Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ROLI 2019 Reduced PDF
ROLI 2019 Reduced PDF
Rule of
Law Index ®
2018-2019
2019
The World Justice Project Rule The World Justice Project
of Law Index 2019®
Board of Directors: Shaikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, Kamel
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2019 report was Ayadi, William C. Hubbard, Hassan Bubacar Jallow,
prepared by the World Justice Project’s research Suet-Fern Lee, Mondli Makhanya, William H. Neukom,
team. The Index’s conceptual framework and John Nery, Ellen Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat,
methodology were developed by Juan Carlos Botero, and Petar Stoyanov.
Mark David Agrast, and Alejandro Ponce. Data
collection and analysis for the 2019 report was Directors Emeritus: President Dr. Ashraf Ghani
performed by Kate Adams, Alicia Evangelides, Emily Ahmadzai
Gray, Amy Gryskiewicz, Camilo Gutiérrez Patiño,
Matthew Harman, Alexa Hopkins, Ayyub Ibrahim, Officers: Mark D. Agrast, Vice President; Deborah
Sarah Chamness Long, Rachel Martin, Jorge Morales, Enix-Ross, Vice President; William C. Hubbard,
Alejandro Ponce, Christine S. Pratt, Leslie Solís Chairman of the Board; Gerold W. Libby, General
Saravia, Rebecca Silvas, and Adriana Stephan, with Counsel and Secretary; William H. Neukom, Founder
the assistance of Erin Campbell, Benjamin Carleton, and CEO; James R. Silkenat, Director and Treasurer.
Aoife Croucher, Yearim de Leon, Patrick McDonell,
David Alex Mejia, Monica Oves, Emma Poplack, Executive Director: Elizabeth Andersen
Jessica Sawadogo, Alexander Trivella, Jennifer
VanRiper, Raven Venegas, and Melissa Wanyoike. Chief Research Officer: Alejandro Ponce
Lead graphic designer for this report was Priya The WJP Rule of Law Index 2019 report was made
Khosla, with assistance from Sonia Polyzos. possible by the generous supporters of the work of
Lead website designer was Dan McCarey, with the World Justice Project listed in this report on page
assistance from Priya Khosla. 193.
Rule of
Law Index ®
2019
2
Table of
Contents
Section One About the WJP Rule of Law Index
05 Introduction
06 Overview of Scores & Rankings
07 Features of the WJP Rule of Law Index
07 Defining the Rule of Law
10 Conceptual Framework of the WJP Rule of Law Index
11 Indicators of the WJP Rule of Law Index
About the
WJP Rule of
Law Index
4
Introduction
The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index® 2019 is the latest report
in an annual series measuring the rule of law based on the experiences
and perceptions of the general public and in-country experts worldwide.
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2019 presents a portrait of the rule of law
in 126 countries by providing scores and rankings based on eight
factors: constraints on government powers, absence of corruption,
open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory
enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice.
The country scores and rankings for the WJP Rule of Law Index 2019
are derived from more than 120,000 household surveys and 3,800
expert surveys in 126 countries and jurisdictions. The Index is the
world’s most comprehensive dataset of its kind and the only to rely
principally on primary data, measuring countries’ adherence to the rule
of law from the perspective of ordinary people and their experiences.
The Index is intended for a broad audience that includes policy makers,
civil society organizations, academics, citizens, and legal professionals,
among others. It is our hope that this diagnostic tool will help identify
countries’ strengths and weaknesses and encourage policy choices that
strengthen the rule of law within and across countries.
6
Global Global
Score Global Rank Score Global Rank
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change† Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change†
Features of the WJP Rule of Law Index Taken together, these two data sources provide current, original
The World Justice Project (WJP) developed the WJP Rule of Law information reflecting the experiences and perceptions of the
Index to serve as a quantitative tool for measuring the rule of general public in 126 countries worldwide.
law in practice. The Index’s methodology and comprehensive
definition of the rule of law are the products of intensive Defining the Rule of Law
consultation and vetting with academics, practitioners, and Effective rule of law reduces corruption, combats poverty and
community leaders from more than 100 countries and 17 disease, and protects people from injustices large and small. It
professional disciplines. The scores and rankings of the eight is the foundation for communities of justice, opportunity, and
factors and 44 sub-factors of the Index draw from two sources peace—underpinning development, accountable government,
of data collected by the WJP: and respect for fundamental rights. Traditionally, the rule of
law has been viewed as the domain of lawyers and judges. But
1. A General Population Poll (GPP) conducted by everyday issues of safety, rights, justice, and governance affect
leading local polling companies, using a representative us all; everyone is a stakeholder in the rule of law.
sample of 1,000 respondents in each country;
1
The WJP Rule of Law Index includes several features that set with the rule of law in their societies. The Index examines
it apart from other indices and make it useful for analysis practical, everyday situations, such as whether people
across a large number of countries: can access public services and whether a dispute among
neighbors can be resolved peacefully and cost-effectively by
Rule of Law in Practice an independent adjudicator.
The Index measures adherence to the rule of law by looking
at policy outcomes, such as whether people have access to New Data Anchored in Actual Experiences
courts or whether crime is effectively controlled. This stands The Index is the only comprehensive set of indicators on
in contrast to efforts that focus on the written legal code, the rule of law that is based on primary data. The Index’s
or the institutional means by which a society may seek to scores are built from the assessments of residents (1,000
achieve these policy outcomes. respondents per country) and local legal experts, which
ensure that the findings reflect the conditions experienced
Comprehensive and Multi-Dimensional by actual people, including residents from marginalized
While other indices cover particular aspects of the rule of sectors of society.
law, such as absence of corruption or human rights, they
do not yield a full picture of the state of the rule of law. Culturally Competent
The WJP Rule of Law Index is the only global instrument that The Index has been designed to be applied in countries
looks at the rule of law comprehensively. with vastly different social, cultural, economic, and political
systems. No society has ever attained—let alone sustained
Perspective of Ordinary People —a perfect realization of the rule of law. Every country
The WJP Rule of Law Index puts people at its core. It looks faces the perpetual challenge of building and renewing the
at a country’s adherence to the rule of law from the structures, institutions, and norms that can support and
perspective of ordinary individuals and their experiences sustain a rule of law culture.
The WJP Rule of Law Index captures adherence to the rule of the rule of law that focuses on formal, procedural rules, and a
law as defined by the WJP’s universal principles (see following “thick” conception that includes substantive characteristics, such
page) through a comprehensive and multi-dimensional set of as self-governance and various fundamental rights and freedoms.
outcome indicators, each of which reflects a particular aspect of Striking this balance between “thin” and “thick” conceptions of
this complex concept. The theoretical framework linking these the rule of law enables the Index to apply to different types of
outcome indicators draws upon two main principles pertaining social and political systems, including those that lack many of the
to the relationship between the state and the governed. features that characterize democratic nations, while including
sufficient substantive characteristics to render the rule of law as
The first principle measures whether the law imposes limits more than a system of rules. The Index recognizes that a system
on the exercise of power by the state and its agents, as well of law that fails to respect core human rights guaranteed under
as individuals and private entities. This is measured in factors international law is at best “rule by law” and does not deserve to
one, two, three, and four of the Index. The second principle be called a rule of law system.
measures whether the state limits the actions of members of
society and fulfills its basic duties towards its population so that The rule of law affects all of us in our everyday lives. Although
the public interest is served, people are protected from violence, we may not be aware of it, the rule of law is profoundly
and all members of society have access to dispute settlement important—and not just for lawyers or judges. Every sector
and grievance mechanisms. This is measured in factors five, of society is a stakeholder in the rule of law. Below are a few
six, seven, and eight of the Index. Although broad in scope, this examples:
framework assumes very little about the functions of the state,
and when it does, it incorporates functions that are recognized Business Environment
by practically all societies, such as the provision of justice or the Imagine an investor seeking to commit resources abroad.
guarantee of order and security. She would probably think twice before investing in a country
where corruption is rampant, property rights are ill-defined,
The resulting set of indicators is also an effort to strike a balance and contracts are difficult to enforce. Uneven enforcement of
between what scholars call a “thin” or minimalist conception of regulations, corruption, insecure property rights, and ineffective
8
means to settle disputes undermine legitimate business and Public Health & Environment
deter both domestic and foreign investment. Consider the implications of pollution, wildlife poaching, and
deforestation for public health and the environment. What
Public Works would happen if a company were pouring harmful chemicals
Consider the bridges, roads, or runways we traverse daily—or into a river in a highly populated area and the environmental
the offices and buildings in which we live, work, and play. What inspector ignored these actions in exchange for a bribe?
would happen if building codes governing design and safety were Adherence to the rule of law is essential to holding governments,
not enforced or government officials and contractors used low- businesses, civil society organizations, and communities
quality materials in order to pocket the surplus? Weak regulatory accountable for protecting public health and the environment.
enforcement and corruption decrease the security of physical
infrastructure and waste scarce resources, which are essential to
a thriving economy.
The rule of law is a framework of laws and institutions that embodies four universal principles:
The government as well The laws are clear, The processes by which Justice is delivered
as private actors are publicized, stable, and the laws are enacted, timely by competent,
accountable under the just; are applied evenly; administered, and ethical, and independent
law. and protect fundamental enforced are accessible, representatives and
rights, including the fair, and efficient. neutrals who are
security of persons, accessible, have
contract and property adequate resources, and
rights, and certain core reflect the makeup of the
human rights. communities they serve.
2.1 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 for private gain
2.3 Government officials in the police & the military do not use public office for private gain
Absence of
Corruption 2.4 Government officials in the legislative branch do not use public office for private gain
10
Informal Justice and the Rule of Law
The conceptual framework of the Index includes a ninth factor on informal justice that is not included in the Index’s aggregate
scores and rankings. Informal justice systems often play a large role in countries where formal legal institutions are weak,
remote, or perceived as ineffective. For this reason, the WJP has devoted significant effort to collecting data on informal
justice through our surveys. Nonetheless, the complexities of these systems and the difficulties of systematically measuring
their fairness and effectiveness make cross-country assessments extraordinarily challenging.
1.1 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature 2.1 Government officials in the executive branch do not use public
Measures whether legislative bodies have the ability in office for private gain
practice to exercise effective checks on and oversight of Measures the prevalence of bribery, informal payments,
the government. and other inducements in the delivery of public services
and the enforcement of regulations. It also measures
1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary whether government procurement and public works
Measures whether the judiciary has the independence contracts are awarded through an open and competitive
and the ability in practice to exercise effective checks on bidding process, and whether government officials
the government. at various levels of the executive branch refrain from
embezzling public funds.
1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by independent
auditing and review 2.2 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use public
Measures whether comptrollers or auditors, as well office for private gain
as national human rights ombudsman agencies, have Measures whether judges and judicial officials refrain
sufficient independence and the ability to exercise from soliciting and accepting bribes to perform duties
effective checks on and oversight of the government. or expedite processes, and whether the judiciary and
judicial rulings are free of improper influence by the
1.4 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct government, private interests, and criminal organizations.
Measures whether government officials in the executive,
legislature, judiciary, and the police are investigated, 2.3 Government officials in the police & the military do not use
prosecuted, and punished for official misconduct and public office for private gain
other violations. Measures whether police officers and criminal
investigators refrain from soliciting and accepting bribes
1.5 Government powers are subject to non-governmental checks to perform basic police services or to investigate crimes,
Measures whether an independent media, civil society and whether government officials in the police and
organizations, political parties, and individuals are free the military are free of improper influence by private
to report and comment on government policies without interests or criminal organizations.
fear of retaliation.
2.4 Government officials in the legislative branch do
1.6 Transition of power is subject to the law not use public office for private gain
Measures whether government officials are elected or Measures whether members of the legislature refrain
appointed in accordance with the rules and procedures from soliciting or accepting bribes or other inducements
set forth in the constitution. Where elections take in exchange for political favors or favorable votes on
place, it also measures the integrity of the electoral legislation.
process, including access to the ballot, the absence of
intimidation, and public scrutiny of election results.
3.1 Publicized laws & government data pre-trial detention. It also measures whether criminal
Measures whether basic laws and information on legal suspects are able to access and challenge evidence
rights are publicly available, presented in plain language, used against them, whether they are subject to abusive
and made accessible in all languages. It also measures treatment, and whether they are provided with adequate
the quality and accessibility of information published legal assistance. In addition, it measures whether the basic
by the government in print or online, and whether rights of prisoners are respected once they have been
administrative regulations, drafts of legislation, and high convicted of a crime.
court decisions are made accessible to the public in a
timely manner. 4.4 Freedom of opinion & expression is effectively guaranteed
Measures whether an independent media, civil society
3.2 Right to information organizations, political parties, and individuals are free
Measures whether requests for information held by a to report and comment on government policies without
government agency are granted, whether these requests fear of retaliation.
are granted within a reasonable time period, if the
information provided is pertinent and complete, and 4.5 Freedom of belief & religion is effectively guaranteed
if requests for information are granted at a reasonable Measures whether members of religious minorities
cost and without having to pay a bribe. It also measures can worship and conduct religious practices freely and
whether people are aware of their right to information, publicly, and whether non-adherents are protected
and whether relevant records are accessible to the public from having to submit to religious laws.
upon request.
4.6 Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy
3.3 Civic participation is effectively guaranteed
Measures the effectiveness of civic participation Measures whether the police or other government
mechanisms, including the protection of the freedoms officials conduct physical searches without warrants,
of opinion and expression, assembly and association, or intercept electronic communications of private
and the right to petition the government. It also individuals without judicial authorization.
measures whether people can voice concerns to various
government officers, and whether government officials 4.7 Freedom of assembly & association is
provide sufficient information and notice about decisions effectively guaranteed
affecting the community. Measures whether people can freely attend community
meetings, join political organizations, hold peaceful
3.4 Complaint mechanisms public demonstrations, sign petitions, and express
Measures whether people are able to bring specific opinions against government policies and actions
complaints to the government about the provision without fear of retaliation.
of public services or the performance of government
officers in carrying out their legal duties in practice, and 4.8 Fundamental labor rights are effectively guaranteed
how government officials respond to such complaints. Measures the effective enforcement of fundamental
labor rights, including freedom of association and
the right to collective bargaining, the absence of
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights discrimination with respect to employment, and
freedom from forced labor and child labor.
4.1 Equal treatment & absence of discrimination
Measures whether individuals are free from
discrimination—based on socio-economic status, Factor 5: Order & Security
gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual
orientation, or gender identity—with respect to 5.1 Crime is effectively controlled
public services, employment, court proceedings, Measures the prevalence of common crimes, including
and the justice system. homicide, kidnapping, burglary and theft, armed
robbery, and extortion, as well as people’s general
4.2 The right to life & security of the person is perceptions of safety in their communities.
effectively guaranteed
Measures whether the police inflict physical harm 5.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited
upon criminal suspects during arrest and interrogation, Measures whether people are effectively protected
and whether political dissidents or members of the from armed conflict and terrorism.
media are subjected to unreasonable searches, arrest,
detention, imprisonment, threats, abusive treatment, 5.3 People do not resort to violence to redress
or violence. personal grievances
Measures whether people resort to intimidation or
4.3 Due process of the law & rights of the accused violence to resolve civil disputes amongst themselves
Measures whether the basic rights of criminal suspects are or to seek redress from the government, and whether
respected, including the presumption of innocence and people are free from mob violence.
the freedom from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable
12
Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement 7.5 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delay
Measures whether civil justice proceedings are
6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced conducted and judgments are produced in a timely
Measures whether government regulations, such manner without unreasonable delay.
as labor, environmental, public health, commercial,
and consumer protection regulations are effectively 7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
enforced. Measures the effectiveness and timeliness of the
enforcement of civil justice decisions and judgments in
6.2 Government regulations are applied & enforced without practice.
improper influence
Measures whether the enforcement of regulations is 7.7 Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are
subject to bribery or improper influence by private accessible, impartial, & effective
interests, and whether public services, such as the Measures whether alternative dispute resolution
issuance of permits and licenses and the administration mechanisms (ADRs) are affordable, efficient, enforceable,
of public health services, are provided without bribery and free of corruption.
or other inducements.
