ROLI 2019 Reduced PDF

World Justice Project
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.
© Copyright 2019 by the World Justice Project. The

WJP Rule of Law Index and the World Justice Project
Rule of Law Index are trademarks of the World Justice
Project. All Rights Reserved. Requests to reproduce
this document should be sent to Alejandro Ponce,
The World Justice Project, 1025 Vermont Avenue,
NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005 USA
E-mail: aponce@worldjusticeproject.org
IBSN (print version): 978-0-9964094-0-7

IBSN (online version): 978-0-9964094-1-4
World Justice Project
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
Section Two Scores & Rankings

16 Rule of Law Around the World
18 Rule of Law by Region
20 Rule of Law by Income
22 Rule of Law by Factor
Section Three Country Profiles

32 How to Read the Country Profiles
Section Four Behind the Numbers

160 Methodology
167 Contributing Experts
190 Acknowledgments
192 About the World Justice Project
2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 3

Section
One
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.
Strengthening the rule of law is a major goal of citizens, governments,

donors, businesses, and civil society organizations around the world.
To be effective, rule of law development requires clarity about the
fundamental features that define the rule of law, as well as an adequate
basis for its evaluation and measurement.
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.

Overview of Scores & Rankings
The table below shows the overall scores and rankings of the WJP Rule of Law Index 2019 in alphabetical order. Scores range from 0
to 1, with 1 indicating the strongest adherence to the rule of law.
Global Global
Score Global Rank Score Global Rank
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change† Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change†
Afghanistan 0.35 0.00 123 0 Iran 0.45 -0.03 102 16

Albania 0.51 0.00 71 0 Italy 0.65 0.01 28 3
Algeria 0.51 72 Jamaica 0.56 -0.01 50 0
Angola 0.41 111 Japan 0.78 -0.01 15 1
Antigua & Barbuda 0.63 0.00 33 1 Jordan 0.57 -0.03 49 4
Argentina 0.58 0.00 46 3 Kazakhstan 0.52 0.00 65 2
Australia 0.80 0.00 11 1 Kenya 0.45 0.00 101 0
Austria 0.82 0.01 7 1 Kyrgyzstan 0.48 0.00 85 2
Bahamas 0.61 0.01 39 3 Lebanon 0.47 0.00 89 3
Bangladesh 0.41 0.00 112 1 Liberia 0.46 0.01 97 2
Barbados 0.65 0.00 29 1 Macedonia, FYR 0.54 0.01 56 4
Belarus 0.52 0.00 66 2 Madagascar 0.43 -0.01 107 0
Belgium 0.79 0.02 14 1 Malawi 0.51 0.00 67 2
Belize 0.48 0.00 86 0 Malaysia 0.55 0.02 51 5
Benin 0.50 79 Mali 0.45 103
Bolivia 0.38 0.00 119 2 Mauritania 0.35 122
Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.53 0.00 60 1 Mauritius 0.61 37
Botswana 0.59 0.01 44 4 Mexico 0.45 0.00 99 2
Brazil 0.53 -0.01 58 3 Moldova 0.49 0.00 83 0
Bulgaria 0.54 0.01 54 4 Mongolia 0.55 0.00 53 1
Burkina Faso 0.50 0.00 73 1 Morocco 0.50 -0.01 74 3
Cambodia 0.32 0.00 125 0 Mozambique 0.43 108
Cameroon 0.37 0.01 120 0 Myanmar 0.42 0.00 110 0
Canada 0.81 0.00 9 0 Namibia 0.62 34
Chile 0.68 0.01 25 2 Nepal 0.53 0.00 59 2
China 0.49 -0.01 82 2 Netherlands 0.84 -0.01 5 0
Colombia 0.50 -0.01 80 3 New Zealand 0.82 0.00 8 1
Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.33 124 Nicaragua 0.40 -0.03 114 4
Costa Rica 0.69 0.00 24 0 Niger 0.44 104
Cote d'Ivoire 0.46 -0.01 93 4 Nigeria 0.43 0.00 106 0
Croatia 0.61 0.00 42 4 Norway 0.89 0.01 2 0
Czech Republic 0.73 -0.01 19 2 Pakistan 0.39 0.00 117 1
Denmark 0.90 0.01 1 0 Panama 0.52 0.00 64 0
Dominica 0.59 -0.01 45 1 Peru 0.51 -0.02 70 7
Dominican Republic 0.46 0.00 95 0 Philippines 0.47 0.00 90 3
Ecuador 0.48 0.01 87 3 Poland 0.66 -0.01 27 2
Egypt 0.36 0.00 121 0 Portugal 0.71 -0.01 22 1
El Salvador 0.48 0.00 84 0 Republic of Korea 0.73 0.01 18 2
Estonia 0.81 0.01 10 2 Romania 0.64 -0.01 31 2
Ethiopia 0.39 0.01 118 0 Russia 0.47 0.00 88 6
Finland 0.87 0.00 3 0 Rwanda 0.61 40
France 0.73 0.00 17 1 Senegal 0.55 0.00 52 0
Georgia 0.61 0.00 41 0 Serbia 0.50 0.00 78 2
Germany 0.84 0.00 6 0 Sierra Leone 0.45 0.00 98 0
Ghana 0.58 -0.01 48 2 Singapore 0.80 0.00 13 0
Greece 0.62 0.01 36 4 Slovenia 0.67 0.00 26 0
Grenada 0.60 -0.01 43 4 South Africa 0.58 -0.01 47 0
Guatemala 0.46 0.02 96 5 Spain 0.71 0.01 21 2
Guinea 0.44 105 Sri Lanka 0.52 0.00 63 1
Guyana 0.50 0.00 75 2 St. Kitts & Nevis 0.65 -0.01 30 2
Honduras 0.40 0.00 115 1 St. Lucia 0.61 -0.01 38 3
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.77 0.00 16 0 St. Vincent & the
0.62 0.01 35 3
Hungary 0.53 -0.01 57 4 Grenadines
India 0.51 -0.01 68 3 Suriname 0.51 0.00 69 3
Indonesia 0.52 0.00 62 4 Sweden 0.85 -0.01 4 0
* Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal places.

†
The change in rankings was calculated by comparing the positions of the 113 countries measured in the 2017–2018 Index with the rankings of the same 113 countries in 2019,
exclusive of the 13 new countries indexed in 2019. The 13 new countries added to the Index are: Algeria; Angola; Benin; Congo, Dem. Rep.; Guinea; Mali; Mauritania; Mauritius;
Mozambique; Namibia; Niger; Rwanda; and Togo.
6
Global Global
Score Global Rank Score Global Rank
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change† Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change†
Tanzania 0.47 0.00 91 0 United Kingdom 0.80 -0.01 12 1

Thailand 0.50 0.00 76 1 United States 0.71 -0.02 20 1
Togo 0.45 100 Uruguay 0.71 0.00 23 1
Trinidad & Tobago 0.54 -0.02 55 4 Uzbekistan 0.46 0.00 94 2
Tunisia 0.53 -0.01 61 4 Venezuela 0.28 -0.01 126 0
Turkey 0.42 0.01 109 2 Vietnam 0.49 -0.01 81 2
Uganda 0.40 0.00 113 2 Zambia 0.47 -0.01 92 4
Ukraine 0.50 0.00 77 4 Zimbabwe 0.40 0.03 116 3
United Arab Emirates 0.64 0.00 32 0
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
Despite its profound importance for fair and functioning

2. Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs) societies, the rule of law is notoriously difficult to define and
consisting of closed-ended questions completed by in- measure. A simple way of approaching it is to examine a set of
country practitioners and academics with expertise in outcomes that the rule of law brings to societies, each of which
civil and commercial law, criminal justice, labor law, and reflects one aspect of the complex concept of the rule of law.
public health. 2 The WJP Rule of Law Index seeks to embody these outcomes
within a simple and coherent framework.
Country-Specific Data and Online Tools

In addition to this written report, an interactive online
platform for country-specific WJP Rule of Law Index® data
is available at: data.worldjusticeproject.org. The interactive
data site invites viewers to browse each of the 126 country
profiles and explore country and factor scores. The site
features the Index’s entire dataset as well as global, regional,
and income group rankings.

†
The change in rankings was calculated by comparing the positions of the 113 countries measured in the 2017–2018 Index with the rankings of the same 113 countries in 2019,
exclusive of the 13 new countries indexed in 2019.
1
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.
2
Please see the “Methodology” section on page 160 of this report for more detailed information regarding data collection and score computation.
Main Features
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.
Four Universal Principles of the Rule of Law
The rule of law is a framework of laws and institutions that embodies four universal principles:
1. Accountability 2. Just Laws 3. Open Government 4. Accessible & Impartial

Dispute Resolution
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.

Conceptual Framework of the WJP Rule of Law Index
The conceptual framework of the WJP Rule of Law Index is comprised of eight factors further disaggregated into 44 sub-factors. These
factors and sub-factors are presented below and described in detail in the section that follows.
1.1 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature

1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary
1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by independent auditing and review
Constraints on 1.4 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct
Government 1.5 Government powers are subject to non-governmental checks
Powers 1.6 Transition of power is subject to the law
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
3.1 Publicized laws & government data

3.2 Right to information
Open 3.3 Civic participation
Government 3.4 Complaint mechanisms
4.1 Equal treatment & absence of discrimination

4.2 The right to life & security of the person is effectively guaranteed
4.3 Due process of the law and rights of the accused
4.4 Freedom of opinion & expression is effectively guaranteed
Fundamental 4.5 Freedom of belief & religion is effectively guaranteed
Rights
4.6 Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy is effectively guaranteed
4.7 Freedom of assembly & association is effectively guaranteed
4.8 Fundamental labor rights are effectively guaranteed
5.1 Crime is effectively controlled

5.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited
Order & Security 5.3 People do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances
6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced

6.2 Government regulations are applied & enforced without improper influence
6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delay
Regulatory 6.4 Due process is respected in administrative proceedings
Enforcement 6.5 The government does not expropriate without lawful process & adequate compensation
7.1 People can access & afford civil justice

7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
7.4 Civil justice is free of improper government influence
Civil
Justice 7.5 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delay
7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
7.7 Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are accessible, impartial, and effective
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective

8.2 Criminal adjudication system is timely and effective
8.3 Correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behavior
Criminal 8.4 Criminal justice system is impartial
Justice 8.5 Criminal justice system is free of corruption
8.6 Criminal justice system is free of improper government influence
8.7 Due process of the law & rights of the accused
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.
Factor 9: Informal Justice

9.1 Informal justice is timely & effective
9.2 Informal justice is impartial & free of improper influence
9.3 Informal justice respects & protects fundamental rights
Indicators of the WJP Rule of Law Index
Factor 1: Constraints on Government Powers Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
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.

Factor 3: Open Government
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.
6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without Factor 8: Criminal Justice

unreasonable delay
Measures whether administrative proceedings at 8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
the national and local levels are conducted without Measures whether perpetrators of crimes are effectively
unreasonable delay. apprehended and charged. It also measures whether
police, investigators, and prosecutors have adequate
6.4 Due process is respected in administrative proceedings resources, are free of corruption, and perform their
Measures whether the due process of law is respected duties competently.
in administrative proceedings conducted by national
and local authorities in issue areas such as the 8.2 Criminal adjudication system is timely & effective
environment, taxes, and labor. Measures whether perpetrators of crimes are effectively
prosecuted and punished. It also measures whether
6.5 The government does not expropriate without criminal judges and other judicial officers are competent
lawful process & adequate compensation and produce speedy decisions.
Measures whether the government respects the
property rights of people and corporations, refrains 8.3 Correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behavior
from the illegal seizure of private property, and provides Measures whether correctional institutions are secure,
adequate compensation when property is legally respect prisoners’ rights, and are effective in preventing
expropriated. recidivism.
8.4 Criminal justice system is impartial

Factor 7: Civil Justice Measures whether the police and criminal judges are
impartial and whether they discriminate in practice based
7.1 People can access & afford civil justice on socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, religion,
Measures the accessibility and affordability of civil national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
courts, including whether people are aware of available
remedies; can access and afford legal advice and 8.5 Criminal justice system is free of corruption
representation; and can access the court system without Measures whether the police, prosecutors, and judges
incurring unreasonable fees, encountering unreasonable are free of bribery and improper influence from criminal
procedural hurdles, or experiencing physical or linguistic organizations.
barriers.
8.6 Criminal justice system is free of improper government influence
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination Measures whether the criminal justice system is
Measures whether the civil justice system discriminates independent from government or political influence.
in practice based on socio-economic status, gender,
ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or 8.7 Due process of the law and rights of the accused
gender identity. Measures whether the basic rights of criminal suspects
are respected, including the presumption of innocence
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption and the freedom from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable
Measures whether the civil justice system is free of pre-trial detention. It also measures whether criminal
bribery and improper influence by private interests. suspects are able to access and challenge evidence
used against them, whether they are subject to abusive
7.4 Civil justice is free of improper government influence treatment, and whether they are provided with adequate
Measures whether the civil justice system is free of legal assistance. In addition, it measures whether the
improper government or political influence. basic rights of prisoners are respected once they have
been convicted of a crime.

14
Section
Two
Scores
&
Rankings

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
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
* Scores are rounded to two decimal places.
16
Overall Global
Overall Global 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

Scores & Rankings
Rule of Law Around the

World by Region
East Asia & Pacific
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†
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
Mongolia 8/15 0.55 53/126 0.00 1
Eastern Europe & Central Asia

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
Latin America & Caribbean

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

†
The change in rankings was calculated by comparing the positions of the 113 .40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
countries measured in 2017–2018 with the rankings of the same 113 countries in
2019, exclusive of the 13 new countries indexed in 2019. weaker adherence to the rule of law stronger adherence to the rule of law
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
Middle East & North Africa

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
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
Namibia 1/30 0.62 34/126 Togo 16/30 0.45 100/126

Mauritius 2/30 0.61 37/126 Kenya 17/30 0.45 101/126 0.00 0
Rwanda 3/30 0.61 40/126 Mali 18/30 0.45 103/126
Botswana 4/30 0.59 44/126 0.01 4 Niger 19/30 0.44 104/126
South Africa 5/30 0.58 47/126 -0.01 0 Guinea 20/30 0.44 105/126
Ghana 6/30 0.58 48/126 -0.01 2 Nigeria 21/30 0.43 106/126 0.00 0
Senegal 7/30 0.55 52/126 0.00 0 Madagascar 22/30 0.43 107/126 -0.01 0
Malawi 8/30 0.51 67/126 0.00 2 Mozambique 23/30 0.43 108/126
Burkina Faso 9/30 0.50 73/126 0.00 1 Angola 24/30 0.41 111/126
Benin 10/30 0.50 79/126 Uganda 25/30 0.40 113/126 0.00 2
Tanzania 11/30 0.47 91/126 0.00 0 Zimbabwe 26/30 0.40 116/126 0.03 3
Zambia 12/30 0.47 92/126 -0.01 4 Ethiopia 27/30 0.39 118/126 0.01 0
Cote d'Ivoire 13/30 0.46 93/126 -0.01 4 Cameroon 28/30 0.37 120/126 0.01 0
Liberia 14/30 0.46 97/126 0.01 2 Mauritania 29/30 0.35 122/126
Sierra Leone 15/30 0.45 98/126 0.00 0 Congo, Dem. Rep. 30/30 0.33 124/126

†
The change in rankings was calculated by comparing the positions of the 113 .40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
countries measured in 2017–2018 with the rankings of the same 113 countries in
2019, exclusive of the 13 new countries indexed in 2019.

Scores & Rankings
Rule of Law Around the

World by Income
Low Income
Low Low
Income Overall Global Income Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank
Rwanda 1/20 0.61 40/126 Mali 11/20 0.45 103/126

Senegal 2/20 0.55 52/126 Niger 12/20 0.44 104/126
Nepal 3/20 0.53 59/126 Guinea 13/20 0.44 105/126
Malawi 4/20 0.51 67/126 Madagascar 14/20 0.43 107/126
Burkina Faso 5/20 0.50 73/126 Mozambique 15/20 0.43 108/126
Benin 6/20 0.50 79/126 Uganda 16/20 0.40 113/126
Tanzania 7/20 0.47 91/126 Zimbabwe 17/20 0.40 116/126
Liberia 8/20 0.46 97/126 Ethiopia 18/20 0.39 118/126
Sierra Leone 9/20 0.45 98/126 Afghanistan 19/20 0.35 123/126
Togo 10/20 0.45 100/126 Congo, Dem. Rep. 20/20 0.33 124/126
Lower Middle Income

Lower Lower
Middle Middle
Georgia 1/30 0.61 41/126 Cote d'Ivoire 16/30 0.46 93/126

Ghana 2/30 0.58 48/126 Uzbekistan 17/30 0.46 94/126
Mongolia 3/30 0.55 53/126 Kenya 18/30 0.45 101/126
Tunisia 4/30 0.53 61/126 Nigeria 19/30 0.43 106/126
Indonesia 5/30 0.52 62/126 Myanmar 20/30 0.42 110/126
Sri Lanka 6/30 0.52 63/126 Angola 21/30 0.41 111/126
India 7/30 0.51 68/126 Bangladesh 22/30 0.41 112/126
Morocco 8/30 0.50 74/126 Nicaragua 23/30 0.40 114/126
Ukraine 9/30 0.50 77/126 Honduras 24/30 0.40 115/126
Vietnam 10/30 0.49 81/126 Pakistan 25/30 0.39 117/126
Moldova 11/30 0.49 83/126 Bolivia 26/30 0.38 119/126
El Salvador 12/30 0.48 84/126 Cameroon 27/30 0.37 120/126
Kyrgyzstan 13/30 0.48 85/126 Egypt 28/30 0.36 121/126
Philippines 14/30 0.47 90/126 Mauritania 29/30 0.35 122/126
Zambia 15/30 0.47 92/126 Cambodia 30/30 0.32 125/126
.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
Costa Rica 1/38 0.69 24/126 Suriname 20/38 0.51 69/126

Romania 2/38 0.64 31/126 Peru 21/38 0.51 70/126
Namibia 3/38 0.62 34/126 Albania 22/38 0.51 71/126
St. Vincent & the Grenadines 4/38 0.62 35/126 Algeria 23/38 0.51 72/126
Mauritius 5/38 0.61 37/126 Guyana 24/38 0.50 75/126
St. Lucia 6/38 0.61 38/126 Thailand 25/38 0.50 76/126
Grenada 7/38 0.60 43/126 Serbia 26/38 0.50 78/126
Botswana 8/38 0.59 44/126 Colombia 27/38 0.50 80/126
Dominica 9/38 0.59 45/126 China 28/38 0.49 82/126
South Africa 10/38 0.58 47/126 Belize 29/38 0.48 86/126
Jordan 11/38 0.57 49/126 Ecuador 30/38 0.48 87/126
Jamaica 12/38 0.56 50/126 Russia 31/38 0.47 88/126
Malaysia 13/38 0.55 51/126 Lebanon 32/38 0.47 89/126
Bulgaria 14/38 0.54 54/126 Dominican Republic 33/38 0.46 95/126
Macedonia, FYR 15/38 0.54 56/126 Guatemala 34/38 0.46 96/126
Brazil 16/38 0.53 58/126 Mexico 35/38 0.45 99/126
Bosnia & Herzegovina 17/38 0.53 60/126 Iran 36/38 0.45 102/126
Kazakhstan 18/38 0.52 65/126 Turkey 37/38 0.42 109/126
Belarus 19/38 0.52 66/126 Venezuela 38/38 0.28 126/126
High Income
High High
Denmark 1/38 0.90 1/126 United States 20/38 0.71 20/126

Norway 2/38 0.89 2/126 Spain 21/38 0.71 21/126
Finland 3/38 0.87 3/126 Portugal 22/38 0.71 22/126
Sweden 4/38 0.85 4/126 Uruguay 23/38 0.71 23/126
Netherlands 5/38 0.84 5/126 Chile 24/38 0.68 25/126
Germany 6/38 0.84 6/126 Slovenia 25/38 0.67 26/126
Austria 7/38 0.82 7/126 Poland 26/38 0.66 27/126
New Zealand 8/38 0.82 8/126 Italy 27/38 0.65 28/126
Canada 9/38 0.81 9/126 Barbados 28/38 0.65 29/126
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
Singapore 13/38 0.80 13/126 Greece 32/38 0.62 36/126
Belgium 14/38 0.79 14/126 Bahamas 33/38 0.61 39/126
Japan 15/38 0.78 15/126 Croatia 34/38 0.61 42/126
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
Republic of Korea 18/38 0.73 18/126 Hungary 37/38 0.53 57/126
Czech Republic 19/38 0.73 19/126 Panama 38/38 0.52 64/126
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Constraints on Government Powers
Factor 1 measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law. It comprises the means, both constitutional and
institutional, by which the powers of the government and its officials and agents are limited and held accountable under the law.
It also includes non-governmental checks on the government’s power, such as a free and independent press. For a further
breakdown of Constraints on Government Powers by sub-factor, please refer to page 11.
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor

Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank
Denmark 0.95 1 Mauritius 0.60 44 Thailand 0.47 86
Norway 0.94 2 Rwanda 0.60 45 Macedonia, FYR 0.47 87
Finland 0.92 3 St. Lucia 0.60 46 Belize 0.46 88
Sweden 0.87 4 Grenada 0.59 47 Ecuador 0.46 89
Netherlands 0.86 5 St. Vincent & the Ukraine 0.46 90

0.58 48
Grenadines
Germany 0.85 6 Bulgaria 0.46 91
Botswana 0.58 49
New Zealand 0.85 7 Vietnam 0.45 92
Poland 0.58 50
Canada 0.85 8 Dominican Republic 0.45 93
Senegal 0.58 51
Austria 0.84 9 Mozambique 0.45 94
Croatia 0.58 52
Estonia 0.84 10 Myanmar 0.45 95
Georgia 0.57 53
United Kingdom 0.84 11 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.45 96
Trinidad & Tobago 0.57 54
Australia 0.83 12 Madagascar 0.44 97
Guyana 0.57 55
Belgium 0.83 13 Afghanistan 0.43 98
Brazil 0.56 56
Portugal 0.79 14 Moldova 0.43 99
Malawi 0.56 57
Costa Rica 0.78 15 Kazakhstan 0.43 100
Uruguay 0.75 16 Bangladesh 0.42 101
United Arab Emirates 0.55 59
France 0.74 17 Niger 0.42 102
Sri Lanka 0.55 60
Czech Republic 0.73 18 Hungary 0.41 103
Guatemala 0.54 61
United States 0.73 19 Cote d'Ivoire 0.41 104
Mongolia 0.54 62
Chile 0.72 20 Uganda 0.41 105
Benin 0.54 63
Spain 0.72 21 Serbia 0.40 106
Nigeria 0.54 64
Republic of Korea 0.72 22 Guinea 0.39 107
Malaysia 0.54 65
Japan 0.71 23 Angola 0.39 108
Panama 0.53 66
Italy 0.71 24 Iran 0.39 109
Dominica 0.53 67
Ghana 0.70 25 Cameroon 0.39 110
Morocco 0.53 68
Greece 0.69 26 Honduras 0.37 111
Liberia 0.53 69
Singapore 0.69 27 Russia 0.37 112
Colombia 0.53 70
Namibia 0.68 28 Belarus 0.36 113
Philippines 0.53 71
Indonesia 0.66 29 Bolivia 0.36 114
Tanzania 0.52 72
Barbados 0.65 30 Togo 0.35 115
Lebanon 0.52 73
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.65 31 Ethiopia 0.33 116
Pakistan 0.52 74
Slovenia 0.65 32 Zimbabwe 0.33 117
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.64 33 Uzbekistan 0.33 118
Suriname 0.49 76
Argentina 0.62 34 China 0.33 119
Jordan 0.49 77
Jamaica 0.62 35 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.32 120
Kenya 0.49 78
Romania 0.62 36 Mauritania 0.30 121
Albania 0.49 79
South Africa 0.62 37 Egypt 0.29 122
Zambia 0.48 80
Peru 0.61 38 Turkey 0.29 123
Algeria 0.48 81
Antigua & Barbuda 0.61 39 Cambodia 0.29 124
Kyrgyzstan 0.48 82
India 0.61 40 Nicaragua 0.27 125
Mali 0.48 83
Bahamas 0.61 41 Venezuela 0.18 126
Mexico 0.47 84
Tunisia 0.60 42
El Salvador 0.47 85
Nepal 0.60 43
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
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.

Denmark 0.95 1 Malaysia 0.58 43 Tanzania 0.42 85
Norway 0.94 2 Romania 0.57 44 Ecuador 0.41 86
Singapore 0.91 3 Croatia 0.57 45 Ghana 0.41 87
Sweden 0.91 4 Greece 0.57 46 Vietnam 0.40 88
Finland 0.89 5 Belarus 0.55 47 Zambia 0.40 89
Netherlands 0.88 6 China 0.55 48 Egypt 0.40 90
New Zealand 0.87 7 Jamaica 0.54 49 El Salvador 0.40 91
Austria 0.84 8 Senegal 0.54 50 Lebanon 0.39 92
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.84 9 Namibia 0.53 51 Dominican Republic 0.39 93
Canada 0.83 10 Argentina 0.52 52 Colombia 0.38 94
United Kingdom 0.83 11 Hungary 0.51 53 Uzbekistan 0.38 95
Germany 0.82 12 Suriname 0.51 54 Benin 0.38 96
Japan 0.82 13 Trinidad & Tobago 0.50 55 Indonesia 0.38 97
Australia 0.81 14 Thailand 0.49 56 Cote d'Ivoire 0.37 98
Estonia 0.80 15 Turkey 0.48 57 Mozambique 0.37 99
Belgium 0.80 16 South Africa 0.48 58 Guatemala 0.37 100
United Arab Emirates 0.79 17 Tunisia 0.47 59 Bangladesh 0.37 101
France 0.75 18 Myanmar 0.47 60 Sierra Leone 0.35 102
Uruguay 0.74 19 Kazakhstan 0.47 61 Albania 0.35 103
United States 0.74 20 Macedonia, FYR 0.47 62 Nicaragua 0.35 104
Poland 0.73 21 Philippines 0.47 63 Nigeria 0.34 105
Portugal 0.72 22 Ethiopia 0.46 64 Honduras 0.34 106
Spain 0.72 23 Guyana 0.46 65 Peru 0.33 107
Georgia 0.70 24 Sri Lanka 0.46 66 Ukraine 0.33 108
Chile 0.70 25 Brazil 0.45 67 Moldova 0.32 109

St. Vincent & the Russia 0.45 68 Liberia 0.32 110
0.70 26
Grenadines
Algeria 0.45 69 Venezuela 0.32 111
Barbados 0.68 27
Iran 0.45 70 Pakistan 0.32 112
Costa Rica 0.68 28
Morocco 0.44 71 Kyrgyzstan 0.31 113
Republic of Korea 0.67 29
Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.44 72 Mali 0.31 114
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.67 30
Serbia 0.44 73 Zimbabwe 0.31 115
Grenada 0.66 31
Belize 0.44 74 Mauritania 0.31 116
Slovenia 0.66 32
Mongolia 0.44 75 Mexico 0.29 117
Bahamas 0.65 33
Burkina Faso 0.44 76 Guinea 0.28 118
Czech Republic 0.64 34
Bulgaria 0.44 77 Afghanistan 0.28 119
St. Lucia 0.63 35
Nepal 0.43 78 Kenya 0.27 120
Italy 0.63 36
Niger 0.43 79 Cameroon 0.27 121
Antigua & Barbuda 0.61 37
India 0.43 80 Madagascar 0.26 122
Dominica 0.60 38
Angola 0.42 81 Bolivia 0.26 123
Botswana 0.60 39
Togo 0.42 82 Uganda 0.26 124
Rwanda 0.60 40
Malawi 0.42 83 Cambodia 0.24 125
Mauritius 0.58 41
Panama 0.42 84 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.18 126
Jordan 0.58 42
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Open Government
Factor 3 measures the openness of government defined by the extent to which a government shares information, empowers
people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations. This factor
measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights are publicized and evaluates the quality of information published by
the government. For a further breakdown of Open Government by sub-factor, please refer to page 12.

Norway 0.88 1 Moldova 0.55 44 Bangladesh 0.44 86
Finland 0.87 2 Peru 0.55 45 Morocco 0.44 87
Denmark 0.86 3 Ukraine 0.55 46 Lebanon 0.44 88
Sweden 0.86 4 Indonesia 0.54 47 Mali 0.43 89
Netherlands 0.82 5 Kyrgyzstan 0.54 48 Malawi 0.43 90
Australia 0.82 6 Bulgaria 0.54 49 Nigeria 0.43 91
New Zealand 0.81 7 Mauritius 0.54 50 Honduras 0.42 92
Canada 0.81 8 Philippines 0.53 51 Sierra Leone 0.42 93
Estonia 0.80 9 Antigua & Barbuda 0.52 52 Turkey 0.42 94
United Kingdom 0.80 10 Barbados 0.52 53 Bolivia 0.42 95
Germany 0.79 11 Nepal 0.52 54 China 0.42 96
France 0.79 12 Dominican Republic 0.51 55 St. Kitts & Nevis 0.41 97
United States 0.77 13 Ghana 0.51 56 Algeria 0.41 98
Belgium 0.77 14 El Salvador 0.51 57 Jordan 0.41 99
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.75 15 Mongolia 0.51 58 Uganda 0.40 100
Austria 0.72 16 Ecuador 0.51 59 Benin 0.39 101
Chile 0.72 17 Guatemala 0.51 60 Guinea 0.39 102
Uruguay 0.71 18 Tunisia 0.50 61 Malaysia 0.38 103
Costa Rica 0.71 19 Bahamas 0.50 62 Tanzania 0.38 104
Spain 0.70 20 St. Vincent & the Zambia 0.38 105

0.50 63
Grenadines
Republic of Korea 0.69 21 Nicaragua 0.38 106
Dominica 0.50 64
Japan 0.69 22 Afghanistan 0.37 107
St. Lucia 0.50 65
Portugal 0.67 23 Mozambique 0.37 108
Sri Lanka 0.50 66
Czech Republic 0.66 24 Cote d'Ivoire 0.37 109
Russia 0.49 67
Singapore 0.66 25 Suriname 0.37 110
Macedonia, FYR 0.49 68
Slovenia 0.65 26 Belarus 0.36 111
Kenya 0.49 69
Colombia 0.63 27 United Arab Emirates 0.36 112
Liberia 0.49 70
Argentina 0.63 28 Niger 0.35 113
Thailand 0.48 71
Italy 0.63 29 Myanmar 0.35 114
Botswana 0.48 72
Poland 0.63 30 Cameroon 0.34 115
Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.47 73
South Africa 0.62 31 Zimbabwe 0.33 116
Serbia 0.47 74
Romania 0.62 32 Angola 0.32 117
Kazakhstan 0.47 75
Brazil 0.62 33 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.32 118
Grenada 0.47 76
India 0.61 34 Uzbekistan 0.31 119
Albania 0.46 77
Mexico 0.61 35 Togo 0.31 120
Madagascar 0.46 78
Croatia 0.61 36 Iran 0.29 121
Greece 0.61 37 Venezuela 0.29 122
Hungary 0.46 80
Panama 0.59 38 Ethiopia 0.28 123
Vietnam 0.46 81
Georgia 0.59 39 Cambodia 0.27 124
Belize 0.45 82
Namibia 0.58 40 Mauritania 0.26 125
Pakistan 0.45 83
Rwanda 0.57 41 Egypt 0.22 126
Guyana 0.44 84
Senegal 0.44 85
Jamaica 0.56 43
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
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.
Finland 0.92 1 South Africa 0.64 43 Niger 0.49 85
Denmark 0.92 2 Grenada 0.63 44 Ecuador 0.49 86
Norway 0.90 3 Jamaica 0.63 45 Togo 0.49 87
Sweden 0.86 4 Peru 0.63 46 Belize 0.49 88
Austria 0.85 5 Panama 0.62 47 Thailand 0.48 89
Germany 0.85 6 Georgia 0.62 48 Malaysia 0.48 90
Belgium 0.84 7 Albania 0.61 49 Algeria 0.48 91
Netherlands 0.84 8 Ukraine 0.61 50 Madagascar 0.47 92
Canada 0.83 9 Bulgaria 0.60 51 Bolivia 0.47 93
Estonia 0.83 10 Senegal 0.60 52 Belarus 0.47 94
United Kingdom 0.82 11 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.59 53 Kazakhstan 0.46 95
New Zealand 0.80 12 Trinidad & Tobago 0.59 54 Cote d'Ivoire 0.46 96
Australia 0.79 13 Malawi 0.59 55 Vietnam 0.46 97
Portugal 0.79 14 Hungary 0.58 56 United Arab Emirates 0.46 98
Czech Republic 0.78 15 Mongolia 0.58 57 Nigeria 0.46 99
Spain 0.78 16 Botswana 0.58 58 Morocco 0.46 100
Japan 0.78 17 Burkina Faso 0.57 59 Kenya 0.46 101
Costa Rica 0.78 18 Macedonia, FYR 0.57 60 Tanzania 0.45 102
Uruguay 0.76 19 Benin 0.56 61 Zambia 0.45 103
France 0.74 20 Dominican Republic 0.56 62 Russia 0.45 104
Barbados 0.74 21 Serbia 0.56 63 Philippines 0.42 105
Republic of Korea 0.74 22 Tunisia 0.56 64 Mozambique 0.42 106
Slovenia 0.73 23 Guyana 0.56 65 Honduras 0.41 107
Chile 0.73 24 Guatemala 0.55 66 Afghanistan 0.40 108
Italy 0.73 25 Suriname 0.55 67 Uzbekistan 0.39 109
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.72 26 Brazil 0.55 68 Cameroon 0.39 110
United States 0.72 27 Nepal 0.54 69 Nicaragua 0.39 111
Argentina 0.70 28 Sri Lanka 0.54 70 Mauritania 0.39 112
Romania 0.70 29 Moldova 0.54 71 Angola 0.38 113
Singapore 0.69 30 Mali 0.54 72 Pakistan 0.38 114
Antigua & Barbuda 0.69 31 Mexico 0.54 73 Uganda 0.38 115

St. Vincent & the Colombia 0.53 74 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.37 116
0.68 32
Grenadines
India 0.53 75 Cambodia 0.35 117
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.66 33
El Salvador 0.52 76 Zimbabwe 0.35 118
Bahamas 0.66 34
Rwanda 0.52 77 Bangladesh 0.33 119
St. Lucia 0.66 35
Liberia 0.52 78 Venezuela 0.33 120
Greece 0.66 36
Sierra Leone 0.52 79 China 0.32 121
Namibia 0.66 37
Guinea 0.52 80 Turkey 0.32 122
Poland 0.66 38
Lebanon 0.52 81 Myanmar 0.31 123
Croatia 0.65 39
Indonesia 0.52 82 Ethiopia 0.29 124
Mauritius 0.64 40
Jordan 0.49 83 Egypt 0.29 125
Dominica 0.64 41
Kyrgyzstan 0.49 84 Iran 0.25 126
Ghana 0.64 42
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Order & Security
Factor 5 measures how well a society ensures the security of persons and property. Security is one of the defining aspects of
any rule of law society and is a fundamental function of the state. It is also a precondition for the realization of the rights and
freedoms that the rule of law seeks to advance. For a further breakdown of Order & Security by sub-factor, please refer to
page 12.

