about the rule of law, we mean more than adherence to the laws of the country whatever they may be. There has to be a substantial content to the law itself. If the rule of law is to have any meaning at all, as a constitutional principle, it must have a substantial element of protection of fundamental rights. And that is one of the great values, I believe, of the WJP Rule of Law Index. Where there’s a culture of respect for the rule of law, it is a bulwark against injustice.”
ARTHUR CHASKALSON, FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF SOUTH AFRICA
“As an educator, I’m convinced that access and equity in higher education isn’t possible in regions where a cogent Rule of Law is absent; as an epidemiologist, I have been most sensitive to the Index’s development as a statistical tool which will have a wide ranging impact.”
HARRIS PASTIDES, PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Law
x’s