Scores
&
Rankings
Rule of Law
Around the World
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank
Denmark 0.90 1
Norway 0.89 2
Finland 0.87 3
Sweden 0.85 4
Netherlands 0.84 5
Germany 0.84 6
Austria 0.82 7
New Zealand 0.82 8
Canada 0.81 9
Estonia 0.81 10
Australia 0.80 11
United Kingdom 0.80 12 Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank
Singapore 0.80 13
Belgium 0.79 14 Croatia 0.61 42
Japan 0.78 15 Grenada 0.60 43
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.77 16 Botswana 0.59 44
France 0.73 17 Dominica 0.59 45
Republic of Korea 0.73 18 Argentina 0.58 46
Czech Republic 0.73 19 South Africa 0.58 47
United States 0.71 20 Ghana 0.58 48
Spain 0.71 21 Jordan 0.57 49
Portugal 0.71 22 Jamaica 0.56 50
Uruguay 0.71 23 Malaysia 0.55 51
Costa Rica 0.69 24 Senegal 0.55 52
Chile 0.68 25 Mongolia 0.55 53
Slovenia 0.67 26 Bulgaria 0.54 54
Poland 0.66 27 Trinidad & Tobago 0.54 55
Italy 0.65 28 Macedonia, FYR 0.54 56
Barbados 0.65 29 Hungary 0.53 57
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.65 30 Brazil 0.53 58
Romania 0.64 31 Nepal 0.53 59
United Arab Emirates 0.64 32 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.53 60
Antigua & Barbuda 0.63 33 Tunisia 0.53 61
Namibia 0.62 34 Indonesia 0.52 62
St. Vincent & the Grenadines 0.62 35 Sri Lanka 0.52 63
Greece 0.62 36 Panama 0.52 64
Mauritius 0.61 37 Kazakhstan 0.52 65
St. Lucia 0.61 38 Belarus 0.52 66
Bahamas 0.61 39 Malawi 0.51 67
Rwanda 0.61 40 India 0.51 68
Georgia 0.61 41 Suriname 0.51 69
16
Overall Global
Overall Global Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank
Sierra Leone 0.45 98
Peru 0.51 70
Mexico 0.45 99
Albania 0.51 71
Togo 0.45 100
Algeria 0.51 72
Kenya 0.45 101
Burkina Faso 0.50 73
Iran 0.45 102
Morocco 0.50 74
Mali 0.45 103
Guyana 0.50 75
Niger 0.44 104
Thailand 0.50 76
Guinea 0.44 105
Ukraine 0.50 77
Nigeria 0.43 106
Serbia 0.50 78
Madagascar 0.43 107
Benin 0.50 79
Mozambique 0.43 108
Colombia 0.50 80
Turkey 0.42 109
Vietnam 0.49 81
Myanmar 0.42 110
China 0.49 82
Angola 0.41 111
Moldova 0.49 83
Bangladesh 0.41 112
El Salvador 0.48 84
Uganda 0.40 113
Kyrgyzstan 0.48 85
Nicaragua 0.40 114
Belize 0.48 86
Honduras 0.40 115
Ecuador 0.48 87
Zimbabwe 0.40 116
Russia 0.47 88
Pakistan 0.39 117
Lebanon 0.47 89
Ethiopia 0.39 118
Philippines 0.47 90
Bolivia 0.38 119
Tanzania 0.47 91
Cameroon 0.37 120
Zambia 0.47 92
Egypt 0.36 121
Cote d'Ivoire 0.46 93
Mauritania 0.35 122
Uzbekistan 0.46 94
Afghanistan 0.35 123
Dominican Republic 0.46 95
Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.33 124
Guatemala 0.46 96
Cambodia 0.32 125
Liberia 0.46 97
Venezuela 0.28 126
New Zealand 1/15 0.82 8/126 0.00 1 Indonesia 9/15 0.52 62/126 0.00 4
Australia 2/15 0.80 11/126 0.00 1 Thailand 10/15 0.50 76/126 0.00 1
Singapore 3/15 0.80 13/126 0.00 0 Vietnam 11/15 0.49 81/126 -0.01 2
Japan 4/15 0.78 15/126 -0.01 1 China 12/15 0.49 82/126 -0.01 2
Hong Kong SAR, China 5/15 0.77 16/126 0.00 0 Philippines 13/15 0.47 90/126 0.00 3
Republic of Korea 6/15 0.73 18/126 0.01 2 Myanmar 14/15 0.42 110/126 0.00 0
Malaysia 7/15 0.55 51/126 0.02 5 Cambodia 15/15 0.32 125/126 0.00 0
Georgia 1/13 0.61 41/126 0.00 0 Serbia 8/13 0.50 78/126 0.00 2
Macedonia, FYR 2/13 0.54 56/126 0.01 4 Moldova 9/13 0.49 83/126 0.00 0
Bosnia & Herzegovina 3/13 0.53 60/126 0.00 1 Kyrgyzstan 10/13 0.48 85/126 0.00 2
Kazakhstan 4/13 0.52 65/126 0.00 2 Russia 11/13 0.47 88/126 0.00 6
Belarus 5/13 0.52 66/126 0.00 2 Uzbekistan 12/13 0.46 94/126 0.00 2
Albania 6/13 0.51 71/126 0.00 0 Turkey 13/13 0.42 109/126 0.01 2
Ukraine 7/13 0.50 77/126 0.00 4
Uruguay 1/30 0.71 23/126 0.00 1 Panama 16/30 0.52 64/126 0.00 0
Costa Rica 2/30 0.69 24/126 0.00 0 Suriname 17/30 0.51 69/126 0.00 3
Chile 3/30 0.68 25/126 0.01 2 Peru 18/30 0.51 70/126 -0.02 7
Barbados 4/30 0.65 29/126 0.00 1 Guyana 19/30 0.50 75/126 0.00 2
St. Kitts & Nevis 5/30 0.65 30/126 -0.01 2 Colombia 20/30 0.50 80/126 -0.01 3
Antigua & Barbuda 6/30 0.63 33/126 0.00 1 El Salvador 21/30 0.48 84/126 0.00 0
St. Vincent & the Belize 22/30 0.48 86/126 0.00 0
7/30 0.62 35/126 0.01 3
Grenadines
Ecuador 23/30 0.48 87/126 0.01 3
St. Lucia 8/30 0.61 38/126 -0.01 3
Dominican Republic 24/30 0.46 95/126 0.00 0
Bahamas 9/30 0.61 39/126 0.01 3
Guatemala 25/30 0.46 96/126 0.02 5
Grenada 10/30 0.60 43/126 -0.01 4
Mexico 26/30 0.45 99/126 0.00 2
Dominica 11/30 0.59 45/126 -0.01 1
Nicaragua 27/30 0.40 114/126 -0.03 4
Argentina 12/30 0.58 46/126 0.00 3
Honduras 28/30 0.40 115/126 0.00 1
Jamaica 13/30 0.56 50/126 -0.01 0
Bolivia 29/30 0.38 119/126 0.00 2
Trinidad & Tobago 14/30 0.54 55/126 -0.02 4
Venezuela 30/30 0.28 126/126 -0.01 0
Brazil 15/30 0.53 58/126 -0.01 3
18
EU & EFTA & North America
(European Union, European Free Trade Association, and North America)
Denmark 1/24 0.90 1/126 0.01 0 Czech Republic 13/24 0.73 19/126 -0.01 2
Norway 2/24 0.89 2/126 0.01 0 United States 14/24 0.71 20/126 -0.02 1
Finland 3/24 0.87 3/126 0.00 0 Spain 15/24 0.71 21/126 0.01 2
Sweden 4/24 0.85 4/126 -0.01 0 Portugal 16/24 0.71 22/126 -0.01 1
Netherlands 5/24 0.84 5/126 -0.01 0 Slovenia 17/24 0.67 26/126 0.00 0
Germany 6/24 0.84 6/126 0.00 0 Poland 18/24 0.66 27/126 -0.01 2
Austria 7/24 0.82 7/126 0.01 1 Italy 19/24 0.65 28/126 0.01 3
Canada 8/24 0.81 9/126 0.00 0 Romania 20/24 0.64 31/126 -0.01 2
Estonia 9/24 0.81 10/126 0.01 2 Greece 21/24 0.62 36/126 0.01 4
United Kingdom 10/24 0.80 12/126 -0.01 1 Croatia 22/24 0.61 42/126 0.00 4
Belgium 11/24 0.79 14/126 0.02 1 Bulgaria 23/24 0.54 54/126 0.01 4
France 12/24 0.73 17/126 0.00 1 Hungary 24/24 0.53 57/126 -0.01 4
United Arab Emirates 1/8 0.64 32/126 0.00 0 Morocco 5/8 0.50 74/126 -0.01 3
Jordan 2/8 0.57 49/126 -0.03 4 Lebanon 6/8 0.47 89/126 0.00 3
Tunisia 3/8 0.53 61/126 -0.01 4 Iran 7/8 0.45 102/126 -0.03 16
Algeria 4/8 0.51 72/126 Egypt 8/8 0.36 121/126 0.00 0
South Asia
Change Change Change Change
Regional Overall Global in Overall in Global Regional Overall Global in Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank† Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
Nepal 1/6 0.53 59/126 0.00 2 Bangladesh 4/6 0.41 112/126 0.00 1
Sri Lanka 2/6 0.52 63/126 0.00 1 Pakistan 5/6 0.39 117/126 0.00 1
India 3/6 0.51 68/126 -0.01 3 Afghanistan 6/6 0.35 123/126 0.00 0
Sub-Saharan Africa
Change Change Change Change
Regional Overall Global in Overall in Global Regional Overall Global in Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank† Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
20
Upper Middle Income
Upper Upper
Middle Middle
Income Overall Global Income Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank
High Income
High High
Income Overall Global Income Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank
Estonia 10/38 0.81 10/126 St. Kitts & Nevis 29/38 0.65 30/126
Australia 11/38 0.80 11/126 United Arab Emirates 30/38 0.64 32/126
United Kingdom 12/38 0.80 12/126 Antigua & Barbuda 31/38 0.63 33/126
Hong Kong SAR, China 16/38 0.77 16/126 Argentina 35/38 0.58 46/126
France 17/38 0.73 17/126 Trinidad & Tobago 36/38 0.54 55/126
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places.
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
22
Absence of Corruption
Factor 2 measures the absence of corruption in government. The factor considers three forms of corruption: bribery, improper
influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. These three forms of corruption
are examined with respect to government officers in the executive branch, the judiciary, the military, police, and the legislature.
For a further breakdown of Absence of Corruption by sub-factor, please refer to page 11.
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.84 9 Namibia 0.53 51 Dominican Republic 0.39 93
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
France 0.79 12 Dominican Republic 0.51 55 St. Kitts & Nevis 0.41 97
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.75 15 Mongolia 0.51 58 Uganda 0.40 100
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
24
Fundamental Rights
Factor 4 recognizes that a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under international law is at
best “rule by law,” and does not deserve to be called a rule of law system. Since there are many other indices that address human
rights, and as it would be impossible for the Index to assess adherence to the full range of rights, this factor focuses on a relatively
modest menu of rights that are firmly established under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are most closely related
to rule of law concerns. For a further breakdown of Fundamental Rights by sub-factor, please refer to page 12.
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank
New Zealand 0.80 12 Trinidad & Tobago 0.59 54 Cote d'Ivoire 0.46 96
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.72 26 Brazil 0.55 68 Cameroon 0.39 110
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
26
Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 6 measures the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced. Regulations, both legal
and administrative, structure behaviors within and outside of the government. This factor does not assess which activities a
government chooses to regulate, nor does it consider how much regulation of a particular activity is appropriate. Rather, it
examines how regulations are implemented and enforced. For a further breakdown of Regulatory Enforcement by sub-factor,
please refer to page 13.
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.75 16 Iran 0.55 58 Albania 0.44 100
Antigua & Barbuda 0.66 25 Cote d'Ivoire 0.52 67 Nicaragua 0.41 109
United Arab Emirates 0.66 26 El Salvador 0.51 68 Sierra Leone 0.41 110
Costa Rica 0.62 37 Nigeria 0.48 79 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.36 121
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
28
Criminal Justice
Factor 8 evaluates a country’s criminal justice system. An effective criminal justice system is a key aspect of the rule of law, as it
constitutes the conventional mechanism to redress grievances and bring action against individuals for offenses against society. An
assessment of the delivery of criminal justice should take into consideration the entire system, including the police, lawyers, pros-
ecutors, judges, and prison officers. For a further breakdown of Criminal Justice by sub-factor, please refer to page 13.
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
Country
Profiles
Section 1: Displays the country’s overall rule of law score; Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
its overall global, income, and regional ranks; and its change 0.54 2/13 15/38 56/126
8.7 1.1 1.2
Government
Powers
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6 1.3
6.5 4.2
distributed across three tiers—high, medium, and low—as Order and Security 0.79 5/13 5/38 32/126 6.4
6.3 4.4
4.3
6.2 4.5
each of the sub-factors that compose the WJP Rule of Law 1.1 0.59 4.1 0.61 7.1 0.62
Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
Index. 1.2
Limits by judiciary
0.38 4.2
Right to life & security
0.64 7.2
No discrimination
0.65
purple bar and labeled at the end of the bar. The average 1.5
Non-governmental checks
0.49 4.5
Freedom of religion
0.71 7.5
No unreasonable delay
0.53
line. The average score of the country’s income group is Section 4: Presents the individual sub-factor scores
Absence of Corruption
4.7
Freedom of association
0.59 7.7
Impartial & effective ADRs
0.72
Open Government
edge of the circle marks the best possible score for each
3.4
Complaint mechanisms
0.45 6.3
No unreasonable delay
0.49
sub-factor (1).
6.4 0.42
Respect for due process
6.5 0.54
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation
32
Region: South Asia
Afghanistan Income Group: Low
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.35 6/6 19/20 122/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.38 6/6 19/20 119/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.28 6/6 18/20 119/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 10/13 33/38 97/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.44 13/13 33/38 100/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.47 5/13 19/38 58/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.52 5/8 14/38 57/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.55 3/8 17/38 56/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.43 3/8 22/38 71/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 22/30 23/30 109/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.44 19/30 18/30 98/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.35 19/30 18/30 93/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.58 6/30 32/38 37/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.66 3/30 24/38 25/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.56 7/30 30/38 35/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.52 11/30 34/38 55/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.58 11/30 31/38 47/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 14/30 36/38 61/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.81 4/15 12/38 12/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.76 6/15 14/38 14/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.73 3/15 12/38 12/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.84 6/24 8/38 8/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.78 8/24 10/38 10/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.80 5/24 5/38 5/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 16/30 37/38 62/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.58 12/30 34/38 50/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.62 1/30 24/38 24/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 4/6 21/30 105/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.39 4/6 23/30 114/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 5/6 20/30 103/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.62 4/30 27/38 29/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.65 5/30 26/38 28/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.58 3/30 27/38 29/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.50 3/13 18/38 65/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.60 1/13 11/38 43/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.48 3/13 16/38 54/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.81 9/24 13/38 13/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.76 9/24 15/38 15/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.72 10/24 14/38 14/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 26/30 36/38 110/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.50 19/30 26/38 73/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 19/30 31/38 99/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 10/30 4/20 64/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.38 28/30 18/20 116/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.44 10/30 6/20 68/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.40 27/30 25/30 112/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.35 29/30 28/30 123/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.21 29/30 30/30 125/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 4/13 22/38 71/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.51 7/13 25/38 71/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.50 2/13 14/38 50/126
Bosnia and Herzegovina Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.60 2/30 3/38 32/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.60 5/30 9/38 41/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.57 1/30 5/38 34/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.52 13/30 16/38 59/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.55 14/30 18/38 57/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.35 17/30 29/38 94/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.54 23/24 11/38 49/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.56 22/24 16/38 54/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 24/24 20/38 62/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.46 12/30 7/20 88/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.46 17/30 9/20 92/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.47 7/30 2/20 59/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.29 15/15 29/30 124/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.23 15/15 30/30 126/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.25 15/15 29/30 124/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.41 23/30 24/30 111/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.39 27/30 24/30 115/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.28 28/30 26/30 118/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.81 10/24 14/38 14/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.70 12/24 20/38 20/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.73 9/24 11/38 11/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.65 3/30 24/38 25/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.63 6/30 29/38 34/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.57 6/30 29/38 33/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 10/15 25/38 78/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.54 9/15 20/38 60/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.47 9/15 18/38 57/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.50 17/30 19/38 67/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.48 22/30 30/38 81/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 22/30 35/38 106/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.37 27/30 17/20 119/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.36 29/30 20/20 121/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.27 30/30 20/20 122/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.68 2/30 1/38 24/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.62 7/30 6/38 37/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.55 8/30 6/38 36/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.52 9/30 6/30 56/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.52 9/30 6/30 67/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 13/30 13/30 82/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.55 22/24 33/38 44/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.58 20/24 32/38 48/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.51 22/24 34/38 48/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.70 14/24 21/38 21/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.70 13/24 21/38 21/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.70 12/24 18/38 18/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.90 1/24 1/38 1/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.87 1/24 1/38 1/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.83 2/24 2/38 2/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.52 12/30 15/38 58/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.59 10/30 14/38 46/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.55 9/30 7/38 37/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.39 29/30 37/38 114/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.43 24/30 35/38 104/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 20/30 32/38 100/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 19/30 21/38 70/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.48 21/30 29/38 80/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.35 18/30 30/38 95/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.35 8/8 28/30 121/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.38 8/8 25/30 117/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.41 6/8 10/30 76/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 20/30 8/30 74/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.51 16/30 7/30 68/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.29 26/30 25/30 117/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.79 11/24 15/38 15/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.80 6/24 7/38 7/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.71 11/24 16/38 16/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.36 28/30 18/20 120/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.41 25/30 16/20 111/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 23/30 14/20 104/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.84 7/24 9/38 9/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.80 7/24 8/38 8/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.84 1/24 1/38 1/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.77 12/24 17/38 17/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.71 11/24 19/38 19/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.63 15/24 22/38 22/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.56 1/13 1/30 42/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.54 5/13 4/30 62/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.52 1/13 1/30 46/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.85 5/24 7/38 7/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.86 3/24 3/38 3/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.78 6/24 7/38 7/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.55 5/30 3/30 45/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.62 4/30 1/30 39/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.49 6/30 3/30 53/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.59 20/24 31/38 34/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.58 21/24 33/38 49/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.51 21/24 33/38 47/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.58 8/30 7/38 39/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.62 8/30 7/38 38/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.50 13/30 15/38 51/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 25/30 35/38 108/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.37 28/30 37/38 120/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.32 23/30 36/38 109/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 17/30 11/20 99/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.41 23/30 14/20 108/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 26/30 17/20 111/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.46 22/30 30/38 86/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.53 15/30 21/38 65/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 15/30 25/38 78/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.40 28/30 26/30 113/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.41 25/30 21/30 107/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.26 28/30 28/30 123/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.82 3/15 10/38 10/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.77 4/15 12/38 12/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.71 5/15 15/38 15/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 24/24 38/38 82/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.46 24/24 38/38 93/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.48 23/24 35/38 55/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 3/6 10/30 76/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.45 3/6 17/30 97/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.40 3/6 11/30 77/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.55 7/15 2/30 43/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.44 13/15 20/30 102/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.37 12/15 15/30 86/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 6/8 26/38 79/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.55 4/8 19/38 58/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.42 5/8 24/38 75/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.59 19/24 30/38 33/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.56 23/24 36/38 55/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.64 14/24 21/38 21/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.54 10/30 12/38 52/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.51 17/30 23/38 69/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.50 12/30 13/38 49/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.78 5/15 16/38 16/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.79 2/15 9/38 9/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.74 2/15 10/38 10/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.58 2/8 5/38 36/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.63 2/8 4/38 32/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.58 2/8 2/38 28/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 2/13 17/38 63/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.59 2/13 12/38 44/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.44 7/13 21/38 69/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.46 13/30 13/30 89/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.47 12/30 12/30 83/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 15/30 14/30 84/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 8/13 15/30 92/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.49 10/13 10/30 77/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 13/13 21/30 112/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 7/8 32/38 94/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.44 7/8 34/38 103/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 8/8 26/38 80/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 16/30 10/20 98/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.44 20/30 11/20 101/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.32 25/30 16/20 108/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 6/13 24/38 77/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.57 3/13 15/38 52/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.47 4/13 17/38 56/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.35 29/30 20/20 123/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.40 26/30 17/20 112/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 20/30 11/20 96/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 14/30 8/20 91/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.54 8/30 3/20 64/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 8/30 3/20 64/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.53 8/15 13/38 54/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.60 7/15 10/38 42/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.54 7/15 9/38 41/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.54 8/30 3/20 50/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.43 22/30 13/20 106/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.28 29/30 19/20 121/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.26 30/30 30/30 125/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.32 30/30 29/30 124/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.30 27/30 23/30 114/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.63 1/30 2/38 28/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.63 2/30 5/38 33/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.53 4/30 11/38 44/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.46 23/30 31/38 87/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.40 27/30 36/38 113/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.29 25/30 37/38 115/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 13/13 22/30 107/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.47 11/13 14/30 87/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 11/13 19/30 97/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 9/15 