Singapore 0.93 1 Grenada 0.77 44 Russia 0.66 86

Denmark 0.93 2 Mauritius 0.77 45 Cambodia 0.66 87
Norway 0.93 3 Mongolia 0.77 46 Myanmar 0.66 88
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.93 4 Barbados 0.76 47 Mauritania 0.65 89
Japan 0.92 5 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.76 48 Suriname 0.65 90
Finland 0.92 6 United States 0.76 49 Niger 0.65 91
United Arab Emirates 0.91 7 Dominica 0.76 50 Brazil 0.65 92
Canada 0.91 8 Guinea 0.75 51 Ethiopia 0.64 93
Uzbekistan 0.91 9 Kyrgyzstan 0.75 52 Peru 0.64 94
Hungary 0.91 10 Bahamas 0.75 53 Lebanon 0.64 95
Czech Republic 0.90 11 Iran 0.75 54 Turkey 0.63 96
Austria 0.90 12 Italy 0.74 55 Tunisia 0.63 97
Estonia 0.89 13 France 0.74 56 El Salvador 0.63 98
Slovenia 0.89 14 St. Vincent & the Dominican Republic 0.63 99
0.74 57
Grenadines
Germany 0.89 15 Ecuador 0.62 100
Togo 0.74 58
New Zealand 0.89 16 Burkina Faso 0.62 101
Namibia 0.73 59
Sweden 0.88 17 Mozambique 0.62 102
Ukraine 0.73 60
Australia 0.87 18 Argentina 0.62 103
Belize 0.73 61
Poland 0.86 19 Jamaica 0.62 104
Greece 0.72 62
Netherlands 0.85 20 Guyana 0.61 105
Nepal 0.72 63
United Kingdom 0.85 21 South Africa 0.61 106
Algeria 0.72 64
Republic of Korea 0.84 22 Liberia 0.61 107
St. Lucia 0.72 65
Romania 0.84 23 Honduras 0.60 108
Botswana 0.71 66
Rwanda 0.84 24 Guatemala 0.59 109
Thailand 0.71 67
Croatia 0.82 25 Bolivia 0.59 110
Madagascar 0.71 68
Belgium 0.81 26 India 0.59 111
Ghana 0.71 69
Belarus 0.81 27 Uganda 0.59 112
Indonesia 0.70 70
Moldova 0.80 28 Colombia 0.59 113
Sri Lanka 0.70 71
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.79 29 Angola 0.57 114
Nicaragua 0.70 72
China 0.79 30 Philippines 0.57 115
Uruguay 0.70 73
Albania 0.79 31 Bangladesh 0.57 116
Morocco 0.69 74
Macedonia, FYR 0.79 32 Mexico 0.57 117
Costa Rica 0.69 75
Portugal 0.79 33 Mali 0.56 118
Senegal 0.69 76
Antigua & Barbuda 0.78 34 Kenya 0.56 119
Tanzania 0.69 77
Benin 0.78 35 Egypt 0.54 120
Zambia 0.69 78
Georgia 0.78 36 Cameroon 0.51 121
Kazakhstan 0.78 37 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.48 122
Serbia 0.78 38 Venezuela 0.48 123
Malawi 0.68 81
Spain 0.77 39 Pakistan 0.36 124
Panama 0.68 82
Vietnam 0.77 40 Nigeria 0.35 125
Chile 0.68 83
Bulgaria 0.77 41 Afghanistan 0.30 126
Zimbabwe 0.67 84
Jordan 0.77 42
Malaysia 0.77 43
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
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.
Denmark 0.90 1 Croatia 0.55 44 Guyana 0.46 86

Norway 0.87 2 Ghana 0.55 45 Mexico 0.46 87
Singapore 0.87 3 Senegal 0.55 46 Burkina Faso 0.46 88
Netherlands 0.86 4 South Africa 0.55 47 Kenya 0.46 89
New Zealand 0.85 5 St. Vincent & the Nicaragua 0.45 90
0.54 48
Grenadines
Sweden 0.85 6 Malawi 0.45 91
Bulgaria 0.54 49
Germany 0.85 7 Kyrgyzstan 0.45 92
Mali 0.54 50
Austria 0.84 8 Vietnam 0.45 93
Morocco 0.54 51
Finland 0.84 9 Lebanon 0.44 94
Jamaica 0.54 52
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.82 10 Niger 0.44 95
Tunisia 0.53 53
United Kingdom 0.82 11 Uzbekistan 0.44 96
Malaysia 0.53 54
Australia 0.81 12 Albania 0.44 97
Argentina 0.52 55
Belgium 0.81 13 Liberia 0.43 98
Canada 0.81 14 Guinea 0.43 99
Algeria 0.52 57
Estonia 0.79 15 Nigeria 0.43 100
Dominica 0.52 58
Japan 0.78 16 Tanzania 0.43 101
Brazil 0.52 59
France 0.77 17 Zambia 0.43 102
Panama 0.51 60
Republic of Korea 0.73 18 Ukraine 0.42 103
United States 0.73 19 Uganda 0.42 104
Bahamas 0.51 62
United Arab Emirates 0.72 20 Bangladesh 0.42 105
Kazakhstan 0.51 63
Czech Republic 0.70 21 Turkey 0.42 106
Benin 0.51 64
Uruguay 0.69 22 Moldova 0.42 107
Belarus 0.50 65
Spain 0.68 23 Guatemala 0.42 108
Nepal 0.50 66
Costa Rica 0.68 24 Angola 0.42 109
Colombia 0.50 67
Chile 0.65 25 Belize 0.42 110
Peru 0.50 68
Portugal 0.64 26 Cameroon 0.41 111
Sri Lanka 0.49 69
Slovenia 0.64 27 Bolivia 0.40 112
Ecuador 0.49 70
Mauritius 0.63 28 Honduras 0.40 113
Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.49 71
Barbados 0.62 29 Dominican Republic 0.39 114
Russia 0.49 72
Poland 0.62 30 Mozambique 0.38 115
Togo 0.49 73
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.61 31 Pakistan 0.38 116
El Salvador 0.49 74
Botswana 0.60 32 Zimbabwe 0.38 117
Mongolia 0.49 75
Italy 0.59 33 Sierra Leone 0.37 118
India 0.48 76
Greece 0.59 34 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.37 119
Macedonia, FYR 0.48 77
Namibia 0.58 35 Ethiopia 0.36 120
China 0.48 78
Jordan 0.58 36 Egypt 0.35 121
Iran 0.48 79
Antigua & Barbuda 0.58 37 Afghanistan 0.35 122
Thailand 0.48 80
St. Lucia 0.58 38 Madagascar 0.35 123
Serbia 0.47 81
Grenada 0.58 39 Cambodia 0.29 124
Hungary 0.47 82
Romania 0.57 40 Mauritania 0.26 125
Philippines 0.47 83
Rwanda 0.57 41 Venezuela 0.20 126
Suriname 0.47 84
Georgia 0.56 42
Myanmar 0.46 85
Indonesia 0.55 43
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

Civil Justice
Factor 7 measures whether ordinary people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system.
It measures whether civil justice systems are accessible and affordable as well as free of discrimination, corruption, and improper
influence by public officials. It examines whether court proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delays and if decisions
are enforced effectively. It also measures the accessibility, impartiality, and effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms. For a further breakdown of Civil Justice by sub-factor, please refer to page 13.
Denmark 0.87 1 Belarus 0.60 43 Sri Lanka 0.47 85
Netherlands 0.86 2 Kazakhstan 0.59 44 Nepal 0.47 86
Germany 0.86 3 South Africa 0.59 45 Moldova 0.47 87
Norway 0.85 4 Dominica 0.59 46 Zambia 0.47 88
Singapore 0.83 5 Argentina 0.58 47 Peru 0.46 89
Sweden 0.81 6 Croatia 0.58 48 Mozambique 0.46 90
Estonia 0.80 7 Greece 0.58 49 Zimbabwe 0.46 91
Finland 0.80 8 Bahamas 0.58 50 Burkina Faso 0.46 92
Japan 0.79 9 Trinidad & Tobago 0.58 51 Hungary 0.46 93
Austria 0.78 10 Macedonia, FYR 0.57 52 Vietnam 0.45 94
New Zealand 0.78 11 Senegal 0.56 53 Uganda 0.45 95
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.77 12 Bulgaria 0.56 54 Turkey 0.45 96
Republic of Korea 0.77 13 Italy 0.56 55 India 0.45 97
Australia 0.76 14 Algeria 0.55 56 Angola 0.44 98
Belgium 0.76 15 Brazil 0.55 57 Philippines 0.44 99
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.75 16 Iran 0.55 58 Albania 0.44 100
Uruguay 0.75 17 Mongolia 0.54 59 Liberia 0.44 101
United Kingdom 0.73 18 China 0.54 60 Indonesia 0.44 102
France 0.71 19 Ukraine 0.54 61 Lebanon 0.44 103
Canada 0.70 20 Georgia 0.54 62 Dominican Republic 0.43 104
Czech Republic 0.70 21 Morocco 0.54 63 Niger 0.43 105
Portugal 0.69 22 Malawi 0.54 64 Mali 0.43 106
Spain 0.67 23 Guyana 0.53 65 Honduras 0.41 107
Namibia 0.66 24 Russia 0.52 66 Guinea 0.41 108
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
St. Lucia 0.66 27 Jamaica 0.51 69 Ethiopia 0.41 111
Barbados 0.65 28 Suriname 0.51 70 Madagascar 0.40 112
Romania 0.64 29 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.51 71 Mexico 0.40 113
United States 0.64 30 Uzbekistan 0.51 72 Bangladesh 0.39 114
Poland 0.64 31 Belize 0.50 73 Cameroon 0.39 115
Jordan 0.63 32 Serbia 0.50 74 Benin 0.38 116
Mauritius 0.63 33 Tunisia 0.49 75 Egypt 0.38 117
Chile 0.63 34 Thailand 0.49 76 Pakistan 0.38 118
Rwanda 0.63 35 Kyrgyzstan 0.49 77 Afghanistan 0.38 119
Slovenia 0.63 36 Panama 0.49 78 Guatemala 0.37 120
Costa Rica 0.62 37 Nigeria 0.48 79 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.36 121
Grenada 0.62 38 Ecuador 0.48 80 Myanmar 0.36 122
Ghana 0.62 39 Colombia 0.48 81 Bolivia 0.35 123

St. Vincent & the Tanzania 0.48 82 Mauritania 0.32 124
0.61 40
Grenadines
Kenya 0.47 83 Venezuela 0.28 125
Botswana 0.60 41
Togo 0.47 84 Cambodia 0.23 126
Malaysia 0.60 42
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above
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.

Finland 0.84 1 Suriname 0.53 43 Turkey 0.38 85
Denmark 0.83 2 Mauritius 0.53 44 Indonesia 0.37 86
Norway 0.83 3 South Africa 0.52 45 Ukraine 0.37 87
Sweden 0.81 4 Georgia 0.52 46 Zimbabwe 0.37 88
Austria 0.80 5 Greece 0.51 47 Togo 0.36 89
Singapore 0.78 6 Croatia 0.51 48 Sierra Leone 0.36 90
Germany 0.78 7 Jamaica 0.50 49 Trinidad & Tobago 0.35 91
Netherlands 0.76 8 Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.50 50 Pakistan 0.35 92
United Kingdom 0.75 9 Grenada 0.50 51 Angola 0.35 93
Japan 0.74 10 Mongolia 0.50 52 Brazil 0.35 94
Canada 0.73 11 Ghana 0.49 53 Ecuador 0.35 95
Australia 0.73 12 Belarus 0.48 54 Madagascar 0.34 96
New Zealand 0.72 13 Hungary 0.48 55 Moldova 0.34 97
Belgium 0.72 14 Macedonia, FYR 0.47 56 Mozambique 0.34 98
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.71 15 China 0.47 57 Belize 0.34 99
Estonia 0.71 16 Albania 0.47 58 Dominican Republic 0.34 100
Republic of Korea 0.71 17 Burkina Faso 0.47 59 Russia 0.34 101
Czech Republic 0.70 18 Vietnam 0.46 60 Niger 0.34 102
United Arab Emirates 0.67 19 Argentina 0.45 61 Bangladesh 0.34 103
Spain 0.66 20 Bulgaria 0.45 62 Ethiopia 0.33 104
Italy 0.64 21 Sri Lanka 0.45 63 Peru 0.33 105
France 0.63 22 Malawi 0.45 64 Colombia 0.33 106
United States 0.63 23 Senegal 0.45 65 Uganda 0.33 107
Bahamas 0.62 24 Nepal 0.44 66 Liberia 0.32 108
Poland 0.61 25 Uzbekistan 0.44 67 Guatemala 0.32 109
Portugal 0.60 26 Benin 0.44 68 Panama 0.31 110

St. Vincent & the Kazakhstan 0.44 69 Guinea 0.31 111
0.60 27
Grenadines
Zambia 0.43 70 Kyrgyzstan 0.31 112
Jordan 0.58 28
Algeria 0.43 71 Philippines 0.31 113
Barbados 0.58 29
Nigeria 0.43 72 Mauritania 0.30 114
St. Kitts & Nevis 0.57 30
Tunisia 0.43 73 Mexico 0.29 115
St. Lucia 0.57 31
Thailand 0.42 74 Myanmar 0.29 116
Romania 0.57 32
Iran 0.42 75 El Salvador 0.29 117
Chile 0.57 33
Egypt 0.41 76 Cameroon 0.28 118
Botswana 0.57 34
India 0.40 77 Afghanistan 0.28 119
Antigua & Barbuda 0.56 35
Guyana 0.38 78 Nicaragua 0.28 120
Costa Rica 0.55 36
Morocco 0.38 79 Mali 0.28 121
Dominica 0.55 37
Lebanon 0.38 80 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.27 122
Slovenia 0.55 38
Serbia 0.38 81 Honduras 0.26 123
Rwanda 0.55 39
Cote d'Ivoire 0.38 82 Cambodia 0.25 124
Namibia 0.54 40
Tanzania 0.38 83 Bolivia 0.21 125
Malaysia 0.54 41
Kenya 0.38 84 Venezuela 0.14 126
Uruguay 0.54 42
.40 & Below .41 – .50 .51 – .60 .61 – .70 .71 – .80 .81 & Above

30
Section
Three
Country
Profiles

Country Profiles
How to Read the

Country Profiles
This section presents profiles for the 126 countries and jurisdictions included in the WJP Rule of Law Index® 2019 report. Each
profile presents the featured country’s scores for each of the WJP Rule of Law Index’s factors and sub-factors, and draws comparisons
between the scores of the featured country and the scores of other indexed countries in the same regional and income groups.
The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score (strong adherence to rule of law) and 0 signifies the lowest
possible score (weak adherence to rule of law). The country profiles consist of four sections, outlined below.
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia

Macedonia, FYR Income Group: Upper Middle
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
in score and rank from the 2017–2018 edition of the Index.

8.5 1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 4 8.3 1.6
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
Section 2: Displays the featured country’s individual factor

Constraints on 7.6 2.4
0.47 4/13 25/38 87/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
scores, along with its global, regional, and income group

Absence of Corruption 0.47 5/13 20/38 62/126 7.4 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
Open Government 0.49 6/13 19/38 68/126 Justice
rankings. The global, regional, and income rankings are

7.2 3.4
Fundamental Rights 0.57 5/13 16/38 60/126 7.1 4.1
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
indicated by the color of the box where the score is found.

Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 6/13 24/38 77/126 6.1 4.6
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
5.2 5.1 4.8 Fundamental
Civil Justice 0.57 3/13 15/38 52/126 Rights
Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.47 4/13 17/38 56/126
2018-2019 Score 2017-2018 Score

Trending up Trending down Low Medium High
Section 3: Displays the country’s disaggregated scores for

Macedonia, FYR Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice
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
1.3 0.49 4.3 0.56 7.3 0.38

Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
The featured country’s score is represented by the 1.4 0.36 4.4 0.49 7.4 0.40
Sanctions for official misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't influence
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
score of the country’s region is represented by the orange 1.6

Lawful transition of power
0.51 4.6
Right to privacy
0.37 7.6
Effective enforcement
0.66
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
represented by the green line.

4.8 0.58
2.1 0.41
underlying each of the factors listed in Section 3 of

Labor rights Criminal Justice
In the executive branch
2.2 0.53 8.1 0.47
Order and Security
the country profile.
2.3
In the judiciary
0.68 5.1 0.78 8.2
Effective investigations
0.50
In the police/military Absence of crime Timely & effective adjudication
2.4 0.24 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.37
In the legislature Absence of civil conflict Effective correctional system
Each of the 44 sub-factors is represented by a gray line 5.3

Absence of violent redress
0.59 8.4
No discrimination
0.50
Open Government
drawn from the center to the periphery of the circle.

3.1 0.50
Regulatory Enforcement
8.5
No corruption
0.53
Publicized laws & gov't data
The center of the circle corresponds to the worst

3.2
Right to information
0.51 6.1
Effective regulatory enforcement
0.46
8.6
No improper gov't influence
0.39
possible score for each sub-factor (0), and the outer

8.7 0.56
3.3 0.50 6.2 0.48
Due process of law
Civic participation No improper influence
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
The featured country’s scores for 2019 are

represented by the purple line. The featured country’s
scores for 2017-2018 are represented by the gray line.
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.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank

Constraints on
0.35 6/6 19/20 123/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.43 5/6 13/20 98/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.28 6/6 17/20 119/126 7.4

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
Order and Security 0.30 6/6 20/20 126/126 6.4 4.3
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Afghanistan South Asia Low
1.1 0.59 4.1 0.38 7.1 0.47

1.2 0.35 4.2 0.27 7.2 0.18
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3 0.43 4.3 0.29 7.3 0.15
1.4 0.32 4.4 0.58 7.4 0.31
1.5 0.58 4.5 0.36 7.5 0.40
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6 0.34 4.6 0.26 7.6 0.59
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7 0.60 7.7 0.53
Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

4.8 0.42
2.1 0.36
2.2 0.16 8.1 0.30
Order and Security
In the judiciary Effective investigations
2.3 0.39 5.1 0.47 8.2 0.38
2.4 0.20 5.2 0.04 8.3 0.26
5.3 0.38 8.4 0.20
Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

8.5 0.24
3.1 0.23
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6 0.30
3.2 0.36 6.1 0.31
Right to information Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7 0.29
3.3 0.55 6.2 0.38
Due process of law
3.4 0.35 6.3 0.46
Complaint mechanisms No unreasonable delay
6.4 0.24
6.5 0.37
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation 2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 33
Albania Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.51 6/13 22/38 71/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.49 2/13 21/38 79/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Albania Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
1.1 0.52 4.1 0.59 7.1 0.52

1.2 0.32 4.2 0.69 7.2 0.47
1.3 0.59 4.3 0.57 7.3 0.21
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.55 7.4 0.32
1.5 0.55 4.5 0.82 7.5 0.47
1.6 0.52 4.6 0.63 7.6 0.47
4.7 0.56 7.7 0.65

4.8 0.49
2.1 0.39
2.2 0.29 8.1 0.44
Order and Security
2.3 0.53 5.1 0.86 8.2 0.44
2.4 0.19 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.42
5.3 0.51 8.4 0.66

8.5 0.35
3.1 0.45
8.6 0.37
3.2 0.46 6.1 0.45
8.7 0.57
3.3 0.46 6.2 0.43
Due process of law
3.4 0.48 6.3 0.53
6.4 0.37
6.5 0.41
34 No expropriation w/out adequate compensation
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Algeria Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.51 4/8 23/38 72/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.48 6/8 22/38 81/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Algeria Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle
1.1 0.53 4.1 0.62 7.1 0.60

1.2 0.43 4.2 0.53 7.2 0.61
1.3 0.55 4.3 0.52 7.3 0.62
1.4 0.50 4.4 0.40 7.4 0.40
1.5 0.40 4.5 0.30 7.5 0.65
1.6 0.49 4.6 0.42 7.6 0.40
4.7 0.42 7.7 0.59

4.8 0.59
2.1 0.38
2.2 0.60 8.1 0.31
Order and Security
2.3 0.47 5.1 0.66 8.2 0.41
2.4 0.35 5.2 0.94 8.3 0.44
5.3 0.57 8.4 0.62

8.5 0.47
3.1 0.23
8.6 0.23
3.2 0.44 6.1 0.45
8.7 0.52
3.3 0.39 6.2 0.54
Due process of law
3.4 0.58 6.3 0.43
6.4 0.55
6.5 0.61
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Angola Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.41 24/30 21/30 111/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.39 24/30 22/30 108/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Angola Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.52 4.1 0.48 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.39 4.2 0.29 7.2 0.62
1.3 0.32 4.3 0.29 7.3 0.53
1.4 0.29 4.4 0.41 7.4 0.31
1.5 0.41 4.5 0.56 7.5 0.14
1.6 0.40 4.6 0.18 7.6 0.37
4.7 0.39 7.7 0.62

4.8 0.46
2.1 0.34
2.2 0.50 8.1 0.32
Order and Security
2.3 0.46 5.1 0.42 8.2 0.37
2.4 0.38 5.2 0.94 8.3 0.30
5.3 0.37 8.4 0.39

8.5 0.46
3.1 0.09
8.6 0.32
3.2 0.40 6.1 0.40
8.7 0.29
3.3 0.34 6.2 0.44
Due process of law
3.4 0.45 6.3 0.38
6.4 0.52
6.5 0.34
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Antigua and Barbuda Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.63 6/30 31/38 33/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.61 9/30 31/38 39/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Antigua and Barbuda Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.60 4.1 0.63 7.1 0.77

1.2 0.71 4.2 0.81 7.2 0.63
1.3 0.62 4.3 0.60 7.3 0.78
1.4 0.45 4.4 0.59 7.4 0.75
1.5 0.59 4.5 0.66 7.5 0.43
1.6 0.70 4.6 0.68 7.6 0.47
4.7 0.71 7.7 0.81

4.8 0.86
2.1 0.59
2.2 0.82 8.1 0.50
Order and Security
2.3 0.73 5.1 0.81 8.2 0.56
2.4 0.30 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.52
5.3 0.54 8.4 0.49

8.5 0.68
3.1 0.28
8.6 0.57
3.2 0.60 6.1 0.55
8.7 0.60
3.3 0.63 6.2 0.80
Due process of law
3.4 0.59 6.3 0.41
6.4 0.48
6.5 0.66
Argentina Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.58 12/30 35/38 46/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.62 6/30 30/38 34/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Argentina Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.65 4.1 0.65 7.1 0.73

1.2 0.46 4.2 0.80 7.2 0.67
1.3 0.71 4.3 0.58 7.3 0.57
1.4 0.42 4.4 0.71 7.4 0.51
1.5 0.71 4.5 0.75 7.5 0.31
1.6 0.80 4.6 0.73 7.6 0.53
4.7 0.76 7.7 0.76

4.8 0.65
2.1 0.50
2.2 0.68 8.1 0.25
Order and Security
2.3 0.63 5.1 0.56 8.2 0.42
2.4 0.28 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.36
5.3 0.30 8.4 0.60

8.5 0.48
3.1 0.71
8.6 0.49
3.2 0.49 6.1 0.46
8.7 0.58
3.3 0.69 6.2 0.59
Due process of law
3.4 0.64 6.3 0.51
6.4 0.50
6.5 0.56
Region: East Asia & Pacific
Australia Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.8 2/15 11/38 11/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.83 2/15 12/38 12/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Australia East Asia & Pacific High
1.1 0.86 4.1 0.69 7.1 0.62

1.2 0.84 4.2 0.88 7.2 0.70
1.3 0.78 4.3 0.76 7.3 0.87
1.4 0.78 4.4 0.80 7.4 0.90
1.5 0.80 4.5 0.83 7.5 0.68
1.6 0.92 4.6 0.84 7.6 0.76
4.7 0.82 7.7 0.83

4.8 0.74
2.1 0.78
2.2 0.97 8.1 0.68
Order and Security
2.3 0.90 5.1 0.89 8.2 0.72
2.4 0.60 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.62
5.3 0.72 8.4 0.60

8.5 0.85
3.1 0.91
8.6 0.91
3.2 0.69 6.1 0.70
8.7 0.76
3.3 0.79 6.2 0.90
Due process of law
3.4 0.89 6.3 0.76
6.4 0.87
6.5 0.85
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Austria Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.82 7/24 7/38 7/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.84 8/24 9/38 9/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Austria EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.82 4.1 0.73 7.1 0.70

1.2 0.83 4.2 0.97 7.2 0.73
1.3 0.78 4.3 0.82 7.3 0.89
1.4 0.82 4.4 0.85 7.4 0.86
1.5 0.85 4.5 0.85 7.5 0.72
1.6 0.94 4.6 0.91 7.6 0.82
4.7 0.89 7.7 0.75

4.8 0.81
2.1 0.81
2.2 0.97 8.1 0.65
Order and Security
2.3 0.93 5.1 0.91 8.2 0.81
2.4 0.67 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.82
5.3 0.79 8.4 0.69

8.5 0.88
3.1 0.72
8.6 0.91
3.2 0.63 6.1 0.87
8.7 0.82
3.3 0.83 6.2 0.93
Due process of law
3.4 0.71 6.3 0.72
6.4 0.84
6.5 0.84
Bahamas Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.61 9/30 33/38 39/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.61 10/30 32/38 41/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Bahamas Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.61 4.1 0.47 7.1 0.61

1.2 0.62 4.2 0.84 7.2 0.51
1.3 0.50 4.3 0.59 7.3 0.63
1.4 0.44 4.4 0.71 7.4 0.58
1.5 0.71 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.46
1.6 0.79 4.6 0.57 7.6 0.47
4.7 0.80 7.7 0.77

4.8 0.60
2.1 0.62
2.2 0.77 8.1 0.53
Order and Security
2.3 0.78 5.1 0.77 8.2 0.55
2.4 0.43 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.46
5.3 0.48 8.4 0.59

8.5 0.78
3.1 0.32
8.6 0.86
3.2 0.42 6.1 0.45
8.7 0.59
3.3 0.71 6.2 0.68
Due process of law
3.4 0.56 6.3 0.39
6.4 0.51
6.5 0.51
Region: South Asia
Bangladesh Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.41 4/6 22/30 112/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.42 6/6 20/30 101/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Bangladesh South Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.56 4.1 0.43 7.1 0.45

1.2 0.50 4.2 0.19 7.2 0.36
1.3 0.38 4.3 0.26 7.3 0.37
1.4 0.38 4.4 0.30 7.4 0.44
1.5 0.30 4.5 0.53 7.5 0.19
1.6 0.40 4.6 0.16 7.6 0.37
4.7 0.38 7.7 0.55

4.8 0.40
2.1 0.44
2.2 0.33 8.1 0.35
Order and Security
2.3 0.30 5.1 0.77 8.2 0.45
2.4 0.40 5.2 0.70 8.3 0.35
5.3 0.23 8.4 0.33

8.5 0.34
3.1 0.36
8.6 0.27
3.2 0.57 6.1 0.45
8.7 0.26
3.3 0.35 6.2 0.42
Due process of law
3.4 0.49 6.3 0.34
6.4 0.32
6.5 0.60
Barbados Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.65 4/30 28/38 29/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.65 4/30 26/38 30/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Barbados Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.73 4.1 0.67 7.1 0.75

1.2 0.73 4.2 0.82 7.2 0.75
1.3 0.45 4.3 0.57 7.3 0.81
1.4 0.45 4.4 0.70 7.4 0.78
1.5 0.70 4.5 0.83 7.5 0.28
1.6 0.81 4.6 0.79 7.6 0.51
4.7 0.80 7.7 0.69

4.8 0.73
2.1 0.64
2.2 0.88 8.1 0.52
Order and Security
2.3 0.81 5.1 0.89 8.2 0.40
2.4 0.40 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.56
5.3 0.40 8.4 0.40

8.5 0.76
3.1 0.23
8.6 0.81
3.2 0.53 6.1 0.56
8.7 0.57
3.3 0.71 6.2 0.80
Due process of law
3.4 0.61 6.3 0.35
6.4 0.71
6.5 0.71
Belarus Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.52 5/13 19/38 66/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.36 11/13 35/38 113/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Belarus Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
1.1 0.27 4.1 0.70 7.1 0.60

1.2 0.29 4.2 0.60 7.2 0.70
1.3 0.48 4.3 0.46 7.3 0.62
1.4 0.56 4.4 0.25 7.4 0.28
1.5 0.25 4.5 0.59 7.5 0.80
1.6 0.31 4.6 0.33 7.6 0.53
4.7 0.35 7.7 0.65

4.8 0.45
2.1 0.49
2.2 0.70 8.1 0.56
Order and Security
2.3 0.66 5.1 0.89 8.2 0.62
2.4 0.36 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.43
5.3 0.53 8.4 0.61

8.5 0.54
3.1 0.24
8.6 0.15
3.2 0.36 6.1 0.63
8.7 0.46
3.3 0.33 6.2 0.56
Due process of law
3.4 0.52 6.3 0.64
6.4 0.39
6.5 0.31
Belgium Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.79 11/24 14/38 14/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.02 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.83 11/24 13/38 13/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Belgium EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.84 4.1 0.78 7.1 0.75

1.2 0.78 4.2 0.95 7.2 0.84
1.3 0.90 4.3 0.80 7.3 0.82
1.4 0.74 4.4 0.81 7.4 0.85
1.5 0.81 4.5 0.84 7.5 0.45
1.6 0.90 4.6 0.90 7.6 0.79
4.7 0.86 7.7 0.78

4.8 0.79
2.1 0.77
2.2 0.93 8.1 0.60
Order and Security
2.3 0.89 5.1 0.85 8.2 0.67
2.4 0.59 5.2 0.92 8.3 0.56
5.3 0.68 8.4 0.69

8.5 0.83
3.1 0.71
8.6 0.87
3.2 0.66 6.1 0.74
8.7 0.80
3.3 0.83 6.2 0.87
Due process of law
3.4 0.88 6.3 0.70
6.4 0.85
6.5 0.91
Belize Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.48 22/30 29/38 86/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.46 24/30 26/38 88/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Belize Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.52 4.1 0.40 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.52 4.2 0.58 7.2 0.39
1.3 0.30 4.3 0.35 7.3 0.61
1.4 0.24 4.4 0.56 7.4 0.49
1.5 0.56 4.5 0.47 7.5 0.46
1.6 0.62 4.6 0.41 7.6 0.42
4.7 0.56 7.7 0.62

4.8 0.56
2.1 0.39
2.2 0.59 8.1 0.34
Order and Security
2.3 0.56 5.1 0.70 8.2 0.29
2.4 0.23 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.24
5.3 0.49 8.4 0.32

8.5 0.51
3.1 0.35
8.6 0.32
3.2 0.39 6.1 0.39
8.7 0.35
3.3 0.54 6.2 0.54
Due process of law
3.4 0.51 6.3 0.33
6.4 0.37
6.5 0.46
Benin Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.5 10/30 6/20 79/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.54 10/30 6/20 63/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Benin Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.55 4.1 0.70 7.1 0.32

