Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
2
Global Impunity Index (Índice Global de Impunidad)
First Edition, April 2015
Juan Antonio Le Clercq Ortega and Gerardo Rodríguez Sánchez Lara, editors.
© Fundación Universidad de las Américas Puebla
Printed by Fundación Universidad de las Américas Puebla Ex Hacienda de Santa Catarina Mártir S/N San Andrés Cholula, Puebla, México. Res. 04-‐2014-‐031211004100-‐102
3
4
DIRECTORY Dr. Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista President of Universidad de las Américas Puebla
Andrea Ambrogi Domínguez President of the Citizen Council for Security and Justice of Puebla Dr. Cecilia Anaya Berríos Academic Vice President Universidad de las Américas Puebla Raphael Steger Cataño Dean of the School of Social Sciences Universidad de las Américas Puebla Research Team Ph.D. Juan Antonio Le Clercq Ortega Head of the Department of International Relations and Political Science, Coordinator of the Center for Studies on Impunity and Justice, Universidad de las Américas Puebla
M.P.P. Gerardo Rodríguez Sánchez Lara Academic Coordinator of the Center for Studies on Impunity and Justice, Universidad de las Américas Puebla M.A. Azucena Cháidez Montenegro Research Coordinator, Global Impunity Index M.A. Edgar Valle Álvarez Research Coordinator, Global Impunity Index Prof. Carlos Martínez Velázquez Data Lab Coordinator on Impunity and Justice of CESIJ Prof. Adla Patricia Karam Araujo Legal Researcher, Global Impunity Index M.A. Gabriela Cordourier Leal Quantitative Consultant for the Global Impunity Index Pablo Reynoso Brito Investigation Assistant
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The Global Impunity Index is the first major international academic effort
to measure a multi-‐dimensional phenomenon of extreme complexity • Impunity is a multi-‐dimensional phenomenon that goes beyond the
analysis of punishable crimes. According to CESIJ, impunity has three dimensions: Security, Justice and Human Rights.
• Impunity should be measured following two grand criteria. First, the functionality of the security, justice and human rights systems and second the structural capacity that each country has in its institutional design.
• It has been statistically proven that impunity is intimately related to human a phenomenon that concerns the whole world and the Mexican society, such as human development, inequality and corruption.
• The wealth of nations, measured by their economic production capabilities, is not a determining factor for impunity.
• It’s necessary to allocate enough resourcestowards the security and justice structures. However, it is critical that these institutions operate properly and respect the human rights.
• On the other hand, inequality is a variable related to impunity. Those countries that do not offer economic and development opportunities are not doing an adequate job of reducing an unequal access to security and justice in their population.
• Countries with medium and high levels of human development have the lowest levels of impunity.
6
World Results
• Information on 193 UN member States and 14 other territories that generate comparable statistics was analyzed. Out of the 193 UN members, 59 countries were included in the Global Impunity Index, since they have enough updated statistical information in the subject of security, justice and human rights.
• 134 countries that are members of the United Nations do not have security and justice statistics that allow for a comparison of those variables. These countries are included in the “Statistic Impunity and Structural Problems” subset. Some of these countries may be incorporated quickly to the GII once they report the statistics about their missing indexes to the UN.
• Countries that have an adequate combination of structural capacity in their security and justice institutions, and are also respectful of human rights have a low impunity index. Such is the case of Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Malta, Poland, Lithuania, Serbia, Norway, Denmark, Slovakia, Finland, the Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia and Portugal.
• Philippines, Mexico, Turkey, Colombia and Russia are the countries, included and studied in the GII, with the highestimpunity rates.
• Mexico and eleven countries (Austria, Barbados, Bulgaria, Chile, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic and Serbia) are in the forefront in generating statistics on the security and justice departments.
• Unfortunately, emerging countries such as Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria and South Africa do not systematically report to the UN, making it difficult to compare them to the rest of the world. Therefore, they are not included in the index.
7
• Most of the countries in Africa, Central Asia and Oceania have structural deficits to measure impunity, since they do not report their information on the subject to the UN system. The international community has an enormous responsibility to build institutions in charge of national statistics to provide professional and objective measurements to the Post-‐2015 Agenda of the United Nations.
• Mexico, through INEGI and UNODC, should remain the technical leader regarding world statistics to better measure the objectives of sustainable human development for the Post-‐2015 Agenda of the United Nations.
United States Findings • United States occupies position 45 among 59 countries, which represents
an intermediate level near Guayana (44), Chile (46), Armenia (47), Jamaica (48) and Argentina (49).
• Receives the lower score on the Security/Functional dimension due to the actual model of mass incarceration that affects its performance of both the security and justice system.
• The IGI reveals that the US has 211 policemen and 10 judges per 100,000 inhabitants, in both cases bellow global average.
• Human Rights represents 15% of the US results, specially related with torture and extrajudicial executions, which is high for a consolidated democracy.
• The number of incarcerated people without sentence is relative small,
with an average of 23% of total inmates. • Two variables explain the US position; maybe the most important is the
number of persons who have formal contact with the police who afterward do not appear in court.
8
• IGI indicates that less than 1% of those individuals who have formal contact with the police goes to trial, which ranks the US in the lowest position in the Security/Functional dimension. However, the US ranks first in the number of convicted criminals.
Mexico’s Results
• Regarding impunity, Mexico ranks 58 out of 193 member States of the
United Nations. However, it is the 58th out of the 59 countries that have enough statistical information to calculate the GII.
• Mexico and eleven countries (Austria, Barbados, Bulgaria, Chile, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic and Serbia) are in the forefront on generating statistics on security and justice.
• Mexico has two priorities to address: the functionality of its security system and the structure of its justice system.
• Regarding the first one, the Index makes evident the need to optimize and exercise an adequate execution of the ascertainment processes of the majority of the people who have a formal contact with the security entities. In Mexico there is no need to recruit more policemen, it is necessary to invest in their professionalism and effectiveness of their actions. The execution of this action would contribute to free the caseload of the judicial structure.
• The Index reveals Mexico’s need for more judges within the judicial system. This would immediately impact trials, since increasing these could reduce the number of persons waiting in prison to be sentenced, thus reducing prision overpopulation.
• Mexico´s impunity problem is functional and structural; it did not emerge during this administration, but urgent measures are needed to reduce the high levels observed.
9
Latin America Results
• Costa Rica, Barbados, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, Bahamas, Guyana and Chile are the seven Latin American and Caribbean countries, included in the GII, with the lowest impunity rate.
• Venezuela, Suriname, Saint Lucia, Haiti, Ecuador, Dominica, Cuba, Antigua and Barbuda, Guatemala, Granada, Belize, Uruguay, and Bolivia, do not have enough statistical information to be included in the GII. These countries only have six or less measurement indicators, so they could be included in the category of Statistic Impunity and Structural Problems. Their governments need to make a bigger effort to report statistics related to impunity to the United Nations.