9/30 75/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.54 8/15 2/30 59/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.50 8/15 2/30 52/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.54 3/8 4/30 51/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.54 5/8 5/30 63/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 7/8 12/30 79/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.38 24/30 14/20 115/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.46 15/30 7/20 90/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 21/30 12/20 98/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.46 13/15 12/30 85/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.36 14/15 27/30 122/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.29 14/15 24/30 116/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.58 3/30 4/38 35/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.66 1/30 1/38 24/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.54 3/30 8/38 40/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.50 1/6 5/20 66/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.47 2/6 6/20 86/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.44 2/6 5/20 66/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.86 3/24 4/38 4/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.86 2/24 2/38 2/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.76 7/24 8/38 8/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.85 2/15 5/38 5/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.78 3/15 11/38 11/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.72 4/15 13/38 13/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 24/30 14/30 90/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.41 26/30 22/30 109/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.28 27/30 27/30 120/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 15/30 9/20 95/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.43 21/30 12/20 105/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 22/30 13/20 102/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 18/30 18/30 100/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.48 10/30 11/30 79/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.43 12/30 8/30 72/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.87 2/24 2/38 2/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.85 4/24 4/38 4/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.83 3/24 3/38 3/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.38 5/6 27/30 116/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.38 5/6 26/30 118/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.35 4/6 17/30 92/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 14/30 35/38 60/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.49 20/30 37/38 78/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 24/30 38/38 110/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.50 18/30 20/38 68/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.46 23/30 31/38 89/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 21/30 34/38 105/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 12/15 11/30 83/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.44 12/15 19/30 99/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 13/15 22/30 113/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.62 18/24 28/38 30/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.64 18/24 28/38 31/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.61 17/24 25/38 25/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.64 16/24 25/38 26/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.69 14/24 22/38 22/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.60 18/24 26/38 26/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.73 6/15 18/38 18/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.77 5/15 13/38 13/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.71 6/15 17/38 17/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.57 21/24 8/38 40/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.64 16/24 3/38 29/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.57 19/24 4/38 32/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 5/13 23/38 72/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.52 6/13 22/38 66/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 12/13 33/38 101/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.57 4/30 1/20 41/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.63 3/30 1/20 35/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.55 2/30 1/20 39/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.55 6/30 2/20 46/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.56 7/30 2/20 53/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 9/30 4/20 65/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 7/13 28/38 81/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.50 9/13 27/38 74/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 8/13 27/38 81/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.37 26/30 16/20 118/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.41 24/30 15/20 110/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 18/30 10/20 90/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.87 1/15 3/38 3/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.83 1/15 5/38 5/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.78 1/15 6/38 6/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.64 17/24 26/38 27/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.63 19/24 30/38 36/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.55 20/24 31/38 38/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.55 7/30 9/38 47/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.59 6/30 13/38 45/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.52 5/30 12/38 45/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.68 15/24 23/38 23/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.67 15/24 23/38 23/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.66 13/24 20/38 20/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 2/6 7/30 69/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.47 1/6 13/30 85/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 1/6 5/30 63/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.61 5/30 29/38 31/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.75 1/30 16/38 16/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.57 4/30 28/38 30/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.58 7/30 6/38 38/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.66 4/30 2/38 27/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.57 5/30 3/38 31/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.54 9/30 10/38 48/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.61 9/30 8/38 40/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.60 2/30 1/38 27/126
St. Vincent and the Grenadines Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 21/30 29/38 84/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.51 18/30 24/38 70/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.53 11/30 10/38 43/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.85 4/24 6/38 6/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.81 5/24 6/38 6/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.81 4/24 4/38 4/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 19/30 12/20 101/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.48 11/30 4/20 82/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 14/30 7/20 83/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 11/15 27/38 80/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.49 10/15 28/38 76/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.42 11/15 23/38 74/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 11/30 6/20 73/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.47 13/30 5/20 84/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 17/30 9/20 89/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 15/30 36/38 61/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.58 13/30 35/38 51/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.35 16/30 37/38 91/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.53 4/8 5/30 53/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.49 6/8 9/30 75/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.43 4/8 9/30 73/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 12/13 34/38 106/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.45 12/13 32/38 96/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 9/13 28/38 85/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 21/30 13/20 104/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.45 18/30 10/20 95/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 24/30 15/20 107/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 11/13 20/30 103/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.54 4/13 3/30 61/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.37 10/13 16/30 87/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.72 1/8 20/38 20/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.66 1/8 25/38 26/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.67 1/8 19/38 19/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.82 8/24 11/38 11/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.73 10/24 18/38 18/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.75 8/24 9/38 9/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.73 13/24 19/38 19/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.64 17/24 27/38 30/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.63 16/24 23/38 23/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.69 1/30 22/38 22/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.75 2/30 17/38 17/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.54 10/30 32/38 42/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 9/13 17/30 96/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.51 8/13 8/30 72/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.44 6/13 6/30 67/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.20 30/30 38/38 126/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.28 30/30 38/38 125/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.14 30/30 38/38 126/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 14/15 16/30 93/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.45 11/15 16/30 94/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.46 10/15 4/30 60/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 20/30 19/30 102/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.47 14/30 15/30 88/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.43 11/30 7/30 70/126
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
8.2 2.1
Absence of
Factor Factor Regional Income Global 8.1 2.2 Corruption
Trend Score Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7 2.3
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory Enforcement 0.38 25/30 15/20 117/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Enforcement
Civil Justice 0.46 16/30 8/20 91/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.37 16/30 8/20 88/126
Behind the
Numbers
The production of the WJP Rule of Law Index® can be summarized in 11 steps:
1 The WJP developed the conceptual framework summarized in the Index’s nine factors
and 47 sub-factors, in consultation with academics, practitioners, and community leaders
from around the world.
2 The Index team developed a set of five questionnaires based on the Index’s conceptual
framework to be administered to experts and the general public. Questionnaires were
translated into several languages and adapted to reflect commonly used terms and
expressions.
3 The Index team identified, on average, more than 300 potential local experts per country
to respond to the QRQs and engaged the services of leading local polling companies to
implement the household surveys.
4 Polling companies conducted pilot tests of the GPP in consultation with the Index team,
and launched the final survey for full fieldwork.
5 The Index team sent the questionnaires to local experts and engaged in continual
interaction with them.
6 The Index team collected and mapped the data onto the 44 sub-factors with
global comparability.
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 and/or general public)
c. Normalized the raw scores
d. Aggregated the normalized scores into sub-factors and factors
using simple averages
e. Produced the normalized scores, which are rounded to two
decimal points, and the final rankings
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 70 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 assess the statistical reliability of the results.
10 To illustrate whether the rule of law in a country significantly changed over the course
of the past year, a measure of change over time was produced based on the annual
difference in the country-level factor scores, the standard errors of these scores
(estimated from a set of 100 bootstrap samples), and the results of the corresponding
t-tests.
11 The data were organized into country reports, tables, and figures to facilitate their
presentation and interpretation. For tables organized by income group, the WJP follows
the World Bank income classifications.
160
Methodology remaining countries in future editions of the Index. Depending
The WJP Rule of Law Index is the first attempt to systematically on the particular situation of each country, one of three different
and comprehensively quantify the rule of law around the world polling methodologies is used: face-to-face, telephone, or online.
and remains unique in its operationalization of rule of law The GPP is carried out in each country every other year. The
dimensions into concrete questions. The WJP Rule of Law Index polling data used in this year’s report were collected during the
2019 report presents information on eight composite factors fall of 2018 (for 71 countries), fall of 2017 (for 52 countries),
that are further disaggregated into 44 specific sub-factors (see the fall of 2016 (for two countries), and the fall of 2014 (for
page 10). Factor 9, Informal Justice, is included in the conceptual one country). Detailed information regarding the country
framework, but has been excluded from the aggregated scores coverage (cities covered or nationally representative), the polling
and rankings in order to provide meaningful cross-country companies contracted to administer the questionnaire, and the
comparisons. polling methodology employed in each of the 126 countries is
presented on page 164.
The country scores and rankings presented in this report are
built from more than 500 variables drawn from the assessments The QRQs complement the household data with assessments
of more than 120,000 households and 3,800 legal experts in 126 from in-country professionals with expertise in civil and
countries and jurisdictions, making it the most accurate portrayal commercial law, criminal and constitutional law, labor law, and
of the factors that contribute to shaping the rule of law in a public health. These questionnaires gather timely input on a
country. range of topics from practitioners who frequently interact with
state institutions. Such topics include information on the efficacy
Data Sources of courts, the strength of regulatory enforcement, and the
To present an image that accurately portrays the rule of law reliability of accountability mechanisms.
as experienced by ordinary people, each score of the Index is
calculated using a large number of questions drawn from two The questionnaires contain closed-ended perception questions
original data sources collected by the World Justice Project in and several hypothetical scenarios with highly detailed
each country: a General Population Poll (GPP) and a series of factual assumptions aimed at ensuring comparability across
Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs). These two data countries. The QRQ surveys are conducted annually, and the
sources collect up-to-date firsthand information that is not questionnaires are completed by respondents selected from
available at the global level, and constitute the world’s most directories of law firms, universities and colleges, research
comprehensive dataset of its kind. They capture the experiences organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
and perceptions of ordinary citizens and in-country professionals as well as through referrals from the WJP global network of
concerning the performance of the state and its agents and the practitioners, and all are vetted by WJP staff based on their
actual operation of the legal framework in their country. expertise. The expert surveys are administered in five languages:
English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. The QRQ
The GPP surveys provide firsthand information on the data for this report include more than 3,800 surveys, which
experiences and the perceptions of ordinary people regarding represents an average of 30 respondents per country. These data
a range of pertinent rule of law information, including their were collected from May 2018 through early November 2018.
dealings with the government, the ease of interacting with state
bureaucracy, the extent of bribery and corruption, the availability Data Cleaning and Score Computation
of dispute resolution systems, and the prevalence of common Once collected, the data are carefully processed to arrive at
crimes to which they are exposed. country-level scores. As a first step, the respondent level data
are edited to exclude partially completed surveys, suspicious
The GPP questionnaire includes 127 perception-based data, and outliers (which are detected using the Z-score method).
questions and 213 experience-based questions, along with Individual answers are then mapped onto the 44 sub-factors of
socio-demographic information on all respondents. The the Index (or onto the intermediate categories that make up each
questionnaire is translated into local languages, adapted to sub-factor), codified so that all values fall between 0 (weakest
common expressions, and administered by leading local polling adherence to the rule of law) and 1 (strongest adherence to the
companies using a probability sample of 1,000 respondents.3 rule of law), and aggregated at the country level using the simple
In previous editions of the Index, the poll has been conducted (or unweighted) average of all respondents.
in the three largest cities of each country. However, the World
Justice Project’s goal was to update its methodology to include This year, to allow an easier comparison across years, the
nationally representative polls. Towards this end, nationally resulting 2019 scores have been normalized using the Min-Max
representative polls were conducted in 55 countries this method with a base year of 2015. These normalized scores
year. Nationally representative polls will be conducted in the were then successively aggregated from the variable level all the
3
Due to small populations or obstacles to data collection in certain countries, the sampling plan was adjusted in some cases. One adjustment was to decrease the sample
size. For more information on specific countries and sample sizes, see pages 164-166.
162
Justice Project’s goal was to update its methodology to include 3. Given the uncertainty associated with picking a
nationally representative polls. Towards this end, nationally particular sample of respondents, standard errors have
representative polls were conducted in 55 countries this year. been calculated using bootstrapping methods to test
Nationally representative polls will be conducted in the remaining whether the annual changes in the factor scores are
countries in future editions of the Index. Third, given the rapid statistically significant.
changes to the rule of law occurring in some countries, scores
for some countries may be sensitive to the specific points in time 4. Indices and indicators are subject to potential abuse
when the data were collected. To address this, the WJP is piloting and misinterpretation. Once released to the public, they
test methods of moving averages to account for short-term can take on a life of their own and be used for purposes
fluctuations. Fourth, the QRQ data may be subject to problems unanticipated by their creators. If data are taken out of
of measurement error due to the limited number of experts in context, it can lead to unintended or erroneous policy
some countries, resulting in less precise estimates. To address this, decisions
the WJP works constantly to expand its network of in-country
academic and practitioner experts who contribute their time and 5. Rule of law concepts measured by the Index may
expertise to this endeavor. Finally, due to the limited number of have different meanings across countries. Users are
experts in some countries (which implies higher standard errors) encouraged to consult the specific definitions of
and the fact that the GPP is carried out in each country every the variables employed in the construction of the
other year (which implies that for some countries, some variables Index, which are discussed in greater detail in the
do not change from one year to another), it is possible that the methodology section of the WJP Rule of Law Index
test described above fails to detect small changes in a country’s website.
situation over time.
6. The Index is generally intended to be used in
Other methodological considerations combination with other instruments, both quantitative
A detailed presentation of the methodology, including a table and qualitative. Just as in the areas of health or
and description of the more than 500 variables used to construct economics, no single index conveys a full picture of a
the Index scores, is available at: worldjusticeproject.org and in country’s situation. Policy-making in the area of rule
Botero, J. and Ponce, A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”: of law requires careful consideration of all relevant
WJP Working Paper No.1, available at: dimensions—which may vary from country to country
worldjusticeproject.org/publications. —and a combination of sources, instruments, and
methods.
Using the WJP Rule of Law Index
The WJP Rule of Law Index has been designed to offer a reliable 7. Pursuant to the sensitivity analysis of the Index data
and independent data source for policy makers, businesses, non- conducted in collaboration with the Econometrics and
governmental organizations (NGOs), and other constituencies Applied Statistics Unit of the European Commission’s
to assess a country’s adherence to the rule of law as perceived Joint Research Centre, confidence intervals have been
and experienced by the average person, identify a country’s calculated for all figures included in the WJP Rule of Law
strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarly situated Index. These confidence intervals and other relevant
countries, and track changes over time. The Index has been considerations regarding measurement error are
designed to include several features that set it apart from other reported in Saisana and Saltelli (2015) and Botero and
indices and make it valuable for a large number of countries, thus Ponce (2011).
providing a powerful resource that can inform policy debates
both within and across countries. However, the Index’s findings The following pages (164-166) list the coverage and polling
must be interpreted in light of certain inherent limitations. methodology for the GPP in the 126 indexed countries and
jurisdictions.
1. The WJP Rule of Law Index does not identify priorities
for reform and is not intended to establish causation or
to ascertain the complex relationship among different
rule of law dimensions in various countries.
Afghanistan Nationally representative D3 Systems & ACSOR Surveys Face-to-face 3006 2018
Albania Nationally representative IDRA Research & Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2018
Antigua & Barbuda Nationally representative DMR Insights Face-to-face 513 2018
Bangladesh Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna Org-Quest Research Ltd. Face-to-face 1000 2016
Bosnia &
Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Tuzla Kantar TNS MIB Face-to-face 1000 2017
Herzegovina
Bulgaria Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna Alpha Research Ltd. Face-to-face 1001 2018
Burkina Faso Ouagadougou, Bobo Dioulasso, Koudougou Kantar TNS Face-to-face 1029 2017
Cambodia Phnom Penh, Battambang, Kampong Cham Indochina Research Face-to-face 1000 2014
Costa Rica San José, Cartago, Alajuela Dichter and Neira Face-to-face 561 2017
Cote d'Ivoire Abidjan, Bouaké, Daloa Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1011 2017
Congo, Dem. Rep. Kinshasa, Lubumbashi, Mbuji-Mayi Kantar Public Senegal Face-to-face 1083 2018
Dominican Republic Nationally representative CID Latin America Face-to-face 1014 2018
Ecuador Guayaquil, Quito, Cuenca Dichter and Neira Face-to-face 703 2017
Ethiopia Addis Ababa, Gondar, Nazret Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1037 2017
164
Country/Jurisdiction Coverage Polling Company Methodology Sample Year
Guinea Conakry, Nzerekore, Kankan Kantar Public Senegal Face-to-face 1065 2018
Honduras Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1100 2017
Indonesia Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung MRI (Marketing Research Indonesia) Face-to-face 1004 2017
Jamaica Kingston, Portmore, Spanish Town Dichter and Neira Face-to-face 401 2017
Liberia Monrovia, Gbarnga and Buchanan Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1113 2018
Macedonia, FYR Skopje, Kumanovo, Bitola Ipsos dooel Skopje Face-to-face 1017 2017
Malawi Lilongwe, Blantyre, Mzuzu Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1039 2017
Mexico Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey Data Opinión Pública y Mercados Face-to-face 1000 2017
Panama Panama City, San Miguelito, Las Cumbres Gallup Panamá Face-to-face 1000 2017
Serbia Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis Ipsos Strategic Marketing d.o.o. Face-to-face 1002 2017
Sierra Leone Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1165 2018
South Africa Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1014 2018
Sri Lanka Colombo, Kaduwela, Maharagama Kantar LMRB Face-to-face 1010 2017
St. Kitts & Nevis Nationally representative DMR Insights Face-to-face 500 2018
Tanzania Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, Arusha Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1037 2018
Thailand Bangkok, Nakhon Ratchasima, Udon Thani Infosearch Limited Face-to-face 1000 2018
Trinidad & Tobago Nationally representative CID-Gallup Latin America Face-to-face 1006 2018
Tunisia Big Tunis, Sfax, Sousse BJKA Consulting Face-to-face 1001 2017
Uganda Kampala, Nansana, Kira Kantar Public East Africa Face-to-face 1062 2018
Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, Hai Phong Indochina Research (Vietnam) Ltd. Face-to-face 1000 2017
Zambia Lusaka, Kitwe, Chipata Intraspace Market Consultancy Ltd. Face-to-face 1014 2017
166
Contributing Experts
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2019 was made possible by the generous contributions of academics and practitioners who contributed
their time and expertise. The names of those experts wishing to be acknowledged individually are listed below.