1.2 0.46 4.2 0.51 7.2 0.59
1.3 0.43 4.3 0.51 7.3 0.35
1.4 0.50 4.4 0.54 7.4 0.37
1.5 0.54 4.5 0.76 7.5 0.28
1.6 0.79 4.6 0.24 7.6 0.29
4.7 0.67 7.7 0.47

4.8 0.58
2.1 0.40
2.2 0.44 8.1 0.38
Order and Security
2.3 0.47 5.1 0.81 8.2 0.36
2.4 0.21 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.37
5.3 0.54 8.4 0.69

8.5 0.42
3.1 0.31
8.6 0.35
3.2 0.32 6.1 0.50
8.7 0.51
3.3 0.55 6.2 0.69
Due process of law
3.4 0.39 6.3 0.42
6.4 0.38
6.5 0.53
Bolivia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.38 29/30 26/30 119/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.36 28/30 25/30 114/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Bolivia Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
1.1 0.34 4.1 0.42 7.1 0.48

1.2 0.28 4.2 0.47 7.2 0.37
1.3 0.33 4.3 0.33 7.3 0.24
1.4 0.32 4.4 0.45 7.4 0.20
1.5 0.45 4.5 0.64 7.5 0.23
1.6 0.45 4.6 0.37 7.6 0.35
4.7 0.52 7.7 0.58

4.8 0.53
2.1 0.36
2.2 0.18 8.1 0.20
Order and Security
2.3 0.28 5.1 0.58 8.2 0.13
2.4 0.22 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.14
5.3 0.19 8.4 0.29

8.5 0.23
3.1 0.32
8.6 0.15
3.2 0.39 6.1 0.46
8.7 0.33
3.3 0.46 6.2 0.49
Due process of law
3.4 0.50 6.3 0.43
6.4 0.19
6.5 0.44
Bosnia and Herzegovina Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.53 3/13 17/38 60/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.45 6/13 30/38 96/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Bosnia and Herzegovina Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
1.1 0.51 4.1 0.60 7.1 0.58

1.2 0.40 4.2 0.74 7.2 0.64
1.3 0.46 4.3 0.64 7.3 0.46
1.4 0.35 4.4 0.43 7.4 0.45
1.5 0.43 4.5 0.61 7.5 0.33
1.6 0.54 4.6 0.59 7.6 0.38
4.7 0.56 7.7 0.72

4.8 0.59
2.1 0.38
2.2 0.59 8.1 0.43
Order and Security
2.3 0.60 5.1 0.85 8.2 0.58
2.4 0.19 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.45
5.3 0.44 8.4 0.54

8.5 0.52
3.1 0.44
8.6 0.36
3.2 0.51 6.1 0.40
8.7 0.64
3.3 0.44 6.2 0.51
Due process of law
3.4 0.50 6.3 0.41
6.4 0.49
6.5 0.64
Botswana Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.59 4/30 8/38 44/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.58 6/30 11/38 49/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Botswana Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle
1.1 0.59 4.1 0.67 7.1 0.49

1.2 0.60 4.2 0.58 7.2 0.60
1.3 0.48 4.3 0.56 7.3 0.69
1.4 0.52 4.4 0.57 7.4 0.63
1.5 0.57 4.5 0.59 7.5 0.50
1.6 0.73 4.6 0.45 7.6 0.61
4.7 0.64 7.7 0.68

4.8 0.56
2.1 0.56
2.2 0.76 8.1 0.39
Order and Security
2.3 0.74 5.1 0.66 8.2 0.53
2.4 0.34 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.57
5.3 0.48 8.4 0.62

8.5 0.68
3.1 0.22
8.6 0.62
3.2 0.54 6.1 0.55
8.7 0.56
3.3 0.61 6.2 0.73
Due process of law
3.4 0.57 6.3 0.41
6.4 0.61
6.5 0.68
Brazil Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.53 15/30 16/38 58/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.56 16/30 13/38 56/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Brazil Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.76 4.1 0.56 7.1 0.64

1.2 0.65 4.2 0.51 7.2 0.62
1.3 0.46 4.3 0.36 7.3 0.69
1.4 0.31 4.4 0.59 7.4 0.60
1.5 0.59 4.5 0.65 7.5 0.26
1.6 0.60 4.6 0.54 7.6 0.41
4.7 0.65 7.7 0.62

4.8 0.51
2.1 0.41
2.2 0.74 8.1 0.30
Order and Security
2.3 0.60 5.1 0.51 8.2 0.28
2.4 0.07 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.18
5.3 0.43 8.4 0.18

8.5 0.55
3.1 0.72
8.6 0.59
3.2 0.62 6.1 0.52
8.7 0.36
3.3 0.57 6.2 0.62
Due process of law
3.4 0.56 6.3 0.28
6.4 0.54
6.5 0.63
Bulgaria Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.54 23/24 14/38 54/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.46 23/24 28/38 91/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Bulgaria EU & EFTA & North America Upper Middle
1.1 0.52 4.1 0.58 7.1 0.73

1.2 0.40 4.2 0.63 7.2 0.57
1.3 0.39 4.3 0.55 7.3 0.49
1.4 0.29 4.4 0.61 7.4 0.43
1.5 0.61 4.5 0.72 7.5 0.39
1.6 0.53 4.6 0.39 7.6 0.69
4.7 0.67 7.7 0.63

4.8 0.67
2.1 0.43
2.2 0.57 8.1 0.36
Order and Security
2.3 0.61 5.1 0.84 8.2 0.53
2.4 0.14 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.31
5.3 0.47 8.4 0.53

8.5 0.48
3.1 0.56
8.6 0.38
3.2 0.41 6.1 0.67
8.7 0.55
3.3 0.58 6.2 0.63
Due process of law
3.4 0.61 6.3 0.56
6.4 0.37
6.5 0.48
Burkina Faso Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.5 9/30 5/20 73/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.55 9/30 5/20 58/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Burkina Faso Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.65 4.1 0.67 7.1 0.36

1.2 0.51 4.2 0.57 7.2 0.54
1.3 0.54 4.3 0.47 7.3 0.37
1.4 0.40 4.4 0.61 7.4 0.42
1.5 0.61 4.5 0.72 7.5 0.48
1.6 0.62 4.6 0.37 7.6 0.42
4.7 0.66 7.7 0.61

4.8 0.51
2.1 0.46
2.2 0.47 8.1 0.40
Order and Security
2.3 0.54 5.1 0.73 8.2 0.47
2.4 0.28 5.2 0.74 8.3 0.34
5.3 0.40 8.4 0.61

8.5 0.47
3.1 0.31
8.6 0.50
3.2 0.45 6.1 0.43
8.7 0.47
3.3 0.58 6.2 0.55
Due process of law
3.4 0.50 6.3 0.34
6.4 0.40
6.5 0.59
Cambodia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.32 15/15 30/30 125/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.29 15/15 29/30 124/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Cambodia East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
1.1 0.39 4.1 0.40 7.1 0.35

1.2 0.25 4.2 0.22 7.2 0.17
1.3 0.19 4.3 0.25 7.3 0.10
1.4 0.27 4.4 0.31 7.4 0.19
1.5 0.31 4.5 0.50 7.5 0.21
1.6 0.33 4.6 0.19 7.6 0.23
4.7 0.41 7.7 0.37

4.8 0.50
2.1 0.30
2.2 0.13 8.1 0.34
Order and Security
2.3 0.22 5.1 0.81 8.2 0.37
2.4 0.32 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.26
5.3 0.18 8.4 0.21

8.5 0.17
3.1 0.21
8.6 0.17
3.2 0.25 6.1 0.27
8.7 0.25
3.3 0.34 6.2 0.27
Due process of law
3.4 0.26 6.3 0.49
6.4 0.14
6.5 0.29
Cameroon Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.37 28/30 27/30 120/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.39 25/30 23/30 110/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Cameroon Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.40 4.1 0.44 7.1 0.44

1.2 0.30 4.2 0.26 7.2 0.40
1.3 0.45 4.3 0.34 7.3 0.28
1.4 0.40 4.4 0.39 7.4 0.26
1.5 0.39 4.5 0.60 7.5 0.42
1.6 0.37 4.6 0.18 7.6 0.34
4.7 0.49 7.7 0.57

4.8 0.43
2.1 0.30
2.2 0.30 8.1 0.31
Order and Security
2.3 0.32 5.1 0.61 8.2 0.31
2.4 0.16 5.2 0.60 8.3 0.14
5.3 0.32 8.4 0.43

8.5 0.27
3.1 0.20
8.6 0.17
3.2 0.34 6.1 0.45
8.7 0.34
3.3 0.41 6.2 0.48
Due process of law
3.4 0.42 6.3 0.25
6.4 0.41
6.5 0.48
Canada Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.81 8/24 9/38 9/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.85 7/24 8/38 8/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Canada EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.81 4.1 0.68 7.1 0.57

1.2 0.85 4.2 0.95 7.2 0.58
1.3 0.83 4.3 0.79 7.3 0.90
1.4 0.78 4.4 0.86 7.4 0.89
1.5 0.86 4.5 0.85 7.5 0.47
1.6 0.95 4.6 0.88 7.6 0.73
4.7 0.88 7.7 0.78

4.8 0.74
2.1 0.79
2.2 0.95 8.1 0.70
Order and Security
2.3 0.88 5.1 0.92 8.2 0.71
2.4 0.71 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.61
5.3 0.80 8.4 0.56

8.5 0.84
3.1 0.88
8.6 0.93
3.2 0.68 6.1 0.77
8.7 0.79
3.3 0.85 6.2 0.95
Due process of law
3.4 0.83 6.3 0.71
6.4 0.86
6.5 0.77
Chile Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.68 3/30 24/38 25/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.72 3/30 19/38 20/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Chile Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.71 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.70

1.2 0.58 4.2 0.86 7.2 0.60
1.3 0.84 4.3 0.64 7.3 0.66
1.4 0.59 4.4 0.74 7.4 0.68
1.5 0.74 4.5 0.79 7.5 0.44
1.6 0.88 4.6 0.83 7.6 0.62
4.7 0.75 7.7 0.75

4.8 0.70
2.1 0.64
2.2 0.84 8.1 0.36
Order and Security
2.3 0.81 5.1 0.75 8.2 0.60
2.4 0.49 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.33
5.3 0.28 8.4 0.57

8.5 0.68
3.1 0.67
8.6 0.78
3.2 0.74 6.1 0.62
8.7 0.64
3.3 0.70 6.2 0.76
Due process of law
3.4 0.78 6.3 0.58
6.4 0.53
6.5 0.77
China Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.49 12/15 28/38 82/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.33 14/15 36/38 119/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
China East Asia & Pacific Upper Middle
1.1 0.39 4.1 0.45 7.1 0.66

1.2 0.31 4.2 0.45 7.2 0.49
1.3 0.41 4.3 0.51 7.3 0.43
1.4 0.50 4.4 0.12 7.4 0.22
1.5 0.12 4.5 0.22 7.5 0.76
1.6 0.24 4.6 0.30 7.6 0.57
4.7 0.17 7.7 0.67

4.8 0.32
2.1 0.50
2.2 0.57 8.1 0.57
Order and Security
2.3 0.69 5.1 0.79 8.2 0.57
2.4 0.44 5.2 0.92 8.3 0.50
5.3 0.66 8.4 0.34

8.5 0.58
3.1 0.45
8.6 0.20
3.2 0.56 6.1 0.50
8.7 0.51
3.3 0.21 6.2 0.58
Due process of law
3.4 0.45 6.3 0.62
6.4 0.32
6.5 0.37
Colombia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 20/30 27/38 80/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.53 20/30 17/38 70/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Colombia Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.60 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.56

1.2 0.49 4.2 0.50 7.2 0.53
1.3 0.49 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.44
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.56 7.4 0.48
1.5 0.56 4.5 0.63 7.5 0.23
1.6 0.62 4.6 0.49 7.6 0.42
4.7 0.61 7.7 0.71

4.8 0.51
2.1 0.45
2.2 0.48 8.1 0.17
Order and Security
2.3 0.51 5.1 0.49 8.2 0.31
2.4 0.10 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.28
5.3 0.27 8.4 0.30

8.5 0.39
3.1 0.66
8.6 0.45
3.2 0.59 6.1 0.50
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.56 6.2 0.62
Due process of law
3.4 0.71 6.3 0.35
6.4 0.42
6.5 0.61
Congo, Dem. Rep. Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.33 30/30 20/20 124/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.32 29/30 20/20 120/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Congo, Dem. Rep. Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.43 4.1 0.59 7.1 0.37

1.2 0.24 4.2 0.12 7.2 0.45
1.3 0.29 4.3 0.31 7.3 0.17
1.4 0.33 4.4 0.28 7.4 0.21
1.5 0.21 4.5 0.62 7.5 0.46
1.6 0.41 4.6 0.11 7.6 0.29
4.7 0.44 7.7 0.56

4.8 0.49
2.1 0.25
2.2 0.18 8.1 0.24
Order and Security
2.3 0.21 5.1 0.56 8.2 0.39
2.4 0.09 5.2 0.50 8.3 0.14
5.3 0.38 8.4 0.48

8.5 0.20
3.1 0.20
8.6 0.16
3.2 0.32 6.1 0.35
8.7 0.31
3.3 0.36 6.2 0.36
Due process of law
3.4 0.39 6.3 0.39
6.4 0.42
6.5 0.32
Costa Rica Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.69 2/30 1/38 24/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.78 1/30 1/38 15/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Costa Rica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.80 4.1 0.67 7.1 0.68

1.2 0.74 4.2 0.91 7.2 0.79
1.3 0.81 4.3 0.70 7.3 0.76
1.4 0.58 4.4 0.83 7.4 0.71
1.5 0.83 4.5 0.84 7.5 0.21
1.6 0.93 4.6 0.83 7.6 0.45
4.7 0.83 7.7 0.76

4.8 0.62
2.1 0.67
2.2 0.81 8.1 0.41
Order and Security
2.3 0.74 5.1 0.70 8.2 0.44
2.4 0.48 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.33
5.3 0.38 8.4 0.65

8.5 0.67
3.1 0.48
8.6 0.66
3.2 0.78 6.1 0.65
8.7 0.70
3.3 0.78 6.2 0.73
Due process of law
3.4 0.79 6.3 0.51
6.4 0.70
6.5 0.81
Cote d'Ivoire Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.46 13/30 16/30 93/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.41 21/30 21/30 104/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Cote d'Ivoire Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.41 4.1 0.60 7.1 0.50

1.2 0.37 4.2 0.33 7.2 0.58
1.3 0.42 4.3 0.38 7.3 0.38
1.4 0.37 4.4 0.37 7.4 0.30
1.5 0.37 4.5 0.69 7.5 0.58
1.6 0.52 4.6 0.13 7.6 0.56
4.7 0.58 7.7 0.70

4.8 0.60
2.1 0.35
2.2 0.43 8.1 0.32
Order and Security
2.3 0.46 5.1 0.67 8.2 0.50
2.4 0.25 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.30
5.3 0.38 8.4 0.54

8.5 0.42
3.1 0.18
8.6 0.19
3.2 0.44 6.1 0.50
8.7 0.38
3.3 0.46 6.2 0.53
Due process of law
3.4 0.40 6.3 0.47
6.4 0.53
6.5 0.59
Croatia Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.61 22/24 34/38 42/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.58 22/24 34/38 52/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Croatia EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.61 4.1 0.60 7.1 0.69

1.2 0.47 4.2 0.71 7.2 0.67
1.3 0.54 4.3 0.62 7.3 0.58
1.4 0.48 4.4 0.64 7.4 0.56
1.5 0.64 4.5 0.68 7.5 0.30
1.6 0.71 4.6 0.49 7.6 0.52
4.7 0.75 7.7 0.73

4.8 0.70
2.1 0.51
2.2 0.72 8.1 0.47
Order and Security
2.3 0.74 5.1 0.94 8.2 0.48
2.4 0.32 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.44
5.3 0.53 8.4 0.40

8.5 0.61
3.1 0.55
8.6 0.52
3.2 0.59 6.1 0.61
8.7 0.62
3.3 0.64 6.2 0.68
Due process of law
3.4 0.64 6.3 0.45
6.4 0.39
6.5 0.62
Czech Republic Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.73 13/24 19/38 19/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.73 14/24 17/38 18/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Czech Republic EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.72 4.1 0.71 7.1 0.66

1.2 0.72 4.2 0.96 7.2 0.70
1.3 0.74 4.3 0.77 7.3 0.79
1.4 0.62 4.4 0.74 7.4 0.76
1.5 0.74 4.5 0.78 7.5 0.50
1.6 0.87 4.6 0.79 7.6 0.66
4.7 0.79 7.7 0.81

4.8 0.73
2.1 0.60
2.2 0.87 8.1 0.63
Order and Security
2.3 0.76 5.1 0.89 8.2 0.68
2.4 0.33 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.54
5.3 0.81 8.4 0.70

8.5 0.74
3.1 0.66
8.6 0.84
3.2 0.65 6.1 0.71
8.7 0.77
3.3 0.70 6.2 0.86
Due process of law
3.4 0.64 6.3 0.62
6.4 0.62
6.5 0.72
Denmark Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.9 1/24 1/38 1/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.95 1/24 1/38 1/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Denmark EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.93 4.1 0.77 7.1 0.76

1.2 0.95 4.2 1.00 7.2 0.87
1.3 0.92 4.3 0.88 7.3 0.99
1.4 0.93 4.4 0.96 7.4 0.92
1.5 0.96 4.5 0.81 7.5 0.76
1.6 0.98 4.6 0.98 7.6 0.90
4.7 0.98 7.7 0.86

4.8 0.95
2.1 0.92
2.2 0.99 8.1 0.66
Order and Security
2.3 0.97 5.1 0.94 8.2 0.77
2.4 0.89 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.75
5.3 0.85 8.4 0.82

8.5 0.99
3.1 0.85
8.6 0.95
3.2 0.79 6.1 0.82
8.7 0.88
3.3 0.94 6.2 0.98
Due process of law
3.4 0.86 6.3 0.90
6.4 0.92
6.5 0.88
Dominica Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.59 11/30 9/38 45/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.53 19/30 16/38 67/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Dominica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.45 4.1 0.60 7.1 0.76

1.2 0.59 4.2 0.84 7.2 0.55
1.3 0.64 4.3 0.59 7.3 0.76
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.52 7.4 0.73
1.5 0.52 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.33
1.6 0.58 4.6 0.68 7.6 0.35
4.7 0.61 7.7 0.63

4.8 0.57
2.1 0.46
2.2 0.90 8.1 0.48
Order and Security
2.3 0.74 5.1 0.88 8.2 0.43
2.4 0.30 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.32
5.3 0.39 8.4 0.63

8.5 0.74
3.1 0.37
8.6 0.63
3.2 0.53 6.1 0.35
8.7 0.59
3.3 0.58 6.2 0.70
Due process of law
3.4 0.53 6.3 0.45
6.4 0.54
6.5 0.55
Dominican Republic Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.46 24/30 33/38 95/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.45 26/30 29/38 93/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Dominican Republic Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.53 4.1 0.49 7.1 0.52

1.2 0.39 4.2 0.53 7.2 0.55
1.3 0.31 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.44
1.4 0.33 4.4 0.63 7.4 0.36
1.5 0.63 4.5 0.70 7.5 0.26
1.6 0.53 4.6 0.51 7.6 0.34
4.7 0.68 7.7 0.58

4.8 0.58
2.1 0.41
2.2 0.48 8.1 0.31
Order and Security
2.3 0.45 5.1 0.59 8.2 0.40
2.4 0.20 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.19
5.3 0.30 8.4 0.33

8.5 0.41
3.1 0.34
8.6 0.32
3.2 0.53 6.1 0.37
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.57 6.2 0.60
Due process of law
3.4 0.60 6.3 0.37
6.4 0.19
6.5 0.44
Ecuador Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.48 23/30 30/38 87/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.46 25/30 27/38 89/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Ecuador Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.51 4.1 0.45 7.1 0.60

1.2 0.40 4.2 0.47 7.2 0.49
1.3 0.47 4.3 0.42 7.3 0.42
1.4 0.38 4.4 0.50 7.4 0.32
1.5 0.50 4.5 0.62 7.5 0.43
1.6 0.51 4.6 0.32 7.6 0.45
4.7 0.55 7.7 0.67

4.8 0.56
2.1 0.43
2.2 0.41 8.1 0.29
Order and Security
2.3 0.53 5.1 0.58 8.2 0.42
2.4 0.25 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.30
5.3 0.29 8.4 0.33

8.5 0.43
3.1 0.40
8.6 0.25
3.2 0.47 6.1 0.54
8.7 0.42
3.3 0.51 6.2 0.58
Due process of law
3.4 0.65 6.3 0.48
6.4 0.36
6.5 0.50
Egypt Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.36 8/8 28/30 121/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.29 8/8 28/30 122/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Egypt Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.14 4.1 0.50 7.1 0.48

1.2 0.41 4.2 0.31 7.2 0.32
1.3 0.33 4.3 0.36 7.3 0.48
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.09 7.4 0.44
1.5 0.09 4.5 0.22 7.5 0.22
1.6 0.37 4.6 0.25 7.6 0.24
4.7 0.23 7.7 0.49

4.8 0.39
2.1 0.43
2.2 0.47 8.1 0.41
Order and Security
2.3 0.42 5.1 0.75 8.2 0.43
2.4 0.28 5.2 0.60 8.3 0.28
5.3 0.28 8.4 0.49

8.5 0.44
3.1 0.31
8.6 0.43
3.2 0.11 6.1 0.47
8.7 0.36
3.3 0.18 6.2 0.48
Due process of law
3.4 0.31 6.3 0.16
6.4 0.29
6.5 0.37
El Salvador Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.48 21/30 12/30 84/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.47 23/30 15/30 85/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
El Salvador Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
1.1 0.58 4.1 0.51 7.1 0.60

1.2 0.47 4.2 0.61 7.2 0.61
1.3 0.36 4.3 0.32 7.3 0.46
1.4 0.35 4.4 0.55 7.4 0.44
1.5 0.55 4.5 0.63 7.5 0.40
1.6 0.51 4.6 0.56 7.6 0.49
4.7 0.55 7.7 0.59

4.8 0.47
2.1 0.43
2.2 0.48 8.1 0.16
Order and Security
2.3 0.53 5.1 0.45 8.2 0.31
2.4 0.15 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.18
5.3 0.45 8.4 0.24

8.5 0.38
3.1 0.40
8.6 0.42
3.2 0.57 6.1 0.41
8.7 0.32
3.3 0.49 6.2 0.62
Due process of law
3.4 0.58 6.3 0.50
6.4 0.37
6.5 0.53
Estonia Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.81 9/24 10/38 10/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.84 9/24 10/38 10/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Estonia EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.84 4.1 0.81 7.1 0.74

1.2 0.83 4.2 0.94 7.2 0.87
1.3 0.86 4.3 0.78 7.3 0.90
1.4 0.80 4.4 0.80 7.4 0.86
1.5 0.80 4.5 0.80 7.5 0.72
1.6 0.91 4.6 0.92 7.6 0.69
4.7 0.84 7.7 0.83

4.8 0.71
2.1 0.75
2.2 0.95 8.1 0.59
Order and Security
2.3 0.91 5.1 0.90 8.2 0.56
2.4 0.59 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.62
5.3 0.78 8.4 0.71

8.5 0.88
3.1 0.88
8.6 0.83
3.2 0.74 6.1 0.83
8.7 0.78
3.3 0.79 6.2 0.91
Due process of law
3.4 0.78 6.3 0.78
6.4 0.66
6.5 0.77
Ethiopia Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.39 27/30 18/20 118/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.33 27/30 18/20 116/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Ethiopia Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.43 4.1 0.44 7.1 0.43

1.2 0.32 4.2 0.19 7.2 0.33
1.3 0.37 4.3 0.32 7.3 0.33
1.4 0.38 4.4 0.23 7.4 0.24
1.5 0.23 4.5 0.50 7.5 0.40
1.6 0.27 4.6 0.14 7.6 0.51
4.7 0.22 7.7 0.60

4.8 0.31
2.1 0.39
2.2 0.39 8.1 0.35
Order and Security
2.3 0.48 5.1 0.64 8.2 0.36
2.4 0.60 5.2 0.83 8.3 0.39
5.3 0.47 8.4 0.35

8.5 0.42
3.1 0.20
8.6 0.13
3.2 0.35 6.1 0.33
8.7 0.32
3.3 0.21 6.2 0.53
Due process of law
3.4 0.37 6.3 0.35
6.4 0.17
6.5 0.42
Finland Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.87 3/24 3/38 3/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.92 3/24 3/38 3/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Finland EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.90 4.1 0.88 7.1 0.67

1.2 0.90 4.2 1.00 7.2 0.87
1.3 0.92 4.3 0.92 7.3 0.94
1.4 0.93 4.4 0.91 7.4 0.88
1.5 0.91 4.5 0.86 7.5 0.62
1.6 0.98 4.6 0.98 7.6 0.87
4.7 0.93 7.7 0.75

4.8 0.87
2.1 0.89
2.2 0.98 8.1 0.61
Order and Security
2.3 0.97 5.1 0.94 8.2 0.79
2.4 0.73 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.86
5.3 0.82 8.4 0.81

8.5 0.94
3.1 0.90
8.6 0.98
3.2 0.82 6.1 0.79
8.7 0.92
3.3 0.89 6.2 0.97
Due process of law
3.4 0.86 6.3 0.74
6.4 0.94
6.5 0.74
France Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.73 12/24 17/38 17/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.74 13/24 16/38 17/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
France EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.73 4.1 0.63 7.1 0.67

1.2 0.67 4.2 0.84 7.2 0.57
1.3 0.76 4.3 0.68 7.3 0.75
1.4 0.66 4.4 0.73 7.4 0.77
1.5 0.73 4.5 0.74 7.5 0.60
1.6 0.89 4.6 0.71 7.6 0.76
4.7 0.82 7.7 0.83

4.8 0.79
2.1 0.75
2.2 0.89 8.1 0.59
Order and Security
2.3 0.85 5.1 0.82 8.2 0.64
2.4 0.51 5.2 0.85 8.3 0.51
5.3 0.56 8.4 0.59

8.5 0.77
3.1 0.84
8.6 0.63
3.2 0.73 6.1 0.70
8.7 0.68
3.3 0.75 6.2 0.85
Due process of law
3.4 0.83 6.3 0.71
6.4 0.77
6.5 0.84
Georgia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.61 1/13 1/30 41/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.57 1/13 5/30 53/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Georgia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.60 4.1 0.57 7.1 0.65

1.2 0.46 4.2 0.73 7.2 0.47
1.3 0.64 4.3 0.59 7.3 0.59
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.68 7.4 0.44
1.5 0.68 4.5 0.62 7.5 0.38
1.6 0.61 4.6 0.45 7.6 0.54
4.7 0.69 7.7 0.71

4.8 0.60
2.1 0.64
2.2 0.73 8.1 0.37
Order and Security
2.3 0.89 5.1 0.92 8.2 0.55
2.4 0.53 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.60
5.3 0.43 8.4 0.50

8.5 0.73
3.1 0.51
8.6 0.28
3.2 0.65 6.1 0.59
8.7 0.59
3.3 0.62 6.2 0.82
Due process of law
3.4 0.57 6.3 0.46
6.4 0.36
6.5 0.59
Germany Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.84 6/24 6/38 6/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.85 6/24 6/38 6/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Germany EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.82 4.1 0.78 7.1 0.78

1.2 0.83 4.2 0.94 7.2 0.85
1.3 0.86 4.3 0.82 7.3 0.88
1.4 0.79 4.4 0.85 7.4 0.91
1.5 0.85 4.5 0.84 7.5 0.83
1.6 0.95 4.6 0.79 7.6 0.90
4.7 0.90 7.7 0.86

4.8 0.85
2.1 0.81
2.2 0.95 8.1 0.60
Order and Security
2.3 0.90 5.1 0.89 8.2 0.76
2.4 0.62 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.76
5.3 0.77 8.4 0.73

8.5 0.85
3.1 0.74
8.6 0.92
3.2 0.73 6.1 0.77
8.7 0.82
3.3 0.86 6.2 0.85
Due process of law
3.4 0.83 6.3 0.82
6.4 0.87
6.5 0.92
Ghana Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.58 6/30 2/30 48/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.70 1/30 1/30 25/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Ghana Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.80 4.1 0.65 7.1 0.58

1.2 0.69 4.2 0.71 7.2 0.61
1.3 0.63 4.3 0.46 7.3 0.52
1.4 0.56 4.4 0.77 7.4 0.74
1.5 0.77 4.5 0.68 7.5 0.46
1.6 0.74 4.6 0.56 7.6 0.64
4.7 0.77 7.7 0.75

4.8 0.52
2.1 0.40
2.2 0.53 8.1 0.42
Order and Security
2.3 0.40 5.1 0.75 8.2 0.52
2.4 0.28 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.33
5.3 0.38 8.4 0.60

8.5 0.42
3.1 0.26
8.6 0.66
3.2 0.38 6.1 0.46
8.7 0.46
3.3 0.71 6.2 0.55
Due process of law
3.4 0.71 6.3 0.44
6.4 0.64
6.5 0.66
Greece Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.62 21/24 32/38 36/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.69 18/24 24/38 26/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Greece EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.64 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.67

1.2 0.65 4.2 0.78 7.2 0.61
1.3 0.75 4.3 0.56 7.3 0.72
1.4 0.55 4.4 0.69 7.4 0.61
1.5 0.69 4.5 0.70 7.5 0.30
1.6 0.86 4.6 0.70 7.6 0.43
4.7 0.76 7.7 0.71

4.8 0.55
2.1 0.51
2.2 0.81 8.1 0.52
Order and Security
2.3 0.75 5.1 0.81 8.2 0.45
2.4 0.19 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.30
5.3 0.37 8.4 0.47

8.5 0.69
3.1 0.58
8.6 0.61
3.2 0.62 6.1 0.61
8.7 0.56
3.3 0.64 6.2 0.63
Due process of law
3.4 0.60 6.3 0.56
6.4 0.44
6.5 0.70
Grenada Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.6 10/30 7/38 43/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.59 12/30 9/38 47/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Grenada Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.59 4.1 0.78 7.1 0.59

1.2 0.66 4.2 0.69 7.2 0.75
1.3 0.51 4.3 0.43 7.3 0.80
1.4 0.45 4.4 0.62 7.4 0.71
1.5 0.62 4.5 0.66 7.5 0.40
1.6 0.69 4.6 0.51 7.6 0.38
4.7 0.72 7.7 0.69

4.8 0.64
2.1 0.67
2.2 0.79 8.1 0.48
Order and Security
2.3 0.74 5.1 0.88 8.2 0.53
2.4 0.46 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.39
5.3 0.42 8.4 0.46

8.5 0.65
3.1 0.29
8.6 0.57
3.2 0.42 6.1 0.55
8.7 0.43
3.3 0.63 6.2 0.74
Due process of law
3.4 0.55 6.3 0.58
6.4 0.42
6.5 0.59
Guatemala Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.46 25/30 34/38 96/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.02 5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.54 17/30 14/38 61/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Guatemala Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.61 4.1 0.39 7.1 0.35

1.2 0.53 4.2 0.63 7.2 0.35
1.3 0.44 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.46
1.4 0.40 4.4 0.63 7.4 0.38
1.5 0.63 4.5 0.67 7.5 0.13
1.6 0.66 4.6 0.63 7.6 0.31
4.7 0.67 7.7 0.62

4.8 0.39
2.1 0.38
2.2 0.48 8.1 0.23
Order and Security
2.3 0.54 5.1 0.53 8.2 0.25
2.4 0.08 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.09
5.3 0.24 8.4 0.39

8.5 0.46
3.1 0.30
8.6 0.42
3.2 0.53 6.1 0.40
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.58 6.2 0.58
Due process of law
3.4 0.62 6.3 0.36
6.4 0.30
6.5 0.46
Guinea Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.44 20/30 13/20 105/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.39 23/30 16/20 107/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Guinea Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.48 4.1 0.55 7.1 0.47

1.2 0.27 4.2 0.46 7.2 0.49
1.3 0.32 4.3 0.35 7.3 0.14
1.4 0.28 4.4 0.54 7.4 0.33
1.5 0.54 4.5 0.74 7.5 0.45
1.6 0.48 4.6 0.37 7.6 0.50
4.7 0.62 7.7 0.51

4.8 0.53
2.1 0.27
2.2 0.26 8.1 0.26
Order and Security
2.3 0.34 5.1 0.77 8.2 0.28
2.4 0.26 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.24
5.3 0.48 8.4 0.53

8.5 0.29
3.1 0.17
8.6 0.24
3.2 0.41 6.1 0.38
8.7 0.35
3.3 0.52 6.2 0.42
Due process of law
3.4 0.44 6.3 0.41
6.4 0.49
6.5 0.46
Guyana Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 19/30 24/38 75/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.57 15/30 12/38 55/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Guyana Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.65 4.1 0.51 7.1 0.56

1.2 0.62 4.2 0.57 7.2 0.38
1.3 0.46 4.3 0.37 7.3 0.61
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.61 7.4 0.58
1.5 0.61 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.44
1.6 0.64 4.6 0.49 7.6 0.52
4.7 0.63 7.7 0.63

4.8 0.58
2.1 0.44
2.2 0.61 8.1 0.36
Order and Security
2.3 0.42 5.1 0.66 8.2 0.41
2.4 0.38 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.15
5.3 0.17 8.4 0.36

