---
title: "EU and its member states issue statement on UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism phase two in Doha; pre-fill checklist to reduce reporting burden"
sdDatePublished: "2026-09-03T11:38:00Z"
source: "https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna-international-organisations/eu-statement-second-phase-implementation-review-mechanism-uncac-31-august-2026_en"
topics:
  - name: "corruption"
    identifier: "medtop:20000093"
  - name: "international organisation"
    identifier: "medtop:20000644"
  - name: "public inquiry"
    identifier: "medtop:20001262"
  - name: "international law"
    identifier: "medtop:20000126"
locations:
  - "Georgia"
  - "Albania"
  - "Serbia"
  - "Montenegro"
  - "North Macedonia"
  - "Bosnia and Herzegovina"
  - "Ukraine"
  - "Iceland"
  - "Armenia"
---


EU and its member states issue statement on UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism phase two in Doha; pre-fill checklist to reduce reporting burden

EU Statement on the second phase of the Implementation Review Mechanism of the UNCAC, 31 August 2026 | EEAS

EU Statement on the second phase of the Implementation Review Mechanism of the UNCAC, 31 August 2026

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Serbia and Ukraine align themselves with this statement.

Let me start with by thanking the Secretariat for sharing the revised draft of the Self-Assessment Checklist, the draft model schedule and blueprints for the second review phase and for the background documents.

We look forward to a constructive resumed session of the Implementation Review Group, with important follow up discussions based on the consensus found in Doha on resolution 11

In this regard, I would like to highlight a few points of the draft documents that are of particular importance in our view.

First, we welcome the hybrid approach of the new draft of the Self-Assessment Checklist, as it will help States Parties in the process. Readability and accessibility of the checklist should remain, in our view, one of our main goals in designing the document. With this in mind, we would welcome moving up question 6, before questions with regards to implementation in practice. We would also welcome the pre-filling of the checklist on the basis of the outcomes of the first review phase, in line with paragraph 9(a) of resolution 11

2, as this would help reduce the reporting burden on States Parties.

Second, in the draft model schedule, we see positively the inclusion of a window for information after the country visit, although this could be more flexible, to accommodate for situations where the country visit is distant in time from the publication of the final report.

Third, in the blueprints, we recognise the value of the final report’s layout, which makes it possible to clearly and precisely identify priority technical assistance needs in advance. Including this information in the executive summary as well would be beneficial for technical assistance providers.

Fourth, we welcome the inclusion, in the blueprint for country review reports, of an annex on stakeholder engagement at the national level. We would encourage that this annex clearly indicate how stakeholders were involved in the review process, as well as the nature and content of their contributions.

I would like to now turn to the review of the UNCAC implementation for the EU. As regards the first cycle of our implementation review, we are in the final steps of approval and publication of the full report.

As to the second cycle of the UNCAC implementation review, we are currently preparing the EU’s self-assessment, consulting the various services within the European Union institutions and relevant offices, bodies and agencies, depending on the tasks conferred on them by the Treaties or by the Union legislation. We are looking forward to the next steps; the aim would be to finalise the self-assessment by the end of the year.