This report was also made possible by the work of the polling companies who conducted fieldwork, and the thousands of individuals
who have responded to the General Population Poll around the world.
Afghanistan Albana Fona Nawel Lahouel Nelson Silva María Eugenia Montero
LPA Law Firm Empresa Nacional de Seguros Hewlett Packard Enterprise
A. R. Rahimghiyasa Okba Lemdjed Bellabas de Angola
Brunilda Subashi Maria Gabriela Peralta
Abdul Hadi Zamani Universiteti Ismail Qemali Salima Aloui Orlando de Oliveira Buta
Al Mujahid Legal Services Vlorë Société d’Avocats Goussanem María Paola Trigiani
& Aloui Rosa Pedro Alfaro Abogados
Ahmad Jawad Dorant Ekmekçiu MWENHO
Afghan Civil Society Forum Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Yaya Farouk Martin Alejandro Bello
Organization Anonymous Contributors Pirovano & Bello Abogados
Drini Hakorja Anonymous Contributors
Anicée Van Engeland Antigua & Barbuda Martín Langsam
Cranfield University Eglantina Biba Angola Universidad Isalud
Frost & Fire Consulting Kema Benjamin
Baryalai Hakimi Adelino Naquarta Marshall & Co. Mercedes Balado
Kabul University Enxhi Kallogjeri Bevilacqua
Frost & Fire Consulting Adolfo Rasoilo Stuart Alexander Lockhart MBB Balado Bevilacqua
Bentulhuda Yaqubi Stuart A. Lockhart Legal Abogados
Kabul University of Medical Gentiana Tirana Armindo Sá Silva Services
Sciences Sá Silva & Associados Mercedes Lorenzo
Gjergji Gjika Anonymous Contributors Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Bilal Ahmad Rahimi Gjika & Associates Barros Gaspar Simão
Kandahar University Gabinete Legal Angola Argentina Nicolás Soler
Irv Vaso Advogados Fulbright
Hashmat Khalil Nadirpor Kalo & Associates Adrián R. Tellas
LESPA Campos Domingos Omar Esteban Fornetti
Jonida Melani Braja Agostinho Alberto Gonzalez Torres A-M-Ch-C-F-RM
Khalid Massoudi Wolf Theiss CDA Baker McKenzie
Masnad Law Firm P. Eugenio Aramburu
Merita Gjorga Cássia Sousa Alberto Justo Giles PAGBAM
Khalid Sekander
Oltjan Hoxholli Catarina Martins Neto Analia V. Durán Pablo Alejandro Pirovano
Mazhar Bangash LPA Law Firm Fernandes MBB Balado Bevilacqua Pirovano & Bello Abogados
RIAA Barker Gillette ADCA- Carvalho & Associados Abogados
Anonymous Contributors Rosa María Oller López
Mohammad Shafiq Hamdam Celmira Maria Domingos Andres Sanguinetti Estudio Jurídico Oller López &
Afghan Anti-Corruption Algeria Matias Da Silva Lenos Estudio Moltedo Asociados
Network Associada A Ordem Dos
Abdelkader Zouaid Advogados de Angola Carlos María Ferrer Deheza Sandra S. Guillan
Mushtari Daqiq Estudio Ferrer Deheza De Dios & Goyena Abogados
Adnane Bouchaib Chilandissa Nilson Monteiro Consultores
Rahmanullah Shahab Claudio Jesús Santagati
Afghan Anglo Legal Amel Benredjal Correia Vicente Pongolola Defensoria General de Lomas Silvina Sesarego
CVP - Sociedade de de Zamora
Sanzar Kakar Badis Mendil Advogados, R.L. Soledad Espasandin
Afghanistan Holding Group Daniela Carrara Estudio Jurídico Curutchet -
Berbar Ababakrine Seddik Cristiano Santana Agostinho Universidad de Buenos Aires Odriozola
Sara Balagh Sanda Paciência
Kakar Advocates Chems-Eddine Hafiz CKA & Associados Dante Graña Anonymous Contributors
LPA-CGR Avocats Fundación Avedis Donabedian
Sayed Ramiz Husaini Domingos Ukwahali Chilala Australia
USP Cylia Moulai DUCEA - Sociedade de Diego Silva Ortiz
Advogados, R.L. Silva Ortiz, Alfonso, Pavic & Breen Creighton
Shahrzad Shamim Ghalem Omar Louge RMIT University
Shajjan & Associates E. Salesso Ribeiro
Karima Chalal Federico A. Borzi Cirilli Brendan Ashdown
Thomas Kraemer Cabinet d’Avocat Karima Edevaldo de Almeida Ceballos & Ceballos John Toohey Chambers
Kakar Advocates Chalal Augusto
Gustavo Ferrante David Hooke SC
Zabihullah Khaled Goussanem Elsa Tchicanha Allende Ferrante Abogados
CAHPO Société d’Avocats Goussanem Gabinete Legal Angola Edouard Tursan d’Espaignet
& Aloui Advogados Humberto Federico Rios University of Newcastle;
Zamira Saidi Estudio Rios Abogados University of New England
Shajjan & Associates Medafer Faiza Gilberto Pelinganga
Université d’Alger Lucila Escriña Esther Stern
Anonymous Contributors Hermenegildo Teotónio da Marval, O’Farrell & Mairal Flinders University of South
Mohamed Sadek Djane Silva e Sousa Australia
Albania Hamed Mosaiko - Instituto para a Maria Eugenia Cantenys
Cidadania Marval, O’Farrell & Mairal Fiona McDonald
Agron Alibali Nabil Mellah Australian Centre for Health
Frost & Fire Consulting UNOP Law Research
168
Xavier Van Der Smissen Justin Y. Tossou Nicolás Soliz Peinado Mirjana Šarkinović Anonymous Contributors
PSI Salazar & Asociados
Yves Brulard Ognjen Riđić Brazil
DBB Justine Françoise Houzanme Raul A. Baldivia International University of
Réseau des ONG et Baldivia Unzaga & Asociados Sarajevo Abel Simão Amaro
Anonymous Contributors Associations des femmes Veirano Advogados
contre la féminisation du Rene Soria Saucedo Osman Sinanović
Belize VIH-Sida Boston University University of Tuzla Adriana L. S. Lamounier
Rodrigues
Adler G. L. Waight Lucien Dossou-Gbete Rodrigo Jimenez Cusicanqui Samil Ramić Universidade Federal de Minas
Barrow & Williams LLP Clinique Louis Pasteur Salazar & Asociados Municipal Court in Bugojno Gerais
Estevan Perera Marius W. de Jong Roger Marcelo Longaric Selma Mezetovic Medic Alexandre Fragoso Silvestre
Estevan Perera & Company Ministry of Foreign Affairs Saucedo University of Sarajevo Briganti Advogados
LLP Indacochea & Asociados
Nadine Dossou Sakponou Slaven Dizdar Alexandre Gustavo Melo
Marvin L. Manzanero Rosario Baptista Marić & Co. Law Firm Ltd. Franco de Moraes Bahia
Ministry of Health Ore Yewou Akotchiwa Universidade Federal de Ouro
Gisele Sandra Salinas Zijad Dzafic Preto
Rodwell R. A. Williams Université d’Abomey-Calavi C.R. & F. Rojas University of Tuzla
Barrow & Williams LLP Ana Paula Avila
Pierre Togbe Sergio Mario Reynolds Ruiz Zijad Hasić Universidade Federal do Rio
Ryan J. Wrobel Université d’Abomey-Calavi Bufete Reynolds Legal Advice Parliamentary Assembly of Grande do Sul
Wrobel & Co. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Sadikou Ayo Alao Teddy Cuentas Bascopé Ana Paula de Barcellos
Tania Moody Gerddes Afrique Zinka Grbo Universidade do Estado do Rio
Barrow & Williams LLP Víctor Vargas Montaño University of Sarajevo de Janeiro
Anonymous Contributors Herrera & Abogados
Victor M. D. Lizarraga Sr. Anonymous Contributors André de Melo Ribeiro
UHS Bolivia Yerko Ilijic Crosa Dias Carneiro Advogados
Proyecto ACCESO, California Botswana
Wayne A. Piper Arletta Añez Valdez Western School of Law Beto Vasconcelos
Eisen Consultancy Abdool Rahim Khan
Carlos Gerke Siles Anonymous Contributors Rahim Khan & Co. Carlos Ayres
Anonymous Contributors Estudio Jurídico Gerke Maeda, Ayres e Sarubbi
Bosnia & Herzegovina Bugalo Maripe Advogados
Benin Ernesto Rojas Cabrera University of Botswana
Universidad Mayor de San Adnan Duraković Carolina Dzimidas Haber
Adebiyi Adam Sadia Simón Cochabamba University of Zenica Buhle Ncube Defensoria Pública do Estado
RIFONGA LegalWise Botswana do Rio de Janeiro
Heidy María Sandoval Andrea Zubović-Devedžić
Adeloui Arsène-Joël Natusch CMS Reich-Rohrwig Heinz Edward Fashole Luke II Carolina Giesbrecht Forte
Université d’Abomey-Calavi Indacochea & Asociados Luke & Associates Korbage de Castro
Denis Pajić Korbage de Castro Sociedade
Agathe Affougnon Ago Ivan Cáceres Ibañez University of Mostar Džemal Emmanuel Kagiso Jani de Advocacia
Barreau du Bénin Caceres & Asoc. Bijedić Tshekiso Ditiro & Jani Legal
Practice Chiavelli Facenda Falavigno
Aline Odje Ivan Lima Magne Emir Spaho Universidade de São Paulo
Centro de Estudios Sobre Law Office Spaho Joanne Robinson
Barnabe Georges Gbago Justicia y Participación Osei-Ofei Swabi & Company Cynthia Lessa Da Costa
Barreau du Bénin Enisa Mesic Universidade Federal de Juiz
Javier Mir Peña Society of Nephrology, Dialysis Kwadwo Osei-Ofei de Fora
Bertin Koudoufio Mir & Asociados and Kidney Transplantation in Osei-Ofei Swabi & Company
Ministère de la Santé; Croix- Bosnia and Herzegovina Daniel Bushatsky
Rouge Béninoise Jorge Omar Mostajo Barrios Lethogonolo Makgane Advocacia Bushatsky
Universidad Mayor de San Hana Korać Makgane Attorneys
César Guegni Andés University of Travnik; Daniel de Pádua Andrade
Cabinet d’Avocats Charles International University of Moagi Moloi Universidade Federal de Minas
Badou U & Partners José Carlos Bernal Novi Pazar Minchin & Kelly - DLA Piper Gerais
Guevara & Gutiérrez, S.C. Africa
Charles Badou Lana Bubalo David Braga Junior
Cabinet d’Avocats Charles José Ramiro Vega University of Mostar Džemal Mpho Nothothozela Hospital dos Servidores
Badou U & Partners José Ramiro Vega SRL Bijedić Serumola Públicos do Estado de São
Bookbinder Business Law Paulo
Chris Balogoun Juan José Lima M. Lejla Balić
Centro de Estudios Sobre University of Sarajevo Munyaka Wadaira Elival da Silva Ramos
Christian Chaffa Justicia y Participación Makuyana Universidade de São Paulo
Ministère de la Santé Mehmed Ganic Makuyana Legal Practice
Julio César Landívar Castro International University of Emilio Peluso Neder Meyer
Elie N. Vlavonou Kponou Guevara & Gutiérrez, S.C. Sarajevo Neo Thelma Moatlhodi Universidade Federal de Minas
Barreau du Bénin Mbeha Attornyes Gerais
Luis Félix A. Alípaz Echazú Mehmed Spaho
Félix Fanou Academia Nacional de Law Office Spaho Patrick Akhiwu Eraldo Silva Júnior
Université d’Abomey-Calavi Ciencias Jurídicas Pakmed Group Defensoria Pública da União
Meliha Povlakic
Gonçalves Wilfrid Eric Manuel Urenda University of Sarajevo Piyush Shama Estêvão Mallet
Université d’Abomey-Calavi Urenda Abogados Piyush Sharma Attorneys & Universidade de São Paulo
Miralem Porobic Co.
Guedje Ludovic Milenka Saavedra Muñoz Fabio Martins Di Jorge
Bufete Aguirre Sociedad Civil Mirela Cokic Dzinic Tapiwa Gachala Di Jorge Advocacia
Hugues Pognon University of Tuzla Osei-Ofei Swabi & Company
Société Civile Professionnelle Mónica Vivian Céspedes Fabio Queiroz Pereira
d’Avocats Pognon & Machicao Tshekiso Tshekiso Universidade Federal de Minas
Detchenou Tshekiso Ditiro & Jani Legal Gerais
Practice
170
Epanty Mbanda Daniel M. Campbell Humberto Sánchez Pacheco Angela María Ruiz Sternberg Sonia Botero
D. Moukouri & Partners Law Cox & Palmer Defensoría Penal Pública Universidad del Rosario Universidad Libre
Firm
Fabien Gélinas Javier Soto Solís Carlos Andrés Gómez Anonymous Contributors
Hyacinthe Fansi McGill University Eyzaguirre & Cía. González
NFM Avocats Associés Universidad Jorge Tadeo Congo, Dem. Rep.
Finn Makela Jorge A. Canales González Lozano
Ismael Dongkeu Université de Sherbrooke Peralta & Gutiérrez Abogados Adonis Alphonse Bope
The Abeng Law Firm Carlos Arturo Toro Lopez RCP
Gaynor Roger Jorge Bofill Genzsch
Jean Joseph Claude Siewe Shibley Righton LLP Bofill Escobar Abogados Carolina Posada Isaacs Alain Mboko Iyeti
Siewe & Partners Law Firm Posse Herrera Ruiz Ministère de la Santé Publique
Jabeur Fathally Juan Enrique Vargas
Jean Stéphane Tang University of Ottawa Universidad Diego Portales David F. Varela Alexis Kumabuene Kinda
Mbembe Pontificia Universidad
The Abeng Law Firm Karen Busby Juan Pablo Cox Leixelard Javeriana Amani Cibambo
University of Manitoba Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Cabinet Amani
Jean-Aimé Kounga Eduardo Cárdenas
The Abeng Law Firm Lise Desmarais Luis Parada Dentons Cardenas & Cardenas Annie Bambe Cikunda
Université de Sherbrooke DLA Piper Forum pour les Droits des
John Morfaw Elizabeth Castillo Jeunes et Enfants au Congo
Strategic Development Michel W. Drapeau Manuel Jiménez Pfingsthorn Municipio de Santiago de Cali
Initiatives University of Ottawa Jara del Favero Abogados Centre d’Assistace Juridique
Enrique Álvarez Posada
Joyce Nyamboli Nayha Acharya Manuel José Fernández B. Lloreda Camacho & Co. Charles L. Kitenge
Destiny Chambers Dalhousie University Coordination Médicale
María Inés Horvitz Lennon Guillermo Hernando Bayona Bralima
Justin Tentienu Njifack Patrick Essiminy Universidad de Chile Combariza
UNDP Stikeman Elliott Charles-Mugagga Mushizi
María Trinidad Cifuentes Gustavo Quintero Navas Bashushana
Laurence Djeutchou Mouafo Ram Sankaran Silva Universidad de los Andes Centre d’Echanges pour
NFM Avocats Associés Sharma Harsanyi Claro y Cía. des Réformes Juridiques et
Ignacio Santamaria Institutionnelles
Martin Kamako Thomas A. Cromwell Martín Besio Hernández Lloreda Camacho & Co.