10
GLOSSARY Corruption (Lat. corruptĭo): vice or abuse introduced in nonmaterial things. In
organizations, especially in public ones, a practice consisting in the use of functions
and means of the former for profit, economic or otherwise, of their managers.
Rule of law: the situation of the State being subjected to the Constitution and
approved regulations, in accordance to the procedures established by the latter and
which guarantee the responsible and controlled functioning of the organs of power,
the exercise of authority in agreement with non-‐retroactive, known regulations and
the observance of individual, collective, cultural and political rights.1
Governance: Traditions and institutions through which authority is exercised in a
country. This includes the process through which governments are elected,
controlled and replaced; the capacity of the government to formulate and apply
public policies efficiently, as well as the respect of citizens and the State for the
institutions that rule the economic and social relationships among them.2
Impunity: (lat. Impunĭtas): Lack of punishment. (Orentlicher Report, 2005)-‐ The
impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account -‐
whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings -‐ since they are
not subject to any inquiry that might lead to them being accused, arrested, tried and, if
found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their
victims.3
Justice (lat. iustitĭa): One of the four cardinal virtues, which tends to give each one
whatever is due or belongs to him/her. It is also understood to be that which must be 1 Inter-‐American Institute of Human Rights, Electoral Dictionary, San José de Costa Rica, (www.iidh.ed.cr/comunidades/redelec-‐ toral/docs/red_diccionario/estado%20de%20derecho.htm)
11
done according to right or reason. Finally, it is a public condemnation or punishment.
Phenomenon (lat. phaenomĕnon, and gr. φαινόμενον): Every manifestation that
becomes present to an individual consciousness and appears as object of his/her
perception. An extraordinary and surprising thing. In Immanuel Kant’s philosophy,
which is object of sensible experience.
Peace (lat. pax, pacis): Situation and mutual relation of those not at war. In other
words, the public calmness and tranquility among nations, in opposition to war or
turmoil.
Security (lat. securĭtas): the quality or state of being secure as freedom from danger
(safety) and freedom from fear or anxiety.
12
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS PCSJC Puebla’s Citizen Security and Justice Council ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean CESIJ UDLAP’s Center of Studies on Impunity and Justice IACHR Inter-‐American Court of Human Rights GII Global Impunity Index OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OAS Organization of American States UN United Nations UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNDP United Nations Development Program UDLAP Universidad de las Américas Puebla
13
14
Global Impunity Index DIMENSIONS OF THE MODEL
Given that the impunity phenomenon is multi-‐dimensional and has many causes, it is indispensable to formulate an index that will address these issues and contain the variety of factors that shape it. Thus, the intention behind the GII is to generate a model capable of measuring three dimensions for at least two areas of government administration, which are crucial in the ability of countries to prevent impunity: the security system and the administration of justice. These dimensions, divided in structural, functional and human rights, consider a series of variables that measure countries’ behavior towards impunity, initially in these two areas. For this first edition of GII, the variables that were selected are those that the literature on the topic identifies as essential to characterize this phenomenon, and whose statistical availability is consistent among the 59 countries analyzed.2 The extent to which countries raise their levels of transparency in the data reported to international organizations, such as UNODC, it will become possible to increase the number of variables in the model’s dimensions, given that the central aim of this study—different from other measurement systems— is to exclusively use hard data and not information derived from perception, which may have important biases when developing comparisons between different countries included in the index.3
2 The way that the allocation of values was developed and in which cases it was accepted is explained ahead. 3 GIIs correlation with the World Bank’s Corruption Index has an R2 of 0.18, while the correlation of GII with the rule of law index has an R2 of 0.27
Dim
ensi
ons o
f the
mod
el
Stru
ctur
alFu
nctio
nal
Hum
an R
ight
s
The structural dimension is designed to report the installed capacity of countries to punish, according to the rules of due process, those who break the rule of law.
The functional dimension intends to record the way government areas in charge of punishing o!enders who violate the rule of law operate, independently from their legal framework, or their capacity as an institutional infrastructure.
To incorporate a dimension that evaluates human rights at the national level allows IGI to present an integral proposal of the issue, and to refer to crimes committed by the State itself that remain unpunished as well.
15
STRUCTURAL DIMENSION The structural dimension is designed to report the installed capacity of countries devoted to punish those who break the rule of law, in accordance to the rules of due process. This capacity takes into account the human capital variables that the government has to face impunity (police and judges), the infrastructure of the prison system, together with additional variables in each of these areas such as specific government expenditures. However, there still exists a pending agenda of transparency in this sense, since only a minority of countries – mostly OECD members – provide this budgetary information, which reflects the installed capacity of the judicial system and police force, specifically investigating officers, to be scrutinized. Variables included in this dimension for 2015:
Security System 1. Police personnel per 100,000 inhabitants. 2. Prison staff per official capacity of prisons. 3. Total persons held in prison, penal or correctional institutions per official capacity
of prison. 4. Prison staff per total persons held in prison, penal institutions, or correctional
institutions.
Justice System 1. Number of judges and professional magistrates per 100,000 inhabitants.
Definitions according to the UNODC 1. Police Personnel means public organisms’ personnel up to December 31 of the
reported year, whose main function consists in preventing, detecting and investigating crimes and in arresting presumed criminals. Data regarding support personnel (secretaries, office aides, etc.) should be excluded.
2. Professional Judges and Magistrates should be understood to be full or part time office holders, qualified to know civil, penal or causes of a different natureincluding
Security SystemGovernment Areas
Police personnel per 100,000 inhabitants
Justice System
Number of judgesper 100,000 inhabitants.
Adult prison sta! per o"cial capacityof adult prisons
Total persons held in prisons, penal institutions, or correctional institutions per o"cial capacity of
adult prisons.
Prison sta! per total persons held in prisons, penal institutions, or correctional institutions.
Stru
ctur
al
16
appeal tribunals, and to pass sentence or issue warrants in a court of law. Authorized deputy judges and magistrates are also included.
3. Prison Staff means all individuals employed in penal or correctional institutions as at 31 December, including management, treatment, custodial and other (maintenance, food service etc.) personnel.
4. “Official Capacity” means the intended number of places available as at 31 December without overcrowding, excluding places/capacity used for detention of persons on the basis of immigration status.
5. “Prisons, Penal Institutions or Correctional Institutions” means all institutions, under the authority of the prison administration, where persons are deprived of their liberty. The institutions may include, but are not limited to, penal, correctional and psychiatric facilities and may be either publicly or privately financed. Centres for the detention of foreign citizens held due to pending investigation into their migratory status or for the detention of foreign citizens without a legal right to stay should be excluded.