8.5 0.52
3.1 0.27
8.6 0.51
3.2 0.41 6.1 0.50
8.7 0.37
3.3 0.57 6.2 0.60
Due process of law
3.4 0.52 6.3 0.40
6.4 0.37
6.5 0.46
Honduras Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.4 28/30 24/30 115/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.37 27/30 24/30 111/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Honduras Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
1.1 0.46 4.1 0.46 7.1 0.45

1.2 0.35 4.2 0.27 7.2 0.41
1.3 0.33 4.3 0.31 7.3 0.38
1.4 0.27 4.4 0.48 7.4 0.29
1.5 0.48 4.5 0.53 7.5 0.28
1.6 0.33 4.6 0.20 7.6 0.42
4.7 0.53 7.7 0.67

4.8 0.49
2.1 0.36
2.2 0.39 8.1 0.19
Order and Security
2.3 0.46 5.1 0.50 8.2 0.28
2.4 0.13 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.14
5.3 0.31 8.4 0.27

8.5 0.40
3.1 0.28
8.6 0.21
3.2 0.44 6.1 0.37
8.7 0.31
3.3 0.46 6.2 0.54
Due process of law
3.4 0.52 6.3 0.40
6.4 0.20
6.5 0.48
Hong Kong SAR, China Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.77 5/15 16/38 16/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.65 7/15 27/38 31/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Hong Kong SAR, China East Asia & Pacific High
1.1 0.69 4.1 0.76 7.1 0.64

1.2 0.71 4.2 0.71 7.2 0.67
1.3 0.59 4.3 0.70 7.3 0.96
1.4 0.73 4.4 0.57 7.4 0.69
1.5 0.57 4.5 0.76 7.5 0.75
1.6 0.59 4.6 0.52 7.6 0.80
4.7 0.62 7.7 0.89

4.8 0.68
2.1 0.82
2.2 0.95 8.1 0.70
Order and Security
2.3 0.88 5.1 0.93 8.2 0.70
2.4 0.71 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.75
5.3 0.84 8.4 0.68

8.5 0.88
3.1 0.72
8.6 0.57
3.2 0.76 6.1 0.76
8.7 0.70
3.3 0.63 6.2 0.95
Due process of law
3.4 0.87 6.3 0.77
6.4 0.88
6.5 0.76
Hungary Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.53 24/24 37/38 57/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.41 24/24 38/38 103/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Hungary EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.35 4.1 0.44 7.1 0.55

1.2 0.41 4.2 0.80 7.2 0.27
1.3 0.41 4.3 0.58 7.3 0.65
1.4 0.33 4.4 0.48 7.4 0.36
1.5 0.48 4.5 0.52 7.5 0.33
1.6 0.50 4.6 0.66 7.6 0.41
4.7 0.48 7.7 0.62

4.8 0.69
2.1 0.46
2.2 0.69 8.1 0.52
Order and Security
2.3 0.69 5.1 0.92 8.2 0.57
2.4 0.19 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.41
5.3 0.80 8.4 0.26

8.5 0.64
3.1 0.55
8.6 0.37
3.2 0.39 6.1 0.53
8.7 0.58
3.3 0.41 6.2 0.63
Due process of law
3.4 0.47 6.3 0.42
6.4 0.32
6.5 0.47
Region: South Asia
India Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.51 3/6 7/30 68/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.61 1/6 3/30 40/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
India South Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.71 4.1 0.50 7.1 0.40

1.2 0.65 4.2 0.50 7.2 0.44
1.3 0.57 4.3 0.41 7.3 0.50
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.58 7.4 0.64
1.5 0.58 4.5 0.59 7.5 0.18
1.6 0.75 4.6 0.53 7.6 0.39
4.7 0.59 7.7 0.58

4.8 0.50
2.1 0.44
2.2 0.49 8.1 0.27
Order and Security
2.3 0.44 5.1 0.79 8.2 0.37
2.4 0.33 5.2 0.64 8.3 0.39
5.3 0.33 8.4 0.34

8.5 0.47
3.1 0.54
8.6 0.57
3.2 0.60 6.1 0.41
8.7 0.41
3.3 0.58 6.2 0.45
Due process of law
3.4 0.72 6.3 0.40
6.4 0.53
6.5 0.63
Indonesia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.52 9/15 5/30 62/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.66 6/15 2/30 29/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Indonesia East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
1.1 0.81 4.1 0.39 7.1 0.51

1.2 0.67 4.2 0.51 7.2 0.27
1.3 0.56 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.39
1.4 0.58 4.4 0.67 7.4 0.45
1.5 0.67 4.5 0.46 7.5 0.49
1.6 0.69 4.6 0.43 7.6 0.39
4.7 0.66 7.7 0.57

4.8 0.60
2.1 0.48
2.2 0.29 8.1 0.34
Order and Security
2.3 0.48 5.1 0.85 8.2 0.50
2.4 0.25 5.2 0.83 8.3 0.25
5.3 0.43 8.4 0.24

8.5 0.45
3.1 0.36
8.6 0.44
3.2 0.54 6.1 0.52
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.64 6.2 0.70
Due process of law
3.4 0.62 6.3 0.55
6.4 0.43
6.5 0.57
Iran Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.45 7/8 36/38 102/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.03 -16 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.39 7/8 33/38 109/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Iran Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle
1.1 0.41 4.1 0.45 7.1 0.62

1.2 0.37 4.2 0.28 7.2 0.38
1.3 0.42 4.3 0.45 7.3 0.44
1.4 0.42 4.4 0.21 7.4 0.47
1.5 0.21 4.5 0.07 7.5 0.56
1.6 0.51 4.6 0.14 7.6 0.57
4.7 0.12 7.7 0.79

4.8 0.26
2.1 0.39
2.2 0.54 8.1 0.30
Order and Security
2.3 0.54 5.1 0.76 8.2 0.49
2.4 0.33 5.2 0.85 8.3 0.55
5.3 0.62 8.4 0.43

8.5 0.43
3.1 0.36
8.6 0.28
3.2 0.33 6.1 0.36
8.7 0.45
3.3 0.18 6.2 0.45
Due process of law
3.4 0.30 6.3 0.49
6.4 0.53
6.5 0.56
Italy Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.65 19/24 27/38 28/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.71 17/24 23/38 24/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Italy EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.71 4.1 0.68 7.1 0.62

1.2 0.69 4.2 0.86 7.2 0.57
1.3 0.76 4.3 0.70 7.3 0.67
1.4 0.61 4.4 0.69 7.4 0.69
1.5 0.69 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.31
1.6 0.78 4.6 0.79 7.6 0.37
4.7 0.79 7.7 0.69

4.8 0.57
2.1 0.57
2.2 0.81 8.1 0.48
Order and Security
2.3 0.85 5.1 0.80 8.2 0.59
2.4 0.30 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.53
5.3 0.43 8.4 0.62

8.5 0.75
3.1 0.61
8.6 0.82
3.2 0.64 6.1 0.59
8.7 0.70
3.3 0.67 6.2 0.72
Due process of law
3.4 0.60 6.3 0.44
6.4 0.57
6.5 0.64
Jamaica Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.56 13/30 12/38 50/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.62 7/30 3/38 35/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Jamaica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.65 4.1 0.63 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.67 4.2 0.59 7.2 0.53
1.3 0.59 4.3 0.50 7.3 0.71
1.4 0.44 4.4 0.63 7.4 0.71
1.5 0.63 4.5 0.67 7.5 0.24
1.6 0.73 4.6 0.71 7.6 0.26
4.7 0.69 7.7 0.61

4.8 0.59
2.1 0.50
2.2 0.83 8.1 0.43
Order and Security
2.3 0.60 5.1 0.64 8.2 0.37
2.4 0.24 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.27
5.3 0.21 8.4 0.54

8.5 0.69
3.1 0.36
8.6 0.73
3.2 0.64 6.1 0.52
8.7 0.50
3.3 0.62 6.2 0.70
Due process of law
3.4 0.61 6.3 0.35
6.4 0.52
6.5 0.59
Japan Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.78 4/15 15/38 15/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.71 4/15 22/38 23/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Japan East Asia & Pacific High
1.1 0.61 4.1 0.84 7.1 0.70

1.2 0.70 4.2 0.94 7.2 0.80
1.3 0.70 4.3 0.74 7.3 0.94
1.4 0.73 4.4 0.72 7.4 0.77
1.5 0.72 4.5 0.68 7.5 0.71
1.6 0.81 4.6 0.82 7.6 0.75
4.7 0.73 7.7 0.88

4.8 0.79
2.1 0.79
2.2 0.97 8.1 0.66
Order and Security
2.3 0.93 5.1 0.93 8.2 0.64
2.4 0.58 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.81
5.3 0.84 8.4 0.74

8.5 0.91
3.1 0.74
8.6 0.70
3.2 0.62 6.1 0.72
8.7 0.74
3.3 0.68 6.2 0.95
Due process of law
3.4 0.71 6.3 0.75
6.4 0.73
6.5 0.76
Jordan Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.57 2/8 11/38 49/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.03 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.49 5/8 20/38 77/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Jordan Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle
1.1 0.55 4.1 0.71 7.1 0.58

1.2 0.46 4.2 0.61 7.2 0.74
1.3 0.58 4.3 0.48 7.3 0.74
1.4 0.54 4.4 0.43 7.4 0.63
1.5 0.43 4.5 0.39 7.5 0.39
1.6 0.41 4.6 0.40 7.6 0.61
4.7 0.40 7.7 0.76

4.8 0.52
2.1 0.56
2.2 0.72 8.1 0.47
Order and Security
2.3 0.77 5.1 0.85 8.2 0.69
2.4 0.28 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.54
5.3 0.45 8.4 0.60

8.5 0.69
3.1 0.33
8.6 0.60
3.2 0.56 6.1 0.45
8.7 0.48
3.3 0.38 6.2 0.69
Due process of law
3.4 0.36 6.3 0.52
6.4 0.60
6.5 0.65
Kazakhstan Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.52 4/13 18/38 65/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.43 8/13 31/38 100/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Kazakhstan Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
1.1 0.45 4.1 0.56 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.43 4.2 0.59 7.2 0.48
1.3 0.51 4.3 0.45 7.3 0.53
1.4 0.45 4.4 0.35 7.4 0.37
1.5 0.35 4.5 0.57 7.5 0.82
1.6 0.39 4.6 0.35 7.6 0.70
4.7 0.35 7.7 0.73

4.8 0.49
2.1 0.47
2.2 0.53 8.1 0.46
Order and Security
2.3 0.51 5.1 0.78 8.2 0.63
2.4 0.35 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.40
5.3 0.56 8.4 0.33

8.5 0.46
3.1 0.53
8.6 0.33
3.2 0.46 6.1 0.61
8.7 0.45
3.3 0.35 6.2 0.65
Due process of law
3.4 0.54 6.3 0.54
6.4 0.26
6.5 0.48
Kenya Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.45 17/30 18/30 101/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.49 15/30 12/30 78/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Kenya Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.63 4.1 0.48 7.1 0.42

1.2 0.52 4.2 0.27 7.2 0.51
1.3 0.48 4.3 0.38 7.3 0.44
1.4 0.32 4.4 0.53 7.4 0.52
1.5 0.53 4.5 0.63 7.5 0.31
1.6 0.48 4.6 0.20 7.6 0.47
4.7 0.60 7.7 0.64

4.8 0.56
2.1 0.30
2.2 0.46 8.1 0.34
Order and Security
2.3 0.25 5.1 0.59 8.2 0.41
2.4 0.08 5.2 0.73 8.3 0.37
5.3 0.36 8.4 0.34

8.5 0.31
3.1 0.28
8.6 0.50
3.2 0.40 6.1 0.44
8.7 0.38
3.3 0.58 6.2 0.47
Due process of law
3.4 0.71 6.3 0.43
6.4 0.36
6.5 0.58
Kyrgyzstan Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.48 10/13 13/30 85/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.48 3/13 14/30 82/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Kyrgyzstan Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.56 4.1 0.49 7.1 0.60

1.2 0.31 4.2 0.47 7.2 0.55
1.3 0.41 4.3 0.33 7.3 0.37
1.4 0.47 4.4 0.59 7.4 0.35
1.5 0.59 4.5 0.57 7.5 0.49
1.6 0.53 4.6 0.33 7.6 0.41
4.7 0.62 7.7 0.63

4.8 0.54
2.1 0.37
2.2 0.37 8.1 0.38
Order and Security
2.3 0.37 5.1 0.78 8.2 0.49
2.4 0.15 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.22
5.3 0.48 8.4 0.31

8.5 0.29
3.1 0.53
8.6 0.16
3.2 0.55 6.1 0.52
8.7 0.33
3.3 0.58 6.2 0.41
Due process of law
3.4 0.50 6.3 0.55
6.4 0.32
6.5 0.45
Lebanon Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.47 6/8 32/38 89/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.52 4/8 18/38 73/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Lebanon Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle
1.1 0.75 4.1 0.46 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.47 4.2 0.49 7.2 0.41
1.3 0.41 4.3 0.45 7.3 0.41
1.4 0.33 4.4 0.60 7.4 0.37
1.5 0.60 4.5 0.54 7.5 0.35
1.6 0.54 4.6 0.40 7.6 0.45
4.7 0.65 7.7 0.53

4.8 0.55
2.1 0.36
2.2 0.49 8.1 0.49
Order and Security
2.3 0.54 5.1 0.70 8.2 0.44
2.4 0.18 5.2 0.85 8.3 0.33
5.3 0.35 8.4 0.21

8.5 0.46
3.1 0.27
8.6 0.27
3.2 0.45 6.1 0.44
8.7 0.45
3.3 0.54 6.2 0.43
Due process of law
3.4 0.49 6.3 0.44
6.4 0.48
6.5 0.42
Liberia Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.46 14/30 8/20 97/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.53 12/30 7/20 69/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Liberia Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.58 4.1 0.47 7.1 0.50

1.2 0.54 4.2 0.53 7.2 0.47
1.3 0.44 4.3 0.37 7.3 0.32
1.4 0.35 4.4 0.62 7.4 0.44
1.5 0.62 4.5 0.66 7.5 0.37
1.6 0.65 4.6 0.42 7.6 0.49
4.7 0.64 7.7 0.50

4.8 0.46
2.1 0.31
2.2 0.30 8.1 0.29
Order and Security
2.3 0.41 5.1 0.49 8.2 0.28
2.4 0.25 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.22
5.3 0.34 8.4 0.37

8.5 0.38
3.1 0.18
8.6 0.35
3.2 0.46 6.1 0.38
8.7 0.37
3.3 0.61 6.2 0.40
Due process of law
3.4 0.71 6.3 0.41
6.4 0.48
6.5 0.50
Macedonia, FYR Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.54 2/13 15/38 56/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.47 4/13 25/38 87/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Macedonia, FYR Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
1.1 0.59 4.1 0.61 7.1 0.62

1.2 0.38 4.2 0.64 7.2 0.65
1.3 0.49 4.3 0.56 7.3 0.38
1.4 0.36 4.4 0.49 7.4 0.40
1.5 0.49 4.5 0.71 7.5 0.53
1.6 0.51 4.6 0.37 7.6 0.66
4.7 0.59 7.7 0.72

4.8 0.58
2.1 0.41
2.2 0.53 8.1 0.47
Order and Security
2.3 0.68 5.1 0.78 8.2 0.50
2.4 0.24 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.37
5.3 0.59 8.4 0.50

8.5 0.53
3.1 0.50
8.6 0.39
3.2 0.51 6.1 0.46
8.7 0.56
3.3 0.50 6.2 0.48
Due process of law
3.4 0.45 6.3 0.49
6.4 0.42
6.5 0.54
Madagascar Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.43 22/30 14/20 107/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.44 19/30 12/20 97/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Madagascar Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.46 4.1 0.57 7.1 0.41

1.2 0.39 4.2 0.40 7.2 0.46
1.3 0.42 4.3 0.34 7.3 0.29
1.4 0.37 4.4 0.49 7.4 0.31
1.5 0.49 4.5 0.62 7.5 0.49
1.6 0.50 4.6 0.25 7.6 0.33
4.7 0.55 7.7 0.54

4.8 0.57
2.1 0.32
2.2 0.26 8.1 0.34
Order and Security
2.3 0.35 5.1 0.66 8.2 0.48
2.4 0.13 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.20
5.3 0.47 8.4 0.39

8.5 0.33
3.1 0.33
8.6 0.33
3.2 0.45 6.1 0.31
8.7 0.34
3.3 0.50 6.2 0.32
Due process of law
3.4 0.55 6.3 0.40
6.4 0.25
6.5 0.45
Malawi Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.51 8/30 4/20 67/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.56 8/30 4/20 57/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Malawi Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.55 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.45

1.2 0.63 4.2 0.64 7.2 0.59
1.3 0.51 4.3 0.39 7.3 0.49
1.4 0.44 4.4 0.59 7.4 0.68
1.5 0.59 4.5 0.71 7.5 0.44
1.6 0.62 4.6 0.61 7.6 0.57
4.7 0.71 7.7 0.55

4.8 0.53
2.1 0.39
2.2 0.54 8.1 0.35
Order and Security
2.3 0.41 5.1 0.69 8.2 0.49
2.4 0.34 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.30
5.3 0.35 8.4 0.48

8.5 0.46
3.1 0.18
8.6 0.65
3.2 0.40 6.1 0.39
8.7 0.39
3.3 0.61 6.2 0.39
Due process of law
3.4 0.54 6.3 0.36
6.4 0.54
6.5 0.59
Malaysia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.55 7/15 13/38 51/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.02 5 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.54 9/15 15/38 65/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Malaysia East Asia & Pacific Upper Middle
1.1 0.55 4.1 0.49 7.1 0.58

1.2 0.58 4.2 0.53 7.2 0.55
1.3 0.53 4.3 0.54 7.3 0.66
1.4 0.55 4.4 0.46 7.4 0.49
1.5 0.46 4.5 0.38 7.5 0.67
1.6 0.54 4.6 0.38 7.6 0.61
4.7 0.44 7.7 0.61

4.8 0.60
2.1 0.56
2.2 0.74 8.1 0.62
Order and Security
2.3 0.62 5.1 0.75 8.2 0.57
2.4 0.41 5.2 0.94 8.3 0.55
5.3 0.61 8.4 0.47

8.5 0.65
3.1 0.30
8.6 0.39
3.2 0.40 6.1 0.50
8.7 0.54
3.3 0.45 6.2 0.70
Due process of law
3.4 0.39 6.3 0.50
6.4 0.50
6.5 0.45
Mali Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.45 18/30 11/20 103/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.48 17/30 10/20 83/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Mali Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.59 4.1 0.62 7.1 0.40

1.2 0.43 4.2 0.40 7.2 0.48
1.3 0.40 4.3 0.35 7.3 0.09
1.4 0.26 4.4 0.54 7.4 0.44
1.5 0.54 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.57
1.6 0.62 4.6 0.29 7.6 0.50
4.7 0.60 7.7 0.48

4.8 0.74
2.1 0.40
2.2 0.18 8.1 0.25
Order and Security
2.3 0.31 5.1 0.63 8.2 0.29
2.4 0.36 5.2 0.59 8.3 0.26
5.3 0.46 8.4 0.26

8.5 0.24
3.1 0.25
8.6 0.30
3.2 0.42 6.1 0.44
8.7 0.35
3.3 0.55 6.2 0.50
Due process of law
3.4 0.52 6.3 0.52
6.4 0.62
6.5 0.63
Mauritania Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.35 29/30 29/30 122/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.30 30/30 27/30 121/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Mauritania Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.33 4.1 0.39 7.1 0.38

1.2 0.18 4.2 0.49 7.2 0.28
1.3 0.31 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.26
1.4 0.25 4.4 0.37 7.4 0.19
1.5 0.37 4.5 0.19 7.5 0.41
1.6 0.34 4.6 0.29 7.6 0.27
4.7 0.53 7.7 0.49

4.8 0.43
2.1 0.27
2.2 0.42 8.1 0.25
Order and Security
2.3 0.29 5.1 0.60 8.2 0.44
2.4 0.25 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.32
5.3 0.36 8.4 0.31

8.5 0.31
3.1 0.12
8.6 0.09
3.2 0.27 6.1 0.22
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.38 6.2 0.33
Due process of law
3.4 0.25 6.3 0.32
6.4 0.06
6.5 0.35
Mauritius Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.61 2/30 5/38 37/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.60 4/30 7/38 44/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Mauritius Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle
1.1 0.61 4.1 0.60 7.1 0.63

1.2 0.67 4.2 0.72 7.2 0.75
1.3 0.41 4.3 0.56 7.3 0.75
1.4 0.53 4.4 0.62 7.4 0.73
1.5 0.62 4.5 0.76 7.5 0.29
1.6 0.75 4.6 0.58 7.6 0.65
4.7 0.67 7.7 0.65

4.8 0.66
2.1 0.60
2.2 0.79 8.1 0.40
Order and Security
2.3 0.66 5.1 0.83 8.2 0.42
2.4 0.30 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.48
5.3 0.47 8.4 0.49

8.5 0.68
3.1 0.60
8.6 0.65
3.2 0.41 6.1 0.68
8.7 0.56
3.3 0.61 6.2 0.82
Due process of law
3.4 0.53 6.3 0.52
6.4 0.54
6.5 0.58
Mexico Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.45 26/30 35/38 99/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.47 22/30 23/38 84/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Mexico Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.56 4.1 0.36 7.1 0.43

1.2 0.45 4.2 0.49 7.2 0.33
1.3 0.44 4.3 0.42 7.3 0.34
1.4 0.26 4.4 0.52 7.4 0.47
1.5 0.52 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.28
1.6 0.59 4.6 0.59 7.6 0.40
4.7 0.65 7.7 0.56

4.8 0.52
2.1 0.32
2.2 0.34 8.1 0.22
Order and Security
2.3 0.34 5.1 0.44 8.2 0.31
2.4 0.17 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.18
5.3 0.25 8.4 0.26

8.5 0.29
3.1 0.67
8.6 0.36
3.2 0.62 6.1 0.51
8.7 0.42
3.3 0.55 6.2 0.51
Due process of law
3.4 0.59 6.3 0.37
6.4 0.37
6.5 0.56
Moldova Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.49 9/13 11/30 83/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.43 7/13 19/30 99/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Moldova Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.57 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.50

1.2 0.34 4.2 0.67 7.2 0.42
1.3 0.42 4.3 0.46 7.3 0.32
1.4 0.29 4.4 0.50 7.4 0.31
1.5 0.50 4.5 0.62 7.5 0.49
1.6 0.47 4.6 0.44 7.6 0.60
4.7 0.60 7.7 0.63

4.8 0.49
2.1 0.34
2.2 0.35 8.1 0.25
Order and Security
2.3 0.49 5.1 0.81 8.2 0.45
2.4 0.12 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.36
5.3 0.60 8.4 0.39

8.5 0.34
3.1 0.61
8.6 0.15
3.2 0.51 6.1 0.53
8.7 0.46
3.3 0.52 6.2 0.43
Due process of law
3.4 0.56 6.3 0.46
6.4 0.29
6.5 0.40
Mongolia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.55 8/15 3/30 53/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.54 8/15 7/30 62/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Mongolia East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
1.1 0.68 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.51 4.2 0.64 7.2 0.53
1.3 0.48 4.3 0.49 7.3 0.49
1.4 0.40 4.4 0.63 7.4 0.50
1.5 0.63 4.5 0.66 7.5 0.63
1.6 0.57 4.6 0.44 7.6 0.48
4.7 0.68 7.7 0.64

4.8 0.54
2.1 0.46
2.2 0.51 8.1 0.41
Order and Security
2.3 0.63 5.1 0.83 8.2 0.59
2.4 0.17 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.50
5.3 0.47 8.4 0.54

8.5 0.55
3.1 0.40
8.6 0.39
3.2 0.53 6.1 0.58
8.7 0.49
3.3 0.62 6.2 0.47
Due process of law
3.4 0.50 6.3 0.56
6.4 0.34
6.5 0.49
Morocco Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.5 5/8 8/30 74/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.53 3/8 9/30 68/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Morocco Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.62 4.1 0.66 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.54 4.2 0.38 7.2 0.53
1.3 0.46 4.3 0.38 7.3 0.42
1.4 0.48 4.4 0.48 7.4 0.48
1.5 0.48 4.5 0.43 7.5 0.66
1.6 0.62 4.6 0.24 7.6 0.48
4.7 0.50 7.7 0.66

4.8 0.59
2.1 0.47
2.2 0.46 8.1 0.45
Order and Security
2.3 0.45 5.1 0.65 8.2 0.42
2.4 0.38 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.38
5.3 0.43 8.4 0.35

8.5 0.41
3.1 0.37
8.6 0.27
3.2 0.46 6.1 0.48
8.7 0.38
3.3 0.46 6.2 0.57
Due process of law
3.4 0.46 6.3 0.50
6.4 0.50
6.5 0.64
Mozambique Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.43 23/30 15/20 108/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.45 18/30 11/20 94/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Mozambique Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.54 4.1 0.56 7.1 0.46

1.2 0.43 4.2 0.26 7.2 0.51
1.3 0.46 4.3 0.26 7.3 0.44
1.4 0.43 4.4 0.41 7.4 0.34
1.5 0.41 4.5 0.68 7.5 0.32
1.6 0.44 4.6 0.26 7.6 0.55
4.7 0.48 7.7 0.61

4.8 0.47
2.1 0.33
2.2 0.37 8.1 0.26
Order and Security
2.3 0.44 5.1 0.61 8.2 0.29
2.4 0.35 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.15
5.3 0.25 8.4 0.51

8.5 0.42
3.1 0.18
8.6 0.52
3.2 0.36 6.1 0.41
8.7 0.26
3.3 0.44 6.2 0.45
Due process of law
3.4 0.51 6.3 0.45
6.4 0.25
6.5 0.35
Myanmar Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.42 14/15 20/30 110/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.45 13/15 18/30 95/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Myanmar East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
1.1 0.48 4.1 0.42 7.1 0.36

1.2 0.44 4.2 0.17 7.2 0.24
1.3 0.32 4.3 0.20 7.3 0.32
1.4 0.47 4.4 0.40 7.4 0.24
1.5 0.40 4.5 0.27 7.5 0.45
1.6 0.59 4.6 0.15 7.6 0.40
4.7 0.35 7.7 0.50

4.8 0.54
2.1 0.57
2.2 0.26 8.1 0.40
Order and Security
2.3 0.44 5.1 0.85 8.2 0.36
2.4 0.60 5.2 0.63 8.3 0.27
5.3 0.49 8.4 0.19

8.5 0.41
3.1 0.20
8.6 0.19
3.2 0.35 6.1 0.49
8.7 0.20
3.3 0.42 6.2 0.61
Due process of law
3.4 0.42 6.3 0.50
6.4 0.38
6.5 0.34
Namibia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.62 1/30 3/38 34/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.68 2/30 2/38 28/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Namibia Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle
1.1 0.73 4.1 0.56 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.81 4.2 0.70 7.2 0.65
1.3 0.55 4.3 0.56 7.3 0.81
1.4 0.60 4.4 0.75 7.4 0.76
1.5 0.66 4.5 0.74 7.5 0.45
1.6 0.74 4.6 0.54 7.6 0.71
4.7 0.75 7.7 0.74

4.8 0.69
2.1 0.46
2.2 0.84 8.1 0.37
Order and Security
2.3 0.53 5.1 0.70 8.2 0.38
2.4 0.30 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.46
5.3 0.50 8.4 0.62

8.5 0.64
3.1 0.32
8.6 0.77
3.2 0.55 6.1 0.49
8.7 0.56
3.3 0.73 6.2 0.66
Due process of law
3.4 0.71 6.3 0.53
6.4 0.56
6.5 0.68
Region: South Asia
Nepal Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.53 1/6 3/20 59/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.60 2/6 1/20 43/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Nepal South Asia Low
1.1 0.75 4.1 0.49 7.1 0.48

1.2 0.62 4.2 0.47 7.2 0.39
1.3 0.50 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.41
1.4 0.44 4.4 0.64 7.4 0.49
1.5 0.64 4.5 0.62 7.5 0.53
1.6 0.66 4.6 0.49 7.6 0.46
4.7 0.65 7.7 0.53

4.8 0.57
2.1 0.47
2.2 0.43 8.1 0.47
Order and Security
2.3 0.61 5.1 0.77 8.2 0.56
2.4 0.21 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.39
5.3 0.40 8.4 0.37

8.5 0.52
3.1 0.30
8.6 0.40
3.2 0.51 6.1 0.47
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.62 6.2 0.57
Due process of law
3.4 0.65 6.3 0.52
6.4 0.43
6.5 0.52
Netherlands Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.84 5/24 5/38 5/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.86 5/24 5/38 5/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Netherlands EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.84 4.1 0.83 7.1 0.81

1.2 0.85 4.2 0.96 7.2 0.88
1.3 0.87 4.3 0.84 7.3 0.93
1.4 0.84 4.4 0.84 7.4 0.89
1.5 0.84 4.5 0.78 7.5 0.73
1.6 0.90 4.6 0.82 7.6 0.91
4.7 0.86 7.7 0.85

4.8 0.81
2.1 0.85
2.2 0.97 8.1 0.55
Order and Security
2.3 0.91 5.1 0.90 8.2 0.70
2.4 0.80 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.78
5.3 0.65 8.4 0.73

8.5 0.89
3.1 0.79
8.6 0.86
3.2 0.73 6.1 0.78
8.7 0.84
3.3 0.84 6.2 0.89
Due process of law
3.4 0.94 6.3 0.84
6.4 0.83
6.5 0.94
New Zealand Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.82 1/15 8/38 8/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.85 1/15 7/38 7/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
New Zealand East Asia & Pacific High
1.1 0.84 4.1 0.72 7.1 0.72

1.2 0.86 4.2 0.91 7.2 0.70
1.3 0.83 4.3 0.76 7.3 0.93
1.4 0.81 4.4 0.83 7.4 0.85
1.5 0.83 4.5 0.83 7.5 0.75
1.6 0.92 4.6 0.79 7.6 0.69
4.7 0.83 7.7 0.81

4.8 0.76
2.1 0.86
2.2 0.95 8.1 0.59
Order and Security
2.3 0.92 5.1 0.89 8.2 0.72
2.4 0.76 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.64
5.3 0.78 8.4 0.59

8.5 0.89
3.1 0.85
8.6 0.85
3.2 0.76 6.1 0.78
8.7 0.76
3.3 0.82 6.2 0.96
Due process of law
3.4 0.83 6.3 0.83
6.4 0.87
6.5 0.83
Nicaragua Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.4 27/30 23/30 114/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.03 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.27 29/30 30/30 125/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Nicaragua Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle
1.1 0.33 4.1 0.39 7.1 0.49

1.2 0.29 4.2 0.36 7.2 0.41
1.3 0.20 4.3 0.28 7.3 0.35
1.4 0.14 4.4 0.40 7.4 0.17
1.5 0.40 4.5 0.63 7.5 0.42
1.6 0.26 4.6 0.18 7.6 0.47
4.7 0.41 7.7 0.58

4.8 0.48
2.1 0.42
2.2 0.30 8.1 0.31
Order and Security
2.3 0.46 5.1 0.67 8.2 0.45
2.4 0.20 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.26
5.3 0.44 8.4 0.21

8.5 0.38
3.1 0.34
8.6 0.07
3.2 0.25 6.1 0.44
8.7 0.28
3.3 0.39 6.2 0.60
Due process of law
3.4 0.53 6.3 0.47
6.4 0.33
6.5 0.43
Niger Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.44 19/30 12/20 104/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.42 20/30 14/20 102/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Niger Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.55 4.1 0.61 7.1 0.34

1.2 0.43 4.2 0.42 7.2 0.56
1.3 0.22 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.38
1.4 0.34 4.4 0.42 7.4 0.32
1.5 0.42 4.5 0.62 7.5 0.43
1.6 0.55 4.6 0.27 7.6 0.37
4.7 0.55 7.7 0.61

4.8 0.64
2.1 0.47
2.2 0.48 8.1 0.24
Order and Security
2.3 0.48 5.1 0.71 8.2 0.36
2.4 0.29 5.2 0.69 8.3 0.23
5.3 0.55 8.4 0.58

8.5 0.46
3.1 0.25
8.6 0.09
3.2 0.27 6.1 0.47
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.43 6.2 0.53
Due process of law
3.4 0.45 6.3 0.42
6.4 0.44
6.5 0.33
Nigeria Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.43 21/30 19/30 106/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.54 11/30 8/30 64/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Nigeria Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.69 4.1 0.51 7.1 0.59

1.2 0.53 4.2 0.30 7.2 0.52
1.3 0.49 4.3 0.37 7.3 0.49
1.4 0.46 4.4 0.51 7.4 0.49
1.5 0.51 4.5 0.53 7.5 0.22
1.6 0.54 4.6 0.40 7.6 0.43
4.7 0.58 7.7 0.67

4.8 0.47
2.1 0.32
2.2 0.50 8.1 0.42
Order and Security
2.3 0.36 5.1 0.55 8.2 0.43
2.4 0.18 5.2 0.08 8.3 0.33
5.3 0.43 8.4 0.56