Cabinet Kamako Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Universidad Diego Portales Cicéron Bulakio Mvuama
Joe Bonilla Gálvez Barreau de Kinshasa/Gombe
Nicaise Ibohn Bata Ulisce Desmarais Michele Daroch Sagredo Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados
INB Law Firm Desmarais Desvignes Crespo Abdala & Cia. Abogados Didier Mukuna Kadima
s.e.n.c.r.l. Jorge Acosta-Reyes Barreau de Kinshasa/Gombe
Njini Rose Futrih Ngong Patricio Morales Aguirre Universidad del Norte
Regional Hospital Bemenda Anonymous Contributors Estudio Jurídico Pérez Donoso Dieudonné Kaluba Dibwa
Jorge Andrés Amézquita Université de Kinshasa;
Noé Momha Chile Ramon Garcia Odgers Toro Cabinet Pr Grégoire Bakandeja
Cabinet Cameroun Audit Universidad Católica de la C3 Corporate Control of Crime & Associés
Conseil Andrea Abascal Santísima Concepción S.A.S
Jara del Favero Abogados Dullin Banzuzi
Polycarp Ngufor Forkum Raúl Novoa Galán Jorge Enrique Galvis Tovar Organisation pour la
National Advanced Police Benjamín Garretón Smart Lloreda Camacho & Co. Protection et Promotion des
School Eyzaguirre & Cía. Regina Ingrid Díaz Tolosa Droits Humains
Universidad Bernardo Jorge Lara Urbaneja
Rose Gana Fomban Leke Carlos Ossandón Salas O’Higgins LaraConsultores Édouard Kabukapua
Université de Yaoundé I Eluchans y Compañía Bitangila
Abogados Ricardo Lillo Juan Pablo Cruz Escobar Barreau de Kinshasa/Gombe
Serge N. Zelezeck Universidad Diego Portales SEMTRAV
Caterina Guidi Moggia Emmanuel Kabupwe
Stanley Abane Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Roberto Guerrero V. Luis Alberto Tafur Calderón
The Abeng Law Firm Guerrero Olivos Universidad del Valle Emmanuel Umpula Nkumba
Daniela Horvitz Lennon African Resource Watch
Tarh Besong Frambo Horvitz & Cia. Anonymous Contributors Marcela Castro
Commonwealth Department Universidad de los Andes Eric Makaya
Edmundo Varas K. China
Tommy Agbor Nkongho Morales & Besa Maria Transito Diaz del Freddy Lokossa Mbokoso
Kouengoua & Mbattang Law Daniel Albrecht Castillo
Firm Eduardo González Lara Starke Universidad del Valle Freddy Mulamba Senene
Universidad de Valparaíso Centre d’Arbitrage du Congo
Woumbou Nzetchie Alain Qingjie He Martha Eugenia Uribe Mutis
Bruno Felipe Hurtado P. Yunnan Institute of Medical Docente Universitaria Grégoire Bakandeja wa
Hurtado & Cía. Abogados Information Mpungu
Zakariaou Njoumemi Mauricio Bello Université de Kinshasa;
Health Economics Research Fernando Lolas Stepke Anonymous Contributors Baker McKenzie Cabinet Pr Grégoire Bakandeja
and Evaluation for Universidad de Chile & Associés
Development Results Colombia Patricia Vergara Gómez
Fernando Maturana Crino Gómez Pinzón Abogados Henri Christin Longendja
Anonymous Contributors Eyzaguirre & Cía. Alba Yaneth Rincón Méndez Collectif 24
Universidad Industrial de Paula Samper Salazar
Canada Fernando Patricio Hidalgo Santander Gómez Pinzón Abogados Hilaire Kabuya Kabeya
Araya Tshilobo
Alexander Crizzle Universidad Bernardo Alfonso Plana Bodén Rafael Tuesca Molina
University of Saskatchewan O´Higgins ARI Consulting Group S.A.S. Universidad del Norte Hugues Ngoy Nsenga
Division Provinciale de la
Brian Etherington Gabriela Novoa Andrés Esteban Naranjo Raúl A. Suárez A. Santé du Haut Katanga
University of Windsor Red de Salud UC CHRISTUS Barrera
ARI Consulting Group S.A.S. Ricardo Posada Maya Ifeka Momponza Benjamin
Brian Langille Gonzalo Hoyl Moreno Universidad de los Andes
University of Toronto Hoyl Alliende & Cia. Abogados
172
Morten Broberg Luis Julio Jiménez Ciro Pazmino Zurita Renato Enríquez Mármol Javier Aragón Vassiliu
University of Copenhagen Jiménez Cruz Peña P&P Abogados Armendáriz & Andino Central Law
Abogados
Nikolaj Juhl Hansen Magdalena Rathe Claudia Storini Javier Enrique Alfaro Varela
Magnusson Law Firm Fundación Plenitud Universidad Andina Simón Santiago Solines Moreno Espino Nieto & Asociados
Bolívar Solines & Asociados
Poul Hvilsted Manuel Colomé Jonathan Aaron Menjivar
Horten Law Firm Escuela de Salud Pública Clementina Pomar Anta Simón Dávalos Ochoa Herrera
Estudio Juridico Bustamante & González Peñaherrera & Central Law
Anonymous Contributors María Fernanda Pou Bustamante Asociados
Fernández Juan José Planas Carías
Dominica Raful Sicard & Polanco Diego Almeida Guzmán Tatiana Villacres Escuela Superior de Economía
Abogados Almeida Guzmán & Asociados Quantics Consulting Group y Negocios
Frank Walwyn
WeirFoulds LLP Mary Fernandez Rodriguez Elisa Morán Maldonado Anonymous Contributors Kelly Beatriz Romero
Headrick Rizik Alvarez & Aprec Abogados Rodríguez
Anonymous Contributors Fernández Egypt Nassar Abogados
Ernesto Albán Gómez
Dominican Republic Miguel Angel Duran Universidad Andina Simón Ibrahim Ahmad Laura Elizabeth Urrutia
Universidad Organización y Bolívar Ein Shams University Laboratorios Vijosa
Alfredo Lachapel Método
Lachapel Toribio Abogados Fausto César Quizhpe Khaled El Shalakany Mardoqueo J. Tóchez Molina
Miguel Angel Reyes Gualán Shalakany Law Office Lawyers Corp
Ana Isabel Caceres Fundación Fiscalización Universidad Andina Simón
Troncoso y Caceres Ciudadana Bolívar Maha Ibrahim Mariana Nochez Palacios
Youssry Saleh & Partners Law Arias
Argenys Matos Feliz Monica Thormann Peynado Francisco Dávalos Morán Firm
Asociación Impulsando Hospital Dr. Salvador B. González Peñaherrera & Mauricio Orellana
Valores Gautier Asociados Mamdooh Abdelhameed García & Bodán
Abdelmottlep
Arismendi Díaz Santana Ortiz & Comprés Gerardo Aguirre Vallejo Lotus Law Group Oscar Torres Cañas
Estudio Jurídico Vivanco & García & Bodán
Arlina Espaillat Matos Roberto Medina Reyes Vicanco Mohamed Abdelaal
EMC Abogados y Consultores Pontificia Universidad Católica Alexandria University Piero Antonio Rusconi
Fiscales Madre y Maestra Gustavo Arrobo Moncayo Gutiérrez
González Peñaherrera & Mohamed Hanafi Mahmoud Central Law
Enmanuel Rosario Estevez Rodolfo Mesa Asociados Ministry of Justice
MESA - Abogados Rebeca Atanacio de
Fabiola Medina Garnes James Pilco Luzuriaga Anonymous Contributors Basagoitia
Medina Garrigo Abogados Stalin Ciprián Universidad del Azuay Escalon & Atanacio
Ciprián Arriaga & Asocs. El Salvador
Francisco Alvarez Valdez José Alberto Ontaneda Reneé Hernández Cáder
Participación Ciudadana Trumant Suárez Durán Andrade Adán Araujo Corte Suprema de Justicia
Ontaneda & Posso Abogados Arias
Georges Santoni Recio Victor A. Santana Diaz Rommell I. Sandoval
Russin Vecchi & Heredia Mazara Abogados José Luis Tapia Arturo Magaña SBA Firma Legal; I&D
Bonetti Derechos Humanos Despacho Magaña y Consulting
Virgilio A. Mendez Amaro Asociados
Gianna D´Oleo Maldonado Mendez & Asociados Juan Carlos Riofrío Teresa Beatriz Merino
Doleo Consulting Martínez-Villalba Benjamin Valdez Iraheta Romero Pineda & Asociados
Virgilio Bello Universidad de los Hemisferios Benjamin Valdez & Asociados
Gilberto Objío Subero Bello Rosa & Bello Gonzalez Anonymous Contributors
Medical Law RD Oficina de Abogados Juan José Campaña Del Christian Bará Cousin
Castillo Bara Legal Corporation Estonia
Henry Montás Rodríguez Anonymous Contributors Universidad de Salamanca
DCBM Caribbean Legal Claudia Marcela Hernández Aare Tark
Services, S.R.L. Ecuador Julio E. Neira G. ASFC Law Office TARK
Colectivo Tejido Diverso
Iván Alfonso Cunillera Alberto Vivanco David Claros Andres Parmas
Alburquerque González Peñaherrera & Luis Ponce Palacios García & Bodán Tallinn Circuit Court
William Cunillera & Asociados Asociados Quevedo & Ponce Estudio
Jurídico David Osvaldo Toledo Andres Vutt
Jaime M. Senior Fernández Alfredo G. Brito Universidad Católica de El University of Tartu
Headrick Rizik Alvarez & Brito & Pinto Marcelo Alejandro Guerra Salvador
Fernández Coronel Ene Soop
Ana Belen Posso Universidad Católica de Delmer Edmundo Rodríguez Law Firm Narlex
Jesús Feris-Iglesias Ontaneda & Posso Abogados Cuenca Cruz
Fundación Dominicana de Escuela Superior de Economía Gaabriel Tavits
Infectología, Inc. Avelina Ponce Gómez de Marcelo Proaño Paredes y Negocios University of Tartu
la Torre Romero Arteta Ponce
Juan José Espaillat Alvarez Ponce & Ponce Abogados Abogados Diego Martín-Menjívar Kaja Põlluste
Headrick Rizik Alvarez & Consultares Consortium Legal University of Tartu
Fernández Maria Isabel Cordero
Bryan Abdón Mendoza SENDAS Feridee Hazel Alabí Kari Käsper
Julio Cesar De la Rosa Muñoz Romero Pineda & Asociados Estonian Human Rights
Tiburcio Colectivo Tejido Diverso María José Luna Lara Centre; Tallinn University of
Alianza Dominicana Contra la Universidad de los Hemisferios Fermina Bolaños Technology
Corrupción Carlos Carrasco Yepez García & Bodán
AC Abogados & Consultores Mario I. Armendáriz Y. Madis Ernits
Julio Cury Armendáriz & Andino Ingrid Lizama Tartu Court of Appeal
Inteligencia Legal, SRL Carlos Páez Fuentes Abogados
Jackson Parada Madis Kiisa
Kelvin W. Herrera Carlos Solines Coronel Pablo Andino Fiallos ProConsulting Law Office Laus & Partners
Escuela de Formación y Armendáriz & Andino
Capacitación Ciudadana Abogados
174
Thomas Jürgens Fotini N. Skopouli Yurana Phillip Martha Esther Castro Michael Diakite
Jürgens Harokopio University Afi Ventour & Co. Bufete Alonzo Barreau de Guinée
Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft
mbH Grace Ch. Katsoulis Anonymous Contributors Marvin Javier Dávila Villegas Moriba Kaba
Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates
Volker von Moers L.P.C. Guatemala Oscar A. Pineda Chavarría Mounir Houssein Mohamed
von Moers Lawyers EY Law
Ilias Anagnostopoulos Alexis Retana Rodríguez Moussa Sidibe
Wibke Köppler Anagnostopoulos Law Firm Naciones Unidas Pedro Mendoza Montano
Kanzlei Oelmüller & Partner Iurisconsulti Abogados y Oumar Baldé
GbR Bürogemeinschaft Ioannis Androulakis Alfonso Carrillo M. Notarios; Francisco Marroquin Barreau de Guinée
National & Capodistrian Carrillo & Asociados University
Wolf Stahl University of Athens Thierno Amadou
Kanzlei fuer Wirtschaftsrecht Alvaro R. Cordon Raúl Bolaños del Aguila Fougoumba Barry
Wolf Stahl Konstantinos Cordon, Ovalle y Asociados Escuela de Gobierno Institut de Recherche sur la
Apostolopoulos Démocratie et l’Etat de Droit
Anonymous Contributors Apostolopoulos Law Firm Ana Gisela Castillo Rodolfo Alegría
Carrillo & Asociados Anonymous Contributors
Ghana Konstantinos Kanellakis Angélica Lucía Aguilar
Gutiérrez Rodrigo Barillas Guyana
Afua Hesse Konstantinos Valmas- Universidad de San Carlos de Asociación Alas de Guatemala
Accra College of Medicine Vloutis Guatemala Christopher Ram
Sergio Alejandro Peña Christopher Ram & Associates
Akosua Gyasi Kostoula Mazaraki Antonio J. Quezada Flores Mandujano
Ghana Health Service Nomos Law Firm GlobaLex Eva Rawana-Scott
Astrid J. Lemus Rodríguez Rawana-Scott and Associates
Cynthia Jumu Quarcoo Magda Tazedaki Universidad de San Carlos de Sonia Girard
CQ Legal And Consulting Tazedakis Law Firm Guatemala Universidad Rafael Landívar Ganesh Hira
Frank Owusu-Sekyere Melina Avagianou David Ernesto Chacón Vilma Chavez de Pop Kelly-Ann Hercules
Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital Klimaka NGO Estrada IBFAN Guatemala Ministry of Education
Universidad de San Carlos de
Franklin Glozah Nigel Bowen-Morris Guatemala Anonymous Contributors Rohan Jabour
University of Ghana Stephenson Harwood
Diego Alejos Rivera Guinea Trevona Weekes
Isidore K. Tufuor Nikolaos Kondylis Consortium Legal Britton, Hamilton & Adams
Ghana Institute of Kondylis & Partners Law Aimé Christophe Labilé
Management and Public Office Diego Ricardo Pérez Koné Anonymous Contributors
Administration Sandoval Cabinet d’Avocats Etude
Panagiotis Gioulakos Integrum Légale Labilé & Associés Honduras
J. M. Tuakli e-nomos Business Consultants
CHILDAccra Edson López Aime Raphael Haba Aida G. Lazarus Will
Panayotis Karydakis Integrum Avocats Sans Frontieres HondurasLawyers
John Kwesi Mafoh Guinée
535 Urban Health Clinic Sotiris Felios Eleusis Jeannette Zelada Allan Alvarenga
Felios & Associates Law Firm Rosal Ali Badara Bangoura Fundación San Alonso
Kwame Owusu Agyeman Arias Barreau de Guinée Rodriguez
University of Cape Coast Stelios Andreadakis
Brunel University London Emanuel Callejas A. Alpha Kourouma Andrea Cecilia Idiáquez
Kwasi Fredua-Agyeman Carrillo & Asociados Martínez
Danso Virginia Theodoropoulou Amadou Babahein Camara Melara & Asociados
LEGAL INK Panteion University Enrique Möller Barreau de Guinée
EY Law Carlos Augusto Hernandez
Nana Tawiah Okyir Xenophon Contiades Balla Amara Alvarado
Ghana Institute of Panteion University; Centre Harvey Álvarez
Management and Public for European Constitutional HP Abogados Coalition des Femmes Claudia Midence Soto
Administration Law Leaders de Guinée Arias
J. Guillermo Gándara Espino
Nii Nortey Hanson-Nortey Yota Kremmida Work in Progress Foromo Frédéric Loua Daniel Matamoros
Aurum Institute Hewlett Packard Enterprise Les Mêmes Droits pour Tous
Jose Antonio Román Silva David Armando Urtecho
Richmond Aryeetey Anonymous Contributors Clinica Medica Francis Charles Kpaga Haba López
University of Ghana Babady & Francis SCPA
Grenada Jose E. Quiñones David Israel Díaz Hernández
Theophilus Tawiah QIL+ Halimatou Camara García & Bodán
Nobisfields Darshan Ramdhani Organisation Guinéenne
Law Offices of Ramdhani & José Miguel Argueta Bone de Défense des Droits de Dennis Emilio Hércules Rosa
Anonymous Contributors Associates l’Homme Melara & Asociados
Juan Jose Porras Castillo
Greece Karen M. M. Samuel Palomo y Porras Hamidou Barry Ely Abel Pinto Jimenez
Samuel Phillip & Associates Coalition Guinéenne pour la Bufete Pinto
Alexios Athanassopoulos Luis Pedro Cazali Cour Pénale Internationale
AA Law Firm Linda Dolland Emy Carolina Castellon
Seon & Associates Marcelo Richter Kpana Emmanuel Bamba Juarez
Alexis Anagnostakis Asociación Iberoamericana Ligue Guinéenne des Droits de Asociación Hombro a Hombro
Anagnostakis Law Offices Martin Forde de Juristas de Derecho del l’Homme
St. George’s University Trabajo y de la Seguridad Gabriela Valle Urrea
Anthony G. Mavrides Social Labila Michel Sonomou
Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates Sabrita Khan-Ramdhani Avocats Sans Frontieres Isis Maytté Ordóñez Aguilar
L.P.C. Law Offices of Ramdhani & Marcos Palma Guinée Melara & Asociados
Associates Integrum
Dionyssis Balourdos Mahawa Sylla Janell McBride
National Centre for Social Tanya K. Lambert Mario Roberto Guadrón VIE+
Research Rouanet
Palomo y Porras Mamadou Saidou Balde
176
Riccardo Salomone Verona Henry-Ferguson Ehab Qouteshat Aisha Abdallah Albina Rakhmidinova
University of Trento University of the West Indies Anjarwalla & Khanna Kalikova & Associates
Enas Qutieshat
Roberto Bin Anonymous Contributors Philadelphia University Andrew J. Franklin Alexander Dmitrievich
Università di Ferrara Franklin Management Orehov
Japan Farah Al-Majali Consultants Ltd.
Roberto Ceccon International Consolidated For Azamat Kerimbaev
Ceccon & Associati Akifumi Mochizuki Legal Consultations Atiq S. Anjarwalla ABA ROLI
Atsumitoshiyuki Law Office Anjarwalla & Khanna
Roberto Rosapepe Firas Kasassbeh Baktygul Kubanychbekova
University of Salerno Hideo Shinozaki Beryl Orao The Collegium of Young
Japan Public Health George Hazboun Kenya National Commission Advocates of the South of
Rocchina Staiano Association International Consolidated For on Human Rights Kyrgyzstan
Università di Teramo Legal Consultations
Junko Ogushi Dennis Mung’ata Elena Bit-Avragim
Sabrina Bruno Atsumi & Sakai Hisham Ababneh Gichimu Mung’ata & Company Veritas Law
University of Calabria Dentons Advocates
Junko Suetomi Elida K. Nogoibaeva
Anonymous Contributors Waseda University; Baker & Kamal Jamal Awad Fred Ondieki Mogotu American University of Central
McKenzie Alawamleh Anjarwalla & Khanna Asia
Jamaica University of Petra
Kaoru Takamatsu Harrison Mbori Ermek Mamaev
Allan S. Wood Hayabusa Asuka Law Offices Mohammad Amro Strathmore University Kalikova & Associates
Livingston Alexander & Levy Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates &
Mai Takano Legal Consultants Isaac Gitere Jenishbek Arzymatov
Anthony Clayton Hewlett Packard Enterprise Wacira Wambugu and Co. Lawyers of Kyrgyzstan
University of the West Indies Omar Qutishat Advocates Association
Masanori Tanabe Aljazy & Co.