FUNCTIONAL DIMENSION
The functional dimension has as an objective to record how the government areas in charge of punishing those who transgress the rule of law operate, independently from their legal framework, their institutional capacity or infrastructure. If the structural dimension is concerned with installed capacity, and in this sense it is countries’ commitment to combat impunity, the functional dimension speaks of the social results that effectively yield the institutional operation and arrangement of each country. Because of this, each of the variables included in this dimension tries to summarize in a single data the small stories that, if combined, allow us to understand the specific challenges that each country faces in fighting impunity.
Variables included in this dimension for 2015
Security SystemGovernment Areas
Func
tiona
l
Justice System
Total number of persons being prosecuted in criminal courts per total number of persons who
had formal contact with the police.
Percentage of individuals detainedwithout sentencing.
Total number of inmates in prisons, penal or correctional institutions for homicide per
homicides committed.
Total number of persons being prosecuted in criminal courts per professional judges and
magistrates.
Total number of inmates in prisons, or penal or correctional institutions per total number of
persons convicted.
17
SECURITY SYSTEM 1. Total number of persons being prosecuted in criminal courts per number of persons
who had formal contact with the police.
JUSTICE SYSTEM 1. Percentage of individuals detained without sentence. 2. Total number of persons held in prison, or penal or correctional institutions for
homicide per homicides committed. 3. Prosecuted individuals per professional judges and magistrates. 4. Total number of persons held in prison, or penal or correctional institutions per
total number of persons convicted.
DEFINITIONS ACCORDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME: 1. Persons held without any type of sentence refers to persons held in prison, penal or
correctional institutions, who have not been tried or await their first sentence from a competent authority.
2. Formal contact with the police or the judicial system includes suspects and individuals detained or warned.
3. Processed persons are those presumed delinquents brought to trial through an official accusation initiated by the public prosecutor or by a law enforcement organism in charge of trials.
4. Prosecuted persons are understood to be individuals being tried in any judicial system authorized to pass condemnatory sentence, by virtue of national penal legislation, whether the person is finally found innocent or not.
5. Convicted persons are those persons found guilty by a judicial system authorized to pass a condemnatory sentence by virtue of national penal legislation, whether the sentence was confirmed thereafter or not.
6. Intentional homicide is the action of deliberately causing the death of another person, including infanticide.
7. Professional judges and magistrates are full or part time officials, with the power to hear civil, criminal or other types of cases, including appellate courts, and pass sentences or issue warrants in a court of law. Also included are empowered deputy judges and magistrates.
8. Offenders detained because of administrative causes, as well as those persons detained while investigating their immigration status, should not be included among the inmates in prisons, penal or correctional institutions.
HUMAN RIGHTS
When speaking about impunity, it is not possible to undermine the importance of violations that governments themselves commit against their citizens. This situation has worsened, further aggravating an impunity environment when such transgressions against human dignity remain unpunished. The variables considered in the two previous
18
dimensions obstruct the identification of problems of this nature within countries, since they focus on the process of punishing crimes committed by individuals and not by the State. Adding a dimension that evaluates the human rights situation at a national level allows the Global Impunity Index to present a comprehensive proposal about this topic, by alluding to the unpunished crimes committed bythe State. In order to integrate this dimension, a search was performed, looking for existing variables that measure the status of human rights in the world in the most objective way. According to the academici Todd Landman, estimations of human rights may be done in three ways: legal, practical and through the government’s results.4 Taking this into consideration, the merely legal measurement was discarded because it is evident that signing, ratifying and even incorporating to the national legislation the highest standards of international law in human rights matters does not guarantee their compliance. Measurement of the government’s results may be ambiguous since there are no minimum standards comparable between countries, due to the nature of human rights and the diverse actions that each may incorporate to promote and respect legislation in this matter. Finally, measuring the application of human rights turned out to be the most relevant way because, regardless of its limitations, it focuses on the identification of facts. The main obstacle of this measurement lies in the difficulty to account the violations reported on the matter. To address these difficulties it was considered that several mechanisms have been developed in the human rights area. The main one has been based in an international system of human rights protection. Even though this system is composed of an important number of experts, it has been insufficient due to difficulties to access and use it, as well as by the number of reports reaching specialized committees of the United Nations system or regional systems. We found that the United Nations Council for Human Rights bases its operation on the reports that all countries must submit to the Council regularly, unlike other systems developed for protection (such as special prosecutors, committees for each treaty and similar figures). The UN mechanism receives reports periodically; nevertheless, the Universal Periodic Review is submitted to a political organ, not one formed by experts, and the recommendations issued are not necessarily consistent, since they come from member countries of the Council and not from specialists in the subject reported.5 On the other hand, the UN has also developed a methodology to generate human rights indicators, dividing these latter in three categories: structural, procedural and of results. Up to now, this methodology presents only an alternative to create standardized measurements, without looking for or generating unified statistics or standards that are systematic and comparable and that allow for a general measurement of the human
4 Todd Landman. Measuring human rights: Principles, practice and policy. Human Rights Quarterly 26, (4) 906-‐931, November 2004 5 United Nations Universal Periodic Review. http://www.upr-‐info/en, (accessed April 1, 2015.)