8.5 0.36
3.1 0.20
8.6 0.51
3.2 0.39 6.1 0.40
8.7 0.37
3.3 0.52 6.2 0.51
Due process of law
3.4 0.60 6.3 0.34
6.4 0.41
6.5 0.49
Norway Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.89 2/24 2/38 2/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.94 2/24 2/38 2/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Norway EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.97 4.1 0.80 7.1 0.71

1.2 0.95 4.2 0.95 7.2 0.68
1.3 0.91 4.3 0.91 7.3 0.96
1.4 0.88 4.4 0.94 7.4 0.93
1.5 0.94 4.5 0.88 7.5 0.83
1.6 0.98 4.6 0.88 7.6 0.91
4.7 0.95 7.7 0.96

4.8 0.88
2.1 0.92
2.2 0.99 8.1 0.65
Order and Security
2.3 0.96 5.1 0.96 8.2 0.75
2.4 0.91 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.86
5.3 0.82 8.4 0.76

8.5 0.96
3.1 0.88
8.6 0.92
3.2 0.87 6.1 0.83
8.7 0.91
3.3 0.91 6.2 0.99
Due process of law
3.4 0.87 6.3 0.79
6.4 0.83
6.5 0.91
Region: South Asia
Pakistan Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.39 5/6 25/30 117/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.52 4/6 11/30 74/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Pakistan South Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.60 4.1 0.36 7.1 0.39

1.2 0.56 4.2 0.23 7.2 0.40
1.3 0.44 4.3 0.30 7.3 0.32
1.4 0.38 4.4 0.59 7.4 0.50
1.5 0.59 4.5 0.47 7.5 0.29
1.6 0.53 4.6 0.22 7.6 0.28
4.7 0.61 7.7 0.48

4.8 0.26
2.1 0.36
2.2 0.39 8.1 0.27
Order and Security
2.3 0.27 5.1 0.57 8.2 0.34
2.4 0.25 5.2 0.19 8.3 0.28
5.3 0.32 8.4 0.30

8.5 0.36
3.1 0.26
8.6 0.61
3.2 0.45 6.1 0.39
8.7 0.30
3.3 0.57 6.2 0.45
Due process of law
3.4 0.50 6.3 0.33
6.4 0.18
6.5 0.54
Panama Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.52 16/30 38/38 64/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.53 18/30 37/38 66/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Panama Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.55 4.1 0.48 7.1 0.59

1.2 0.46 4.2 0.72 7.2 0.46
1.3 0.43 4.3 0.48 7.3 0.46
1.4 0.32 4.4 0.67 7.4 0.38
1.5 0.67 4.5 0.68 7.5 0.33
1.6 0.77 4.6 0.56 7.6 0.52
4.7 0.71 7.7 0.67

4.8 0.64
2.1 0.44
2.2 0.47 8.1 0.32
Order and Security
2.3 0.54 5.1 0.64 8.2 0.31
2.4 0.23 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.19
5.3 0.40 8.4 0.25

8.5 0.45
3.1 0.41
8.6 0.20
3.2 0.63 6.1 0.48
8.7 0.48
3.3 0.64 6.2 0.56
Due process of law
3.4 0.69 6.3 0.53
6.4 0.47
6.5 0.54
Peru Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.51 18/30 21/38 70/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -7 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.61 8/30 6/38 38/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Peru Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.74 4.1 0.53 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.51 4.2 0.70 7.2 0.50
1.3 0.55 4.3 0.41 7.3 0.38
1.4 0.42 4.4 0.70 7.4 0.49
1.5 0.70 4.5 0.79 7.5 0.19
1.6 0.76 4.6 0.59 7.6 0.45
4.7 0.76 7.7 0.71

4.8 0.53
2.1 0.40
2.2 0.41 8.1 0.24
Order and Security
2.3 0.36 5.1 0.58 8.2 0.25
2.4 0.16 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.23
5.3 0.34 8.4 0.48

8.5 0.30
3.1 0.37
8.6 0.41
3.2 0.57 6.1 0.50
8.7 0.41
3.3 0.63 6.2 0.57
Due process of law
3.4 0.61 6.3 0.37
6.4 0.41
6.5 0.64
Philippines Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.47 13/15 14/30 90/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.53 10/15 10/30 71/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Philippines East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
1.1 0.58 4.1 0.43 7.1 0.49

1.2 0.52 4.2 0.21 7.2 0.42
1.3 0.53 4.3 0.31 7.3 0.50
1.4 0.42 4.4 0.56 7.4 0.38
1.5 0.56 4.5 0.63 7.5 0.32
1.6 0.55 4.6 0.31 7.6 0.43
4.7 0.57 7.7 0.57

4.8 0.37
2.1 0.51
2.2 0.41 8.1 0.41
Order and Security
2.3 0.53 5.1 0.66 8.2 0.30
2.4 0.42 5.2 0.52 8.3 0.19
5.3 0.53 8.4 0.23

8.5 0.49
3.1 0.44
8.6 0.23
3.2 0.63 6.1 0.46
8.7 0.31
3.3 0.55 6.2 0.61
Due process of law
3.4 0.52 6.3 0.38
6.4 0.40
6.5 0.51
Poland Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.66 18/24 26/38 27/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.58 21/24 33/38 50/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Poland EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.45 4.1 0.69 7.1 0.62

1.2 0.52 4.2 0.77 7.2 0.79
1.3 0.58 4.3 0.64 7.3 0.77
1.4 0.56 4.4 0.62 7.4 0.50
1.5 0.62 4.5 0.58 7.5 0.37
1.6 0.75 4.6 0.65 7.6 0.59
4.7 0.63 7.7 0.81

4.8 0.67
2.1 0.64
2.2 0.87 8.1 0.53
Order and Security
2.3 0.87 5.1 0.93 8.2 0.57
2.4 0.53 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.60
5.3 0.64 8.4 0.63

8.5 0.80
3.1 0.60
8.6 0.50
3.2 0.56 6.1 0.63
8.7 0.64
3.3 0.62 6.2 0.86
Due process of law
3.4 0.72 6.3 0.53
6.4 0.49
6.5 0.60
Portugal Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.71 16/24 22/38 22/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.79 12/24 14/38 14/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Portugal EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.84 4.1 0.71 7.1 0.69

1.2 0.77 4.2 0.89 7.2 0.81
1.3 0.76 4.3 0.66 7.3 0.79
1.4 0.64 4.4 0.81 7.4 0.78
1.5 0.81 4.5 0.83 7.5 0.42
1.6 0.93 4.6 0.84 7.6 0.52
4.7 0.86 7.7 0.81

4.8 0.71
2.1 0.66
2.2 0.88 8.1 0.49
Order and Security
2.3 0.87 5.1 0.90 8.2 0.45
2.4 0.48 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.51
5.3 0.46 8.4 0.50

8.5 0.79
3.1 0.56
8.6 0.84
3.2 0.62 6.1 0.64
8.7 0.66
3.3 0.78 6.2 0.81
Due process of law
3.4 0.73 6.3 0.54
6.4 0.52
6.5 0.69
Republic of Korea Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.73 6/15 18/38 18/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.72 3/15 21/38 22/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Republic of Korea East Asia & Pacific High
1.1 0.65 4.1 0.68 7.1 0.66

1.2 0.61 4.2 0.92 7.2 0.70
1.3 0.82 4.3 0.78 7.3 0.77
1.4 0.69 4.4 0.65 7.4 0.73
1.5 0.65 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.83
1.6 0.88 4.6 0.83 7.6 0.83
4.7 0.69 7.7 0.86

4.8 0.60
2.1 0.70
2.2 0.88 8.1 0.60
Order and Security
2.3 0.76 5.1 0.90 8.2 0.79
2.4 0.35 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.68
5.3 0.63 8.4 0.69

8.5 0.66
3.1 0.69
8.6 0.74
3.2 0.75 6.1 0.54
8.7 0.78
3.3 0.65 6.2 0.78
Due process of law
3.4 0.68 6.3 0.83
6.4 0.71
6.5 0.79
Romania Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.64 20/24 2/38 31/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.62 20/24 4/38 36/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Romania EU & EFTA & North America Upper Middle
1.1 0.67 4.1 0.72 7.1 0.58

1.2 0.58 4.2 0.82 7.2 0.72
1.3 0.53 4.3 0.62 7.3 0.63
1.4 0.55 4.4 0.68 7.4 0.65
1.5 0.68 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.51
1.6 0.71 4.6 0.61 7.6 0.63
4.7 0.67 7.7 0.79

4.8 0.73
2.1 0.50
2.2 0.74 8.1 0.56
Order and Security
2.3 0.77 5.1 0.92 8.2 0.50
2.4 0.28 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.40
5.3 0.60 8.4 0.63

8.5 0.66
3.1 0.59
8.6 0.61
3.2 0.57 6.1 0.60
8.7 0.62
3.3 0.61 6.2 0.67
Due process of law
3.4 0.72 6.3 0.50
6.4 0.42
6.5 0.68
Russia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.47 11/13 31/38 88/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 6 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.37 10/13 34/38 112/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Russia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
1.1 0.35 4.1 0.57 7.1 0.58

1.2 0.34 4.2 0.48 7.2 0.52
1.3 0.39 4.3 0.38 7.3 0.54
1.4 0.33 4.4 0.39 7.4 0.32
1.5 0.39 4.5 0.57 7.5 0.70
1.6 0.41 4.6 0.24 7.6 0.42
4.7 0.41 7.7 0.55

4.8 0.56
2.1 0.43
2.2 0.57 8.1 0.24
Order and Security
2.3 0.53 5.1 0.75 8.2 0.36
2.4 0.27 5.2 0.85 8.3 0.38
5.3 0.39 8.4 0.38

8.5 0.48
3.1 0.57
8.6 0.15
3.2 0.40 6.1 0.54
8.7 0.38
3.3 0.39 6.2 0.56
Due process of law
3.4 0.62 6.3 0.58
6.4 0.40
6.5 0.37
Rwanda Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.61 3/30 1/20 40/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.60 5/30 2/20 45/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Rwanda Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.57 4.1 0.68 7.1 0.68

1.2 0.55 4.2 0.44 7.2 0.77
1.3 0.63 4.3 0.50 7.3 0.50
1.4 0.71 4.4 0.46 7.4 0.54
1.5 0.46 4.5 0.56 7.5 0.74
1.6 0.67 4.6 0.29 7.6 0.58
4.7 0.59 7.7 0.62

4.8 0.65
2.1 0.68
2.2 0.56 8.1 0.45
Order and Security
2.3 0.65 5.1 0.75 8.2 0.61
2.4 0.51 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.45
5.3 0.77 8.4 0.71

8.5 0.64
3.1 0.60
8.6 0.46
3.2 0.55 6.1 0.62
8.7 0.50
3.3 0.54 6.2 0.69
Due process of law
3.4 0.60 6.3 0.41
6.4 0.43
6.5 0.69
Senegal Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.55 7/30 2/20 52/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.58 7/30 3/20 51/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Senegal Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.57 4.1 0.69 7.1 0.49

1.2 0.46 4.2 0.54 7.2 0.68
1.3 0.55 4.3 0.45 7.3 0.52
1.4 0.50 4.4 0.64 7.4 0.41
1.5 0.64 4.5 0.79 7.5 0.64
1.6 0.75 4.6 0.34 7.6 0.60
4.7 0.71 7.7 0.59

4.8 0.65
2.1 0.49
2.2 0.60 8.1 0.53
Order and Security
2.3 0.67 5.1 0.67 8.2 0.46
2.4 0.41 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.32
5.3 0.40 8.4 0.55

8.5 0.59
3.1 0.33
8.6 0.21
3.2 0.47 6.1 0.55
8.7 0.45
3.3 0.63 6.2 0.66
Due process of law
3.4 0.35 6.3 0.41
6.4 0.49
6.5 0.63
Serbia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 8/13 26/38 78/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.40 9/13 32/38 106/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Serbia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
1.1 0.42 4.1 0.62 7.1 0.60

1.2 0.35 4.2 0.60 7.2 0.69
1.3 0.40 4.3 0.46 7.3 0.47
1.4 0.27 4.4 0.48 7.4 0.34
1.5 0.48 4.5 0.70 7.5 0.31
1.6 0.47 4.6 0.38 7.6 0.48
4.7 0.59 7.7 0.60

4.8 0.66
2.1 0.46
2.2 0.49 8.1 0.36
Order and Security
2.3 0.54 5.1 0.87 8.2 0.45
2.4 0.26 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.36
5.3 0.45 8.4 0.38

8.5 0.42
3.1 0.52
8.6 0.23
3.2 0.48 6.1 0.49
8.7 0.46
3.3 0.47 6.2 0.55
Due process of law
3.4 0.41 6.3 0.45
6.4 0.36
6.5 0.53
Sierra Leone Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.45 15/30 9/20 98/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.51 14/30 9/20 75/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Sierra Leone Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.59 4.1 0.51 7.1 0.49

1.2 0.43 4.2 0.50 7.2 0.43
1.3 0.51 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.31
1.4 0.38 4.4 0.59 7.4 0.30
1.5 0.59 4.5 0.70 7.5 0.38
1.6 0.59 4.6 0.36 7.6 0.47
4.7 0.64 7.7 0.48

4.8 0.48
2.1 0.38
2.2 0.33 8.1 0.42
Order and Security
2.3 0.38 5.1 0.61 8.2 0.31
2.4 0.33 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.22
5.3 0.44 8.4 0.52

8.5 0.39
3.1 0.10
8.6 0.23
3.2 0.48 6.1 0.43
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.57 6.2 0.42
Due process of law
3.4 0.54 6.3 0.33
6.4 0.29
6.5 0.40
Singapore Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.8 3/15 13/38 13/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.69 5/15 25/38 27/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Singapore East Asia & Pacific High
1.1 0.54 4.1 0.84 7.1 0.65

1.2 0.74 4.2 0.81 7.2 0.86
1.3 0.70 4.3 0.74 7.3 0.85
1.4 0.90 4.4 0.50 7.4 0.71
1.5 0.50 4.5 0.81 7.5 0.95
1.6 0.75 4.6 0.61 7.6 0.96
4.7 0.49 7.7 0.81

4.8 0.74
2.1 0.91
2.2 0.90 8.1 0.82
Order and Security
2.3 0.94 5.1 0.98 8.2 0.79
2.4 0.91 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.88
5.3 0.82 8.4 0.79

8.5 0.91
3.1 0.80
8.6 0.54
3.2 0.65 6.1 0.83
8.7 0.74
3.3 0.54 6.2 0.96
Due process of law
3.4 0.65 6.3 0.88
6.4 0.87
6.5 0.81
Slovenia Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.67 17/24 25/38 26/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.65 19/24 28/38 32/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Slovenia EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.67 4.1 0.68 7.1 0.70

1.2 0.57 4.2 0.88 7.2 0.70
1.3 0.64 4.3 0.70 7.3 0.65
1.4 0.51 4.4 0.70 7.4 0.55
1.5 0.70 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.46
1.6 0.78 4.6 0.69 7.6 0.59
4.7 0.77 7.7 0.72

4.8 0.73
2.1 0.65
2.2 0.77 8.1 0.44
Order and Security
2.3 0.75 5.1 0.95 8.2 0.48
2.4 0.46 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.50
5.3 0.72 8.4 0.50

8.5 0.67
3.1 0.67
8.6 0.54
3.2 0.62 6.1 0.70
8.7 0.70
3.3 0.70 6.2 0.75
Due process of law
3.4 0.63 6.3 0.66
6.4 0.48
6.5 0.59
South Africa Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.58 5/30 10/38 47/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.62 3/30 5/38 37/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
South Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle
1.1 0.53 4.1 0.53 7.1 0.49

1.2 0.66 4.2 0.63 7.2 0.46
1.3 0.63 4.3 0.55 7.3 0.66
1.4 0.47 4.4 0.71 7.4 0.65
1.5 0.71 4.5 0.75 7.5 0.51
1.6 0.71 4.6 0.57 7.6 0.60
4.7 0.74 7.7 0.75

4.8 0.63
2.1 0.41
2.2 0.71 8.1 0.39
Order and Security
2.3 0.56 5.1 0.49 8.2 0.52
2.4 0.24 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.31
5.3 0.35 8.4 0.55

8.5 0.59
3.1 0.53
8.6 0.73
3.2 0.56 6.1 0.44
8.7 0.55
3.3 0.70 6.2 0.62
Due process of law
3.4 0.71 6.3 0.45
6.4 0.60
6.5 0.62
Spain Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.71 15/24 21/38 21/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.72 16/24 20/38 21/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Spain EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.75 4.1 0.71 7.1 0.76

1.2 0.65 4.2 0.85 7.2 0.72
1.3 0.71 4.3 0.78 7.3 0.71
1.4 0.65 4.4 0.72 7.4 0.66
1.5 0.72 4.5 0.77 7.5 0.52
1.6 0.86 4.6 0.85 7.6 0.54
4.7 0.82 7.7 0.80

4.8 0.76
2.1 0.68
2.2 0.86 8.1 0.58
Order and Security
2.3 0.87 5.1 0.87 8.2 0.56
2.4 0.47 5.2 0.85 8.3 0.71
5.3 0.61 8.4 0.59

8.5 0.75
3.1 0.71
8.6 0.65
3.2 0.63 6.1 0.67
8.7 0.78
3.3 0.70 6.2 0.82
Due process of law
3.4 0.75 6.3 0.57
6.4 0.71
6.5 0.66
Region: South Asia
Sri Lanka Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.52 2/6 6/30 63/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.55 3/6 6/30 60/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Sri Lanka South Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.52 4.1 0.58 7.1 0.47

1.2 0.61 4.2 0.38 7.2 0.48
1.3 0.46 4.3 0.41 7.3 0.62
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.59 7.4 0.51
1.5 0.59 4.5 0.71 7.5 0.34
1.6 0.68 4.6 0.34 7.6 0.29
4.7 0.65 7.7 0.59

4.8 0.68
2.1 0.44
2.2 0.60 8.1 0.41
Order and Security
2.3 0.52 5.1 0.82 8.2 0.39
2.4 0.26 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.32
5.3 0.29 8.4 0.61

8.5 0.60
3.1 0.41
8.6 0.38
3.2 0.48 6.1 0.54
8.7 0.41
3.3 0.58 6.2 0.56
Due process of law
3.4 0.50 6.3 0.42
6.4 0.40
6.5 0.55
St. Kitts and Nevis Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.65 5/30 29/38 30/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.64 5/30 29/38 33/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
St. Kitts and Nevis Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.66 4.1 0.73 7.1 0.73

1.2 0.76 4.2 0.84 7.2 0.80
1.3 0.51 4.3 0.59 7.3 0.86
1.4 0.52 4.4 0.68 7.4 0.83
1.5 0.68 4.5 0.69 7.5 0.61
1.6 0.72 4.6 0.75 7.6 0.52
4.7 0.75 7.7 0.89

4.8 0.75
2.1 0.50
2.2 0.94 8.1 0.40
Order and Security
2.3 0.77 5.1 0.82 8.2 0.51
2.4 0.46 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.38
5.3 0.56 8.4 0.62

8.5 0.77
3.1 0.20
8.6 0.74
3.2 0.31 6.1 0.54
8.7 0.59
3.3 0.67 6.2 0.75
Due process of law
3.4 0.46 6.3 0.53
6.4 0.55
6.5 0.68
St. Lucia Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.61 8/30 6/38 38/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.60 11/30 8/38 46/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
St. Lucia Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.63 4.1 0.75 7.1 0.61

1.2 0.70 4.2 0.70 7.2 0.72
1.3 0.42 4.3 0.56 7.3 0.77
1.4 0.47 4.4 0.66 7.4 0.68
1.5 0.66 4.5 0.66 7.5 0.51
1.6 0.70 4.6 0.58 7.6 0.49
4.7 0.72 7.7 0.82

4.8 0.68
2.1 0.57
2.2 0.87 8.1 0.44
Order and Security
2.3 0.67 5.1 0.80 8.2 0.43
2.4 0.43 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.48
5.3 0.36 8.4 0.59

8.5 0.72
3.1 0.29
8.6 0.76
3.2 0.53 6.1 0.46
8.7 0.56
3.3 0.66 6.2 0.67
Due process of law
3.4 0.51 6.3 0.35
6.4 0.70
6.5 0.71
St. Vincent and the Grenadines Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.62 7/30 4/38 35/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.58 13/30 10/38 48/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
St. Vincent and the Grenadines Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.55 4.1 0.65 7.1 0.67

1.2 0.57 4.2 0.76 7.2 0.61
1.3 0.60 4.3 0.60 7.3 0.73
1.4 0.54 4.4 0.58 7.4 0.62
1.5 0.58 4.5 0.86 7.5 0.43
1.6 0.66 4.6 0.62 7.6 0.46
4.7 0.70 7.7 0.79

4.8 0.63
2.1 0.62
2.2 0.83 8.1 0.45
Order and Security
2.3 0.78 5.1 0.76 8.2 0.55
2.4 0.54 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.59
5.3 0.45 8.4 0.54

8.5 0.74
3.1 0.25
8.6 0.75
3.2 0.52 6.1 0.52
8.7 0.60
3.3 0.61 6.2 0.77
Due process of law
3.4 0.64 6.3 0.46
6.4 0.45
6.5 0.51
Suriname Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.51 17/30 20/38 69/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.49 21/30 19/38 76/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Suriname Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.52 4.1 0.56 7.1 0.45

1.2 0.57 4.2 0.60 7.2 0.50
1.3 0.30 4.3 0.47 7.3 0.69
1.4 0.43 4.4 0.59 7.4 0.50
1.5 0.59 4.5 0.71 7.5 0.38
1.6 0.56 4.6 0.36 7.6 0.68
4.7 0.61 7.7 0.38

4.8 0.49
2.1 0.45
2.2 0.72 8.1 0.44
Order and Security
2.3 0.63 5.1 0.73 8.2 0.58
2.4 0.22 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.37
5.3 0.22 8.4 0.53

8.5 0.65
3.1 0.32
8.6 0.66
3.2 0.28 6.1 0.48
8.7 0.47
3.3 0.54 6.2 0.65
Due process of law
3.4 0.33 6.3 0.34
6.4 0.39
6.5 0.48
Sweden Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.85 4/24 4/38 4/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.87 4/24 4/38 4/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Sweden EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.82 4.1 0.72 7.1 0.78

1.2 0.83 4.2 0.98 7.2 0.69
1.3 0.95 4.3 0.92 7.3 0.91
1.4 0.84 4.4 0.85 7.4 0.90
1.5 0.85 4.5 0.84 7.5 0.79
1.6 0.92 4.6 0.97 7.6 0.92
4.7 0.88 7.7 0.66

4.8 0.75
2.1 0.88
2.2 0.98 8.1 0.53
Order and Security
2.3 0.97 5.1 0.90 8.2 0.73
2.4 0.82 5.2 0.85 8.3 0.85
5.3 0.88 8.4 0.81

8.5 0.92
3.1 0.78
8.6 0.90
3.2 0.92 6.1 0.78
8.7 0.92
3.3 0.85 6.2 0.93
Due process of law
3.4 0.89 6.3 0.83
6.4 0.82
6.5 0.88
Tanzania Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.47 11/30 7/20 91/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.52 13/30 8/20 72/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Tanzania Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.55 4.1 0.57 7.1 0.46

1.2 0.53 4.2 0.33 7.2 0.57
1.3 0.50 4.3 0.32 7.3 0.43
1.4 0.56 4.4 0.43 7.4 0.42
1.5 0.43 4.5 0.59 7.5 0.36
1.6 0.54 4.6 0.29 7.6 0.51
4.7 0.50 7.7 0.59

4.8 0.58
2.1 0.48
2.2 0.42 8.1 0.40
Order and Security
2.3 0.37 5.1 0.68 8.2 0.40
2.4 0.39 5.2 0.98 8.3 0.21
5.3 0.41 8.4 0.47

8.5 0.43
3.1 0.24
8.6 0.41
3.2 0.46 6.1 0.56
8.7 0.32
3.3 0.48 6.2 0.50
Due process of law
3.4 0.33 6.3 0.38
6.4 0.25
6.5 0.45
Thailand Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.5 10/15 25/38 76/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.47 11/15 24/38 86/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Thailand East Asia & Pacific Upper Middle
1.1 0.48 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.55

1.2 0.59 4.2 0.38 7.2 0.44
1.3 0.40 4.3 0.40 7.3 0.65
1.4 0.45 4.4 0.52 7.4 0.54
1.5 0.52 4.5 0.56 7.5 0.34
1.6 0.39 4.6 0.37 7.6 0.41
4.7 0.46 7.7 0.48

4.8 0.60
2.1 0.50
2.2 0.67 8.1 0.40
Order and Security
2.3 0.47 5.1 0.80 8.2 0.39
2.4 0.32 5.2 0.85 8.3 0.27
5.3 0.49 8.4 0.33

8.5 0.61
3.1 0.45
8.6 0.54
3.2 0.43 6.1 0.48
8.7 0.40
3.3 0.51 6.2 0.55
Due process of law
3.4 0.55 6.3 0.49
6.4 0.33
6.5 0.53
Togo Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.45 16/30 10/20 100/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.35 26/30 17/20 115/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Togo Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.45 4.1 0.65 7.1 0.55

1.2 0.32 4.2 0.41 7.2 0.60
1.3 0.23 4.3 0.44 7.3 0.32
1.4 0.32 4.4 0.41 7.4 0.28
1.5 0.41 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.47
1.6 0.38 4.6 0.16 7.6 0.46
4.7 0.49 7.7 0.63

4.8 0.61
2.1 0.44
2.2 0.43 8.1 0.32
Order and Security
2.3 0.44 5.1 0.77 8.2 0.42
2.4 0.37 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.27
5.3 0.44 8.4 0.53

8.5 0.36
3.1 0.20
8.6 0.18
3.2 0.28 6.1 0.45
8.7 0.44
3.3 0.41 6.2 0.60
Due process of law
3.4 0.36 6.3 0.45
6.4 0.47
6.5 0.47
Trinidad and Tobago Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.54 14/30 36/38 55/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.57 14/30 35/38 54/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Trinidad and Tobago Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.68 4.1 0.61 7.1 0.60

1.2 0.67 4.2 0.57 7.2 0.56
1.3 0.29 4.3 0.31 7.3 0.72
1.4 0.37 4.4 0.67 7.4 0.71
1.5 0.67 4.5 0.78 7.5 0.34
1.6 0.71 4.6 0.38 7.6 0.43
4.7 0.74 7.7 0.67

4.8 0.68
2.1 0.44
2.2 0.74 8.1 0.23
Order and Security
2.3 0.58 5.1 0.70 8.2 0.26
2.4 0.23 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.19
5.3 0.29 8.4 0.41

8.5 0.57
3.1 0.37
8.6 0.51
3.2 0.53 6.1 0.40
8.7 0.31
3.3 0.67 6.2 0.69
Due process of law
3.4 0.67 6.3 0.36
6.4 0.51
6.5 0.60
Tunisia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.53 3/8 4/30 61/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.60 1/8 4/30 42/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Tunisia Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.66 4.1 0.63 7.1 0.60

1.2 0.49 4.2 0.57 7.2 0.62
1.3 0.61 4.3 0.44 7.3 0.35
1.4 0.48 4.4 0.64 7.4 0.54
1.5 0.64 4.5 0.59 7.5 0.42
1.6 0.75 4.6 0.43 7.6 0.31
4.7 0.69 7.7 0.59

4.8 0.50
2.1 0.52
2.2 0.45 8.1 0.43
Order and Security
2.3 0.57 5.1 0.77 8.2 0.48
2.4 0.35 5.2 0.77 8.3 0.39
5.3 0.36 8.4 0.35

8.5 0.46
3.1 0.37
8.6 0.43
3.2 0.51 6.1 0.52
8.7 0.44
3.3 0.62 6.2 0.61
Due process of law
3.4 0.52 6.3 0.34
6.4 0.56
6.5 0.63
Turkey Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.42 13/13 37/38 109/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.01 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.29 13/13 37/38 123/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Turkey Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle
1.1 0.37 4.1 0.39 7.1 0.55

1.2 0.32 4.2 0.35 7.2 0.29
1.3 0.18 4.3 0.42 7.3 0.51
1.4 0.29 4.4 0.25 7.4 0.19
1.5 0.25 4.5 0.20 7.5 0.34
1.6 0.33 4.6 0.23 7.6 0.56
4.7 0.30 7.7 0.69

4.8 0.38
2.1 0.48
2.2 0.58 8.1 0.44
Order and Security
2.3 0.67 5.1 0.78 8.2 0.38
2.4 0.20 5.2 0.60 8.3 0.42
5.3 0.52 8.4 0.33

8.5 0.59
3.1 0.47
8.6 0.06
3.2 0.48 6.1 0.41
8.7 0.42
3.3 0.29 6.2 0.63
Due process of law
3.4 0.44 6.3 0.47
6.4 0.14
6.5 0.45
Uganda Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.4 25/30 16/20 113/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.41 22/30 15/20 105/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Uganda Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.41 4.1 0.47 7.1 0.43

1.2 0.41 4.2 0.26 7.2 0.42
1.3 0.46 4.3 0.30 7.3 0.37
1.4 0.41 4.4 0.39 7.4 0.47
1.5 0.39 4.5 0.66 7.5 0.36
1.6 0.36 4.6 0.05 7.6 0.46
4.7 0.48 7.7 0.62

4.8 0.43
2.1 0.28
2.2 0.35 8.1 0.31
Order and Security
2.3 0.22 5.1 0.54 8.2 0.39
2.4 0.19 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.42
5.3 0.22 8.4 0.31

8.5 0.27
3.1 0.14
8.6 0.30
3.2 0.43 6.1 0.38
8.7 0.30
3.3 0.45 6.2 0.39
Due process of law
3.4 0.57 6.3 0.39
6.4 0.38
6.5 0.59
Ukraine Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.5 7/13 9/30 77/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.46 5/13 16/30 90/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Ukraine Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.56 4.1 0.69 7.1 0.58

1.2 0.32 4.2 0.63 7.2 0.67
1.3 0.44 4.3 0.45 7.3 0.38
1.4 0.28 4.4 0.60 7.4 0.38
1.5 0.60 4.5 0.75 7.5 0.64
1.6 0.55 4.6 0.44 7.6 0.48
4.7 0.64 7.7 0.65

4.8 0.68
2.1 0.35
2.2 0.46 8.1 0.28
Order and Security
2.3 0.42 5.1 0.75 8.2 0.42
2.4 0.10 5.2 0.88 8.3 0.40
5.3 0.57 8.4 0.48

8.5 0.31
3.1 0.59
8.6 0.28
3.2 0.49 6.1 0.42
8.7 0.45
3.3 0.57 6.2 0.42
Due process of law
3.4 0.54 6.3 0.54
6.4 0.37
6.5 0.37
United Arab Emirates Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.64 1/8 30/38 32/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.55 2/8 36/38 59/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
United Arab Emirates Middle East & North Africa High
1.1 0.51 4.1 0.65 7.1 0.56

1.2 0.55 4.2 0.50 7.2 0.61
1.3 0.64 4.3 0.72 7.3 0.80
1.4 0.72 4.4 0.33 7.4 0.60
1.5 0.33 4.5 0.44 7.5 0.66
1.6 0.55 4.6 0.32 7.6 0.74
4.7 0.25 7.7 0.66

4.8 0.46
2.1 0.78
2.2 0.87 8.1 0.71
Order and Security
2.3 0.84 5.1 0.92 8.2 0.70
2.4 0.69 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.77
5.3 0.82 8.4 0.57

8.5 0.80
3.1 0.36
8.6 0.45
3.2 0.39 6.1 0.69
8.7 0.72
3.3 0.31 6.2 0.89
Due process of law
3.4 0.36 6.3 0.70
6.4 0.69
6.5 0.65
United Kingdom Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.8 10/24 12/38 12/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.84 10/24 11/38 11/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
United Kingdom EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.85 4.1 0.72 7.1 0.53

1.2 0.83 4.2 0.94 7.2 0.64
1.3 0.83 4.3 0.81 7.3 0.91
1.4 0.78 4.4 0.85 7.4 0.84
1.5 0.85 4.5 0.87 7.5 0.67
1.6 0.88 4.6 0.79 7.6 0.72
4.7 0.89 7.7 0.78

4.8 0.69
2.1 0.85
2.2 0.96 8.1 0.68
Order and Security
2.3 0.86 5.1 0.91 8.2 0.74
2.4 0.64 5.2 0.92 8.3 0.60
5.3 0.72 8.4 0.66

8.5 0.87
3.1 0.90
8.6 0.88
3.2 0.67 6.1 0.77
8.7 0.81
3.3 0.84 6.2 0.94
Due process of law
3.4 0.78 6.3 0.81
6.4 0.81
6.5 0.77
United States Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.71 14/24 20/38 20/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.02 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.73 15/24 18/38 19/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
United States EU & EFTA & North America High
1.1 0.80 4.1 0.51 7.1 0.46

1.2 0.74 4.2 0.84 7.2 0.42
1.3 0.70 4.3 0.63 7.3 0.82
1.4 0.64 4.4 0.79 7.4 0.71
1.5 0.79 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.62
1.6 0.72 4.6 0.83 7.6 0.68
4.7 0.85 7.7 0.77

4.8 0.56
2.1 0.73
2.2 0.89 8.1 0.67
Order and Security
2.3 0.84 5.1 0.83 8.2 0.68
2.4 0.50 5.2 0.77 8.3 0.49
5.3 0.69 8.4 0.36