Audrey Brown Nagoya International Law James Okeyo Jibek Tenizbaeva
Office Rasha Laswi Muthoga Gaturu & Company Lorenz Law Firm
Colleen Coleman-Wright Zalloum and Laswi Law Firm Advocates
Levy | Cheeks Naritaka Tomoeda Kanat Seidaliev
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Safa Alswelmen John M. Ohaga GRATA International
Donovan C. Walker Yarmouk University TripleOKLaw Advocates LLP
Hart Muirhead Fatta Nobuo Koinuma Kerim Begaliev
Tohoku Medical and Zaid Muhmoud Agaileh Josephine L. M. Righa Centil Law Firm
Emile G. R. Leiba Pharmaceutical University Mu’tah University Igeria & Ngugi Advocates
DunnCox Klara Sooronkulova
Sayaka Hara Anonymous Contributors Kiingati Ndirangu International University of
Eris Schoburgh Kairu Mbuthia & Kiingati Central Asia
University of the West Indies Shigeji Ishiguro Kazakhstan Advocates
Oguri & Ishiguro Law Office Saara Kabaeva
Gillian Mullings Arlan Yerzhanov Leonard Samson Opundo Kabaeva
Naylor and Mullings Shimamura Yosuke PricewaterhouseCoopers Tax Shem Advocates
Shimamura Law Office & Advisory LLP Sanzhar Aldashev
J. Peter Figueroa Luis Franceschi GRATA International
University of the West Indies Takashi Maruta Artem Timoshenko Strathmore University
Sannomiya Law Office Unicase Law Firm Valentin Chernyshev
Jacqueline D. Goulbourne Lyla Latif Kumtor Gold Company
University of the West Indies Takashi Takano Ilyas Sakenovich Adilbaev University of Nairobi
The Law Office of Takashi Kazakhstan International Zhanyl Abdurakhmanova
Jason Wilks Takano Bureau for Human Rights and Marabu Fidelis Limo Centil Law Firm
Creative Associates Rule of Law TripleOKLaw Advocates LLP
International Tomohisa Muranushi Anonymous Contributors
Baker McKenzie Rima Dzhansarayeva Mohamed A. Karega
Joanne Wood Rattray Al-Farabi Kazakh National Anjarwalla & Khanna Lebanon
DunnCox Toshiaki Higashi University
University of Occupational Njoki Kamau Abel Mourad
Jodi Ann Paulwell and Environmental Health Saltanat Kemalova City University
Office of the Cabinet SIGNUM Law Firm Noah Chune
Yasuhiro Fujii Central Organisation of Trade Antoine G. Ghafari
Justine Collins Sofiya Zhylkaidarova Unions
Hart Muirhead Fatta Yasuyuki Suzuki SIGNUM Law Firm Elias Matar
Hayabusa Asuka Law Offices Peter Wendoh Abou Jaoude & Associates
Kevin O. Powell Yerjanov Timur Lego Law Firm
Hylton Powell Yohei Suda Kazakh National University
The Law Office of Yohei Suda Remigeo P. Mugambi Elie W. Chalhoub
Lisa N. Russell Yerzhan Toktarov Muthoga Gaturu & Company Arab Center for the
Russell & Russell Yugo Ishibashi Sayat Zholshy and Partners Advocates Development of the Rule of
Law And Integrity
Marie Freckleton Yukinori Hashida Yerzhan Yessimkhanov Ronald Rogo
University of the West Indies Kodera Matsuda Law Office GRATA International University of Nairobi Jean E. Akl
Akl Law Practice
Nadine C. Atkinson-Flowers Anonymous Contributors Zhanat Alimanov Thomas N. Maosa
KIMEP Maosa and Co. Advocates Jihad Irani
Narda Graham-Laird Jordan University of Balamand
DunnCox Anonymous Contributors Timothy Mutambuki
Ali Mohammad Aldabbas Jihan Khattar
Peter Goldson University of Petra Kenya Anonymous Contributors Khattar Associates
Myers Fletcher & Gordon
Anwar Mahmoud Salih Aabid Ahmed Kyrgyzstan Joelle Choueifati
Sonia Gatchair Batieha Bomu Hospital
University of the West Indies Jordan University of Science Aikanysh Jeenbaeva Joelle Khater
and Technology Abbas Esmail Academy of Public Badri and Salim El Meouchi
Tamiko N. Smith Anjarwalla & Khanna Administration Law Firm
178
Moussa Sinayoko Abdus Samad Dulloo Angel Delfino Gomez Iván García Gárate Moldova
JURIFIS CONSULT Lizarraga National Autonomous
Adil Calleea Secretaria De Salud University of Mexico Adrian Belii
Ousmane Thierno Diallo Banymandhub Boolell Nicolae Testemitanu State
Chambers Angélica Ángeles Llerenas Jorge Berlin University of Medicine
Samba Baba N’Diaye Instituto Nacional de Salud ABC Legal, S.C. and Pharmacy; Institute of
Barreau du Mali Alexandre Barbès-Pougnet Pública de México Emergency Medicine
Jorge Luis Silva Mendez
Seydou Coulibaly Angelique Desvaux de Carlos de Buen Unna Banco Mundial Alexandru Tanase
Satis Partners Marigny Bufete de Buen Hanganu Tănase & Partenerii
De Speville Sauzier Desvaux Jose Alberto Campos Vargas
Seydou Doumbia Chambers Carlos Santos-Burgoa Sánchez Devanny Eseverri, Alexei Croitor
La Ficelles SCPA The George Washington S.C.
Daya Auckloo University Ana Ciobanu
Touré Yéhiya Emtel Ltd. Juan Manuel Esteban Castro University Clinic of Primary
Cabinet d’Savocats PRAE Christian Alan Bello Melchor Albarrán Health Care
LAW FIRM Deepti Bismohun Notarias 92 y 145 Asociación Latinoamericana
ENSafrica de Medicina Social Andrei Bivol
Anonymous Contributors Christian Serna Hanganu Tănase & Partenerii
Diksha Purmessur Serna & Abogados Juan Manuel Juarez Meza
Mauritania Young Queer Alliance Contramar Abogados Avornic Gheorghe
Critina Sánchez Urtiz University of European
Ahmed Bezeid Abdallahi Dipna Gunnoo Miranda & Estavillo, S.C. Liesel Oberarzbacher Political and Economic Studies
Instituto Tecnológico “Constantin Stere”
Bouhoubeyni Ahmed Salem Feerdaus Bundhun Daniel Carrancá de la Mora Autónomo de México
Instituto Mexicano para la Corina Oprea
Braham Sidi Abdoullah H. S. Bunjun Justicia Luciano Mendoza Cruz Efrim Rosca & Associates
Dabee & Bunjun Chambers Universidad Nacional
Brahim Diarra Daniel Cruz Autónoma de México Cristina Copaceanu
Javed Niamut Notarias 92 y 145 University of European
Cheikh Abdellahi Ould BLC Robert Luis Jorge Garcia Padilla Political and Economic Studies
Ahmed Babou David Martinez-Amador Lazo, Villa, Moel y García, S.C. “Constantin Stere”
Jeewon Rajesh Insumisos
Cheikh Hindy Marco Antonio González Cristina Martin
Krishan M. Beeharry Elias Huerta Psihas Reynoso ACI Partners
El Moustapha Attighe Asociacion Nacional de GRND Abogados
UNAIDS Mohammad Nawaz Doctores en Derecho Cuznețov Alexandru
Dookhee María Luisa Mendoza López State University of Moldova
Fah Brahim Jiddou Emiliano Baidenbaum Sánchez Devanny Eseverri,
PNUD Nadeem Lallmamode Hewlett Packard Enterprise S.C. Eduard Scutaru
Benoit Chambers
Fatimata Ball Enrique Camarena Mariana Tejado Gallegos Galina Obreja
Vivre et S’epanouir Nikhil Boolell Domínguez Vitalis Nicolae Testemitanu State
Chambers of Urmila Boolell, Maqueo Barnetche, Aguilar y University of Medicine and
Fatimata Barry Kane S.C. Camarena, S.C. Mario Alberto Rocha Garcia Pharmacy
CNC PricewaterhouseCoopers, S.C.
Raymond d’Unienville Esteban Maqueo Barnetche Inga Baciu
Jemal Mohamed El Hady Maqueo Barnetche, Aguilar y Miguel Ángel González Alecu Russo State University
CCM; UNPM Robin L. Appaya Camarena, S.C. Bravo of Bălți
Ghose Chambers Mauritius G. B. Abogados
Khadijetou Ouedrago Franz Erwin Oberarzbacher Inna Soțchi
Fonds des Nations Unies pour Rubna Daureeawo Dávila Monica Schiaffino Hanganu Tănase & Partenerii
la Population RD Chambers Instituto Tecnológico Littler Mexico, S.C.
Autónomo de México Iulia Furtuna
Mine Abdoullah Ruwaydah Jaunbacus Monserrat MarCa Turcan Cazac Law Firm
Uteem Chambers Gerardo Moheno Gallardo Notaria 55
Mohamed Dah Moreno Rodríguez y Liliana Domente
T. Mukund Gujadhur Asociados, S.C. Oliva López Arellano
Mohamed M’bareck Brahim TM&S Gujadhur Chambers Universidad Autónoma Marica Dumitrasco
Gilberto Miguel Valle Metropolitana, Unidad Academy of Sciences of
Mohamed Salem Loud Vijay Cooshna Zulbarán Xochimilco Moldova
Solidarité & Développement Socio de Basham Ringe y
Durable Yannick Fok Corres, S.C. Pablo Nosti Herrera Marina Bzovii
Eversheds Sutherland Miranda & Estavillo, S.C. Turcan Cazac Law Firm
Mohamed Sid’Ahmed Guillermo A. Gatt Corona
Bareau de Mauritanie Yousuf Azaree Iteso; Universidad Rebeca Cruz Santacruz Mihail Durnescu
MC Law Offices Panamericana Escuela Superior de Medicina
Ould Zehaf Sidi del Instituto Politécnico Mihail Gorincioi
UNICEF Yves Hein Guillermo Piecarchic Nacional National Preventive
Hein Chambers PMC GROUP, S.C. Mechanism Against Torture
Oumar Mohamedmoctar Rodrigo Lazo Corvera
El Haj Anonymous Contributors Héctor Juan Antonio Ávila Lazo, Villa, Moel y García, S.C. Oleg Efrim
Rosas Efrim Rosca & Associates
Zeinebou Taleb Moussa Mexico National Autonomous Sergio López Moreno
Association Mauritanienne University of Mexico Universidad Autónoma Patricia Handraman
pour la Santé de la Mére et de Alejandra Moreno Metropolitana, Unidad Gladei & Partners
l’Enfant Altamirano Hugo Hernandez-Ojeda Xochimilco
Universidad Nacional Alvirez Roșca Nicolae
Anonymous Contributors Autónoma de México Hogan Lovells Anonymous Contributors
Serghei Cozma
Mauritius Alfonso Rodriguez Arana Iñigo Alejandro Torres Ortiz Serghei Cozma Law Firm
LegalMex, S.C. Hernández Torres Abogados
Abdullah Yusuf Ali Bauluck Svetlana Doltu
Bibi Chambers Council for the Prevention of
Torture
180
Jaap-Willem Roozemond Denise Arnold Phil Ahern Mario Novoa Corea Akingbolahan Adeniran
Bouwman Roozemond & De Lyon O’Neale Arnold Lawyers Morrison Kent Lawyers Arias Awodi & Co.
Haan
Douglas John Lyon Samantha Turner Marlon José Gazo Peña Anthony Nkadi
Jac Meeuwissen Lyon O’Neale Arnold Lawyers Simpson Grierson García & Bodán F.O. Akinrele & Co.
Trimbos Institute
Elizabeth Macpherson Scott Wilson Maryeling Guevara Babajide O. Ogundipe
Jacqueline van den Bosch University of Canterbury Duncan Cotterill Arias Sofunde, Osakwe, Ogundipe
Ivy Corporate Defence & & Belgore
Investigations Erich Bachmann Simon Ladd Octavio Alarcón Guardado
Hesketh Henry Bell Gully Munguía Vidaurre Law Babatunde Ogungbamila
Jeroen Bijnen Olisa Agbakoba Legal
DXC Technology Frances Joychild Sonja M. Cooper Onell Antonio Gow Chacón
Frances Joychild QC Cooper Legal Universidad Politécnica de Bola Jibogun
Joost Italianer Nicaragua Legal Aid Council of Nigeria
NautaDutilh N.V. Gay Morgan Stacey Shortall
University of Waikato Minter Ellison Rudd Watts Soraya Montoya Herrera Cheluchi Onyemelukwe
Joseph J. van Dort Molina & Asociados
Van Dort Advocatuur Gordon Anderson Stephen Eliot Smith Chiamaka I. Orabueze
Victoria University of University of Otago Uriel E. Balladares University of Nigeria
Léon Graal Wellington Arias
Sarfaty Advocaten Stephen Franks Chinyere Nwokoro
Grace Haden Franks Ogilvie Yaser Gabriel Bonilla Legal Luminaries Solicitors
Marije Jeltes The New Zealand Independent Espinoza
JSTW Advocaten Commission Against Steven Zindel Central Law Chioma Kanun Agomo
Corruption Zindels University of Lagos
Marlies Ott Anonymous Contributors
Erasmus University Ian Gault Sylvia Bell Chisom Justice Ndubuisi
Bell Gully Centre for Human Rights Law, Niger Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie
Mick Hurks Policy and Practice
Höcker Advocaten Ian Miller Aboubacar Souley Chris Eze
Tagan Lyall CRAMS_EXA Nnenna Ejekam Associates
N. P. Scholte Jessica Palmer Bamford Law
Advocatenkantoor Scholte University of Otago Bachir Talfi Idrissa Christine Sijuwade
Trevor Daya-Winterbottom Université Abdou Moumouni Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie
Petrus C. van Duyne M. B. Rodriguez Ferrere Law University of Waikato de Niamey
Utrecht University University of Otago Chudi Nelson Ojukwu
W. John Hopkins Brah Souleymane Legal Research Initiative
S. F. H. Jellinghaus Marie Bismark University of Canterbury Université Abdou Moumouni
Tilburg University; De Voort University of Melbourne de Niamey Damian Njoku-Umeh
Lawyers and Mediators W. M. Thomson Damian Njoku-Umeh & Co.