19
rights status in the world.6 The recommendation to generate indicators in this issue, even if it is relevant for countries interested in having reliable statistics, is of little use for this study since, to this day, the information is not systematic in the majority of countries. Another group of indicators are those issued by educational institutions and NGOs. These, while analyzing human rights by country, follow vague criteria in the data systematization, where proposed answers to questions are such as “it rarely happens” or “happens frequently”, which may be questionable because of their relativity. This is the case of Freedom House, or Political Terror Scale, developed by experts of North Carolina University and the Arizona State University.7 Having considered the limitations of standardized assessments of the status of human rights in the world, the one done by the Human Rights Project of Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) was used for this project. 8 The selected methodology collects information on 15 human rights backed by the international community. The information, gathered every year between 1981 and 2011, identifies only the occurrence of facts considered violations of human rights, using as a source the reports issued by government institutions and NGOs. While the seriousness of the offenses committed is not judged, a value is assigned by the number of available reports of violations to specific rights in 126 countries during 20 years. This information is valuable while it only accounts for yearly reports informing the abuses to the law under analysis and the number of such reports, standardizing the measurements without providing details.9 This information has been used in several academic exercises, such as the Human Rights Atlas, although by its nature it identifies only the existence or absence of reports.10 In this first version of GII four indispensable variables to evaluate the human rights dimension -‐ which are directly related to the index areas-‐ were considered: in the security area, torture and extrajudicial executions, since security forces are usually—but not exclusively—the perpetrators of these abuses; and in the justice area, the number of political prisoners and missing persons. According to the CIRI human rights project, these variables are defined as:
6 Human Rights Indicators. A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf (accessed April 1, 2015. 7 Political Terror Scale. http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/.(accessed April 1, 2015.) 8 CIRI Human Rights Project. http://www.humanrightsdata.com/ (accessed April 1, 2015.) 9 This methodology only allows to identify three possibilities 0 = violation practiced frequently (50 or more reports); 1 = violation practiced occasionally (1 to 49 reports); or 2 = has not happened or has not been reported (there are no reports). 10 Human Rights Atlas. http://www.humanrightsatlas.org (accessed April 1, 2015)
20
SECURITY SYSTEM 1. Torture Torture refers to the action of inflicting extreme pain—either physical or mental—by government officials. This includes the use of physical force and other abuses by police and guards, due to negligence of government officials. This fact is codified in the database following the reports presented to international instances as follows: 0= frequent reports (over 50) 1= occasional reports (1 to 49) 2= it is not practiced (no reports) *The death penalty is not classified as torture. This variable is not included in reports about the general conditions of prisons. 2. Extrajudicial Executions This variable refers to the executions carried out by government officials without due process. It includes homicides on the part of private groups financed or instigated by the government. These homicides may result from the excessive, deliberate, illegal or lethal use of force by the police, security forces or other State’s agents. The deaths resulting from torture are also included. This variable is codified as follows: 0= frequently reported practice (50 reports or more) 1= practice reported occasionally (1 to 49 reports) 2= no reports or not happening
JUSTICE SYSTEM 1. Political Prisoners This variable relates to the imprisonment of individuals by government officials, because of their public manifestations, nonviolent opposition to the State’s policies or leaders, religious beliefs, nonviolent religious practices and ethnic or racial orGIIn. This variable was codified by answering the question: are there people in jail because of political, religious or other type of beliefs or membership in a group? 0= Yes, many (50 or more reports) 1= Yes, a few (1 to 49 reports) 2= No, there are no reports *Prisoners are not classified as political when they are in jail for crimes not limited by international law, such as homicide or theft, regardless of the reasons for those crimes.
2. Disappearances
The variable disappearances refers to cases when missing persons are reported as being the responsibility of government agents for political reasons. In the majority of cases these disappearances are due to political involvement or sensitive knowledge of the authorities by individuals. In general, the victims are identified by the government as
21
“terrorists” and signaled as a threat to public security. This variable is codified as follows: 0= occurs frequently (over 50 reports) 1= occurs occasionally (1 to 49 reports) 2= does not occur/ there are no reports *This variable does not consider reported kidnappings as disappearances, even if these have not been solved.
The database may be consulted to know which countries did not report data, or those where there was no access to available material.
DATA PROCESSING
GOVERNANCE INDICATORS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
Acts occurring outside the legal framework, such as corruption, are very hard to measure and monitor; therefore, it becomes complicated to generate studies and indicators that can effectively capture and reflect the levels of corruption, democracy, rule of law and impunity. To pretend to enfold concepts so complex and broad in a single indicator turns out to be impractical. Therefore, the methodologies developed concentrate on particular issues of interest, since the indexes constructed explain reality only in part, and thus should be used with caution and always having in mind the conceptual framework behind them. One limiting factor to develop these indexes is the cost involved in studying a numerous set of countries, but also in funding research to collect information for many years. A limited number of projects have been successful. Luckily, there are yearly indicators’ estimates that are key to approach topics related to governance. Because of a lack of exact and standardized data, several organisms have opted to gather information by consulting with experts and conducting perception surveys in each country. Indicators of this type, estimated for various countries, are fundamental to generate international pressure against remiss governments, since they expose and report a countries’ weakness and, if available for long periods of time, they also evidence advances or regressions in governability. Some examples are:
1. Global Integrity Index, by Global Integrity. 2. Rule of Law Index, by World Justice Project. 3. Governance Indicators of the World Bank.
These indicators are very useful in identifying good governance at the international level, even though each applied methodology corresponds to specific objectives and conceptualizations that do not necessarily coincide, as is the case of the Global Integrity Index, which includes only 31 countries.
22
Faced withsuch lack of information, this document presents a proposal to measure impunity, using an index that reflects the real situation more than a perception or qualitative estimate. With that aim, the available information by country on crime and the judicial systemhas been employed, allowing a comparison between countries, to later identify information voids and requirements to analyze and build international impunity indicators. THE DATA The only hard data collections on security, justice and crime are those of the UNODC. This database contains information for the period 2003-‐2012 for several countries and indicators, although it is worth mentioning that it is not constant, since one or the other varies for each year. The databases have information on:
• Resources of the criminal justice system. • Detained individuals. • Processed individuals. • Convicted individuals. • Prison module.
It is worth mentioning that the indicators on inmates by type of crime, convicted felons and sentence length only have data from 2010 through 2012. These indicators work as an input for the functional and structural dimension of the transversal axis of the security and justice systems. For the human rights dimension, it was necessary to look for other sources of information. The one most adequate was CIRI’s Human Rights Data Project, which has a series for the period 1981-‐2011, from which the following reports were selected:
• Report of executions. • Torture reports. • Reports on political prisoners. • Reports on disappeared persons.
INDEX SPECIFICATIONS: DEVELOPING GII
The main objective was to create an indicator that included the largest possible number of countries, leaving open the opportunity for future updating and allowing concrete public policy proposals. The Global Impunity Index ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates absence of impunity and 100 the greatest possible level of impunity, considering the countries of the sample. The construction of GII was carried out in three stages described below.