8.5 0.79
3.1 0.77
8.6 0.79
3.2 0.72 6.1 0.70
8.7 0.63
3.3 0.80 6.2 0.88
Due process of law
3.4 0.81 6.3 0.56
6.4 0.76
6.5 0.72
Uruguay Income Group: High

Constraints on
0.71 1/30 23/38 23/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 -1 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.75 2/30 15/38 16/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Uruguay Latin America & Caribbean High
1.1 0.80 4.1 0.68 7.1 0.85

1.2 0.72 4.2 0.83 7.2 0.84
1.3 0.66 4.3 0.62 7.3 0.81
1.4 0.66 4.4 0.76 7.4 0.74
1.5 0.76 4.5 0.83 7.5 0.58
1.6 0.89 4.6 0.76 7.6 0.65
4.7 0.83 7.7 0.75

4.8 0.81
2.1 0.68
2.2 0.92 8.1 0.39
Order and Security
2.3 0.82 5.1 0.69 8.2 0.46
2.4 0.55 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.29
5.3 0.42 8.4 0.52

8.5 0.77
3.1 0.70
8.6 0.71
3.2 0.64 6.1 0.64
8.7 0.62
3.3 0.76 6.2 0.83
Due process of law
3.4 0.75 6.3 0.58
6.4 0.58
6.5 0.80
Uzbekistan Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.46 12/13 17/30 94/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.00 2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.33 12/13 26/30 118/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Uzbekistan Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle
1.1 0.17 4.1 0.58 7.1 0.46

1.2 0.21 4.2 0.48 7.2 0.65
1.3 0.31 4.3 0.35 7.3 0.32
1.4 0.44 4.4 0.32 7.4 0.30
1.5 0.32 4.5 0.57 7.5 0.73
1.6 0.51 4.6 0.20 7.6 0.42
4.7 0.18 7.7 0.66

4.8 0.48
2.1 0.33
2.2 0.40 8.1 0.51
Order and Security
2.3 0.39 5.1 0.88 8.2 0.70
2.4 0.41 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.57
5.3 0.83 8.4 0.34

8.5 0.38
3.1 0.28
8.6 0.24
3.2 0.25 6.1 0.62
8.7 0.35
3.3 0.27 6.2 0.43
Due process of law
3.4 0.46 6.3 0.59
6.4 0.26
6.5 0.28
Venezuela Income Group: Upper Middle

Constraints on
0.28 30/30 38/38 126/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.18 30/30 38/38 126/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Venezuela Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle
1.1 0.32 4.1 0.58 7.1 0.44

1.2 0.13 4.2 0.14 7.2 0.51
1.3 0.10 4.3 0.19 7.3 0.18
1.4 0.12 4.4 0.25 7.4 0.05
1.5 0.25 4.5 0.61 7.5 0.09
1.6 0.19 4.6 0.05 7.6 0.21
4.7 0.30 7.7 0.45

4.8 0.54
2.1 0.31
2.2 0.18 8.1 0.13
Order and Security
2.3 0.37 5.1 0.24 8.2 0.13
2.4 0.41 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.04
5.3 0.19 8.4 0.14

8.5 0.28
3.1 0.20
8.6 0.03
3.2 0.26 6.1 0.35
8.7 0.19
3.3 0.26 6.2 0.40
Due process of law
3.4 0.44 6.3 0.10
6.4 0.01
6.5 0.14
Vietnam Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.49 11/15 10/30 81/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.45 12/15 17/30 92/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Vietnam East Asia & Pacific Lower Middle
1.1 0.38 4.1 0.62 7.1 0.50

1.2 0.37 4.2 0.46 7.2 0.57
1.3 0.53 4.3 0.44 7.3 0.34
1.4 0.60 4.4 0.40 7.4 0.32
1.5 0.40 4.5 0.33 7.5 0.50
1.6 0.44 4.6 0.44 7.6 0.41
4.7 0.37 7.7 0.53

4.8 0.63
2.1 0.48
2.2 0.36 8.1 0.47
Order and Security
2.3 0.44 5.1 0.92 8.2 0.53
2.4 0.34 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.45
5.3 0.41 8.4 0.49

8.5 0.51
3.1 0.52
8.6 0.33
3.2 0.34 6.1 0.56
8.7 0.44
3.3 0.42 6.2 0.39
Due process of law
3.4 0.54 6.3 0.50
6.4 0.41
6.5 0.38
Zambia Income Group: Lower Middle

Constraints on
0.47 12/30 15/30
27/30 92/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
7.7 2.3
2.3

2.4
0.48 16/30 13/30 80/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1
3.1

0 3.2
3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
3.3
7.2 3.4
3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Zambia Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle
1.1 0.48 4.1 0.51 7.1 0.46

1.2 0.37 4.2 0.40 7.2 0.45
1.3 0.58 4.3 0.42 7.3 0.39
1.4 0.58 4.4 0.43 7.4 0.43
1.5 0.43 4.5 0.67 7.5 0.39
1.6 0.47 4.6 0.29 7.6 0.66
4.7 0.41 7.7 0.47

4.8 0.47
2.1 0.42
2.2 0.53 8.1 0.53
Order and Security
2.3 0.39 5.1 0.62 8.2 0.50
2.4 0.26 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.23
5.3 0.44 8.4 0.50

8.5 0.42
3.1 0.24
8.6 0.45
3.2 0.46 6.1 0.48
8.7 0.42
3.3 0.45 6.2 0.42
Due process of law
3.4 0.38 6.3 0.41
6.4 0.40
6.5 0.43
Zimbabwe Income Group: Low

Constraints on
0.4 26/30 17/20 116/126 Government
Powers
8.7
8.7 1.1 1.2
8.6 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
1.4
Justice
8.4 1.5
0.03 3 8.3 1.6
8.2 2.1
Absence of
7.7 2.3

2.4
0.33 28/30 19/20 117/126
Government Powers
7.5 3.1

0 3.2 Open
Civil Government
7.3 3.3
7.2 3.4
6.5 4.2
6.3 4.4
6.2 4.5
Regulatory 5.3 4.7
Enforcement
Order and
Security
2019 Score Score

2018-2019 2017-2018 Score
Zimbabwe Sub-Saharan Africa Low
1.1 0.33 4.1 0.41 7.1 0.42

1.2 0.32 4.2 0.27 7.2 0.45
1.3 0.44 4.3 0.36 7.3 0.41
1.4 0.36 4.4 0.30 7.4 0.30
1.5 0.30 4.5 0.47 7.5 0.52
1.6 0.24 4.6 0.13 7.6 0.58
4.7 0.34 7.7 0.54

4.8 0.49
2.1 0.29
2.2 0.42 8.1 0.41
Order and Security
2.3 0.29 5.1 0.63 8.2 0.51
2.4 0.22 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.35
5.3 0.38 8.4 0.36

8.5 0.33
3.1 0.16
8.6 0.23
3.2 0.40 6.1 0.43
8.7 0.36
3.3 0.32 6.2 0.46
Due process of law
3.4 0.45 6.3 0.35
6.4 0.34
6.5 0.29
Section
Four
Behind the
Numbers

Methodology Snapshot: Steps to Produce the Rule of Law Index
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.

way up to the factor level to produce the final country scores, value (downward arrow) if there was a change leading to a
rounded to two decimal points, and rankings. In most cases, the statistically significant deterioration in the score. This measure
GPP and QRQ questions are equally weighted in the calculation complements the numerical scores and rankings presented
of the scores of the intermediate categories (sub-factors and in this report, which benchmark each country’s current
sub-sub-factors). performance on the factors and sub-factors of the Index against
that of other countries. The measure of change over time is
A full picture of how questions are mapped onto indicators and constructed in three steps:
how they are weighted is available on the WJP Rule of Law Index
website at worldjusticeproject.org. 1. First, last year’s scores are subtracted from this year’s
to obtain, for each country and each factor, the annual
Data Validation difference in scores.
As a final step, data are validated and cross-checked against
qualitative and quantitative third-party sources to provide an 2. To test whether the annual changes are statistically
additional layer of analysis and to identify possible mistakes or significant, a bootstrapping procedure is used to
inconsistencies within the data. Most of the third-party data estimate standard errors. To calculate these errors, 100
sources used to cross-check the Index scores are described in samples of respondent-level observations (of equal
Botero and Ponce (2011).4 size to the original sample) are randomly selected with
replacement for each country from the pooled set of
Methodological Changes to this Year’s Report respondents for last year and this year. These samples
Every year, the WJP reviews the methods of data collection are used to produce a set of 100 country-level scores
to ensure that the information produced is valid, useful, and for each factor and each country, which are utilized to
continues to capture the status of the rule of law in the world. calculate the final standard errors. These errors—which
To maintain consistency with previous editions and to facilitate measure the uncertainty associated with picking a
tracking changes over time, this year’s questionnaires and data particular sample of respondents—are then employed
maps are closely aligned with those administered in the past. to conduct pair-wise t-tests for each country and each
factor.
In order to improve the accuracy of the QRQ results and
reduce respondent burden, proactive dependent interviewing 3. Finally, to illustrate the annual change, a measure of
techniques were used to remind respondents who participated in change over time is produced based on the value of the
last year’s survey of their responses in the previous year. annual difference and its statistical significance (at the
95 percent level).
This year, no new questions or indicators were added to the
Index. Overall, 100 percent of questions remained the same Strengths and Limitations
between the 2017-2018 and 2019 editions of the Index. The Index methodology has both strengths and limitations. Among
A description of the variables is available at its strengths is the inclusion of both expert and household surveys
worldjusticeproject.org. to ensure that the findings reflect the conditions experienced
by the population. Another strength is that it approaches the
In a few instances, the WJP uses data from third-party sources measurement of rule of law from various angles by triangulating
to measure an element of the rule of law that is not possible information across data sources and types of questions. This
to measure through the GPP or QRQs. Out of more than 500 approach not only enables accounting for different perspectives
variables used to calculate the Index, 13 variables are from on the rule of law, but it also helps to reduce possible bias that
third-party sources. might be introduced by any other particular data collection
method. Finally, it relies on statistical testing to determine the
Tracking Changes Over Time significance of the changes in the factor scores over the last year.
This year’s report includes a measure to illustrate whether the
rule of law in a country, as measured through the factors of the With the aforementioned methodological strengths come a
WJP Rule of Law Index, changed since the previous year. This number of limitations. First, the data shed light on rule of law
measure is presented in the form of arrows and represents dimensions that appear comparatively strong or weak, but are not
a summary of rigorous statistical testing based on the use of specific enough to establish causation. Thus, it will be necessary
bootstrapping procedures (see below). For each factor, this to use the Index in combination with other analytical tools to
measure takes the value of zero (no arrow) if there was no provide a full picture of causes and possible solutions. Second,
statistically significant change in the score since last year, a in previous editions of the Index, the methodology has only
positive value (upward arrow) if there was a change leading to a been applied in three major urban areas in each of the indexed
statistically significant improvement in the score, and a negative countries for the General Population Poll. However, the World
4
Botero, J. and Ponce, A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”: WJP Working Paper No.1, available at worldjusticeproject.org/publications.
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.
2. The Index’s rankings and scores are the product of a

rigorous data collection and aggregation methodology.
Nonetheless, as with all measures, they are subject to
measurement error.

Country/Jurisdiction Coverage Polling Company Methodology Sample Year
Afghanistan Nationally representative D3 Systems & ACSOR Surveys Face-to-face 3006 2018
Albania Nationally representative IDRA Research & Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2018
WJP in collaboration with local

Algeria Nationally representative
partner
Face-to-face 1000 2018
Angola Nationally representative Marketing Support Consultancy Face-to-face 1010 2018
Antigua & Barbuda Nationally representative DMR Insights Face-to-face 513 2018
Argentina Nationally representative StatMark Face-to-face 1010 2018
Big Picture Marketing Strategy &

Australia Nationally representative
Research
Online 1067 2018
Austria Vienna, Graz, Linz YouGov Online 1008 2017
Bahamas Nationally representative DMR Insights Face-to-face 500 2018
Bangladesh Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna Org-Quest Research Ltd. Face-to-face 1000 2016
Barbados Nationally representative DMR Insights Face-to-face 513 2018

Belarus Minsk, Gomel, Mogilev
partner
Face-to-face 1000/401 2014/2017
Belgium Nationally representative YouGov Online 1007 2018
Belize City, Belmopan, San Ignacio/Santa

Belize Elena
CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1000 2017
Benin Nationally representative Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1010 2018
Bolivia Nationally representative Captura Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2018
Bosnia &
Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Tuzla Kantar TNS MIB Face-to-face 1000 2017
Herzegovina
Botswana Nationally representative BJKA Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2018
Datum Internacional/About Brazil

Brazil São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador
Market Research
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
Cameroon Nationally representative Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1006 2018
Canada Toronto, Montreal, Calgary YouGov Online 1000 2017
Santiago, Valparaíso/Viña del Mar,

Chile Antofagasta
Datum Internacional S.A./Cadem S.A. Face-to-face 1011 2017

China Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou
partner
Colombia Nationally representative Tempo Group Face-to-face 1000 2018
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
Croatia Nationally representative Ipsos d.o.o. Face-to-face 1010 2018
Czech Republic Prague, Brno, Ostrava YouGov Online 1013 2017
Congo, Dem. Rep. Kinshasa, Lubumbashi, Mbuji-Mayi Kantar Public Senegal Face-to-face 1083 2018
Denmark Copenhagen, Aarhus, Aalborg YouGov Online 1017 2017
Dominica Nationally representative StatMark Face-to-face 512 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

Egypt Cairo, Alexandria, Giza
partner
El Salvador Nationally representative CID-Gallup Latin America Face-to-face 1000 2018
Estonia Tallinn, Tartu, Narva Norstat Eesti Online 1010 2017
Ethiopia Addis Ababa, Gondar, Nazret Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1037 2017
Finland Helsinki, Espoo, Tampere YouGov Online 1014 2017
France Nationally representative YouGov Online 1040 2018
ACT Market Research and Consulting

Georgia Tbilisi, Batumi, Kutaisi
Company
Germany Nationally representative YouGov Online 1048 2018
Ghana Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1103 2018
164
Greece Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras YouGov Online 1015 2017
Grenada Nationally representative DMR Insights Face-to-face 500 2018
Mercaplan Central America &

Guatemala Nationally representative
Caribbean
Guinea Conakry, Nzerekore, Kankan Kantar Public Senegal Face-to-face 1065 2018
Guyana Nationally representative StatMark Face-to-face 527 2018
Honduras Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1100 2017
Hong Kong SAR, WJP in collaboration with local

Nationally representative Face-to-face 1004 2017
China partner
Hungary Budapest, Debrecen, Szeged Ipsos Hungary Face-to-face 1000 2017
India Nationally representative Market Xcel Face-to-face 1059 2018
Indonesia Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung MRI (Marketing Research Indonesia) Face-to-face 1004 2017
BJKA consulting with local partner

Iran Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan
MHA Research
Italy Rome, Milan, Naples YouGov Online 1004 2017
Jamaica Kingston, Portmore, Spanish Town Dichter and Neira Face-to-face 401 2017
Acorn Marketing & Research

Japan Nationally representative
Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd
Online 1000 2018

Jordan Nationally representative
partner

Kazakhstan Almaty, Astana, Shymkent
partner
Kenya Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1099 2018
Kyrgyzstan Nationally representative Ipsos Face-to-face 1000 2018
Lebanon Beirut, Tripoli, Sidon REACH SAL Face-to-face 1000 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
Madagascar Antananarivo, Toamasina, Antsirabe DCDM Research Face-to-face 1000 2017
Malawi Lilongwe, Blantyre, Mzuzu Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1039 2017

Malaysia Klang Valley, Johor Bahru, Ipoh
Mali Nationally representative Marketing Support Consultancy Face-to-face 1012 2018
Mauritania Nationally representative Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1000 2018
Mauritius Nationally representative DCDM Research Face-to-face 1000 2018
Mexico Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey Data Opinión Pública y Mercados Face-to-face 1000 2017
Georgian Opinion Research Business

Moldova Chisinau, Balti, Cahul
International (GORBI)
Mongolian Marketing Consulting

Mongolia Ulaanbaatar, Erdenet, Darkhan
Group LLC

Morocco Casablanca, Fes, Tangier
partner
Mozambique Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1009 2018
Myanmar Survey Research Co., Ltd

Myanmar Yangon, Mandalay, Nay Pyi Taw
(MSR)
Namibia Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1001 2018
Nepal Kathmandu, Pokhara, Lalitpur Solutions Consultant Face-to-face 1000 2017
Netherlands Nationally representative YouGov Online 1113 2018
Big Picture Marketing Strategy &

New Zealand Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch
Research
Online 1000 2017
Nicaragua Managua, León, Masaya CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1100 2017
Niger Niamey, Zinder, Maradi Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1011 2018
Nigeria Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1083 2018
Norway Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim YouGov Online 1007 2017
Gallup Pakistan (affiliated with Gallup

Pakistan Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad
International)
Panama Panama City, San Miguelito, Las Cumbres Gallup Panamá Face-to-face 1000 2017
Peru Nationally representative Datum Internacional S.A. Face-to-face 1000 2018
Philippines Manila, Cebu, Davao APMI Partners Face-to-face 1008 2016

Poland Warsaw, Krakow, Lodz Grupa IQS Face-to-face 1000 2018
Portugal Lisbon, Porto, Amadora YouGov Online 1016 2017

Republic of Korea Nationally representative
Online 1000 2018
Alpha Research Ltd. in collaboration

Romania Nationally representative
with local partner

Russia Nationally representative
partner
Rwanda Kigali Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 316 2018
Senegal Pikine, Dakar, Thiès Kantar TNS Face-to-face 1012 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
Singapore Nationally representative Survey Sampling International Online 1000 2017
Slovenia Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje Ipsos d.o.o. Face-to-face 1006 2017
South Africa Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1014 2018
Spain Nationally representative YouGov Online 1051 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
St. Lucia Nationally representative DMR Insights Face-to-face 500 2018
St. Vincent & the

Nationally representative DMR Insights Face-to-face 500 2018
Grenadines
Suriname Nationally representative CID-Gallup Latin America Face-to-face 510 2018
Sweden Nationally representative YouGov Online 1049 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
Togo Nationally representative Marketing Support Consultancy Face-to-face 1005 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
Turkey İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir Kantar Insights Face-to-face 1039 2018
Uganda Kampala, Nansana, Kira Kantar Public East Africa Face-to-face 1062 2018
Ukraine Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa GfK Ukraine Face-to-face 1079 2017
United Arab WJP in collaboration with local

Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah Face-to-face 1011/200 2011/2017
Emirates partner
United Kingdom Nationally representative YouGov Online 1056 2018
United States Nationally representative YouGov Online 1086 2018
Uruguay Nationally representative BM Business Partners Face-to-face 1000 2018

Uzbekistan Tashkent, Namangan, Samarkand
partner/Ipsos
Face-to-face 1000/300 2014/2018

Venezuela Caracas, Maracaibo, Valencia
partner
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
Zimbabwe Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1001 2018
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


George Williams Martin Risak Imran Anwar Esther Obiora Arthur Maksim Shapelevich
University of New South University of Vienna Tanjib Alam & Associates Rehoboth Law Chambers Stepanovski, Papakul and
Wales Partners
Rupert Manhart Imteaz Mannan Jaydene O. Thomas
Greg Patmore Manhart Einsle Partner Save the Children Capital Law Chambers Oksana Puchkovskaya
University of Sydney Rechtsanwälte; ÖRAK Stepanovski, Papakul and
Junayed Ahmed Chowdhury Jefferson Cumberbatch Partners
James A. Gillespie Thomas Frad Vertex Chambers University of the West Indies
Menzies Centre for Health Karasek Wietrzyk Serg Gartsev
Policy Rechtsanwälte GmbH Khandaker Mashfique Sharon R. Harris RSO “Your Chance”
Ahmed Harris & Harris Law
Kate Burns Thomas Hofmann Rahman’s Chambers Tatiana Ignatovskaya
University of Technology PALLAS HOFMANN Tanya A. Hinds Stepanovski, Papakul and
Sydney M. Rafiqul Islam Chowdhury Partners
Anonymous Contributors M. R. I. Chowdhury & Anonymous Contributors
Lucinda Browne Associates Vadzim Samaryn
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Bahamas Belarus Belarusian State University
Mahim al Hasan
Mary Anne Noone Ashley D. Williams Vertex Chambers Alena Salei Vasili Zavadski
La Trobe University Alexiou, Knowles & Co. Borovtsov & Salei Law Firm TimeAct
Masud Khan
Mary E. Crock Demetria Severe The Legal Circle Alexander Botian Viachaslav Shastak
Sydney Law School Borovtsov & Salei Law Firm
Joseph A. Walker Md Khademul Islam Choyon Vital Kalyada
Merrilyn Walton Halsbury Chambers Sattar&Co. Alexey Korol VVK law
University of Sydney Stepanovski, Papakul and
Koren Debi Williams Md Salequzzaman Partners Vitali Nikanovich
Neil James Williams Fidulex Supreme Court of Bangladesh; EDU-HUB
Australia Defence Association The Legal Era Aliaksandr Dzerhachou
Nerissa A. Greene Human Rights Center “Spring” Yury Evgeny Razvodovsky
Nicholas Cowdery Halsbury Chambers Mir Shamsur Rahman International Academy of
University of Sydney; University of Asia Pacific Aliaksei Kralko Sobriety
University of New South Ron O. Pinder Belarusian Medical Academy
Wales Muhammad Rashel Siddiqui of Postgraduate Education Anonymous Contributors
Sharanda Humes-Forbes Rashel’s Law Corner
Peter Cashman Anastasia Morgun Belgium
University of Sydney Shavon D. Bethel S. H. Taskeen Emon Borovtsov & Salei Law Firm
Douglas Sands & Associates Rahman’s Chambers Ann Witters
Peter Sainsbury Anatoly Leshanok Claeys & Engels
University of Sydney Tavares K. LaRoda S. M. Abid Ur Rahman Republican Public
Sunshine Holdings Limited Tanjib Alam & Associates Association “People Plus” Arent Lievens
Sarah Hill Advocatenkantoor Lievens &
Selborne Chambers Vann P. Gaitor Sabbir Hossain Andrei Famenka Lievens
Higgs & Johnson Solidarity Center Bangladesh World Health Organization
Sean Cooney Christoph Van der Elst
University of Melbourne Wayne R. Munroe Salman Sadiq Khan Andrei Vaso Tilburg University; Gent
Munroe & Associates FM Associates Gomel Regional Narcological University
Simon Rice Dispensery
University of Sydney Anonymous Contributors Shahana Rahman Damas François
Rahman’s Chambers Artemev Sergej; Artsemyeu CHU de Liège
Tom Faunce Bangladesh Siarhei
Australian National University Shakina Akter Belorusian State University Freek Louckx
A. H. M. Belal Chowdhury Rahman’s Chambers Universiteit Antwerpen; Vrije
Veronica Taylor FM Associates Dmitry Kovalchik Universiteit Brussel
Australian National University Tanim Hussain Shawon Stepanovski, Papakul and
A. S. M. Alamgir Supreme Court of Bangladesh Partners Jean Jacqmain
Anonymous Contributors Institute of Epidemiology, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Disease Control and Research Tanvir Quader Dmitry Petrovich
Austria Vertex Chambers Jean-Marc Gollier
Ali Asif Khan Dmitry Semashko Eubelius
Clemens Egermann Law Firm Hossain & Khan Tanzeer Ahmad Stepanovski, Papakul and
Barnert Egermann Illigasch Associates Rahman’s Chambers Partners Jean-Michel Dogné
Rechtsanwälte GmbH Université de Namur
Badhan Roy Tasmiah Nuhiya Ahmed Elena Sapego
Gerhard Jarosch Rahman’s Chambers Bangladesh Institute of Law Stepanovski, Papakul and Jelle Janssens
Eurojust and International Affairs Partners Ghent University
Bilqis Amin Hoque
Ivo Greiter Environment and Population Anonymous Contributors Elena Sheleg Johan Put
Greiter Pegger Kofler & Research Centre Stepanovski, Papakul and University of Leuven
Partners Barbados Partners
Darras Abdullah Luk Delbrouck
Julian Feichtinger Tanjib Alam & Associates Andrew C. Ferreira Kanna Kostevich
CHSH Chancery Chambers International University Pascal Vanderveeren
Farhana Islam Khan MITSO
Karl Stoeger Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed & Andrew C. Greaves Patrick Henry
University of Graz Associates Kirill Tomashevski
Chester L. Sue International University Pieter De Koster
Manfred Ketzer Ferdausur Rahman Chester L. Sue & Co. MITSO Catholic University Leuven
Hausmaninger Kletter A.S & Associates
Denise Haynes Lada Maisenia Valerie Flohimont
Martin Reinisch Gazi Md Rokib Bin Hossain LuminLaw Borovtsov & Salei Law Firm Université de Namur
Brauneis Kluser Prändl The Legal Circle
Attorneys at Law Diana R. Douglin Maksim Maksimov Vincent Chiavetta
Ibtida Farhat Tropa ReginaLex Verkhovodko & Partners LLC LITIS S
A.S & Associates
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

Fábio Ulhoa Coelho Márcio Souza Guimarães Rômulo Soares Valentini Stanley B. Gyoshev Pascaline Sobgho
Pontifícia Universidade Márcio Guimarães Advogados Universidade Federal de Minas University of Exeter
Católica de São Paulo Associados Gerais Regis Elisee W. Bonkoungou
Anonymous Contributors
Felipe Asensi Maria Celina Bodin de Sérgio Cruz Arenhart Salifou Konfe
Universidade do Estado do Rio Moraes Ministério Público Federal Burkina Faso Ministère de la Santé
de Janeiro Universidade do Estado do
Rio de Janiero; Pontifícia Sergio Mannheimer Abdoul Karim Saidou Samuel Ibrahim Guitanga
Fernanda Vargas Terrazas Universidade Católica do Rio Andrade & Fichtner Université Ouaga II Barreau du Burkina Faso
Conselho Nacional de de Janeiro Advogados
Secretarias Municipais de Abdoulaye Soma Souleymane Tassemebedo
Saúde Maria Clara Oliveira Santos Soraia Ghassan Saleh Société Burkinabé de Droit Centre Muraz
Universidade Federal de São Saleh Advogados Associados Constitutionnel
Fernando Aith João del-Rei Stephane Tiendrebeogo
University of São Paulo Sueli Gandolfi Dallari Abdul Gafar Victoir Major Conseils Sarl
Maria Valéria Junho Penna Universidade de São Paulo Coulidiaty
Flávia Souza Máximo Federal University of Rio de Centre Muraz Ter Tiero Elias Dah
Pereira Janeiro Suzana De Queiroz Alves Centre Muraz
Universidade Federal de Ouro Defensoria Pública da União Apollinaire Joachimson
Preto Mariana Chies Santiago Kyélem de Tambela Thomas Ouedraogo
Santos Teresa Ancona Lopez Barreau du Burkina Faso; Ministère de la Santé
Gabriel Costa Instituto Brasileiro de Ciências Universidade de São Paulo Centre de Recherches
Shell Brasil Petróleo Ltda. Criminais Internationales et Stratégiques Traore Youl Yeri Silvie
Thiago Bottino Ministère de la Santé
Gerson Luiz Carlos Branco Marilia Bense Othero Fundação Getúlio Vargas Baimanai Angelain Poda
Universidade Federal do Rio University of São Paulo Anonymous Contributors
Grande do Sol Victor Hugo Criscuolo Boubacar Nacro
Matheus Cherulli Alcantara Boson Centre Hospitalier Cambodia
Guilherme Bier Barcelos Viana Universidade Federal de Minas Universitaire Sourô Sanou
Rossi, Maffini, Milman & Viana e Azevedo Advogados Gerais Billy Chia-Lung Tai
Grando Advogados Boubakar Toure
Mauricio Faragone Anonymous Contributors Université Ouaga I Pr Joseph Fil Blando Tabayoyong, Jr.
Heloisa Estellita Faragone Advogados Ki-Zerbo; Centre Hospitalier Pannasatra University of
Fundação Getúlio Vargas Bulgaria Universitaire Yalgado Cambodia
Mauricio Maleck Coutinho Ouédraogo
Igor Parente Andrey Delchev Kit Touch
Shell Brasil Petróleo Ltda. Michael Freitas Mohallem Andrey Delchev & Partners Boukary Ouedraogo Community Legal Education
Fundação Getúlio Vargas Ministère de la Santé Center
Jéssica de Paula Bueno da Assen Vassilev
Silva Paulo Marcos Rodrigues Center for Economic Strategy Bruno Ki Long Kimheang
Universidade Federal de Ouro Brancher and Competitiveness Pathfinder International Housing Rights Task Force
Preto Pontifícia Universidade
Católica de São Paulo Atanas Slavov Etienne Seni Sia Phearum
José Ricardo dos Santos Luz Sofia University Cabinet FUTURJURIS Housing Rights Task Force
Júnior Paulo Rogério Sehn
Braga Nascimento e Zilio Trench, Rossi e Watanabe Denitsa Rukanova Habib Ahmed Djiga Sophea Im
Advogados Associados Advogados Sofia Bar Association Université Ouaga II ISDC

Juliana Cesario Alvim Paulo Sergio João Gergana Ilieva Hama Diallo Sopheap Chak
Gomes Pontifícia Universidade Université Ouaga I Pr Joseph Cambodian Center for Human
Universidade do Estado do Rio Católica de São Paulo Hristo Botev Ki-Zerbo Rights
de Janeiro
Pedro Freitas Ivan Marinov Hamidou Lamoussa Sopheap Suos
Leandro Bonini Farias Veirano Advogados Delchev & Partners Ouattara Housing Rights Task Force
Coutinho e Farias Sociedade SCPA Loyalty
de Advogados Rafael Maffini Ivelina Vassileva; Stefana Yun Mane
Rossi, Maffini, Milman & Tsekova Ilboudo G. Patrick
Lília Carvalho Finelli Grando Advogados; UFRGS Schoenherr Agence de Medecine Anonymous Contributors
Universidade Federal de Minas Preventive
Gerais Rafael Villac Vicente de Jenia Dimitrova Cameroon
Carvalho CMS Cameron McKenna Issoufou Tiendrebeogo
Luciano Feldens Peixoto & Cury Advogados Nabarro Olswang Association African Solidarité Alain Christian Bikoe
Pontifícia Universidade Centre Africain de Recherches
Católica do Rio Grande do Sul Raoni Macedo Bielschowsky Lachezar Raichev Judith Delwende Waongo sur les Politiques Energétiques
Universidade Federal de Penkov, Markov & Partners ADEP et Minières
Luis Eduardo Serra Netto Uberlândia
Duarte Garcia, Serra Netto Lidia Mladenova Georgieva Kassem Salam Sourwema Asibong Queenta
e Terra Raquel Betty de Castro Medical University, Sofia Université Ouaga II The Abeng Law Firm
Pimenta
Marcelo Guedes Nunes Tribunal Regional do Trabalho Momiana Guneva Koulika Arnaud Nikiema Benjamin Fomba Kamga
Pontifícia Universidade da 3ª Região Burgas Free University CREFAS Consulting Group Université de Yaoundé 2
Católica de São Paulo
Raquel Lima Scalcon Nikolai Hristov Küssome Paulin Somda Bérenger Yves Meuke
Marcia Mannheimer Humboldt Universität zu Medical University, Sofia Ministère de la Santé Boutchouang
Berlin SCPA Jurifis Consult
Marcia Vilapiano Gomes Pavel Petkov Mamadou Traoré
Primos Roberta de Freitas Campos Cabinet d’Avocats M.S.T Bethmba Yanou Nadine
Primos e Primos Advogados Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Peter Petrov Barreau du Cameroun
Yosifova, Ivanov & Petrov Moussa Ouedraogo
Marcio Caldas Rodrigo Giordano de Castro MADT Charles Harold Kooh
Caldas & Ricciardi Sociedade Peixoto & Cury Advogados Petko Salchev The Abeng Law Firm
de Advogados National Center of Public Nonkani Wendyam Gérard
Rodrigo Infantozzi Health and Analyses Ministère de la Santé Christian Aime Chofor Che
Government of Cameroon;
Olivier O. Yelkouny University of Pretoria
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