Marie J. Grills University of Otago Idrissa Tchernaka
Thomas Timmermans RPB Law SCPA LBTI & Partners Daprim Ogaji
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP William Akel University of Port Harcourt
Mark Henaghan Simpson Grierson Ismael Naino Maiguizo Teaching Hospital
Tomasz Kodrzycki University of Otago
Jahae Raymakers Advocaten Anonymous Contributors Mahamadou Rabiou Souley Dejo Olowu
Mark Winger Dagouma American University of Nigeria
Anonymous Contributors Holmden Horrocks Nicaragua Barreau du Niger
Ehijeagbon Oserogho
New Zealand Mary-Rose Russell Abraham A. Salinas-Miranda Moussa Ismaril Tambo Oserogho & Associates
Universidad Nacional SCPA LBTI & Partners
A. J. Forbes Matthew Berkahn Autonoma de Nicaragua Enoch Mozong Azariah
Clarendon Chambers Massey University Moustapha Boukari Legal Aid Council of Nigeria
Angelica Maria Toruño Barreau du Niger
Alan Knowsley Nick Crang Garcia Festus Ezedinachi Onyia
Rainey Collins Lawyers Duncan Cotterill Universidad Evangélica Rabiou Oumarou Mahaman Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie
Nicaragüense Martin Luther Barreau du Niger
Alberto Costi Nicola Wheen King Jr. Festus Okechukwu
Victoria University of University of Otago Anonymous Contributors Ukwueze
Wellington Avil Ramírez Mayorga University of Nigeria
Nigel Hampton Central Law Nigeria
Andrew Schulte Folake Elias-Adebowale
Cavell Leitch Nikki Pender Edgard Leonel Torres Abdulfattah Adewale Bakre Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie
Legal Empowerment Mendieta Legal Aid Council of Nigeria
Asha Stewart Arias Fr Edwin Obimma Ezike
Quigg Partners Pam Nuttall Abdulhamid Abdullahi University of Nigeria
Auckland University of Gabriel Alvarado Bagara
Bennet Castelino Technology Arias Community Health and Gbenga Odusola
Castlefinn Law Research Initiative Acme Law Partners
Paul Michalik Ivania Lucía Paguaga Cuadra
Campbell Roberts Arias Adamu M. Usman Gbenga Oyebode
The Salvation Army Paul Roth F.O. Akinrele & Co. Aluko & Oyebode
University of Otago John Lordsal Minnella
Charl Hirschfeld Minnella Romano and Ade Omofade Godwin Anthony Etim
Ranfurly Chambers Penny Bright Associates AELEX
Ademola Awoyemi
Chris Noonan Peter Watts Juan Ramon Aviles Molina University of Ilorin Ibrahim Imam
University of Auckland Bankside Chambers Despacho Legal University of Ilorin
Adewale Akande
Danny Jacobson Petra Butler Luis Manuel Perezalonso Auxilium Attorneys Innocent Abidoye
Jacobson and Marshall, Victoria University of Lanzas Nnenna Ejekam Associates
Employment Lawyers Wellington Bufete Juridico Perezalonso & Aina Precious Aderemi
Asociados Babalakin & Co Legal John Dare Oloyede
Practitioners J.D. Oloyede’s Law Chambers
182
Mario Castillo Freyre Rhea Quimson Ana Raquel Pessoa Miguel de Azeredo Perdigão Alina Gentimir
Estudio Mario Castillo Freyre Hewlett Packard Enterprise Universidade Católica Azeredo Perdigão & Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Portuguesa Associados - Sociedade de University
Roberto Gabriel Matallana Rhona Bergantin Advogados, RL
Universidad de Pacifico PSMID Ana Rita Gil Andra Iftimiei
Universidade Nova de Lisboa Paula Cremon Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Rossana Maccera Ronahlee A. Asuncion Cruz Vermelha Portuguesa University
University of the Philippines Anja Bothe
Anonymous Contributors Diliman Universidade Autónoma de Paulo de Sá e Cunha Andrei Danciu
Lisboa Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves SCA Cataniciu & Asociatii
Philippines Roy Enrico C. Santos Pereira
PJS Law António Casa Nova Andrei Mircea Zamfirescu
Afdal B. Kunting Escola Superior de Saúde de Pedro Mendes Ferreira Gilescu, Valeanu, Nathanzon
Zamboanga City Medical Anonymous Contributors Portalegre Mendes Ferreira & Associados & Partners
Center
Poland António Vaz de Castro Pedro Miguel Branco Aura Câmpeanu
Carmelita Gopez Nuqui Universidade de Coimbra PETOŠEVIĆ
Development Action for Adam Morawski Pedro Rodrigues da Mata
Women Network Morawski & Partners Carlos Lopes Ribeiro PRM & Associados Aurora Ciuca
CR Advogados Ștefan cel Mare University of
Cesar L. Villanueva Agnieszka Dzięgielewska- Rui Costa Pereira Suceava
Villanueva Gabionza & Dy Jończyk Carlos Pinto de Abreu PLMJ Advogados SP, RL
Law Firm Hewlett Packard Enterprise Carlos Pinto de Abreu e Bogdan C. Stoica
Associados SP, RL Rui Tavares Correia Popovici Nițu Stoica &
Dan Vicente Cancino Jr. Agnieszka Helsztyńska Abreu & Marques e Associados Asociații SCA
Catholic Bishops’ Conference Kancelaria Adwokacka Carolina Boullosa Gonzalez
of the Philippines Episcopal Agnieszka Helsztyńska Bind Sociedade de Advogados Sandrine Bisson Marvao Dan Oancea
Commission on Health & adwokat Bisson Marvao University of Bucharest
Camillian Fathers Eduardo Buisson Loureiro
Andrzej Brodziak Teresa Violante Daniel Nitu
Donemark Calimon Institute of Occupational Eliseu Gonçalves Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Babeș-Bolyai University;
Quisumbing Torres Medicine and Environmental TaskLegal Advogados Iordăchescu & Associates
Health Vânia Costa Ramos
Eliseo M. Zuñiga, Jr. Felipe Baião do Nascimento Carlos Pinto de Abreu e Diana Agafitei
Quisumbing Torres Aneta Leszczyńska Maricato, Lima & Associados Associados SP, RL Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații
Jagiellonian University
Emerico O. de Guzman Fernando Alves Correia Anonymous Contributors Diana Lavinia Botau
ACCRALAW Jacek Wierciński Universidade de Coimbra Babeș-Bolyai University
Uniwersytet Warszawski Republic of Korea
Enriquito J. Mendoza Francisco Marques Bom Dragos Daghie
Romulo Mabanta Joanna Kosińska-Wiercińska Marques Bom & Associados Domyung Paek Daghie & Asociatii
Buenaventura Sayoc & De Los Wierciński Law Office Seoul National University
Angeles Law Offices Inês Reis Florin Streteanu
Julian Bielicki PBBR Duk Yeon Lee Universite de Cluj-Napoca
Francis Tom Temprosa Drzewiecki, Tomaszek & Yonsei University
Ateneo de Manila University Partners J. Tavares Ribeiro George Nedelcu
JTR Advogado Haksoo Ko
Jesusito G. Morallos Krzysztof Kowalczyk Seoul National University Gheorghe Piperea
Follosco Morallos & Herce BSJP Brockhuis Jurczak Prusak Joana Barrilaro Ruas SCA Piperea & Asociații
Ferreira da Conceição, Hwang Lee
Jonathan Sale Marcin Krajewski Menezes & Associados SP, RL Korea University Ioan Lazar
ILPC Warsaw University Baroul Alba
João Paulo Ferreira da Jaehyuk Ahn
Jose Cochingyan III Marcin Olechowski Conceição Kim & Chang Iulian Alexander Stoia
Cochingyan & Partners Law Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak Ferreira da Conceição, Bucharest Bar
Offices Menezes & Associados SP, RL Jaeseop Song
Piotr Jakub Rastawicki Shin & Kim Larion Alina-Paula
Karen S. Gomez Dumpit Rastawicki Mianowski Sawicki José Alves do Carmo Ștefan cel Mare University of
Commission on Human Rights Sp.K. AVM Advogados Jeong-Oh Kim Suceava
of the Philippines Yonsei University
Piotr Kuzniak Libertário Teixeira Laura Lazar
Kate Montecarlo Cordova Libertário Teixeira & Cristina Junsok Yang Babeș-Bolyai University
Association of Transgender Radosław Skowron Fernandes - Sociedade de The Catholic University of
People in the Philippines KKPW Law Office Advogados RL Korea Marius Balan
Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Louisa M. Viloria-Yap Stefan Jaworski Luis Brito Correia Lee Chang Woo University
Garcia Iñigo & Partners Donghwa Labor Consulting
Wojciech Babicki Luis Miguel Amaral Firm Maxim Mihaela
Nancy Joan M. Javier Miller Canfield Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații
IBP Maria da Conceição Alves Sangbong Lee
Zbigniew Krüger Rainho Soares Pereira Daeryook & Aju LLC Mihai Carabas
Pinky Rose B. Lustre Krüger & Partners Advocates Universidade de Trás-os- Carabas, Lungu Attorneys
The Global Fund to Fight LLP Montes e Alto Douro Anonymous Contributors
AIDS; University of the Mihai Dunea
Philippines Manila Anonymous Contributors Maria do Rosário Anjos Romania Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Anjos, Martins & Associados University
Ramil E. Bugayong Portugal SP, RL Alexandru Athanasiu
PJS Law University of Bucharest Miloiu Ciprian
Alexandra Mota Gomes Maria Inês Gameiro Miloiu Ciprian Cabinet de
Ramon G. Samson PLMJ Advogados SP, RL Universidade Nova de Lisboa Alexandru Corpodean Avocat
ACCRALAW Law Office Corpodean
Ana Pires Miguel Andrade Alexandru Nicolae-Bogdan Bulai
Reginald A. Tongol Atlântica University of Bucharest
ToVen Law and Alina Daniela Nestor
Communications Bar of Suceava
184
Chia Ti Lik Sara Ahlin Doljak Peter Feuilherade Esther Fernández Molina Juan Francisco Aguiar
Chia Ngee Thuang & Co. Cox Yeats Attorneys Universidad de Castilla-La Rodriguez
Tine Mišic Mancha Consejeria de Sanidad del
Dan W. Puchniak ODI Law Firm Peter Jordi Gobierno de Canarias
National University of University of the Federico Durán López
Singapore Tjasa Drgan Witwatersrand Universidad de Córdoba Juan María Terradillos
Law Office Drnovsek Universidad de Cádiz-España
Eric Tin Keng Seng Riette du Plessis Federico Navarro Nieto
Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP Vesna Rijavec University of the Universidad de Córdoba Juan Oliva Moreno
University of Maribor Witwatersrand Universidad de Castilla-La
Foo Cheow Ming Federico Rodriguez Morata Mancha
Foo Cheow Ming Chambers Anonymous Contributors S. S. Terblanche Universidad de Castilla-La
University of South Africa Mancha Juana María Serrano García
Mak Koon South Africa Universidad de Castilla-La
Tamara Cohen Fernando Alberich Arjona Mancha
Pascal Brinkmann Altair Richards University of KwaZulu-Natal Rambla Abogados y Asesores,
Luther LLP ENSafrica S.L. Laura Pozuelo Pérez
Victoria Bronstein Universidad Autónoma de
Scott Gordon Wheeler Bart Willems University of the Fernando Bondía Román Madrid
Stellenbosch University Witwatersrand Universidad Carlos III de
Simon Chesterman Madrid Luis Gaite
National University of Christa Rautenbach Werner van Straaten Hospital Marqués de
Singapore North-West University University of Pretoria Francisco Ramos Romeu Valdecilla; CIBERSAM
Universidad Autónoma de
Anonymous Contributors Derek Hellenberg Yousuf A. Vawda Barcelona Manuel Álvarez Feijoo
University of Cape Town University of KwaZulu-Natal Uría Menéndez Abogados,
Slovenia Ildefonso Hernández S.L.P.
F. T. Abioye Anonymous Contributors Aguado
Alenka Sagmeister University of South Africa Universidad Miguel Hernández Manuel Ángel De las Heras
Ranzinger Spain García
Odvetniška pisarna Miro Francois Venter Iñigo Sagardoy de Simón Universidad de Alicante
Senica in odvetniki, D.O.O North-West University Alberto Blasco Hernando Sagardoy Abogados
J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. Manuel Cachón Cadenas
Andrej Bukovnik Gerhard Kemp Jacobo Dopico Universitat Autònoma de
PETOŠEVIĆ Stellenbosch University Alfonso Pedrajas Universidad Carlos III de Barcelona
Abdón Pedrajas & Molero Madrid
Anton Gradišek Gusha Xolani Ngantweni Manuel Cancio Meliá
Dagra D.O.O. University of South Africa Alfonso Trallero Javier Melero Universidad Autónoma de
Bajo & Trallero Abogados Melero & Gené Advocats Madrid
Blaž Kovač Henry Ngcobo
Amnesty International Bowmans Andrea Macía Morillo Jesús Padilla Gálvez Marga Cerro
Slovenia Universidad Autónoma de Universidad de Castilla-La
Hugh Corder Madrid Mancha Margarita I. Ramos
Borut Bernik Bogataj University of Cape Town Quintana
Antonio Costa José Cid Universidad de La Laguna
Grega Strban J. Berning Universidad de Córdoba Universitat Autònoma de
University of Ljubljana University of South Africa Barcelona María Acale Sánchez
Araceli Peláez Rodríguez Univerisdad de Cádiz
Health Center Maribor John Brand De Castro Gabinete Jurídico José Fernández-Rañada
Bowmans J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. María Barberá Riera
Iris Pensa Auxmundus Abogados Sociedad Española de Sanidad
Jadek & Pensa Law Firm Jonathan Klaaren Jose Luis de Peray Baiges Ambiental
University of the Beatriz G. Lopez-Valcarcel
Ivan Šalinovič Witwatersrand Universidad de Las Palmas José Luis Goñi Sein María Elena Sánchez Jordán
de GC Universidad Pública de Universidad de La Laguna
Jorg Sladič Lesiba Motsepe Navarra
Evropska Pravna Fakulteta University of South Africa Carlos Alvarez-Dardet María José Aguilar Idáñez
Universidad de Alicante José M. Labeaga Azcona Universidad de Castilla-La
Josip Sever Lourens J. Erasmus Universidad Nacional de Mancha
North-West University Carlos Campillo-Artero Educación a Distancia
Ljuba Zupančič Čokert Servicio de Salud de las María José Benítez Jiménez
Senica and Attorneys, Ltd. Martin van Staden Islas Baleares; Centro de José Manuel Freire Universidad de Málaga
Free Market Foundation Investigación en Economía Instituto de Salud Carlos III
M. Bobič y Salud; Universitat Pompeu Maria Pilar Llop Cuenca
Law Firm Bobič Mpfariseni Budeli- Fabra José Manuel Mateo Sierra
Nemakonde J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. María Pilar Marco Francia
Marko Zorman University of South Africa Carlos Pinilla Universidad de Castilla-La
J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. José R. Repullo Mancha
Matija Repolusk Mthokozisi Wesley Sithole National School of Public
Repolusk Law University of KwaZulu-Natal Carlos Ramón Fernández Health of Spain Marina Lorente Lara
Liesa J&A Garrigues, S.L.P.
Nina Persak Nahid Hussein Universidad Carlos III de José Vte. Martí Boscà
CrimInstitute UNDP Madrid Univesitat de València Martín Godino
Sagardoy Abogados
Peter Stanovnik Neil Cameron Eduardo Santamaría Moral José-Ignacio Gallego Soler
Institute for Economic J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. Universidad de Barcelona Miguel Ángel Presno Linera
Research Nisha Jacob Universidad de Oviedo
University of Cape Town Emilio Díaz Ruiz Juan Alberto Díaz López
Petra Plevnik Universidad de Murica J. A. Díaz. Litigación penal Orlanda Díaz-García
Senica and Attorneys, Ltd. Ntombifikile Mtshali Universidad de Castilla-La
University of KwaZulu-Natal Enric Fossas Espadaler Juan Antonio Lascuraín Mancha
Primož Rožman Universitat Autònoma de Universidad Autónoma de
Blood Transfusion Centre of P. J. Schwikkard Barcelona Madrid Paz Mercedes de la Cuesta
Slovenia University of Cape Town Aguado
Universidad de Cantabria
186
Yaovi M. Fiawonou Hechmi Louzir M. Cem Yeniaras Emmanuel Luyirika Oleksandr Skliarenko
Cour Supreme Institut Pasteur de Tunis Yeniaras Attorneys at Law African Palliative Care Skliarenko, Sydorenko and
Association Partners
Anonymous Contributors Hedia Kedadi Mahmut Kaçan
Cabinet d’Avocat Kedadi MK Law Office Evelyn Atim Oleksii Makarenko
Trinidad & Tobago Buwembo & Co. Advocates Zaporizhzhya National
Karim Ben Hamida Murat Volkan Dülger University
Betty-Ann Pilgrim KBH Law Firm Dülger Law Firm Francis Opedun
Ministry of Health Evamor International Limited Olha Prosyanyuk
Knani Houda Mustafa Alp AVER LEX
Christopher Sieuchand Zaanouni Law Firm Dokuz Eylül University Grace Mukwaya Lule
M.G. Daly & Partners Platform for Labour Action Sergiy Gryshko; Yaroslav
Labidi Ahmed Nuray Gokcek Karaca Petrenko
Elena Araujo Anadolu University Isaac Newton Kyagaba Redcliffe Partners
Araujo Law Lassâad Dhaouadi Kampala Associated
Institut Tunisien des Conseils Ömer Ataç Advocates Taras Tsymbrivskyy
Gerard Hutchinson Fiscaux İstanbul Medipol University USAID Human Rights in
University of the West Indies Laura Nyirinkindi Action Program
Mahmoud Daoud Yacoub Orhan Yavuz Mavioglu Pro Initiatives Agency
Glenn Hamel-Smith Ordre National des Avocats ADMD Law Office Vitalii Serdiuk
M. Hamel-Smith & Co. du Tunisie Miria K. Matembe AVER LEX
Osman Hayran
Jonathan Walker Mounir Baatour İstanbul Medipol University Munduru Mercy Grace Vyacheslav Viktorovich
M. Hamel-Smith & Co. Association LGBT Shams The Uganda Association of Sokolov
Savas Bozbel Women Lawyers
Kaveeta Persad Nadhir Ben Ammou Anonymous Contributors
Fitzwilliam, Stone, Furness- Cabinet Maître Nadhir Ben Şule Özsoy Anonymous Contributors
Smith & Morgan Ammou Galatasaray University United Arab Emirates
Ukraine
Linda A. Greene Nadhir Ben Yedder Teoman Akünal Elena Schildgen
Penco Court Law Chambers Réseau National de Lutte Akunallaw Andrey Bogdanovich Meyer-Reumann & Partners
Contre la Corruption Gryniak
Matthew G. W. Gayle Ufuk Aydin Research Institute of Prviate Michael Kraemer
New City Chambers Nadia Akacha Anadolu University Law & Entrepreneurship of
Université de Tunis El Manar the National Academy of Mirza R. Baig
Michelle T. Ramnarine Anonymous Contributors Scicences Dubai Pharmacy College for
Nizar Sdiri Girls
Natalie Persadie Nizar Sdiri Law Firm Uganda Andrey Tarasov
University of Trinidad and Tarasov & Partners Law Firm Nazanin Aleyaseen
Tobago Rachida Jelassi Adrian Jjuuko K&L Gates LLP
Université de Tunis El Manar; Human Rights Awareness and Andrienko Sergey
Oscar Noel Ocho Conseil Supérieur de la Promotion Forum Vladimirovich Olaide Esan
University of the West Indies Magistrature A.G. Partners Hadef & Partners LLC
Akantorana Kobusingye
Rishi P. A. Dass Ridha Mezghani Kampala Associated Andrii Misiats Rebecca Ford
Victoria Chambers R. Mezghani Law Office Advocates Municipal Law Firm and Clyde & Co. LLP
Partners
Shastri Vedanta Christopher Troudi Hichem Alan Shonubi Shakeel A. Mian
Parsad Shonubi, Musoke & Co. Anna Mikhailyuk Prudential Middle East Legal
Shastri Parsad & Associates Wahid Bounenni Mikhailyuk, Sorokolat & Consultants
Alexander Kibandama Partners
Shivangelie Ramoutar Wajdi Abdelhedi High Court of Uganda Stuart Paterson
Anna Sakalosh Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Sonnel A. David-Longe Yassine Younsi Bernard Mukasa Danylo Halytskyi Lviv National
M.G. Daly & Partners Younsi & Younsi International ENSafrica Medical University Tarek Nakkach
Law Firm Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Anonymous Contributors Birungyi Cephas Kagyenda Chmut Serhiij
Zouhaier El Hechimi Birungyi Barata & Associates Zayed Alshamsi
Tunisia Faculté de Médecine de Tunis; Ivan Horodyskyy Zayed Al Shamsi Advocates &
Université de Tunis El Manar Brigitte Kusiima Sendi Ukrainian Catholic University Legal Consultants
Amel Gorbej Shonubi, Musoke & Co.
Anonymous Contributors Katerina Vlasyuk Anonymous Contributors
Amine Hamdi Charles Kallu Kalumiya AVG Law Firm
Hamdi Law Office Turkey Kampala Associated United Kingdom
Advocates Konstantin Naduty
Anis Klouz Esenyel Barak Bal VULT Ben Keith
Faculté de Médecine de Tunis Cailliau & Colakel Law Firm Claire Amanya Rukundo David Josse QC
CR. Amanya Advocates & Larisa Matyukha
Anissa Tabai Fatih Selim Yurdakul Soilicitors Ukrainian Association of Christopher May
Yurdakul Law Office Family Medicine Lancaster University
Aymen Zaghdoudi Daniel Gantungo
University of Sousse Filiz Askan Bowmans Lyubomyr Drozdovskyy David Josse
Askan Law Office Khasin & Drozdovskyy 5 St Andrew’s Hill
Bessem Ben Salem Donald Nyakairu Barristers Association
Ben Salem Law Firm Gökçe Çelen ENSafrica Jill Stavert
Çelen Law Firm Oksana Holovko- Edinburgh Napier University
Emna Yahyaoui Doreen Nawaali Havrysheva
Ordre National des Avocats Gülüm Özçelik MMAKS Advocates Ivan Franko National Kiron Reid
du Tunisie Bilkent University University of L’viv University of Liverpool
Emilio Ovuga
Hamza Wajdi Işık Önay St. Raphael’s Counseling Oksana Kneychuk Lord Woolf
Koç Üniversitesi Centre Eterna Law Supreme Court of the United
Harrabi Selma Kingdom
Kerem Altiparmak
Ankara University
188
Lolymar Hernández Anonymous Contributors Mulopa Ndalameta Philip Nyakutombwa
Camargo Musa Dudhia & Co. Nyakutombwa Legal Counsel
Universidad Católica Andrés Vietnam
Bello Nsama Sue Kwendeni- Ruvimbo Ruwona
An Hai Le Mayowe Nyahuma’s Law Golden Stairs
Luis Ortiz Alvarez Ministry of Health Chambers
InterJuris David Lam
Pamela Sibanda Mumbi Simplicio Mathew Bhebhe
Manuel A. Gomez V. Derek Phan Van Cong Danh Charles Siamutwa Legal Kantor & Immerman Legal
Florida International Le & Tran Practitioners Practitioners
University
Ha Duong Tiziana Marietta Tafara Goro
Marco Trivella VILAF Sharpe & Howard Legal Mbidzo, Muchadehama &
Escritorio Jurídico Navarro Practitioners Makoni Legal Practitioners
Catan & Asociados Ha Phan
Center for Promotion of Anonymous Contributors Tamuka Moyo
Maria Teresa Belandria Advancement of Society Tamuka Moyo Attorneys
Universidad Central de Zimbabwe
Venezuela Hannah Huynh Thi My Hanh Taurai Blessed Kativu
Le & Tran Andrew Makoni Kantor & Immerman Legal
Mario Brando Mbidzo Muchadehama & Practitioners
Participación Activa Hoàng Quốc Nhật Trung Makoni Legal Practitioners
Phuoc & Partners LLP Tawanda Tandi
Mark A. Melilli Silva Archlove Takunda Kantor & Immerman Legal
Leĝa Abogados Huynh Thi Ngoc Hoa Tanyanyiwa Practitioners
KAV Lawyers Organizing for Zimbabwe
Mauricio Ramirez Gordon Tendai Faith Mataba
Fundación Verdad Venezuela Kent Wong Ashton Anderson Makore Wintertons Legal Practitioners
VCI Legal
Nathalie González Perez Brighton Mahuni Terence Hussein
Escritorio Juridico Rodriguez & Kieu Anh Vu Scanlen & Holderness Hussein Ranchhod & Co.