23
FIRST STAGE: NORMALIZATION OF POTENTIAL INDICATORS Based on the UNODC and CIRI data, potential indicators were generated (see table 1) in order to adjust them to each dimension and cross axis defined in GII’s theoretical framework. The rationale to determine variables consisted in following the path from crime to punishment. That is, from the police register of the crime, followed by the investigation process, prosecuting and convicting offenders, to the penal system. The whole process is linked to the physical and human resources availabily in the security and justice systems, since their inexistence increases the probability of impunity. There were 23 potential indicators, as shown in table 1 (GII’s Potential Indicators.) The Min-‐Max normalization was applied to all indicators, aiming to have a comparable value scale among dimensions and cross axis to enable the analysis of time and cross correlations. At this point, all countries and years available were used and the normalization was done per year. Based on the 23 potential indicators, a correlation matrix was estimated for every country and year that had information, and Bonferroni’s inequality was applied, a test of multiple mean comparisons that allows the study of the behavior of the treatments of factors, through the analysis of variance where the objective is to determine whether together, the treatments differ significantly among each other. Once the existence of differences among factors is accepted, we are interested in knowing which treatments have a greater effect or which ones are different among them. In addition, testsby region were run to analyze consistency of the indicators to be selected. With the first results, a decision was made to eliminate from the estimates the countries from Africa and Oceania, since their correlations were far in direction and meaning from the rest of the regions. This first exercise provided essential information on which indicators were more relevant for the index construction and allowed the development of an understanding about impunity through the available data. SECOND STAGE: SUB-‐DIMENSIONS SELECTION The UNODC database has the problem that the data are not strictly comparable among countries, since they are reported by government agencies from each country, and there are many years and countries for which no information is provided, making it impossible to construct an index for a time series in a constant set of countries. To solve these problems the following methodological decisions were made: Unavailable years. Under the assumption that countries do not change radically from one year to the next, for each potential indicator, we took the available information closest to 2012, but not prior to 2010. For this reason the index was calculated for only one year: circa 2012. Comparison problems. For consistency’s purposes, we tried to find significant correlations among GII and governability indicators related to impunity. Given that the indicators estimate different characteristics, a perfect match is not desirable; however, a significant
24
coefficient with a R2 above 0.20 is expected. In particular, World Bank indicators on Rule of Law and corruption – which have a rigorous methodology – were used. Table 1 GII’s Potential Indicators Description 1
Police per 100,000 inhabitants
2
Judges per 100,000 inhabitants
3
Prison personnel per total capacity of penal institution
4
Inmates per total prison capacity
5
Prison personnel per total inmates
6
Persons in formal contact with police per total reports 1
7
Persons appearing in court per number of police
8
Persons appearing in court per number of judges
9
Persons appearing in court per persons in formal contact with the police
10
Individuals convicted per persons in formal contact with police
11
Convicted persons per persons appearing in court
12
Persons convicted per number of judges
13
Percentage of inmates without sentence
14
Inmates convicted of homicide per total number of homicides
15
Inmates convicted of violent offenses per violent offenses reported2
16
Inmates convicted of crimes against property per reports of crimes against property3
17 Percentage of persons sentenced to 20 or more years
per percentage of inmates convicted of homicide 18
Inmates per convicted persons
19
Inmates per total reports1
20
Missing persons
4
21 Extrajudicial executions
5
22
Torture
5
23
Inmates
5
1 Includes registered homicides and reports for assault, breaking and entering, kidnapping, theft, sexual violence and car theft. 2 Assault, kidnapping, theft and sexual violence. 3 Breaking and entering, theft without violence, and car theft. 4 Ordinal variable: 50 or above equals 0; 1 to 49 equals 1; no missing persons equals 2. 5 Ordinal variables: frequently reported equals 0; reported occasionally equals 1; does not happen, none reported equals 2.
25
Unavailable country. The regional median was attributed to the countries that do not have information on one of the selected indicators, but that had information for most of the others. Based on the variance and covariance matrices results, Bonferroni’s correction tests, the GII’s conceptual framework and the adjustments for lack of data, 14 indicators were selected. In addition, the correlation matrices provided information regarding the need to use the complement of some of them, in such a way that they were defined by the criteria that the higher the indicator, the worse the condition on the corresponding dimension. See table 2 (Indicators by Dimension and Cross Axis.)
THIRD STAGE: INDEX ESTIMATION
To obtain the index for each dimension and cross axis a simple mean was applied, i.e. an equal weight is given to each sub-‐dimension; this is for dimensions built by more than one indicator. Each dimension was integrated in the following way:
ESS = polpc + reccap + percap + perrec
4
Where ESS stands for the security system’s structural dimension; polpc is police per 100,000 inhabitants (complement); reccap is inmates per total capacity of prisons; percap is personnel in prisons per total capacity of prisons (complement) and perrec is personnel in prisons per total inmates (complement.)
Table 2 Indicators by Dimension and Cross Axis Dimension Cross Axis Security System Judicial System
Structural
Police staff per 100,000
Number of professional judges and magistrates per 100,000 inhabitants (complement)
Persons held per total prison capacity Prison staff per total prison capacity (complement Prison staff per total number of persons held (complement)
Functional Persons appearing in court per persons in formal contact with police (complement)
Persons appearing in court per number of judges Persons held per condemned Percentage of persons held without sentencing Persons held for homicide per total homicides (complement)
Human Rights Extrajudicial executions (complement) Missing persons (complement) Torture cases (complement) Political incarceration
(complement)
26
ESJ=jpc
Where ESJ is the structural system of justice dimension; jpc is judges per 100,000 inhabitants (complement.)
FSS=atcf
Where FSS is the security system’s functional dimension and atcf is persons appearing in court per persons in formal contact with the police.
FSJ = atj + reccon + recssen + rechomh
4
Where FSJ is the justice system’s functional dimension; atj is persons appearing in court per number of judges; reccon is inmates per convicted persons; recssen is percentage of inmates without sentence; and rechomh is inmates convicted of homicide per total homicides (complement.)
DHSS= ejec+tort
2
Where DHSS is the security system’s human rights dimension, ejec is the frequency of extrajudicial executions and tort is the frequency of torture cases.
DHSJ = desap + encar
2
Where DHSJ is the judicial system’s human rights dimension; desap is disappeared; and encar is the frequency of political incarceration.
GII = ESS + ESJ + FSS + FSJ + DHSS + DHSJ
6
Likewise, for the Global Impunity Index, GII, a simple mean of all dimensions and cross axis was applied.
27
RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF EACH DIMENSION TO THE INDEX Given the difficulties in the information availability, the GII was estimated for a total of 59 countries, with the data close to 2012, but not before 2010. It is important to remember that the higher the index the higher the degree of impunity in the country, relative to the other countries included in the index. The way to interpret the index is by its relative distance and position regarding other countries and not by its absolute value, since the latter is a function of the maximum and minimum values for the set of countries having information in the corresponding dimension. The positions obtained show that the Philippines occupy the first place in impunity with 80.0 GII. On the other extreme is Croatia, the last place, with a 27.5 GII. Mexico stands in the second place regarding impunity, which is not encouraging at all, although it describes our reality accordingly. See Table 3 (GII’s Position and Value and its Dimensions for 59 Countries.) One of the GII’s advantages is that it allows us to analyze by dimension the differences among countries, since their position changes for each dimension. The highest and lowest scores per dimension are (see Graph 1):
Graphic 1 Global Impunity Index and dimensions
0
20
40
60
80
100
Philippines
Croatia
average49.1
Philippines
Andorra
average58.0
Nicaragua
Bulgaria
average73.1
United States
Malta
average79.9
Malta
Romania 1 2
average30.7
Philippines, Turkeyand Russia
Colombiaand Russia
average40.7
average14.0
ESS ESJ FSS FSJ DHSJ1 Singapore, Germany, Andorra, Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia.
2 Argentina, Jamaica, Chile, United States, Guyana, Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Panama, Mongolia, Paraguay, Barbados, Ireland, Japan, Costa Rica, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Singapore, France, Cyprus, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Estonia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Andorra, Austria, Netherlands, Slovakia, Denmark, Norway, Serbia, Lithuania, Sweden, Montenegro, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia.