J. Paul Habibu Safari Samuel Dimuene Luis Gerardo González Kone Dogbemin G. Daniel Bartoň
Cabinet Chikuru & Associes International Dimuene Law Aguilar SCPA Nambeya-Dogbemin &
Firm Universidad Costa Rica Associés Hedvika Hartmanova
Jean Michel Mvondo Hartmanova & Steininger
Réseau d’Education Civique Symphorien Kapinga K. Marco Durante Calvo Lynda Dadié-Sangaret
au Congo Nkashama BDS Asesores Jurídicos Cabinet Dadié-Sangaret & Helena Hangler
Centre de Recherches et Associés Schoenherr
Jean-Moise Djoli d’Etudes Sur l’Etat de Droit en María del Rocío Quirós
Cabinet Djoli et Associés Afrique Arroyo Niangadou Aliou Jan Hurdík
Bufete AG Legal Masaryk University Brno
Jean-Paul Divengi Nzambi Tanayi Mbuy Mbiye Paterne Mambo
Fondation Bongisa Mokili Centre d’Arbitrage du Congo Miguel Ruiz-Herrera Université Félix Houphouët- Jan Poláček
Lex Counsel Boigny Poláček Tryznová & Prudlová
Jeff lushima Thérèse Mambu
Université de Kinshasa Pablo Enrique Guier Acosta Patrice Kouassi Jitka Kadlčíková
Jérémie Kabambi Mukoka Asejur Abogados
Alternative Citoyenne Pour Les Vianney Kanku Pierre Tanoh Diavatché Lukáš Prudil
Droits De L’homme Action Contre l’Impunité pour Ramón Yglesias Piza Barreau de Côte d’Ivoire AK PRUDIL a spol., S.R.O.
le Droits Humains Bufete Mora Yglesias y
Joseph Cihunda Hengelela Asociados Raphaël Abauleth Michal Peškar
Centre de Recherches et Yav Katshung Joseph CHU Cocody
d’Etudes Sur l’Etat de Droit en Yav & Associates Randall Madrigal Madrigal Miloslav Jančík
Afrique Comisión Derecho a la Salud; Souleymane Sakho
Anonymous Contributors Colegio de Abogados SCPA Sakho-Yapobi-Fofana Pavel Holec
Julien Iyamulemye Holec, Zuska & Partners
Barreau de Kinshasa/Gombe Costa Rica Rodrigo Oreamuno B. Tigby Junior Franck Wilfried
Facio & Cañas Radek Matouš
Kayembe Mutamba Joseph Alejandro Batalla Youan Gotre Jules Dvořák Hager & Partners
Ministère de la Santé Publique Ruben Hernandez Valle AMEPOUH
Ana Lucía Espinoza Blanco Universidad Costa Rica Stepan Holub
Kilomba Sumaili Adolphe Anonymous Contributors Holubova Advokati, S.R.O.
Congolese Centre for Anabelle López D. Sergio Amador
Transitional Justice Central Law Batalla Salto Luna Croatia Tomas Cihula
Kinstellar
Laurent Okuma Armando Alberto Guardia Wilberth Elías Montenegro Alan Soric
Justice for Victims of Congo Sasso Reyes Soric & Tomekovic Dunda Tomas Matejovsky
Guardia & Cubero Bufete AG Legal Attorneys CMS Cameron McKenna
Lebrun Kembo Nabarro Olswang
Fondation Bongisa Mokili Arnoldo André Tinoco Anonymous Contributors Anita Krizmanic
Lexincorp Macesic & Partners LLC Veronika Prudlová
Liévin Kapend Cote d’Ivoire Poláček Tryznová & Prudlová
PNMLS Arturo Herrera Barquero Arsen Bacic
Caja Costarricense de Seguro Affeli Alla University of Split Vojtech Steininger
Lumbu Faila Carole Social Barreau de Côte d’Ivoire Hartmanova & Steininger
Dynamique des Femmes sur Boris Kozjak
les Ressources Naturelles Benjamín Gutiérrez Alexandre Baïro Boris Kozjak Law Office Zuzana Candigliota
Contreras Klemet Sawadogo Kouadio Liga Lidských Práv
Lydie Kazhu C. BG&A Abogados Corporativos Boris Šavorić
KMCL Arci Eric Djélardjé Šavorić & Partners LLC Anonymous Contributors
Carlos H. Pacheco Cabinet Kignaman Soro et
Mamy Ngole AB&P Abogados Associés Darko Jurišić Denmark
County Hospital Dr. J.
Marie Nyombo Zaina Carlos Humberto Góngora Arsene Dable Benčević Anette Storgaard
Réseau Nationale des ONG Fuentes Aarhus University
pour le Développement de le Charles Kignima Floriana Bulić-Jakuš
Femme Carlos José Valerio Monge University of Zagreb Anne Brandt Christensen
Eric Bably Advokatfirmaet Brandt
Modeste Mulumba Enrique López Jiménez BK & Associes Ivo Grga Christensen
Mwamba Dentons Muñoz Law Office Ivo Grga
Avocats Sans Frontieres RDC Fotienworo Mathias Anne Kathrine Schøn
Ewald Acuña Blanco Coulibaly Jelena Zjacic Labora Legal
Ngoma Miezi Kintaudi Bufete Acuña & Asociados Société d’Avocats JurisFortis Macesic & Partners LLC
SANRU ASBL Chalida Svastisalee
Fátima Porras Moya Geneviève Diallo Marko Borsky Copenhagen Professional
Nsangana Biaya Yvette Martínez & Porras Abogados Réseaux Paix et Sécurité des College
Action Contre l’Impunité pour Femmes dans l’Espace Marko Lovrić
le Droits Humains Fernán Vargas Marko Lovrić Law Office Christian Bay Nielsen
Lex Counsel Géraldine Odehouri-Koudou STORM Advokatfirma
Pacifique Muhindo Magadju Barreau de Côte d’Ivoire Milana Trbojević Palalić
Université Catholique de Francisco José Aguilar University of Rijeka Hans Henrik Edlund
Bukavu Urbina Gonsan Zozoe Aarhus University
Publicola Project AFDP Rudolf Gregurek
Patrick Katebe Kaisa University of Zagreb Jacob Schall Holberg
Barreau de Kinshasa/Gombe Gabriel Lizama Oliger Jerome Coulibaly Climanlo Bech-Bruun Law Firm
Lexing Costa Rica Université Félix Houphouët- Višnja Drenški Lasan
Roger Kabeya Mulumba Boigny Jakob S. Johnsen
Barreau de Kinshasa/Gombe Juan Guillermo Tovar Zoran Vukić HjulmandKaptain
Gonzalez Joachim Bilé-Aka Vukic & Partners Law Firm
Roger Mulamba Katamba Bufete Tovar y Asociados Bilé-Aka, Brizoua-Bi & Jannik Haahr Antonsen
Cabinet d’Avocats RMK et Associes Anonymous Contributors Codex Law Firm
Associes Karen Vargas López
Universidad Costa Rica Kignaman Soro Czech Republic Marianne Granhøj; Kristian
Romain Battajon KS & Associés Bro
DALDEWOLF Luis Ángel Sánchez Montero Anna Nevečeřalová Kromann Reumert
Facio & Cañas Šustek & Co.
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

Melita Sogomonjan Kimmo Nuotio Juliette Chapelle Levan Avalishvili Henning Rosenau
Tallinn University of University of Helsinki Cabinet Chapelle Avocat Institute for Development of Martin-Luther-Universität
Technology Freedom of Information Halle-Wittenberg
Matti Ilmari Niemi Karl Hepp de Sevelinges
Merle Erikson University of Eastern Finland Jeantet Lina Ghvinianidze Hermann Bietz
University of Tartu Human Rights Education and Bietz Arbitration
Matti Tolvanen Mahir Al Banna Monitoring Center
Senny Pello University of Eastern Finland American University in the Ingo Friedrich
Advokaadibüroo Concordia Emirates Mariam Tutberidze International Understanding
Mika J. Lehtimäki Institute for Development of and Peace
Sten Luiga Attorneys-at-Law TRUST; Marie-Christine Cimadevilla Freedom of Information
Cobalt Law Firm University of Oxford Cimadevilla Avocats Ingo Klaus Wamser
Nata Kazakhashvili FoSt Anwaltsrecht
Tanel Küün Mika Launiala Nicole Stolowy Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State
Law Office TARK University of Eastern Finland HEC Paris University Jessica Jacobi
Kliemt.Arbeitsrecht
Anonymous Contributors Niklas Vainio Olivier Péan de Ponfilly Natalia Geladze
University of Helsinki Juergen Baumann
Ethiopia Patrice Le Maigat Natia Katsitadze
Patrick Lindgren Université de Rennes 1 Article 42 of the Constitution Karsten Schmidt
Aberra Degefa Nagawo ADVOCARE Law Office Bucerius Law School
Addis Ababa University Philippe Marin Nino Merebashvili-Fisher
Raimo Isoaho Cabinet Imavocats Institute for Development of Kathrein Knetsch
Abiyou Girma Tamrat University of Turku Freedom of Information Advovox Rechtsanwalts GmbH
Samira Denfer
Alemu M. Negash Raimo Lahti Nona Kurdovanidze Kerstin Niethammer-
Jimma University University of Helsinki Sébastien Ducamp Georgian Young Lawyers’ Jürgens
Sesame Avocats Association Jürgens
Fikadu Asfaw Tatu Hyttinen Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft
Fikadu Asfaw and Associates University of Turku Stéphane Bonifassi Saba Buadze mbH
Law Office Bonifassi Avocats Institute for Development of
Teuvo Pohjolainen Freedom of Information Marc Seifert
Filipos Aynalem University of Eastern Finland Thierry Berland Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Tamar Dekanosidze
Guadie Sharew Ville Sinisalo Thierry Lambert Georgian Young Lawyers’ Martin Reufels
Bahir Dar University Bluefox Legal Tech Aix-Marseille Université Association Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek

Hiruy Wubie Anonymous Contributors Véronique Tuffal-Nerson Anonymous Contributors Martin Sträßer
Gebreegziabher Cabinet Tuffal-Nerson Sträßer Rehm Barfield
Monash University France Douarre et Associés Germany
Monika Hagen
Kidist Sheferaw Carlos M. Herrera Anonymous Contributors Alexander Putz Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Hagen
Université de Cergy-Pontoise Putz und Partner,
Kumsa Girma Kassa Georgia Steuerberater & Rechtsanwalt Ndjamawe Bah-Traore
Arsi University Christophe Chabrot
Université Lumière-Lyon 2 Ana Chelidze Anna Lindenberg Nicola Kreutzer
Mehari Redae JSC “Basisbank” Kreutzer & Kreuzau
Addis Ababa University Cyril Bloch Annegret Berne
Aix-Marseille Université Anna Arganashvili Oliver Bolthausen
Mekdem Belayneh NGO Partnership for Human Axel Nagler DWF
Mekdem Law Office David Levy Rights Nagler, Haberkern & Partner
Barreau de Paris Oliver Schellbach
Mesfin Tafesse George Gotsadze Beckmann-Koßmann Schellbach Rechtsanwälte
Mesfin Tafesse & Associates Dominique Inchauspé Curatio International
Cabinet Inchauspé & Remy Foundation Burkhard Klüver Othmar K. Traber
Rahel Alemayehu Ahlers & Vogel Rechtsanwälte Ahlers & Vogel Rechtsanwälte
Dominique Velardocchio Giorgi Beraia PartG mbB PartG mbB
Samrawit Behailu Aix-Marseille Université Institute for Development of
Tameru Wondm Agegnehu Freedom of Information Carsten Momsen Rainer M. Hofmann
Law Offices Elisabeth Grabli Freie Universität Berlin Kanzlei im Hofhaus Aachen
Barreau de Paris Giorgi Kldiashvili
Tamrat Assefa Institute for Development of Christian Wolff Ralf Mathey
Tamrat Assefa Liban Law Fabrice Bien Freedom of Information Schock Rechtsanwälte RAe
Office Groupe ESC Clermont-
Auvergne Gocha Svanidze Christof Kerwer Roland Gross
Tegegne Zergaw Law Firm Svanidze & Partners Julius-Maximilians-Universität
Bahir Dar University Florence Debord Würzburg Sabine Barth
Université Lumière-Lyon 2 Grigol Gagnidze Lange Brunner Rechtsanwälte
Temesgen Sisay Beyene Georgian Barristers & Lawyers Christoph Lindner Partnerschaft mbB
Bahir Dar University Francis Tartour International Observatory
Dirk Vielhuber Sebastian Reinsch
Zemenu Tarekegn Yimenu Georges Sioufi Ivdity Chikovani BG BAU Munich Janke & Reinsch
Debremarkos University SRDB Law Firm Curatio International Rechtsanwälte
Foundation Friederike Lemme
Anonymous Contributors Guillaume Protière Kanzlei Lemme Stefan Huster
Université Lumière-Lyon 2 Lasha Gogiberidze Ruhr-Universiät Bochum
Finland BGI Legal Gernot A. Warmuth
Isabelle Carbuccia Scheiber & Partner Stephan Sander
Ari Miettinen IVCH Law Firm Lela Sulaberidze Terhedebrügge und Sander
Fimlab Laboratories Ltd. Curatio International Gregor Dornbusch
Isabelle-Victoria Carbuccia Foundation Baker McKenzie Thomas Feltes
Jens Kremer IVCH Law Firm Ruhr-Universiät Bochum
University of Helsinki Hauke Hagena
Jacob Maillet ProMINT
Jukka Peltonen Université Paris Descartes
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

Johana Bermudez Lacayo Ian Scott Ashok Ramgir Anonymous Contributors Naser Jafari
Universidad Nacional City University of Hong Kong Harsh Impex
Autónoma de Honduras; Indonesia P. Mehran Tamadonfar
Instituto Hondureño de James A. Rice Bontha V. Babu University of Nevada
Seguridad Social Lingnan University Indian Council of Medical Agustinus Dawarja
Research LexRegis Parviz Azadfallah
José M. Álvarez James L. W. Wong Tarbiat Modares University
BLP Abogados Century Chambers Daya Krishan Mangal Anton Latief
Indian Institute of Health Budidjaja International Reza Salimi
Juan José Alcerro Milla Johannes Chan Management Research Lawyers Iranian Central Bar
Aguilar Castillo Love University of Hong Kong Association
E. N. Thambi Durai Bagus S. D. Nur Buwono
Karla Gabriela Katie Lam Durai Group Companies Bagus Enrico & Partners Sanaz Alasti
BLP Abogados Hewlett Packard Enterprise Lamar University
Ishwar Chandra Dwivedi Bama Djokonugroho
Leobildo Amilcar Cabrera Michael Chai Budidjaja International Sara Tajdini
Cabrera Bernacchi Chambers Milanka Chaudhury Lawyers Gheidi Law Office
Colegio de Abogados de Link Legal India Law Service
Honduras Michael Vidler Hadi Pratomo Anonymous Contributors
Vidler & Co Solicitors Nagarathna A. Universitas Indonesia
Lino Carmenate Milián National Law School of India Italy
Universidad Nacional Philip Dykes University Hendrik Alfian Pasaribu
Autónoma de Honduras Makarim & Taira S. Alberto Fantini
Rick Glofcheski Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti Tonucci & Partners
Lisandro Valle Pérez University of Hong Kong Kiit University Immanuel A. Indrawan
Indrawan Darsyah Santoso Alessia-Ottavia Cozzi
Lurbin España Shahla Ali Pankaj Jain Area Science Park
Asociación Hombro a Hombro University of Hong Kong Jono Yeo
Prakash Prabhakarrao Doke Budidjaja International Andrea Lolli
Manuel Antonio Sierra Tam Yat Hung Bharati Vidyappeth Deemed Lawyers
Santos University of Hong Kong University Anna Simonati
Universidad Tecnologica Marco Kumar University of Trento
Centroamericana Anonymous Contributors Puneet Misra AM Oktarina
All India Institute of Medical Antonella Antonucci
Marco Antonio Calix Hungary Sciences Muhamad Kamal Fikri Università degli studi Aldo
Rodriguez Assegaf Hamzah & Partners Moro - Bari
Bufete Calix & Asociados Ákos Bajorfi Rajas Kasbekar
Noerr & Partners Law Office Rahayu Ningsih Hoed Astolfo Di Amato
Marvin Rigoberto Espinal Ruchi Sinha Makarim & Taira S. Astolfo Di Amato e Associati
Pinel András Jakab Tata Institute of Social
Universidad Nacional University of Salzburg Sciences Sianti Candra Davide Cacchioli
Autónoma de Honduras Universitas Podomoro Pedersoli Studio Legale
Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz Sankaran Ramakrishnan
Max Salgado Hungarian Academy of Sunardjo Sumargono Emanuele Cortesi
Actio Juris Sciences Saurabh Misra Law Office of Semar Caffi, Maroncelli & Associati
Saurabh Misra & Associates Suryakencana Cipta
Melvin Tejada Gábor Baruch Justiceindo Emanuele Scafato
CCSHH Baruch Law Office Shankar Das Società Italiana di Alcologia
Tata Institute of Social Tristam Pascal Moeliono
Miguel Armando Zapata Gabor Papp Sciences Catholic University of Francesco de Angelis
Izaguirre Parahyangan-Bandung
García & Bodán Mező Réka Subhash Chandra Bhatnagar Gian Luigi Gatta
Anonymous Contributors Università degli Studi di
Milton Moises Carcamo Nóra Nagy-Baranyi Subhrarag Mukherjee Milano
Nagy-Baranyi Law Office Hewlett Packard Enterprise Iran
Rafael Gomez Mateo Gianfranco Di Garbo
Grupo Legalsa de Honduras Petra Bárd Sumeet Kaur Abolfazl Shirazi Baker McKenzie
ELTE School of Law Avicenna Research Institute
Ruben A. Rodezno Sandoval Surabhi Chopra Giovanni Nardulli
HondurasLawyers Viktor Oliver Lorincz Chinese University of Hong Ahmad Daryani Legance - Avvocati Associati
Hungarian Academy of Kong Mazandaran University of
Ruth Otilia Posadas Vasquez Sciences Medical Sciences Giuseppe Lorenzo Rosa
Asociación Hombro a Hombro Tania Ahlawat
Zsolt Zengődi Ahlawat & Associates Amir A. Fakhravar Marco Esposito
Valerya Theodoracopoulos National Iranian Congress University of Naples
Arias Anonymous Contributors Uday Singh Ahlawat
Ahlawat & Associates Farhad Derhami Mariano Cingolani
Walter L. Ramírez India Bayan Emrooz Law Firm University of Macerata
LexFirma Vijay Raghavan
Anil Fernandes Tata Institute of Social Hamid Bagherzadeh Patrizia Magarò
Anonymous Contributors Anil Fernandes & Associates Sciences Farama Law Firm Università di Genova

Hong Kong SAR, China Anil Kumar K. Vikram Shroff Hamid Reza Bakhshi Patrizio Ivo D’Andrea
Tata Institute of Social Nishith Desai Associates Moakher Università di Ferrara
Christopher Hooley Sciences
Oldham, Li & Nie Vipender Mann Kamiar Alaei Pierpaolo Martucci
Anil Paleri KNM & Partners Institute for International University of Trieste
David C. Donald Health and Education
The Chinese University of Anshul Prakash Y. S. Kusuma Pietro Faraguna
Hong Kong Khaitan & Co. All India Institute of Medical Mohammad Badamchi University of Trieste
Sciences Hami Legal Services
Ho Lok Sang Anshuman Verma Riccardo Del Punta
Chu Hai College of Higher The Invention Factory™ Yashomati Ghosh Mohammad Rahmani University of Florence
Education National Law School of India Bayan Emrooz Law Firm
University
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

Khatoun Haidar Aleksandar Ickovski Madagascar Anonymous Contributors Norhisham Abd Bahrin
Synergy-Takamol Azmi & Associates
Aleksandra Baleva Alain Ramanarivo Malawi
Mohamad Ramadan Grozdanova Barreau de Madagascar Nurjaanah Chew
Elaref International Law Office Godzo, Kiceec & Novakovski Adamson S. Muula University of Malaya
Alexandra Rajerison University of Malawi
Pierre Obeid Aleksandra Gruevska Maralex Legal Avocats Obijiofor Aginam
University of Balamand Drakulevski Anthony Jeckson Malunga International Institute for
Ss. Cyril and Methodius Alphonse Anatole Generation Consultancy Global Health
Rihab Aboul Hosn University
Andry Herisoa Andrianasolo Bernadette W. Malunga R. Usha Devi
Roula Zayat Anita Begova Institut International des University of Malawi R Usha Devi & Associates
Arab Center for the Law Office Begova Sciences Sociales
Development of the Rule of Bruno Paul Matumbi S. B. Cheah
Law and Integrity Borjanka Todorovska Aviva Ramanitra Excellence Law Partners S. B. Cheah & Associates
Donevski Law Firm Lexel Juridique et Fiscal
Salah Mattar Chipiliro Mbekwani Saw Tiong Guan
Mattar Law Firm Darko Spasevski Bakoly Razaiarisolo Chitsonga University of Malaya
Ss. Cyril and Methodius Rakotomalala Leos Attorneys at Law
Souraya Machnouk University SEFIP-FFKM Sharon Kaur
Abou Jaoude & Associates Douglas Lungu University of Malaya
Law Firm Deljo Kadiev Fahafahantsoa Rapelanoro Daeyang Luke Hospital
Rabenja Suganthi Singam
Tony G. Zreik Doncho M. Donev Laboratoire LARTIC; Fresier Chidyaonga-Maseko Shearn Delamore & Co.
Lebanese American University Ss. Cyril and Methodius Université d’Antananarivo University of Malawi
University Yap Chiu Wan
Wissam Kabbara Fenosoa Rajomarison George Naphambo Messrs Shook Lin & Bok
Lebanese American University Elena Dimova-Ivanoska John W. Fooks & Co. Naphambo and Company
Cakmakova Advocates Yusramizza Md Isa @ Yusuff
Anonymous Contributors Hery Harizandry Kamudoni Nyasulu Universiti Utara Malaysia
Emil Miftari Razafiarison Kamudoni Nyasulu Law
Liberia Ministere de la Justice Consultants Zainal A. Ayub
Gorica Nadjinska Universiti Utara Malaysia
Arthur T. Johnson CLRA Jean Pierre Rakotovao Krishna Savjani
Jhpiego Savjani and Co. Anonymous Contributors
Cecil B. Griffiths Ilija Nedelkoski
Liberia National Law Cakmakova Advocates Jeannot Julien Padoue Lewis Chezan Bande Mali
Enforcement Association Rafanomezana University of Malawi
Leonid Trpenoski Barreau de Madagascar Abdel Kader Cisse
Christiana P. Tah Trpenoski Law Firm Marshal Chileng
Law Office of Christiana P. Tah Lala Henriette Ratsiharovala TF and Partners Aboubacar Souleymane
Ljupka Noveska Andonova Ministere de la Justice Diarra
Cleophas Torori Shepher Mumba
UNDP Maja Risteska Léonard Velozandry Messrs Golden & Law Aguissa Maiga
A.D. Insurance Policy Ordre des Avocats Ministère de la Santé et
Fatu Maima Kamara Foster Wongani Mvula l’Hygiène Publique
Martin Monevski Marie Mélanie Rapenitrarivo Malawi Law Commission
James C. R. Flomo Monevski Law Firm Tribunal de Première Instance Bakary Konaté
The Public Defenders’ Program d’Ankazobe Anonymous Contributors Barreau du Mali
of Liberia Neda Milevska Kostova
STUDIORUM Nathalie Rakotomalala Malaysia Balla Seye
Lucia D. Sonii Gbala Miaro Zo
Heritage Partners & Nenad Janicevic Chew Phye Keat Bourema Sagara
Associates Inc. Law Office Janicevic Njivasoa Nathalie Raja, Darryl & Loh JURIFIS CONSULT
Rambeloson
Malcolm W. Joseph Nikola Jovanovski Barreau de Madagascar Christine Toh Hung Mei Daouda Ba
Center for Media Studies and Center for Legal Research and MahWengKwai & Associates Vaughan Avocats
Peacebuilding Analysis Olivia Rajerison
Cabinet Rajerison Dato’ Sri Dr Ashgar Ali Ali Elias Toure
Mark M. M. Marvey Nikolco Lazarov Mohamed
Heritage Partners & Law Office Lazarov Rafitoson Ketakandriana International Islamic Famoussa Keita
Associates Inc. University
Olivera Docevska Raymond Rakotomanga Hyacinthe Kone
Moses B. F. Massaquoi Justicia Jhpiego Fahri Azzat Cabinet d’Avocat Dofini
Ministry of Health Liberia Fahri & Co. Consult
Stefan Chichevaliev Régina Rakotosoa
Pindarous Allison Centre for Regional Policy Harlida Abdul Wahab Jules Dembele
Transitional Justice Working Research and Cooperation Riki Rakotobe Universiti Utara Malaysia
Group of Liberia Studiorum Cabinet d’Avocat Alex Lalla Gakou
Rafamtanatsoa et Associé Jasmine Wong Kah Man CLG CONSULT, SCPA
T. Debey Sayndee Strashko Stojanovski MahWengKwai & Associates
Kofi Annan Institute; Goce Delchev University Rindra Rabarinirinarison Lassana Diakite
University of Liberia Commission Nationale des Joshua Tay Barreau du Mali
Svetlana Veljanovska Marchés Publics AmerBON
Yafar V. Baikpeh Lassana Diawara
Heritage Partners & Vladimir Donevski Tino Razafinimanana Khadijah Mohamed SCPA Juri
Associates Inc. Law Firm Donevski Universiti Utara Malaysia
Tojo Maminiaina Magatte Assane Seye
Anonymous Contributors Zharko Hadji Zafirov Andriambololona Mahadirin Hj. Ahmad Cabinet Seye
Center for Legal Research and Barreau de Madagascar Universiti Malaysia Sabah
Macedonia Analysis Mahamane Ibrahima Cisse
Tokisetra Ramilison Munir Abdul Aziz
Aleksandar Godjo Anonymous Contributors Wong & Partners Mohamed Goita
Godzo, Kiceec & Novakovski Tsarazara Andrianasoavina Barreau du Mali

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

Vanu Jereghi Anonymous Contributors Denise Namburete Anonymous Contributors Nil Mani Upadhyay
Moldovan Institute for Human N’weti Nepal Army Institute of Health
Rights Morocco Namibia Sciences
Diana Paredes e Ramalho
Vasile Gherasim Abdelaziz Bakkali SAL & Caldeira Advogados, Cornelius J. Verwey Prabin Subedi
Popa & Associates Barreau de Tanger Lda. Paramount Legal Advisory
Eunice Gonzo Services Pvt. Ltd.
Zama Vitalie Abdelghani Khannous Edson José Xavier University of Namibia
Nagacevschi and Partners Center South for Studies and Henriques, Rocha & Prashanna Shrestha
Sustainable Development Associados Sociedade de Floris Coetzee Pradhan & Associates
Anonymous Contributors Advogados Fisher Quarmby Pfeifer
Abdelhamid Benmakhlouf Attorneys Rabin K. C.
Mongolia Gil Cambule Corporate Law Associates (P)
Abdellah Bakkali Universidade Eduardo Hendrik Krüger LIMITED
B. Enkhbat Bakkali Law Firm Mondlane Krüger Van Vuuren & Co.
MDS KhanLex LLP Rabin Subedi
Ali Badi Gilberto Correia Immanuel Mutikisha
Batbayar Ganbayar Association National de Effective Labour Solutions Cc Raju Thapa
Batbayar and Partners LLP Defense des Droits de Gilda Jossias
l’Homme au Maroc AMDEC Isabella Nowases Robin Maskey
Batjargal Gombosuren University of Namibia B.P. Koirala Institute of Health
MDS KhanLex LLP Ali Lachgar Essahili Jennifer Gilda Arnaldo Sciences
Fernanda Lopes & Associados Kobus Miller
Batragchaa Ragchaa Amin Hajji Rudra Prasad Pokhrel
State Housing Corporation of Hajji & Associés Joaquim Simango Lotta N. Ambunda- R P Pokhrel & Associates
Mongolia Fernanda Lopes & Associados Nashilundo
Azzedine Kettani Office of the Judiciary Rukamanee Maharjan
Battuul Bat-Erdene Kettani Law Firm Joaquim Uate Tribhuwan University
Legal FOM Partners LLP Associacao Ntumbuluku Matilda Jankie-Shakwa
Ibrahim Tanfous Sisa Namandje & Co. Inc Sarita Upadhyay
Bayar Budragchaa José Manuel Caldeira
ELC Advocates LLP Khachie Abdelmajid SAL & Caldeira Advogados, Nambili T. K. Shipena Semanta Dahal
Lda. Namibia Special Risks Abhinawa Law Chambers
Bolormaa Volodya Lhassan M’Barki Insurance Association Ltd
Absolute Advocates Law Firm South for Studies and Luis Saragga Leal Shiva Prd. Rijal
Sustainable Development PLMJ Advogados SP, RL Nawala Kamati-Unger Pioneer Law Associates
Buyantogos Baljinnyam Engling, Stritter & Partners
LRCM LLP Mimoun Charqi Miguel Spínola Shringa Rishi Kafle
PLMJ Advogados SP, RL Norman Tjombe Merit Legal Consultancy Pvt.
David C. Buxbaum; Mohamed Baske Manar Tjombe-Elago Incorporated Ltd.
Munkhbayar Batkhuu Université Cadi Ayyad de Neylla Gulamhussen
Anderson and Anderson LLP Marrakech TTA Sociedade de Advogados Ramon Maasdorp Subarna Kumar Khatry
Nepal Nutrition Intervention
David C. Buxbaum; Mohamed El Mernissi Paula Vaz Toni Hancox Project
Myagmarsuren Jambaldorj Figes - Mernissi Fundação Ariel Glaser Legal Assistance Centre
Anderson and Anderson LLP Sudeep Gautam
Mohamed Nakhli Pedro Macaringue Anonymous Contributors Nepal Bar Association
Dugerjav Dash-Onolt Université Cadi Ayyad de Pedro Macaringue &
MDS KhanLex LLP Marrakech Advogados Associados Nepal Tek Tamrakar

Enkhtur Demberelsuren Nesrine Roudane; Richard Rafique de Albuquerque Ananda Koirala Tilak Bikram Pandey
MahoneyLiotta LLP D. Cantin Fernanda Lopes & Associados Pioneer Law Associates
Roudane & Partners Law Firm Basanta Bahadur Basnet
Indermohan S. Narula Shipeni Thovela Axis for Law and Research Usha Pandey
Reda Oulamine Pvt. Ltd. Pradhan & Associates
Khishigsaikhan Batchuluun Oulamine Law Group Anonymous Contributors
Open Society Forum Bishwa Nath Khanal Anonymous Contributors
Anonymous Contributors Myanmar Prithvi Legal Service Center
Khunan Jargalsaikhan Netherlands
Mongolian Bar Association Mozambique Aung Htoo Budhi Karki
Legal Aid Network; Federal Arnold Versteeg
Luke Lkhaasuren Alain Kassa Law Academy Daksha Bahadur Chhetri Macro & Versteeg Advocaten
Agaa & Partners LLP NAIMA+ Neupane Law Associates
Aung Nay Myo E. Kolokatsi
Munkhdorj Badral Alexandre Chivale Thanlwin Legal Kalyan Pokhrel Kolokatsi Advocaten
Mongol-Advocates LLP Alexandre Chivale & F-Dimensional Legal Services
Associados Caitlin Reiger and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Eugenie Nunes; Marije
Naransukh Damiran British Council Ozinga
Health and Safety Solutions Almamater Tamele Kumari Kaushlya Ojha Dentons Boekel N.V.
BTA Advogados, Lda. Mariano Suarez Law and Lawyers Company
Navagchamba Baasanjav Thanlwin Legal Tirpureshwar Gabriel Meijers
Mongolian Bar Association Belisário Tamele Meijers Canatan Advocaten
BTA Advogados, Lda. Min Thein Madhab Raj Ghimire
Odonjav Tsendjav Rajah & Tann NK Legal Co. PSM Global Consultants P. Ltd Gerben den Hertog
JD Advocates LLP César Carlos Alberto Ltd. Sarfaty Advocaten
Francisco Vamos Ver Meen Chhetri
Saranchimeg Byambaa SAL & Caldeira Advogados, Myat Ko Nepal Center for Disaster Gwen Jansen
National Statistics Office Lda. Justice Base Management
H. J. (Henricus) Snijders
Tsolmonchimeg Enkhbat Constancio Jose Tevete Myint Aung Narayan P. Ghimire University of Leiden
GTs Advocates LLP Fernanda Lopes & Associados AIDS Support Group Center for Rule of Law
Hansko Broeksteeg
Zanaa Jurmed Danilo Nhaca U Mya Thein Narayan Shrestha Radboud University Nijmegen
Center for Citizens’ Alliance MAN - Sociedade de Shrestha Legal Service Center
Advogados, Lda.
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