Mendoza KAV Lawyers
Caroline Tandi Kudzai Valantine Mutatu
Nelson Chitty La Roche Le The Hung Midlands State University
Universidad Central de CNC Casper Pound
Venezuela Family Aids Support Wellington Chimwaradze
Manfred Otto Oragnisation Unilever
Rafael E. Molina G. Duane Morris Vietnam LLC
Molina & Asociados Clever Bere Wilfred Njabulo Nunu
Ngo Huu Nhi Zimbabwe Trust National University of Science
Rafael Olivar Thien An Law Office and Technology
Escritorio Jurídico Aguilarte y Dzinomwa Tariro
Asociados Nguyen Huu Phuoc National University of Science Anonymous Contributors
Phuoc & Partners LLP and Technology
Raul Jose Reyes Revilla
Torres, Plaz y Araujo Nguyen Nam Hung Edwin Isaac Manikai
YKVN LLC Dube, Manikai and Hwacha
Raul Sanchez Urribarri
La Trobe University Nguyen Nhan Tuan Emilia Mandaza
Muhonde Attorneys
Reinaldo Jesús Guilarte Nguyen Thanh Cong
Lamuño Dong Phuong Luat- East Law Godfrey Sibanda
Instituto Venezolano de Firm Mbidzo Muchadehama &
Derecho Social Makoni Legal Practitioners
Pham Tri Dung
Ricardo J. Cruz Rincón Hanoi University of Public Godman Chingoma
Escritorio Chumaceiro Health Dube, Manikai and Hwacha
González Rubio
Pham Van Phat Iris Shiripinda
Roberto Hung Cavalieri An Phat Pham Law Firm Africa University Zimbabwe
Centro de Investigación y
Promoción de Cultura Jurídica Phung Anh Tuan John T. Burombo
VCI Legal International Bridges to
Rubén Guía Chirino Justice
Cultura Jurídica Organizacion Stephen Le Hoang Chuong
Le & Tran Lindsay Hugh Cook
Simón Jurado-Blanco Atherstone & Cook
Jurado-Blanco & Aguirre Tran Thanh Tung
Abogados Phuoc & Partners LLP Maxwell Constantine
Chando Musingafi
Tulio Alvarez Anonymous Contributors Zimbabwe Open University
Universidad Central de
Venezuela Zambia Memory Kudzayi Melody
Mafo
Vicente González De La Anne Namakando Phiri Scanlen & Holderness
Vega University of Zambia
Universidad Central de Mordecai Pilate Mahlangu
Venezuela; Universidad Bellington Vwalika Gill Godlonton & Gerrans
Metropolitana University of Zambia
Obey Shava
Wilmer David González Fares Florence Phiri Mbidzo Muchadehama &
Colina Nodi Trust School Makoni Legal Practitioners
Comisión para los Derechos
Humanos del Estado Zulia Melvin L. Mbao Philemon Mutukwa
North West University Musengi and Sigauke
Academic Advisors Heller, Open Government Partnership; Uruena, Universidad de los Andes; Stefan
Mark David Agrast, American Society Vanessa Herringshaw, Transparency and Voigt, University of Hamburg; Barry
of International Law; Jose M. Alonso, Accountability Initiative; Susan Hirsch, Weingast, Stanford University; Michael
World Wide Web Foundation; Rolf Alter, George Mason University; Ronald Janse, Woolcock, The World Bank.
OECD; Eduardo Barajas, Universidad del University of Amsterdam Law School;
Rosario; Maurits Barendrecht, Tilburg Erik G. Jensen, Stanford University; Roland Abeng; Lukman Abdul-Rahim;
University; Tonu Basu, Open Government Haroon Khadim, PAE; Rachel Kleinfeld, Kate Adams; Mame Adjei; Priya
Partnership; Lowell Bergman, University Carnegie Endowment; Jack Knight, Duke Agarwal-Harding; Mariam Ahmed; Lina
of California, Berkeley; Tim Besley, University; Harold H. Koh, Yale University; Alameddine; Sarah Alexander; Jessica
London School of Economics; Christina Margaret Levi, Stanford University; Iris Álvarez; Erica Jaye Ames; Rose Karikari
Biebesheimer, The World Bank; Juan Litt, Stanford University; Clare Lockhart, Anang; Evelyn Ankumah; Jassim Alshamsi;
Carlos Botero, Pontificia Universidad The Institute for State Effectiveness; Jessica Álvarez; Lindsay Aramayo-Lipa;
Javeriana; Paul Brest, Stanford University; Zsuzsanna Lonti, OECD; Diego Lopez, Amanda Arcaya; Ekaterina Baksanova;
Jose Caballero, IMD Business School; Universidad de los Andes; William T. Loris, Hamud M. Balfas; Laila El Baradei; Sophie
David Caron, Kings College, London; Loyola University; Lauren E. Loveland, Barral; April Baskin; Ivan Batishchev;
Thomas Carothers, Carnegie Endowment; National Democratic Institute (NDI); Paul Rachael Beitler; Laurel Bellows; Ayzada
Marcela Castro, Universidad de los Andes; Maassen, Open Government Partnership; Bengel; Dounia Bennani; Clever Bere;
Peter Chapman, Open Society Justice Beatriz Magaloni, Stanford University; Loveridge Bere; Rindala Beydoun; Karan
Initiative (OSJI); Eduardo Cifuentes, Jenny S. Martinez, Stanford University; K. Bhatia; Rebecca Billings; Eric C. Black;
Universidad de los Andes; Sherman Toby McIntosh, FreedomInfo.org; Toby Cherie Blair; Rob Boone; Juan Manuel
Cohn, Georgetown University; Christine Mendel, Centre for Law and Democracy; Botero; Oussama Bouchebti; Raúl
M. Cole, Crime & Justice Institute; Nicholas Menzies, The World Bank; Izurieta Mora Bowen; Ariel Braunstein;
Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Stanford Ghada Moussa, Cairo University; Sam Kathleen A. Bresnahan; Michael Brown;
University; Helen Darbishire, Access Info Muller, HiiL; Robert L. Nelson, American Susanna Brown; William R. Brownfield;
Europe; Nicolas Dassen, Inter-American Bar Foundation and Northwestern David Bruscino; Josiah Byers; Carolina
Development Bank; Larry Diamond, University; Alfonsina Peñaloza, Hewlett Cabrera; Abigail Cameron; Ted Carrol;
Stanford University; Claudia J. Dumas, Foundation; Harris Pastides, University of Javier Castro De León; John Catalfamo;
Transparency International USA; Sandra South Carolina; Randal Peerenboom, La Fahima Charaffeddine; David Cheyette;
Elena, Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Trobe University and Oxford University; Nabiha Chowdhury; Sophie Clark; Jose
Humanos; Brad Epperly, University Angela Pinzon, Universidad del Rosario; Cochingyan, III; Kate Coffey; Sonkita
of South Carolina; Julio Faundez, Pascoe Pleasence, University College Conteh; Barbara Cooperman; Hans
Warwick University; Hazel Feigenblatt, London; Shannon Portillo, George Mason Corell; Adriana Cosgriff; Annette Coto;
Global Integrity; Todd Foglesong, University; Michael H. Posner, New York Ana Victoria Cruz; Alexander E. Davis;
Munk School of Global Affairs at the University; Roy L. Prosterman, University Beth Davis; Néstor de Buen; Bryce de
University of Toronto; Tom Ginsburg, of Washington; Anita Ramasastry, Flamand; James P. DeHart; Brackett
University of Chicago; Joseph Foti, University of Washington; Mor Rubinstein, B. Denniston, III; Russell C. Deyo;
Open Government Partnership; James Open Knowledge Foundation; Angela Surya Dhungel; Adama Dieng; Andrew
Goldston, Open Society Justice Initiative Ruiz, Universidad del Rosario; Audrey Domingoes; Alyssa Dougherty; Megan
(OSJI); Jorge Gonzalez, Universidad Sacks, The World Bank; Lutforahman Duffy; Sandra Elena; Roger El Khoury;
Javeriana; Alejandro Gonzalez-Arriola, Saeed, Kabul University; Michaela Sanal Enkhbaatar; Adele Ewan; Juan Farré;
Open Government Partnership; Jon Saisana, EU-JRC; Andrea Saltelli, EU-JRC; Fatima Fettar; Steve Fisher; Eric Florenz;
Gould, American University; Martin Moises Sanchez, Alianza Regional por la Abderrahim Foukara; Kristina Fridman;
Gramatikov, HiiL; Brendan Halloran, Libertad de Expresión; Andrei Shleifer, Radha Friedman; Morly Frishman; Viorel
Transparency and Accountability Harvard University; Jorge Luis Silva, The Furdui; Minoru Furuyama; Daniel Gamboa
Initiative; Linn Hammergren; Tim World Bank; Gordon Smith, University Rinckoar; Amir Galván; William H. Gates,
Hanstad, Landesa; Wassim Harb, of South Carolina; Christopher Stone, Sr.; Anna Gardner; Dorothy Garcia; Sophie
Arab Center for the Development of Open Society Foundations; John Temple, Gebreselassie; Dwight Gee; Sujith George;
Rule of Law and Integrity; Nathaniel University of California, Berkeley; Rene Adam Gerstenmier; Jacqueline Gichinga;
190
Suzanne E. Gilbert; Brian Gitau; Travis Javier Ramirez; Eduardo Ramos-Gómez;
Glynn; Arturo Gomez; Felipe Gómez; Daniela Rampani; Alex Randall; Richard
Nengak Daniel Gondyi; Molly Gough; Randerson; Kelly Ranttila; Claudia Rast;
Lindsey Graham; Deweh Gray; Michael Yahya Rayegani; Nick Rehmus; Adrian F.
S. Greco; Elise Groulx; Paula F. Guevara; Revilla; Salvador Reyes; Lopes Ribeiro;
Heena Gupta; Arkady Gutnikov; Karen Kelly Roberts; Nigel H. Roberts; Amir
Hall; Margaret Halpin; Kunio Hamada; Ron; Maria Rosales; Liz Ross; Steve Ross;
Mohammad Hamze; Leila Hanafi; Sana Faith Rotich; Patricia Ruiz de Vergara;
Hawamdeh; Kate Helms; Alvaro Herrero; Irma Russell; Rosemarie Sandino; Marc
Sheila Hollis; Michael Holston; R. William Sepama; Adam Severance; Bruce Sewell;
Ide, III; Murtaza Jaffer; Chelsea Jaeztold; Uli Parmlian Sihombing; Hajrija Sijerčić-
Hassan Bubacar Jallow; Samuel Jefferson; Čolić; William Sinnott; Lumba Siyanga;
Clara Jiang; Sunil Kumar Joshi; Marie- Brad Smith; Julie Smith; Joshua Steele;
Therese Julita; Megan Kabre; Jessica Lourdes Stein; Thomas M. Susman;
Kane; Rashvin Kaur; Anne Kelley; Howard Elizabeth Thomas-Hope; Jinni Tran;
Kenison; Junaid Khalid; Elsa Khwaja; Nathan Treacy; Laurence Tribe; Martha
Se Hwan Kim; Stuti Kokkalera; Laurie Uc; Christina Vachon; Patricia van Nispen;
Kontopidis; Simeon Koroma; Steven H. Robert Varenik; Jessica Villegas; Maria
Kraft; Larry D. Kramer; Jack Krumholtz; Vinot; Quinn Walker; Katie Welgan;
Lianne Labossiere; Jeremy Levine- Raymond Webster; Robin Weiss;
Drizin; Samantha Liberman; Joanna Lim; Dorothee Wildt; Jennifer Wilmore; Jason
Deborah Lindholm; Hongxia Liu; Annie Wilks; Malin Winbom; Russom Woldezghi;
Livingston; Jeanne L. Long; Carlos López; Nazgul Yergalieva; Xueling You; Hunter
Clarissa Lopez-Diarte; Stephen Lurie; Zachwieja; Stephen Zack; Keyvan Zamani;
Biola Macaulay; Ahna B. Machan; Maha Jorge Zapp-Glauser; Roula Zayat; Fanny
Mahmoud; Biawakant Mainali; Andrew Zhao.
Makoni; Dijana Malbaša; Ermek Mamaev;
Frank Mantero; Madison Marks; Roger Altus Global Alliance; APCO Worldwide;
Martella; Vivek Maru; John Mason; Elisa Fleishman-Hillard; The Center for
Massimino; Hiroshi Matsuo; Michael Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Maya; Melanie Mazza; Loralys McDaniel; Sciences, Stanford University; The Center
Bethany McGann; Matthew Mead; on Democracy, Development, and the
Sindi Medar-Gould; Ludmila Mendonça; Rule of Law, Stanford University; The
Nathan Menon; Ellen Mignoni; Aisha German Bar Association in Brussels;
Minhas; María Cristina Montaño; Jorge Governance Data Alliance; Google Inc.;
Antonio Morales Alfaro; Claros Morean; The Hague Institute for Innovation
Liliana Moreno; Junichi Morioka; Carrie of Law (HiiL); Investigative Reporting
Moore; Katrina Moore; Marion Muller; Program, UC Berkeley Graduate School
Xavier Muller; Jenny Murphy; Rose of Journalism; The Legal Department
Murray; Norhayati Mustapha; Carolyne of Hewlett-Packard Limited; The Legal
Musyoka; Reinford Mwangonde; Doreen Department of Microsoft Corporation;
Ndishabandi; Ilija Nedelkoski; Tia Nelson; The Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center
Niku Neshati; Javier Nicolás; Daniel for International and Area Studies, Yale
Nitu; Elida Nogoibaeva; Victoria Norelid; University; Rule of Law Collaborative,
Justin Nyekan; Sean O’Brien; Peggy University of South Carolina; The
Ochanderena; Afua Ofosu-Barko; Bolaji University of Chicago Law School; Vera
Olaniran; Joy Olson; Mohamed Olwan; Institute of Justice.
Fernando Omedé; Gustavo Alanis Ortega;
Bolaji Owasanoye; Pablo Parás; Dhruti
Patel; Kedar Patel; Angeles Melano Paz;
Karina Pena; Valentina Pérez Botero;
Ronen Plechnin; Kamal Pokhrel; John
Pollock; Mercy Alejandra Portillo; Cynthia
Powell; Humberto Prado Sifontes;
Christine Pratt; Nathalie Rakotomalia;
*Deceased
192
World Justice Project Funders
The World Justice Project thanks the following major
current funders for their generous support:
ABA–SEER
ABA–Criminal Justice
Anonymous (3)
BGC3
Toby Bright
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
City of The Hague
Cooley LLP
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Fenwick & West LLP
K&L Gates LLP
Kent Walker and Diana Walsh
Microsoft Corporation
Mo Ibrahim Foundation
Perkins Coie LLP
Singapore Ministry of Law
United States Agency for International Development
United States Department of State
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation
William H. Neukom
“Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise “I could adjudicate lawsuits as well as
king, established… That the strong might anyone. But I would prefer to make lawsuits
not injure the weak, in order to protect the unnecessary.”
widows and orphans..., in order to declare –Analects of Confucius
justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and
“It is more proper that law should govern than
heal all injuries.”
–Codex Hammurabi any one of the citizens.”
–Aristotle, Politics (350 BCE)
“Treat the people equally in your court and
“If someone disobeys the law, even if he is
give them equal attention, so that the noble
(otherwise) worthy, he must be punished.
shall not aspire to your partiality, nor the
If someone meets the standard, even if he is
humble despair of your justice.”
–Judicial Guidelines from ‘Umar Bin (otherwise) unworthy, he must be found
Al-Khattab, The Second Khalifa of Islam’ innocent. Thus the Way of the public good
will be opened up, and that of private
“All human beings are born free and equal in interest will be blocked.”
dignity and rights… Everyone is entitled to –The Huainanzi 139 BCE (Han Dynasty,
all the rights and freedoms set forth in this China)
Declaration, without distinction of any kind,
“The Law of Nations, however, is common to
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
the entire human race, for all nations have
political or other opinion, national or social
established for themselves certain regulations
origin, property, birth or other status.”
–Universal Declaration of Human Rights exacted by custom and human necessity.”
–Corpus Juris Civilis
“We are all servants of the laws in order that
“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins.”
we may be free.”
–John Locke, Two Treatises of Govern-
–Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE) ment (1689)
“No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned “Good civil laws are the greatest good that
or disseised of his free tenement or of his men can give and receive. They are the
liberties or free customs, or outlawed or source of morals, the palladium of property,
exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go and the guarantee of all public and private
against such a man or send against him save peace. If they are not the foundation of gov-
by lawful judgement of his peers or by the ernment, they are its supports; they moder-
law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny ate power and help ensure respect for it, as
or delay right or justice.” though power were justice itself.”
–Magna Carta –Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis, Discours
Préliminaire du Premier Projet de Code
Civil
worldjusticeproject.org
data.worldjusticeproject.org
/thewjp
@thewjp
ISBN: 978-0-9964094-0-7