IGI DHSS
28
Table 3 Positioning and value of the Global Impunity Index and its dimensions, 59 countries Structural Functional Human Rights Relative position
Region Country GII Security System
Justice System
Security System
Justice System
Security System
Justice System
59 Europe Croatia 27.5 46.5 22 70.8 25.5 0 0 58 Europe Slovenia 28.2 53 17.2 74.7 24.1 0 0 57 Europe Czech
Republic 34.8 54.6 50.9 89.1 14.2 0 0
56 Europe Montenegro 34.9 46.3 26.5 86 25.8 25 0 55 Europe Bulgaria 37.5 61.3 0 71.6 17 50 25 54 Europe Malta 38 57.9 84.6 0 60.3 0 25 53 Europe Poland 38.2 63.7 55.6 44.3 15.4 25 25 52 Europe Sweden 38.7 38.3 64 79.4 25.3 25 0 51 Europe Lithuania 39.1 63.6 56.7 71.9 17.7 25 0 50 Europe Serbia 39.3 58.7 47.3 74.3 30.4 25 0 49 Europe Norway 39.3 47.5 75.3 79.4 33.7 0 0 48 Europe Denmark 39.4 43.5 75.6 79.4 38 0 0 47 Europe Slovakia 39.4 54.2 58 76.8 22.5 25 0 46 Europe Finland 40.3 51.1 69.9 78.8 41.9 0 0 45 Europe Netherlands 40.3 43.1 76.7 89.8 32.2 0 0 44 Europe Austria 40.7 57.5 52.1 92.3 17.2 25 0 43 Europe Andorra 40.8 31.6 75.4 98.6 39.2 0 0 42 Europe Germany 42.1 56 58.1 86.1 27.5 0 25 41 Europe Bosnia and
Herzegovina 42.1 46.1 51.6 79.4 25.7 50 0
40 Europe Estonia 42.2 54.5 70.5 79.4 24 25 0 39 Europe Portugal 42.6 53.9 71.7 83.5 21.6 25 0 38 Europe Italy 43 41.3 69.1 79.4 18 50 0 37 Europe Switzerland 43 55.6 75.4 79.4 22.8 25 0 36 America Canada 43.4 53.9 75.4 79.7 26.3 25 0 35 Asia Cyprus 43.7 39.3 86.6 79.4 32.1 25 0 34 Europe France 44.6 60.3 77.7 72.6 32.1 25 0 33 Asia Singapore 46.4 73.5 98.3 74.5 32.4 0 0 32 Europe Romania 46.8 65 67.6 92.8 5.1 50 0 31 Europe Hungary 47.2 66.7 52.6 87.2 26.9 50 0 30 Europe Latvia 47.6 56.2 64.4 79.4 35.3 25 25 29 Europe Albania 48.6 45.5 85.2 83.4 27.3 50 0 28 America Costa Rica 48.7 68.7 59.4 79.4 34.9 50 0 27 Asia Japan 49.3 68.3 97 54.9 25.5 50 0 26 Europe Ireland 49.3 46.1 96.5 79.4 24 50 0 25 America Barbados 49.7 52.4 87 99 34.6 25 0 24 America Paraguay 50 69.2 82.2 59.5 39.2 50 0 23 Asia Mongolia 50.5 60.9 73.4 83 35.4 50 0 22 America Panama 51.3 69.2 87.4 69.3 56.9 25 0 21 Europe Ukraine 51.4 60.5 60.3 61.3 26.5 75 25 20 America Trinidad and
Tobago 51.5 47 89 98.2 24.9 50 0
19 Europe Moldova 51.7 53 79.9 76.1 26.3 50 25 18 America Bahamas 52 46.8 86.7 82.4 46.3 50 0 17 Europe Spain 53.6 58.2 82.9 79.4 26.4 25 50 16 America Guyana 53.9 65.5 97.6 72.3 37.7 50 0 15 America United
States 56.4 62.1 84.5 100 42 50 0
29
14 America Chile 57.4 67.9 83.4 64.8 53.3 75 0 13 Asia Armenia 57.7 57.5 88.9 90.7 8.8 75 25 12 America Jamaica 57.8 52.2 98.5 79.4 41.6 75 0 11 America Argentina 58.8 53.9 94.2 82.4 47.4 75 0 10 Asia Georgia 60.3 75.5 93.3 69.4 23.9 75 25 9 Asia South Korea 63.3 663 92.1 79.4 42.2 50 50 8 America El Salvador 64.1 86 82.8 79.4 36.2 75 25 7 America Honduras 64.1 77.3 83 72.9 26.4 75 50 6 America Nicaragua 65.9 75.6 100 82.4 37.5 75 25 5 Europe Russia 67.3 49.7 67 70.5 16.5 100 100 4 Asia Turkey 68.7 67.2 77.9 74.5 42.5 100 50 3 America Colombia 75.6 71.2 84.1 93.2 30.1 75 100 2 America Mexico 75.7 65.9 94.5 97.8 46.2 75 75 1 Asia Philippines 80 90.6 98.9 74.5 40.8 100 75
30
Croa
tiaSlo
venia
Czec
h Rep
ublic
Mon
tene
gro
Bulg
aria
Malt
aPo
land
Swed
enLit
huan
iaSe
rbia
Norw
ayDe
nmar
kSlo
vakia
Finlan
dNe
ther
lands
Austr
iaAn
dorra
Germ
any
Bosn
ia an
d He
rzego
vina
Esto
niaPo
rtuga
lIta
lySw
itzer
land
Cana
daCy
prus
Fran
ceSin
gapo
reRo
man
iaHu
ngar
yLa
tvia
Alba
niaCo
sta R
icaJa
pan
Irelan
dBa
rbad
osPa
ragu
ayM
ongo
liaPa
nam
aUk
raine
Trini
dad
and
Toba
goM
oldov
aBa
ham
asSp
ainGu
ayan
aUn
ited
Stat
esCh
ileAr
men
iaJa
maic
aAr
gent
inaGe
orgi
aSo
uth K
orea
El Sa
lvado
rHo
ndur
asNi
cara
gua
Russ
iaTu
rkey
Colom
bia
Mex
icoPh
ilippi
nes
8075
.775
.668
.767
.365
.964
.164
.163
.360
.358
.857
.857
.757
.456
.453
.953
.652 51
.751
.551
.451
.350
.550 49
.749
.349
.348
.748
.647
.647
.246
.846
.444
.643
.743
.443 43 42
.642
.242
.142
.140
.840
.740
.340
.339
.439
.439
.339
.339
.138
.738
.238 37
.534
.934
.828
.227
.5
Singapore
Bahamas
BarbadosTrinidad and Tobago
Malta
GLOBAL IMPUNITY INDEX (IGI) 2015greatest least Countries not
included inthe index
31
Two countries may have a similar GII yet their position inside each dimension may be totally different. This means that impunity spreads through different dimensions, thus the public policy actions should be different. In some cases it will be necessary to strengthen the security system in the structural dimension either by increasing human resources, or by training the same ones to develop their capabilities. In other cases, the functional dimension will have greater weight. The maximum, minimum and average GII scores and its dimensions reflect intra-‐regional inequalities, but also among regions (see Graph 2.) It is relevant to add that the regional classification was done accordingly with the one done by the United Nations.
In America (17 countries) and Asia (9 countries), the greatest dispersion is seen in DHSJ, followed by DHSS, while in Europe (33 countries) the dispersion among countries is very high for the ESJ, FSS, DHSS and DHSJ dimensions. The dimensions ESJ and FSS in the group of 59 countries cover 53% of the impunity measured by the index, while the human rights dimension is the one with the lowest input, particularly in the cross axis of the justice system. America (17 countries) and Asia (9 countries) have similar distributions in the contribution of each dimension and cross axis, ESJ standing out with 25% and 27% respectively; whereas in Europe, the biggest contribution to GII is the FSS dimension with 31% (see Graph 3.)
Graph 2 Maximum, average and minimum values of IGIand dimensions
0
20
40
60
80
100
IGI ESS ESJ FSS FSJ DHSS DHSJ
Global, 59 countries America, 17 countries Europe 33 countries Asia, 9 countries
32
Slovenia has dimensions ESS and FSS reaching the highest GII’s contributing scores with 31% and 44%, respectively. Russia is the country where the human rights dimension has the highest contribution, with 25% in each cross axis (see Graph 4.) Finally, as a consistency exercise, the Rule of Law Index and the Corruption Index – both from the World Bank-‐ were used to analyze their statistical correlation with GII, considering that both phenomena have a significant relation with impunity. Generally, impunity tends to be higher in those countries with highest levels of corruption; similarly, where the Rule of Law is weaker, impunity tends to be present too. It is important to note that in both indicators the higher the index, the better the condition. Graph 4 shows GII’s relation with each of these. When observing the indexes separately, as well as in the graphs, a negative trend shows, meaning that the higher the impunity the higher the corruption and the weaker the rule of law.
59 countries America, 17 countries Europe, 33 countriesLatin America, 11 countries Asia, 9 countries
DHSS DHSJ
20%
25%
28%
11%
13%4%
19%
25%
24%
12%
16%4%
21%
24%31%
11%
10%3%
19%
27%
23%
16%
6%
9%
Graph 3 Contribution to Impunity
20%
24%
21%
12%
17%
6%
FSJFSSESJESS
33
Graph 4 Relation between IGI and Indexes for Corruption and rule of lawC
OR
RU
PT
ION
I G I
IGI vs. Corruption
RU
LE
OF
LA
W
30 40 50 60 70 80
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
R! = 0.18926
30 40 50 60 70 80
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
R! = 0.27692
I G I
Rule of Law
34
Table 4 – Contribution per dimension to GII Structural Functional Human Rights Region Country Securit
y System
Justice System
Security System
Justice System
Security System
Justice System
Europe Croatia 28% 13% 43% 15% 0% 0% Europe Slovenia 31% 10% 44% 14% 0% 0% Europe Czech Republic 26% 24% 43% 7% 0% 0% Europe Montenegro 22% 13% 41% 12% 12% 0% Europe Bulgaria 27% 0% 32% 8% 22% 11% Europe Malta 25% 37% 0% 26% 0% 11% Europe Poland 28% 24% 19% 7% 11% 11% Europe Sweden 17% 28% 34% 11% 11% 0% Europe Lithuania 27% 24% 31% 8% 11% 0% Europe Serbia 25% 20% 32% 13% 11% 0% Europe Norway 20% 32% 34% 14% 0% 0% Europe Denmark 18% 32% 34% 16% 0% 0% Europe Slovakia 23% 25% 32% 10% 11% 0% Europe Finland 21% 29% 33% 17% 0% 0% Europe Netherlands 18% 32% 37% 13% 0% 0% Europe Austria 24% 21% 38% 7% 10% 0% Europe Andorra 13% 31% 40% 16% 0% 0% Europe Germany 22% 23% 34% 11% 0% 10% Europe Bosnia and Herzegovina 18% 20% 31% 10% 20% 0% Europe Estonia 22% 28% 31% 9% 10% 0% Europe Portugal 21% 28% 33% 8% 10% 0% Europe Italy 16% 27% 31% 7% 19% 0% Europe Switzerland 22% 29% 31% 9% 10% 0% America Canada 21% 29% 31% 10% 10% 0% Asia Cyprus 15% 33% 30% 12% 10% 0% Europe France 23% 29% 27% 12% 9% 0% Asia Singapore 26% 35% 27% 12% 0% 0% Europe Romania 23% 24% 33% 2% 18% 0% Europe Hungary 24% 19% 31% 9% 18% 0% Europe Latvia 20% 23% 28% 12% 9% 9% Europe Albania 16% 29% 29% 9% 17% 0% America Costa Rica 23% 20% 27% 12% 17% 0% Asia Japan 23% 33% 19% 9% 17% 0% Europe Ireland 16% 33% 27% 8% 17% 0% America Barbados 18% 29% 33% 12% 8% 0% America Paraguay 23% 27% 20% 13% 17% 0% Asia Mongolia 20% 24% 27% 12% 17% 0% America Panama 22% 28% 23% 18% 8% 0% Europe Ukraine 20% 20% 20% 9% 24% 8% America Trinidad and Tobago 15% 29% 32% 8% 16% 0% Europe Moldova 17% 26% 25% 8% 16% 8% America Bahamas 15% 28% 26% 15% 16% 0% Europe Spain 18% 26% 25% 8% 8% 16% America Guyana 20% 30% 22% 12% 15% 0% America United States 18% 25% 30% 12% 15% 0% America Chile 20% 24% 19% 15% 22% 0% Asia Armenia 17% 26% 26% 3% 22% 7% America Jamaica 15% 28% 23% 12% 22% 0% America Argentina 15% 27% 23% 13% 21% 0%
35
Asia Georgia 21% 26% 19% 7% 21% 7% Asia South Korea 17% 24% 21% 11% 13% 13% America El Salvador 22% 22% 21% 9% 20% 7% America Honduras 20% 22% 19% 7% 19% 13% America Nicaragua 19% 25% 21% 9% 19% 6% Europe Russia 12% 17% 17% 4% 25% 25% Asia Turkey 16% 19% 18% 10% 24% 12% America Colombia 16% 19% 21% 7% 17% 22% America Mexico 15% 21% 22% 10% 17% 17% Asia Philippines 19% 21% 16% 9% 21% 16% Global Average, 59 countries 20% 25% 28% 11% 13% 4% America America average,18
countries 19% 25% 24% 12% 16% 3%
Europe Europe average, 33 countries
21% 24% 31% 11% 10% 3%
Asia Asia average, 10 countries 19% 27% 23% 9% 16% 6%
A graphical analysis is not enough; as a consequence, three regression models with Ordinary Least Squares were run, with GII as the dependent variable. This was done to analyze the consistency of our indicator and to determine if the negative trend observed graphically is meaningful. This was also useful to identify the adjustment level of the three models. In the first model only the corruption dependent variable was added, which produces a negative and significant coefficient at 99% with an adjustment (R2) of 0.19. The second model shows a negative and significant relation at 99% for the coefficient of the variable Rule of Law, and an adjustment (R2) of 0.28; this could be interpreted as impunity being more related to Rule of Law than to corruption. This is understandable from the way the GII is constructed, including variables about conditions in the security and judicial systems. When both indicators are incorporated (model 3) we observe that the coefficients are significant, and have an adjustment that increases to an R2=0.33; however, the coefficient sign of the corruption index is reversed. This happens because the dependent variables have a very high correlation, causing multicollinearity.
36
RELATIONSHIP OF THE INDEX WITH OTHER INDICATORS (DISPERSION AND CORRELATION WITH THE GINI COEFFICIENT, GDP AND HDI) The correlation coefficient measures the linear relation among data. It is identified with the Greek letter (p), whose value ranges from 1 to -‐1, a perfect positive linear relation being 1 and a perfect linear negative relation -‐1. The values that represent high levels of correlation are two different sets: those between -‐1 to -‐0.5 contain a representative negative correlation; the other set goes from 0.5 to 1 and means that they have a representative positive correlation. Assertions and inferences can be made about these intervals, whereas those coefficients outside the intervals are not significant to make assertions. It was sought to contrast GII with other existent indicators to identify a possible relation with them. Additionally, this exercise allows identification of other variables that explain impunity in order to have a more general overview of the countries.
A positive correlation among the data is observed graphically. The GINI Index measures inequality; specifically, it estimates income inequality inside a country, but it also captures any form of unequal distribution.11 The index ranges between the values of 0 and 1, where 0 represents perfect equality – all citizens have the same income – and 1 means a single person concentrates all the country’s income. In this case, the GINI index was multiplied by 100 to enable an easier, simple comparison between indexes. The graph shows that for higher inequality impunity is higher. Statistically, the correlation coefficient of the 11 http://data.worldbank.org/indicatorSI.POV.GINI (accessed March 28, 2015)
30 40 50 60 70 8020
30
40
50
60
GIN
I 2
01
2
I G I
COL
HND
CHLPAN
ARGSLV
GEOUSATUR
KGZ
ARM
ESPLVAITACAN
MNE
CZE
ESTLTU
DEUNLDFIN
SVK
ALBHUN
NORDNK
BRGPOL
SRB
SVN
MDAIRL
CRI
PRY
MEX
PHL
UKR
Graph 5. IGI vs. GINI 2012
37
data is p=0.67. With these two indicators it is possible to claim that those countries with higher inequality among their citizens have higher levels of impunity. These results clearly show that impunity and inequality are correlated problems.
It is possible to observe graphically that there is no apparent relation among the data, since the trend is not clear: it is not possible to explain one variable in relation to the other one. Statistically the correlation coefficient is p=0.38, which shows a negative linear relation, but the value is small, which does not assure that there is a lineal relation between them. It is not possible to claim that GDP per capita explains impunity levels.12 This implies that inequality is not related to impunity and that they measure different things, so it is not possible to modify the impunity situation through the increase in GDP per capita. See graph 7. The Human Development Index (HDI) is an indicator consisting of three elements: health, education and standard of living.13 If the level of this three elements is high, the indicator is also high. The graph identifies that the data has a negative relation and that it is distributed uniformly across the graph. Hence, for a higher HDI indicator, the impunity index is lower. Additionally, the correlation coefficient is p=-‐0.6, confirming the negative relation among data. It is possible to conclude, then, that countries with greater HDI have lower levels of impunity.
12 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (accessed March 28, 2015) 13 http://hdr.undp.org/en/data (accessed April 2, 2015)
GD
P P
ER
CA
PIT
A 2
01
2
I G I30 40 50 60 70 800
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000 NOR
CHE
USAIRL
FRA
ITA
CYP
PRTEST
BIHSRB
LTU
DEU
SGPDNK
NLD AUTFIN JPN
CAN
MEXRUS
KGZ
GEO
ARGPAN
JAM
CHL
GUYUKR
PRY MDA ARM
TUR
NICHNDSLV
COL
BHSTTO
BRB
PHL
SVN
SWE
HRV
CZE MLT
MNEBGR
SVK
HUNLVA
ALB
CRIPOL
ESP
Graph 6. IGI vs. GDP per capita 2012
38
To summarize, impunity may be explained by inequality (GINI) and human development (HDI) in the countries, but not by the wealth of their citizens (per capita GDP). It is possible also to claim that, to reduce impunity levels, it is important to lower inequality among citizens, and to increase the quality of health, education and living standards.
20 30 40 50 60 70 800.6
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
NOR
CHEDNK CAN SGP
FRAITA
CYP
ADO
LTUPOLMLT PRT
AUTFIN
EST
DEUUSA
ESP
BHS
TTO
HUNLVA
ROM BRB
PANCRI
CHLARG
GEO
RUS
TUR MEX
COL
SLV
GUY
PRY
MNG
ALBUKRBIH
SRB
BGR
HRV
SVNCZ3
NIC
PHL
IRLJPN
HND
MNE
NLDSWE
ARMJAM
HD
I 2
01
2
I G I
Graph 7. IGI vs. HDI 2012
39
COUNTRIES WITH LESS THAN 10 VARIABLESgreatest least
8 to 9 6 to 7 4 to 5 2 to 3 0 to 1
40
How has impunity been measured?2 methodologies
In a strict sense In a broad sense
Has an empirical foundation based on the concept and its current use.
Quantifies the crimes committed that have gone unpunished.
How is it quantified? How is it quantified?
May consider the causes and conditions that maintain the state of impunity.
Crimes committed/processed crimes
Result Result
• Citizen perception of the degree of corruption and criminal justice.• Indices that reflect the current useof mechanisms linked to impunity.
Isolated data on:• Homicides• Torture• Sexual Abuse
• Extrajudicial Executions• Missing People• Other
Issues Issues
• It is not an integral index. • From the methodological point of view, it is not possible to build a general empiri-cal concept of impunity with data from one organization, no matter how impor-tant or influential it may be.
Proposal of this document
Integral concept of impunity that covers both methodologies and uses data from multiple organizations, public institutions, NGOs and citizens’ perceptions.
•The data used come from governments, so it is di!cult to know whether the information o"ered is true.•Temporality and validity of the data.•Not all have been standardized at a global level to be comparable.
41
Infographics
Global Impunity Index
42
43
44
45
46
47
www.udlap.mx/cesij