Laura Omolola Ikwuagwu Arild Vaktskjold Muhammad Nouman Shams Jorge L. Almengor C. Ana Graciela Cruz
George Ikoli & Okagbue Sjukehuset Innlandet; Qazi Law Associates Almengor, Caballero & EsSalud
Høgskulen i Innlandet Asociados
Maryam Belgore Ahmed Muzaffar Islam Armando Ramiro Natividad
Kwara State Judiciary Carl A. Christiansen Legis Inn Attorneys & Jorge Molina Mendoza Maguiña
Ræder AS Corporate Consultants FABREGA MOLINO Estudio Ghersi Abogados
Michael C. Asuzu
Society for Public Health Frank S. Thrana Naila Baig-Ansari José Alberto Barraza Arturo Gárate Salazar
Professionals of Nigeria; World Tonsberg Community Indus Hospital Research Serracín Universidad Nacional Federico
Federation of Public Health Center Villarreal
Associations Geir Steinberg José Renán De León C.
Advokatfirmaet Haavind AS Qaisar Raza Ministerio de Salud de Carlos Torres Berrío
Nkem Itanyi Adam Smith International Panamá Muñiz, Olaya, Meléndez,
University of Nigeria Harald B. Ciarlo Castro, Ono & Herrera
Sara Malkani José Rigoberto Acevedo C. Abogados
Obiajulu Nnamuchi Ivar Alvik Center for Reproductive Rights Universidad Latina
University of Nigeria University of Oslo César Azabache Caracciolo
Shams Ul Haq Qazi Juan Pablo Fabrega Polleri
Oghogho Makinde Karl Harald Søvig Qazi Law Associates FABREGA MOLINO Cesar Puntriano Rosas
Aluko & Oyebode University of Bergen Universidad ESAN
Shams ul Haque Joiya Maria Eugenia Brenes
Olaniyi Felix Olayinka Magne Strandberg Right Law Company Morgan & Morgan Christian Valencia Sarmiento
The Polytechnic Ibadan University of Bergen Estudio Ghersi Abogados
Tariq Rahim Mario Adolfo Rognoni
Olasupo Olaibi Niels R. Kiær Tariq Rahim Law Associates Arosemena Noriega & Dennis Oswaldo Vilchez
Supo Olaibi & Company Rime Advokatfirma DA Contreras Ramirez
Umer Farooq Estudio Ghersi Abogados
Olumide Ekisola Olaf Halvorsen Rønning Ayub Medical College Marlin E. González
Adejumo & Ekisola University of Oslo Asesora Jurídica del Comité Eduardo Herrera Velarde
Anonymous Contributors de Derechos Humanos de Escudo Azul S.A.
Olusoji Elias Stella Tuft Panamá
Olusoji Elias + Company Microsoft Panama Elvia Campos Zavala
Martha Luna Veliz Ministerio de Salud de Perú
Oluwadamilare Yomi-Alliyu Terje Einarsen Adán Arnulfo Arjona López ACE Laywers
Chief Yomi Alliyu & Co. University of Bergen Galindo, Arias & López Evan E. Morgan
Mayte Sánchez G. Evan Morgan & Asociados
Onjefu Adoga Tor Vale Alberto Quirós Bonett Morgan & Morgan
Brooke Chambers Law Firm Germán Jiménez Borra
Ulf Stridbeck Alcibiades E. Villarreal D. Mercedes Arauz De Estudio Muñiz
Ozofu ‘Latunde Ogiemudia University of Oslo Instituto de Investigaciones Grimaldo
Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie Cienctíficas y Servicios de Alta Morgan & Morgan Giulliana Loza Avalos
Anonymous Contributors Tecnología Estudio Loza Avalos
Peter K. Fogam Milagros M. Caballero V.
University of Lagos Pakistan Ana Gilza Córdoba Morgan & Morgan Gonzalo Garcia Calderon
FUNDACASIA
Pontian N. Okoli Asim B. Nasim Natalia S. Vega Gonzalo Mendoza del Solar
University of Dundee Orr, Dignam & Co. Arlene Calvo VaxTrials S.A. Chávez
University of South Florida Universidad Católica de Santa
S. Akinlolu Fagbemi Benazir Jatoi Nydia Flores Chiari Maria de Arequipa
University of Ibadan Armando Barba Caja de Seguro Social de
Faisal Mahmood Ghani Ministerio de Salud de Panama Grover Jonny Aranguri
Sarat Akinloye Faisal Mahmood Ghani & Co. Panamá Carranza
Chief Rotimi Williams’ Olga de Obaldia EsSalud
Chambers Faiza Muzaffar Carlos Ernesto González Fundación para el Desarrollo
Legis Inn Attorneys & Ramírez de Libertad Ciudadana; Ismael Cornejo-Rosello
Terrumun Z. Swende Corporate Consultants Morgan & Morgan Capítulo Panameño de Dianderas
Benue State University, Transparencia Internacional Gerencia Regional de Salud
Makurdi Hasan Hameed Bhatti Daisy Chacon De Cortez Arequipa; Universidad
Lahore Waste Management Chacon y Asociados Abogados Rafael Rodrigo Rodríguez Nacional de San Agustín
Ugoji Abagwe Company Barrios
Acme Law Partners Edith Quiros Renderos & Rodríguez Law Luciano López Flores
Imdad Ali Soomro Firm Estudio Valle-Riestra, López
Uju Obuka Sufi Law Associates Elka González Flores & Munar Abogado;
University of Nigeria Ministerio de Salud de Ramón Ricardo Arias Pontificia Universidad Católica
Kamyla Marvi Panamá Galindo, Arias & López del Perú; la Universidad de
Wahab O. Egbewole San Martín de Porres
University of Ilorin Kausar S. Khan Ernesto Shirley Sebastián Rodríguez Robles
Aga Khan University; Indus Shirley & Asociados Abogados Rodríguez-Robles & Manuel Bermúdez Tapia
Yomi Alliyu San Health Network Espinosa Universidad Nacional Mayor
Chief Yomi Alliyu & Co. Evans Loo de San Marcos
M. Akram Sheikh Escritorio Juridico Loo Xavier Sáez Llorens
Yomi Dare Akram Sheikh Law Associates Hospital del Niño Dr. José Manuel Villa-García Noriega
Checkers Consultancy Services Gabrielle B. Britton Renán Esquivel Estudio Olaechea
Maliha Zia Instituto de Investigaciones
Yusuf Ali Legal Aid Society Cienctíficas y Servicios de Alta Yariela Gonzàlez Ortega Marcos Ricardo Revatta
Yusuf Ali & Co. Tecnología Universidad de Panamá Salas
Mehek Ali Universidad Nacional San Luis
Anonymous Contributors Indus Health Network Haydée Méndez Illueca Anonymous Contributors Gonzaga de Ici
Fundación para la Equidad de
Norway Mohammad Akmal Wasim Género Peru Maria del Pilar Pozo García
Wasim & Co. Advocates & Clínica San Felipe
Anne Kjersti Befring Legal Consultants Iván Chanis Barahona Alberto Varillas
University of Oslo Fundación Iguales García Sayán Abogados Marino Costa Bauer
Mohammad Hassan Arif
LMA Ebrahim Hosain
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

Nicolae-Horia Țiț Primakov Denis Henry L. O. S. Browne Boubacar Diakité Nebojsa Stankovic
Alexandru Ioan Cuza Russian Foreign Trade Browne & Associates Geni & Kebi Stankovic & Partners Law
University Academy, OSCE Office
Leonora Walwyn Clément Diarga Basse
Oana Lucia Gavril Sergei Murzakokv WalwynLaw Petar Bulat
Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații NII HSE - Nizhny Novgorod Fall University of Belgrade
Michella Adrien SOJUFISC
Ovidiu Podaru Sergey Bogatyrev Michella Adrien Law Offices Petar Stojanovic
Babeș-Bolyai University Beiten Burkhardt Fatoumata Watt Joksović, Stojanović and
Rayana Dowden Geni & Kebi Partners
Radu M. Georgescu Sergey Stepanov WEBSTER
Radu Georgescu Law Office Institute of Private Law Ibrahima Niang Simonida Sladojevic-
Sonya Parry Stanimirovic
Radu Rizoiu Svetlana Dobrovolskaya Gonsalves Parry Ibrahima Thine Diop
Rizoiu & Poenaru SCA Moscow Regional Bar Université Cheikh Anta Diop Vladimir Hrle
Association Vadeesha T. N. John de Dakar Hrle Attorneys
Razvan Trusca Johnson & Associates Law
Cluj Bar Victor Pomelov Firm Malick Sané Vladimir Marinkov
Russin & Vecchi Université Cheikh Anta Diop Guberina-Marinkov Law Office
Roxana Iordăchescu-Niţu Anonymous Contributors de Dakar
Iordăchescu & Associates Vilena Voronich Zoran V. Radovic
Russin & Vecchi St. Lucia Mansour Gningue Radovic & Ratkovic Advokati
Sergiu Bogdan Geni & Kebi
Sergiu Bogdan & Asociatii Vyacheslav Chasnyk Henri-Jacques N. Mangal Anonymous Contributors
Saint-Petersburg State 1st National Bank St. Lucia Meissa Toure
Sergiu Golub Pediatric Medical University Ltd. Euromed Université Sierra Leone
Babeș-Bolyai University
Vyacheslav Yablokov John F. Christensen Mohamadou Boye Adam Timbo
Simona Petrina Gavrila Yablokov and Partners Law Spartan Health Sciences Université Gaston Berger Yada Williams and Associates
Dunărea de Jos University Office University
Moustapha Ndoye Adewale Showers
Valerius M. Ciuca Anonymous Contributors Leandra Gabrielle Verneuil Fornah-Sesay, Cummings,
Alexandru Ioan Cuza Jennifer Remy & Associates Ndiouma Ndour Showers & Co.
University Rwanda Université Assane Seck de
Samanthia George Ziguinchor Alhaji Mohamed Warisay
Anonymous Contributors Aimable Mfashingabo Democracy Sierra Leone
M. Abayo Law Firm Trudy O. Glasgow Papa Mamour Sy
Russia Trudy O. Glasgow & Associates Université Cheikh Anta Diop Augustine Sorie-Sengbe
Arsene Rutiyomba de Dakar Marrah
Dmitry Kravchenko Virginia Joseph Yada Williams and Associates
Asnis & Partners Asante Twagira Spartan Health Sciences Paul Babacar Faye
CORBAN University SCPA Sow-Seck-Diagne & Bai Kamara
Eduard Margulyan Associes Pikin-To-Pikin Movement
Margulyan & Kovalev Augustin Rwabigwi Anonymous Contributors
Rwanda Bar Rahimine Azimari Toure Ishmael Philip Mammie
Elena Antonovna St. Vincent & the Geni & Kebi Fornah-Sesay, Cummings,
Abrosimova Charles Gatsinzi Grenadines Showers & Co.
Moscow State University Centre Medical Orkide Samba Cor Sarr
Heidi Badenock Ministere de la Santé et de Lornard Taylor
Elena Gerasimova Happy E. Mukama Joseph Delves Chambers l’Action Sociale Taylor & Associates
Center for Social and Labor RR Associates and Co.
Rights; National Research Jozelle Miller Semou Ndiaye Mambu Samadu Feika
University Law Firm HC General Legal Ministry of Health, Wellness Université Cheikh Anta Diop Prison Watch Sierra Leone
Services Ltd. and the Environment de Dakar
Fatima Sulejmanova Osman Jalloh
National Research University M. Albert Nkundabatware Melvis Kenia Díaz Peña Anonymous Contributors Yada Williams and Associates
Higher School of Economics Milton Cato Memorial
Munana Norbert Hospital Serbia Rakibul Bari Khan
Konstantin Dobrynin M-Advocates & Partners BRAC International
Federal Chamber of Lawyers Patricia P. Marks-Minors Aleksandra Jovic Vranes
of the Russian Federation Pie Habimana The Law Firm of Marks & University of Belgrade Regena Juliana Kain
AmiLex Chambers Marks BRAC International
Maria Erohava Danijela Korać-Mandić
Moscow Higher School of S. C. Nkeza Richard Williams Novi Sad Humanitarian Centre Rowland S. V. Wright
Social & Economic Sciences Williams & Williams, Barristers Wright & Co.
Safari Gahizi & Solicitors Djordje Djurisic
Maria Filatova Global Trade Law Chambers Law Office of Djordje Djurisic Senesie Margao
National Research University Ltd. Stephen Williams Sierra Leone Nurses
Williams & Williams, Barristers Dragan Nikolić Association
Maria Voskobitova Shuaib Napoleon & Solicitors Public Health Institute Niš
ABA ROLI Munyeshema Sierra Leone Labour
Barreau du Rwanda Anonymous Contributors Dragan Psodorov Congress
Maxim Timofeev Joksović, Stojanović and
European Humanities William Karaiga Senegal Partners Anonymous Contributors
University ENSafrica
Amadou Drame Goran Vučić Singapore
Natalya Morozova Anonymous Contributors SODEFITEX Joksović, Stojanović and
Vinson & Elkins LLP Partners Benjamin Joshua Ong
St. Kitts & Nevis Anta Marie Anne Diop Singapore Management
Nikolai Kostenko Ivan Kovačević University
Moscow Helsinki Group Charles Wilkin Balla Sy Lalin Law Office
Kelsick, Wilkin and Ferdinand UCG Chia Boon Teck
Pavel Kabanov Miljkan Karlicic Chia Wong LLP
Kazan Innovative University Dia C. Forrester Bocar Balde
Daniel Brantley LPS Law Mladen Domazet
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

Rafael Ortiz Cervello Savantha De Saram Laura Carlson Thomas Mihayo Sipemba Aleza Mazabalo Alexandre
J&A Garrigues, S.L.P. D. L. & F. De Saram Stockholm University East African Law Chambers Triomphe des Actions
Citoyennes pour un Togo
Rebeca Benarroch Sugath Hettiarachchi Mauro Zamboni Vicensia Alfred Fuko Emergent
Benarroch Citizen Stockholm University
Ciudad Autónoma de Ceuta Vintan Willgis Mbiro Augustin Kokouvi Dokla
Anonymous Contributors Mikael Johansson Breakthrough Attorneys Reseau des Associations des
Remedios Aranda Rodríguez Raoul Wallenberg Institute PVVIH au Togo
Universidad Carlos III de Suriname of Human Rights and Anonymous Contributors
Madrid Humanitarian Law Baroma Madomba Bamana
G. N. Best Thailand Comité d’Action pour
Remedios Menéndez Calvo Essed & Sohansingh Law Firm Ola Zetterquist la Recherche et le
Universidad de Alcalá Gothenburg University Anant Akanisthaphichat Développement
Hugo A. M. Essed Thai Law Firm
Ricard Meneu Law Firm Essed & Sohansingh Olle Mårsäter Claude Kokou Amegan
Fundación Instituto de University of Uppsala Chacrit Sitdhiwej Novation Internationale
Investigación en Servicios de Humphrey R. Schurman Thammasat University
Salud Schurman Advocaten Reinhold Fahlbeck Damien Amoussou K.
Lund University Chaiporn Supvoranid Centre pour la Promotion des
Roberto Mazorriaga Las Justina Eduards Baker McKenzie Droits Humains en Afrique
Hayas Sverker Jönsson
Rambla Abogados y Asesores, Milton van Brussel Lund University Chalermwut Sriporm Dékawunga Djoliba
S.L. BDO Thammasat University Kutolbena
Anonymous Contributors Barreau du Togo
Román Gil Alburquerque Nashreen R. J. Ilahibaks Chawaluck Sivayathorn
Sagardoy Abogados Essed & Sohansingh Law Firm Tanzania Araneta; Punyisa Djifa E. Adjale Suku
Intarapracha SCP Dogbeavou & Associés
Rosa M. Urbanos-Garrido Prema R. Sohansingh Abel M. Ngilangwa Thanathip & Partners Legal
Universidad Complutense de Law Firm Essed & Sohansingh Mighty Juristic Law Chamber Consellors Limited Elliott Hegbor
Madrid
Yvonne S. Engkar Adella J. Msoffe Chulapong Yukate Emmanuel Mamlan
Rosa Zarza Law Firm Coster-Advocaten University of Dar es Salaam ZICOlaw Martial Akakpo & Associés
J&A Garrigues, S.L.P.
Anonymous Contributors Alice Jackson Musetti Chusert Supasitthumrong Essiamé Koko Dzoka
Rosario de Vicente Martínez Breakthrough Attorneys Tilleke & Gibbins International Barreau du Togo
Universidad de Castilla-La Sweden Ltd.
Mancha Anne H. Outwater Ferdinand Ekouévi
Bengt Järvholm Muhimbili University of Health Henning Glaser Amazohoun
Santiago Fernández Umeå University and Allied Sciences Thammasat University SCPA Femiza Associés
Redondo
Hospital Universitario La Bengt Lundell Annmarie Mavenjina Jakkrit Kuanpoth Jean Yaovi Degli
Princesa Lund University Nkelame Thailand Development
Research Institute Joseph Kodzo Sipotou
Sebastián Cantallops Mir Birgitta Nyström Asina Emmy A. Omari
Rambla Abogados y Asesores, Lund University University of Dar es Salaam Jeeranun Klaewkla Justine Mawulawoè
S.L. Mahidol University Azanledji-Ahadzi
Björn Ohde Bakari George Ministère de la Justice Du
Vicente Ortún-Rubio Advokataktiebolaget Roslagen Tengeru Institute of Kowit Adireksombat Togo
Universidad Pompeu Fabra Community Development Baker McKenzie
Boel Flodgren Kafui A. Amekoudi
Xavier Castells Lund University Eliud Kitime Manaswee Wongsuryrat Martial Akakpo & Associés
Universitat Autònoma de Tilleke & Gibbins International
Barcelona Catherine Lions Eustard Athanace Ngatale Ltd. Kao Tanang Salaka
Umeå University PO-RALG Ministère de la Santé et de la
Anonymous Contributors Munin Pongsapan Protection Sociale
Christer Thordson Evold Mushi Thammasat University
Sri Lanka Legal Edge AB Lawfront Advocates Kiss Assiom Bokodjin
Pisut Rakwong
Ajithaa Edirimane Fredrik Gustafsson Faraji Taratibu Pisut & Partners Koffi Houndebasso
Advokatfirma DLA Piper Mkono & Co. Advocates Société Togolaise de
Anusha Wickramasinghe Sweden KB Premprecha Dibbayawan l’Evaluation
George Fernandes Puvana Company Limited
Chrishantha Abeysena Gunilla Lindmark East African Law Chambers Koffi Sylvain Mensah Attoh
University of Kelaniya Uppsala University Wanchai Yiamsamatha Cabinet Attoh-Mensah
Kheri R. Mbiro LS Horizon
Dhanushka Dissanayake Jack Ågren Breakthrough Attorneys Kossi Adjedomole
Sudath Perera Associates Stockholm University Yuthana Promsin Société d’Avocats Martial
Laura Amour Juslaws & Consult Co., Ltd. Akakpo & Associes
Gamini Balasooriya Jessika van der Sluijs Tanzania Revenue Authority
Stockholm University Anonymous Contributors Martial Akakpo
Gamini Perera Laura George Martial Akakpo & Associés
International Law Chambers Johan Sangborn Go2Experts Togo
Swedish Bar Association Mazabalo Bini
N. Sivarajah Octavian William Temu Afangbedji Kossi Jil-Benoît Croix Rouge Togolaise
University of Jaffna Karl-Arne Olsson Octavian and Company Barreau du Togo
Wesslau Söderqvist Advocates Mensah Tele Honorine
Nalin Ashubodha Advokatbyrå Afi Teko da Silveira Association Femme Amazone
Kolonnawa Nursing Home Oliva Mkula Mkanzabi
Karol Nowak Gabriel & Co. Agbéwonou Koudasse Rose Atanley Adjenou
Nathaya Nanayakkara Lund University Cabinet d’Avocat Maître Adjowavi
Sudath Perera Associates Samuel Gibson Karua Galolo Soedjede
Kiflemariam Hamde Karua and Company Theo A. L. Bitho
Raja Goonaratne Umeå University Advocates Akou Pignandi Martial Akakpo & Associés
The Open University of Sri CCM
Lanka
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

Nigel Duncan Karen A. Lash Beatriz Murguía Tomas Guerrero Félix Ignacio Sánchez
City, University of London American University Murguía - Aguirre Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Hernández
Álvarez, Sánchez & Asociados
Peter Caldwell Kepler B. Funk Camilo Martínez Blanco Anonymous Contributors
Doughty Street Chambers Funk, Szachacz & Diamond Universidad de Montevideo Fernando Javier Baralt
LLC Uzbekistan Briceño
Peter McTigue Carlos Cosac Universidad Rafael Urdaneta
Nottingham Trent University Laurel G. Bellows Carlos Cosac Legal Affairs Aziz Akhtamov
The Bellows Law Group, P.C. Tashkent Business Advocate Fernando M. Fernández
Rebecca Niblock Carlos Pittamiglio Law Firm Universidad Central de
Kingsley Napley Leonard A. Sandler Estudio Jurídico Bartesaghi Venezuela
University of Iowa Jakhongir Z. Djuraev
Richard Ashcroft Escandor El Ters Fredy Ernesto Martinez Diaz
Queen Mary University of M. Reynolds Anonymous Contributors Martinez Diaz & Asociados
London Attorneys Judicial Military Federico Samudio Firma de Abogados
Mediators Consulting Team Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Venezuela
Richard Miskella Gilberto A. Guerrero-Rocca
Lewis Silkin LLP Marc Falkoff Gonzalo Gari Irureta Goyena Alberto Blanco-Uribe Florida International
Northern Illinois University Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Quintero University
Richard W. Whitecross Universidad Central de
Edinburgh Napier University Michele Forzley Isabel Abarno Venezuela Gilles R. Valensi S.
Forzley & Associates Olivera Abogados RDHOO Abogados
Thomas Garner Alberto Jurado Salazar
Gherson Paul Bender Joaquin Reyes Puig ALC Penal Gonzalo Himiob Santomé
Arizona State University Estudio Reyes Rius Foro Penal
Tonia Novitz Alejandro Gallotti
University of Bristol Peter Edelman Juan Diego Menghi Universidad Católica Andrés Ignacio Andrade Cifuentes
Georgetown University Estudio Perez del Castillo & Bello; Leĝa Abogados Araquereyna
Tony Ward Asociados
Northumbria University Renaldy J. Gutierrez Alessandra Corona Jacqueline Richter
Gutierrez & Associates Juan Federico Fischer Araquereyna Universidad Central de
Anonymous Contributors Fischer & Schickendantz Venezuela
Renée M. Landers Alexander Marcano
United States Suffolk University Julio Iribarne Pla Montero Jaime Martínez Estévez
Ferrere Abogados Lawyers Group Rodner, Martínez & Asociados
Amy Widman Ricks Frazier
National Center for Access to Commonwealth of Julio Lens Alfredo Romero Javier Alfredo Villamizar
Justice Massachusetts LENS Foro Penal Gordon
Badell & Grau
Andrea Boyack Robert J. Collins Julio Soffer Alvaro Badell Madrid
Washburn University University of Pennsylvania Julio Soffer Laws Badell & Grau Jesús Emiro González
Bethencourt
Ariana R. Levinson Sara Elizabeth Dill Magela Ramón Ana María Fonseca Colina Verdad Venezuela
University of Louisville Anethum Global Hughes & Hughes Pimentel Rauseo & Asociados
Jesús J. Ortega Weffe
Artie Renee Pobjecky Stephen A. Saltzburg Manuel Reyes Puig Andres Carrasquero Vallenilla, Escalante &
Pobjecky & Pobjecky LLP The George Washington Estudio Reyes Rius ESCG Abogados Asociados
University
C. Lash Harrison Maria Duran Andres L. Halvorssen John Tucker
Ford & Harrison LLP Stephen C. Veltri Hughes & Hughes RDHOO Abogados Leĝa Abogados
Ohio Northern University
Christopher David Ruiz Maria Lucia Acosta Carlos Alberto Henríquez Jorge París Mogna
Cameron Steven A. Ramirez Ferrere Abogados Salazar Odreman & Asociados
Southwestern Law School Loyola University Leĝa Abogados
Mariana Fernandez Fasciolo José Ignacio Hernández G.
David K. Y. Tang Timothy E. Dolan Posadas, Posadas & Vecino; Carlos Ricardo Pimentel Universidad Central de
K&L Gates LLP Policy Foresight Universidad de la Republica Rauseo Venezuela; Universidad
Pimentel Rauseo & Asociados Católica Andrés Bello
Eleanor D. Kinney Timothy Mackey Martín Fridman
Indiana University University of California San Ferrere Abogados Carlos Simón Bello Rengifo Juan Alberto Berríos
Diego Universidad Central de Ortigoza
Elise Groulx Diggs Martin Risso Ferrand Venezuela Universidad del Zulia
American Bar Center for Walsh; Reynolds; Crouse; Universidad Católica del
Human Rights; Doughty Street Anderson; Schneider; Uruguay Claudia Madrid Martínez Juan Carlos Garantón-
Chambers Green; Swartz; Thomas; Universidad Central de Blanco
Johnson Natalia Veloso Giribaldi Venezuela Universidad Católica Andrés
H. David Kelly, Jr. Attorneys Judicial Military Estudio Delpiazzo Abogados Bello
Beins, Axelrod, P.C. Mediators Consulting Team Daniela Guerra Cafoncelli
Nicolas Pallas Codhez Juan Carlos Sainz-Borgo
James H. Pietsch Anonymous Contributors Posadas, Posadas & Vecino University for Peace, United
University of Hawaii Denkys A. Fritz Payares Nations
Uruguay Nicolas Pereyra Fritz & Vence, S.C.
John Hummel Leiva & Pereyra Abogados Juan José Niño Silverio
Deschutes County Oregon Alejandro Rey Jiménez de Diego Díaz Martín Álvarez, Sánchez & Asociados
District Attorney Aréchaga Ricardo Mezzera VITALIS, A.C.
Posadas, Posadas & Vecino Mezzera Abogados Juan Manuel Raffalli
John Pollock Eduardo José Sánchez RDHOO Abogados
Public Justice Center Alfredo Taullard Richard R. Iturria Rivero
Hughes & Hughes Bado, Kuster, Zerbino & Álvarez, Sánchez & Asociados Leonel Alfonso Ferrer
John R. LaBar Rachetti Universidad Central de
Henry, McCord, Bean, Miller, Andrés Fuentes Edwin Romero Venezuela
Gabriel & LaBar, P.L.L.C. Arcia Storace Fuentes Medina Santiago Pereira Campos
Abogados Rueda Abadi Pereira; Eugenio Hernández-Bretón
Jonathan Hiatt Universidad de Montevideo Universidad Central de
Solidarity Center Venezuela
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

Acknowledgements
The World Justice Project’s Honorary Chairs, Directors, Officers, Staff, Financial Supporters, and Sponsoring Organizations are listed
in the last section of this report. Polling companies, research organizations, and contributing experts are listed in the Methodology
section of this report.
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;

About the World Justice Project seed grants to support practical, on-the-ground programs
The World Justice Project (WJP) is an independent, addressing discrimination, corruption, violence, and more.
multidisciplinary organization working to advance the rule of
law around the world. Effective rule of law reduces corruption, Honorary Chairs
combats poverty and disease, and protects people from The World Justice Project has the support of outstanding
injustices large and small. It is the foundation for communities leaders representing a range of disciplines around the world.
of justice, opportunity, and peace—underpinning development, The Honorary Chairs of the World Justice Project are:
accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights.
Madeleine Albright; Giuliano Amato; Robert Badinter; James A.
Founded by William H. Neukom in 2006 as a presidential Baker III; Cherie Blair; Stephen G. Breyer; Sharan Burrow; David
initiative of the American Bar Association (ABA), and with the Byrne; Jimmy Carter; Maria Livanos Cattaui; Arthur Chaskalson;*
initial support of 21 other strategic partners, the World Justice Emil Constantinescu; Hans Corell; Hilario G. Davide, Jr.;
Project transitioned into an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit Hernando de Soto; Adama Dieng; William H. Gates, Sr.; Ruth
organization in 2009. Its offices are located in Washington, DC Bader Ginsburg; Richard J. Goldstone; Kunio Hamada; Lee H.
and Seattle, WA, USA; Mexico City, Mexico; and Singapore. Hamilton; Mohamed Ibrahim; Tassaduq Hussain Jillani; Anthony
M. Kennedy; Beverley McLachlin; George J. Mitchell; John Edwin
Our Approach Mroz;* Sandra Day O’Connor; Ana Palacio; Colin L. Powell; Roy
Traditionally, the rule of law has been viewed as the domain L. Prosterman; Richard W. Riley; Mary Robinson; Richard Trumka;
of lawyers and judges. But everyday issues of safety, rights, Desmond Tutu; Antonio Vitorino; Paul A. Volcker; Harold Woolf;
justice, and governance affect us all; everyone is a stakeholder Andrew Young; and Zhelyu Zhelev.*
in the rule of law. Based on this, the WJP’s mutually-reinforcing
lines of business employ a multi-disciplinary approach through Board of Directors
original research and data, an active and global network, and Shaikha Abdulla Al-Misnad; Kamel Ayadi; William C. Hubbard;
practical, locally-led programs to advance the rule of law Hassan Bubacar Jallow; Suet-Fern Lee; Mondli Makhanya; John
worldwide. Nery; William H. Neukom; Ellen Gracie Northfleet; James R.
Silkenat; and Petar Stoyanov.
Research & Scholarship
The WJP’s Research & Scholarship work supports research about Directors Emeritus
the meaning and measurement of the rule of law, and how it President Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai
matters for economic, socio-political, and human development.
The Rule of Law Research Consortium (RLRC) is a community Officers & Staff
of leading scholars from a variety of fields harnessing diverse William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board; William H. Neukom,
methods and approaches to produce research on the rule of law Founder and CEO; Mark D. Agrast, Vice President; Deborah Enix-
and its effects on society. Ross, Vice President; James R. Silkenat, Director and Treasurer;
Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel and Secretary.
WJP Rule of Law Index
The WJP Rule of Law Index® provides original, impartial data Staff: Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director; Alejandro Ponce,
on how the rule of law is experienced and perceived by the Chief Research Officer; Richard Schorr, Chief Financial and
general public in 126 countries around the globe. It is the most Administrative Officer; Nancy Ward; Chief Engagement Officer;
comprehensive index of its kind. To date, more than 400,000 Laura Aquino; Lilian Chapa Koloffon; Killian Dorier; Alicia
households and experts have been interviewed worldwide. Evangelides; Vianney Fernández; Emily Gray; Amy Gryskiewicz;
Index findings have been referenced by heads of state, chief Camilo Gutiérrez Patiño; Matthew Harman; Roberto Hernández;
justices, business leaders, public officials, and the press, Alexa Hopkins; Ayyub Ibrahim; Priya Kholsa; Sarah Chamness
including media outlets in over 126 countries worldwide. Long; Rafael Lozano; Debby Manley; Rachel Martin; Joel
Martinez; Jorge Morales; Layda Negrete; Nikki Ngbichi-Moore;
Engagement Fernando Omedé; Samira Popal; Adriana Rios; Marien Rivera;
Engagement efforts include connecting and developing a Mario Rodriguez; Rebecca Silvas; Leslie Solís Saravia; Adriana
global network, organizing strategic convenings, and fostering Stephan; Gerard Vinluan; and Emily Youatt.
practical, on-the-ground programs. At our World Justice Forum,
regional conferences, and single-country engagements, citizens
and leaders come together to learn about the rule of law, build
their networks, and design pragmatic solutions to local rule of
law challenges. In addition, the World Justice Challenge provides
*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
A list of previous funders can be found at:

worldjusticeproject.org.

Rule
of Law
“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

ROLI 2019 Reduced PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ROLI 2019 Reduced PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

World Justice Project

© Copyright 2019 by the World Justice Project. The

IBSN (print version): 978-0-9964094-0-7

Section Two Scores & Rankings

Section Three Country Profiles

Section Four Behind the Numbers

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 3

Strengthening the rule of law is a major goal of citizens, governments,

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 5

Afghanistan 0.35 0.00 123 0 Iran 0.45 -0.03 102 16

* Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal places.

Tanzania 0.47 0.00 91 0 United Kingdom 0.80 -0.01 12 1

Despite its profound importance for fair and functioning

Country-Specific Data and Online Tools

* Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal places.

Four Universal Principles of the Rule of Law

1. Accountability 2. Just Laws 3. Open Government 4. Accessible & Impartial

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 9

1.1 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature

3.1 Publicized laws & government data

4.1 Equal treatment & absence of discrimination

5.1 Crime is effectively controlled

6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced

7.1 People can access & afford civil justice

8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective

Factor 9: Informal Justice

Indicators of the WJP Rule of Law Index

Factor 1: Constraints on Government Powers Factor 2: Absence of Corruption

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 11

6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without Factor 8: Criminal Justice

8.4 Criminal justice system is impartial

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 13

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 15

* Scores are rounded to two decimal places.

* Scores are rounded to two decimal places.

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 17

Rule of Law Around the

Mongolia 8/15 0.55 53/126 0.00 1

Eastern Europe & Central Asia

Latin America & Caribbean

* Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal places.

Change Change Change Change

Middle East & North Africa

Namibia 1/30 0.62 34/126 Togo 16/30 0.45 100/126

* Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal places.

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 19

Rule of Law Around the

Rwanda 1/20 0.61 40/126 Mali 11/20 0.45 103/126

Lower Middle Income

Georgia 1/30 0.61 41/126 Cote d'Ivoire 16/30 0.46 93/126

Costa Rica 1/38 0.69 24/126 Suriname 20/38 0.51 69/126

Denmark 1/38 0.90 1/126 United States 20/38 0.71 20/126

Germany 6/38 0.84 6/126 Slovenia 25/38 0.67 26/126

Austria 7/38 0.82 7/126 Poland 26/38 0.66 27/126

New Zealand 8/38 0.82 8/126 Italy 27/38 0.65 28/126

Canada 9/38 0.81 9/126 Barbados 28/38 0.65 29/126

Singapore 13/38 0.80 13/126 Greece 32/38 0.62 36/126

Belgium 14/38 0.79 14/126 Bahamas 33/38 0.61 39/126

Japan 15/38 0.78 15/126 Croatia 34/38 0.61 42/126

Republic of Korea 18/38 0.73 18/126 Hungary 37/38 0.53 57/126

Czech Republic 19/38 0.73 19/126 Panama 38/38 0.52 64/126

2019 WJP Rule of Law Index I 21

Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor