Armenia has witnessed rapid economic growth in recent years, mainly driven by the two leading sectors; construction and services. Encouraged by economic reforms, foreign direct investment rose by over 200% between 2006 and 2007, according to the US Commercial Service 2008. However, due to the global financial crisis in 2008, Armenia has witnessed a 29% trade deficit and a 10% inflation rate, which has contributed to a substantial pull-out of investor capital. According to Invest in Armenia, the government sought to tackle this by increasing spending on infrastructure projects and by providing SMEs with more loans. Despite the government's adoption and implementation of anti-corruption strategies, corruption remains a major problem in Armenia, as emphasised by a number of sources, including the US Department of State 2011 and the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. For a small, landlocked country like Armenia, corruption threatens to discourage both domestic and foreign investor confidence, even though investment policies in Armenia are among the most liberal in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

In Armenia, government and business elites are strongly interlinked. High ranking officials regularly invest in strategic industries, government members control private companies and influential elites treat state companies as private property, as reported by Global Integrity 2009 and the US Department of State 2010. For example, according to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, many of the commodity-based sectors, such as energy and banking, have become monopolised by alliances between political and business elites. These 'closed' sectors contribute to the lack of transparency and accountability of the government. Also Freedom House 2011 reports that the key industries in Armenia remain in the hands of oligarchs and influential elites. Similarly, US Commercial Service 2010 evaluates the relationships between high-ranking government officials and the emerging private business sector as encouraging influence peddling. According to this source, powerful officials at the national, district or local level acquire direct, partial or indirect control over emerging private companies. Such control is exercised through a hidden partner or through majority ownership of a prosperous private company. This involvement can also be indirect, through close relatives and friends. These practices encourage the creation of monopolies or oligopolies and distort the fight for increased transparency in the private sector.

Among business executives surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, corruption is identified as the most problematic factor for doing business in Armenia. Similarly, the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009 reports that almost 40% of the surveyed companies consider corruption a major constraint to their operations and 11.5% expect to make informal payments to 'get things done'. In contrast, according to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, corruption within the business and private sector is perceived as less widespread as compared to other sectors - nearly a quarter of the surveyed households gave it a score of 5 on a 5-point scale (1 'not and all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt'). The EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2008, reports that companies spend an average of 0.8% of sales profits on bribes. Although corruption affects all types of companies, it is reported to put particularly disproportionate pressure upon SMEs. The high perception of corruption is supported by the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, which reveals that more than 90% of surveyed SMEs cite corruption in the private sector as the most serious obstacle to business growth in Armenia. Moreover, bribes as a share of annual sales are much higher for SMEs, for which they are estimated to amount to 10% of the annual revenues. Transparency International Armenia 2006 emphasises that corruption is the main impediment to the growth of SMEs operating in Armenia. Companies are recommended to develop, implement and strengthen integrity systems and to conduct extensive due diligence when planning to invest and when already doing business in Armenia.

Corruption is institutionalised in Armenia and permeates through all levels of government, including the regulatory bodies. Despite some recent reform efforts targeting the civil service, corruption within these structures remains a serious challenge. Public administration remains affected by the legacy of Soviet-era practices, many of which are now inefficient and burdensome. It is also highly bureaucratic and, as a result, it often functions with arbitrary implementation. In order to reduce bureaucracy and decrease the opportunities for corruption, one-stop shops have been established for citizens and companies to reduce face-to-face encounters with public officials. In addition, several governmental internet portals have been launched to make the regulatory processes more transparent. Salaries of civil servants have been raised in recent years and training has been undertaken to raise awareness among public officials about corruption. Nevertheless, companies continue to report that they encounter a high volume of demands for bribes. For example, according to Freedom House 2011, bribery and nepotism are reported to be common among government bureaucrats, and government officials are rarely prosecuted or removed for abuse of office. Similarly, in Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, nearly 40% of Armenian households perceive public officials to be 'extremely corrupt', and this category is considered to be among the most corruption-prone sectors in Armenia in the survey. The Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006 reports that more than 90% of SMEs identify legislation regulating SMEs as the greatest problem for doing business in Armenia.

Armenian business regulations lack transparency in their implementation. By law, government officials are banned from engaging in business activities, but in practice, they often have extensive business interests and many parliamentary deputies run companies on the side, according to the US Department of State 2010. Similarly, the Law on the Disclosure of Property and Income of government officials is easily circumvented since the financial statements of these officials are not verified by tax authorities. Thus, according to the US Department of State 2010, a few years after the adoption of this law; it still remains unclear to what extent government officials with high incomes comply with the law. Furthermore, the selective and non-transparent application of tax, customs and regulatory rules, as well as the weak enforcement of court decisions increase the opportunities for corruption. In general, SMEs believe that it is necessary to have personal connections with public officials in order to run a successful business.

Companies surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 identify tax regulations and inefficient government bureaucracy to be among the most problematic factors for doing business after corruption. This is supported by the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009, in which companies report that senior management spends more than 10% of its time each year dealing with requirements of government regulation. According to the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2008, 12% of senior management's time is spent dealing with public officials about the application and interpretation of laws and regulations, and to maintain access to public services. In addition, 64% of the companies surveyed said that regulatory policies were a problem for doing business in Armenia. Both figures are above the regional average. Regulatory changes can be a particular problem for foreign investors.

According to Armenian Development Agency, a 'one-stop shop' for investors, incentives such as tax holidays and the ability to carry forward losses indefinitely, are given to foreign investors in Armenia. The Law on Foreign Investment protects foreign investors against land nationalisation, expropriation and confiscation, except in cases of state emergency. In these cases, the constitution provides for a compensation paid in advance. According to the US Department of State 2011, many Armenian courts suffer from low levels of efficiency, independence and professionalism, and there is a need to strengthen the country's judiciary. A 2007 Law on Commercial Arbitration provides investors with a greater number of options for resolving their commercial disputes. By law, disputes may be brought before any court, provided that the Armenian government is not a party to the dispute. The Economic Court was abolished in 2008, and a new specialised administrative court was established to hear, among others, commercial disputes. The Law on Arbitration Courts and Arbitration Procedures provides rules for the settlement of disputes by arbitration. Armenia is a signatory to several international conventions regulating the mutual acceptance and enforcement of foreign arbitration, including the New York Convention 1958 and the Washington Convention 1965. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of laws in Armenia.

Individual Corruption

The Armenian judicial system is tainted with corruption and official pressure, according to the US Department of State 2010. This perception is backed by Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, according to which, the judiciary is perceived by citizens to be among the most corrupt public institutions in Armenia. This perception is fully supported by the Transparency International Armenia Corruption Perception in Armenia 2007 survey, which cites the judicial system among the most corrupt structures in the country. In general, Armenian citizens are reluctant to go to courts, because the judicial system is considered to be corrupt, inefficient, and vulnerable to political influence. According to Freedom House 2010, poor legal training of judges remains a major concern. According to the US Department of State 2010, potential litigants in civil cases often evaluated the wisdom of bringing a suit to court on the basis of whether they or their opponents had greater resources with which to influence judges.

Business Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2011, many Armenian courts suffer from low levels of efficiency and independence, and there is a need to strengthen the Armenian judicial system. Despite ongoing judicial reform efforts, the majority of businesspeople and investors still do not consider the court system as a viable option of legal recourse. Business executives largely fear that corruption and nepotism will determine the outcome of court decisions. In addition, judges in Armenia are not considered by companies as competent enough to handle commercial issues, as indicated the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006. The World Bank & IFC Doing Business 2012 notes a considerable increase in the time needed to resolve a dispute in Armenia, from 285 days in 2011 to 440 days in 2012. Given the lack of trust in the court system, alternative settlement of disputes is very important for foreign investors. However, international arbitration options are excluded in disputes involving the Armenian government (in this case, only bilateral investment treaties provide for international arbitration). In line with this perception, the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009 reveals a remarkable distrust among companies towards the effectiveness and fairness of the Armenian justice system. Also companies surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 indicate that courts are subject to political influences of members of government, citizens and companies. According to the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2008, it is not uncommon for companies operating in Armenia to pay bribes in their dealings with the courts.

According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, almost half of the surveyed SMEs in the report state that informal payments are 'always/often' necessary in order to speed up the judicial process in courts. A much higher percentage of SMEs distrusts the courts, referring to ambiguity of laws and their arbitrary application as main reasons. According to Freedom House 2010, an inefficient and often corrupt judicial system also hinders the enforcement of private property rights and the establishment of companies in the country.

Political Corruption

Judicial corruption and lack of judicial independence are serious problems in Armenia. By law, the judicial branch is independent and impartial, but in practice the system is subordinated to the executive, according to a number of reports, including Freedom House 2011 and the US Department of State 2010. According to the US Department of State 2010, Armenian courts remain subject to political pressure from the executive branch, and judges operate in a judicial culture that expects courts to find the accused guilty in almost every case. According to the same report, judges are often reluctant to challenge the requests of prosecutors in detaining persons or the conduct of police in arresting suspects. Nevertheless, despite widespread judicial corruption, courtroom observers noted that it occur less frequently than in the past. This was primarily because of a significant increase in judicial salaries, a greater number of corruption cases brought against mid- and low-level government officials, and a greater possibility of disciplinary action and other penalties than in previous years, as reported by the US Department of State 2010.

Freedom House 2008 reports that the amount of politically engineered trials has increased in recent years. For example, former President Robert Kocharian sacked the judge Pargev Ohanian in 2007, after the latter acquitted two business executives from the coffee processing company Royal Armenia. The two businessmen were arrested on very controversial fraud charges after they had publicly admitted to corruption in the customs services. Subsequently, the Office of the Prosecutor General appealed to the Review Court, which reversed the initial verdict and sentenced the two business executives to prison terms. It is widely believed that Ohanian was sacked because he refused to endorse accusations levelled by the government.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- Enforcing a commercial contract in Armenia requires a company to go through 49 procedures, taking 440 days at a cost of 19% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the Armenian judiciary's level of independence from influences of government, citizens, or companies a score of 2.8 on a 7-point scale (1 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.4 and 3.2 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 49.2% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 16.9% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 4.1 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 33.5% of companies surveyed believe that the court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

- 15.5% of companies surveyed identify the functioning of the courts as major business constraint.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2008:
- 9% of companies surveyed stated that bribes are frequent in dealing with courts.

- 24% of the companies surveyed reported that the functioning of the judiciary poses a problem for conducting business.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 48% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are 'always/often' required to speed up judicial process in the court.

- 78% of the surveyed SMEs have no trust in the judicial system.

Individual Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2010, corruption and impunity are pervasive in the police force. Traffic police, in particular, are notorious for soliciting bribes. In spite of efforts to reduce bribe taking by traffic police further, citizens continue to report being solicited to pay bribes, although less frequently than in previous years. Citizens also reported police officers soliciting bribes to drop criminal cases or reduce penalties. Similarly, in Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, households consider the police the most corrupt public institution in Armenia, after the education system and the judiciary. According to the NGO, Achilles Society for Protection of Drivers' Rights, bribes solicited by the traffic police range from approximately USD 13 to USD 130. The head of this NGO, Eduard Hovhanisian, believes that corruption in the traffic police results from unclear definitions of the traffic law, which allow the traffic inspectors to interpret the law with large discretion.

In 2003, the Department for Internal Security was created under the Police with the aim to combat corruption. Within this campaign, the traffic officers who registered traffic violations were offered bonuses. The Achilles Society did not receive any complaints about bribes in the first three months of the campaign. However, these improvements did not result in lasting changes. Moreover, according to ArmeniaNow, it is a common practice for police officers to illegally confiscate a driver's licence if the driver argues that his or her rights have been violated. In order to have a licence reinstated, a driver must pay about USD 570. Facing that sum, the driver might favour accepting the traffic officer's 'negotiation' of settlement.

In addition, corruption among prison officials continues to be a problem in which both prisoners and administration participate, according to the US Department of State 2010. According to the report, in certain facilities, prisoners bribe officials to obtain single occupancy cells and additional comforts. There are also reports that authorities request bribes for legally prescribed privileges, such as visits, telephone calls, and receipt of packages.

Business Corruption

Companies surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 report that Armenia has improved its performance in relation to the reliability of police services to protect them from crime when compared to the previous year, nevertheless, further improvements of the police reliability are necessary. More than half of the companies surveyed in the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009 pay for security in Armenia, while roughly one third of them identify crime, theft and disorder as major constraints to doing business in the country. Similarly, according to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, SMEs in Armenia are reported not to have any confidence in law enforcement bodies and are generally very reluctant to go to the police. Some companies report paying protection money to the police or to security companies as a necessary business expense.

According to the US Department of State 2011, the government uses its agencies to retaliate against businessman who support the opposition. For instance, at the end of 2009, the government sent police inspectors to a businessman's factories; the owner of these factories supported the opposition. This happened after the businessman gave interviews criticising the current government and supporting an opposition candidate, as reported by the US Department of State 2011.

Political Corruption

Corruption within the Armenian police force permeates also the higher echelons of this institution. According to Global Integrity 2009, the investigative and enforcement work of Armenian police is commonly influenced by political actors or the government. In regards to appointments to the police, these are usually based on political considerations; individuals appointed often have conflicts of interest due to personal or party loyalties, or family connections. Furthermore, in practice, law enforcement officers generally enjoy protection from most criminal investigations.

The number of instances of corruption reported to the law enforcement authorities has doubled in Armenia, as reported in a March 2009 article by Armtown. According to the head of a police directorate, Hunan Poghosian, law enforcement bodies recorded 392 corruption-related crimes in 2008. However, it is reported that when law enforcement bodies are prosecuted for graft, very few of them face prison charges. In July 2008, the head of the police department for passports and visas, Alvina Zakaryan, was discharged on bribery charges, and steps were made to ensure that the department fully complies with laws and regulations foreseeing simple and transparent procedures for issuing passports, visas and permits. According to the Transparency International Armenia Corruption Perception in Armenia 2007 survey, the fact that several mid-level officials have been prosecuted for graft illustrates that the government considers corruption to be a problem. Also, during 2010, a number of mid-level and higher level police officers were dismissed, according to the US Department of State 2010.

Frequency

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the Armenian police a score of 3.5 on a 7-point scale (1 'cannot be relied upon at all' and 7 'can always be relied upon').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 38% of households who had contact with the police in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give the police a score of 4.1 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 59% of companies surveyed pay for security in Armenia.

- 31% of companies surveyed identify crime, theft and disorder as a major constraint on doing business.

Individual Corruption

Many citizens identify the process of obtaining licences and permits as widely corrupt, as illustrated by Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Citizens frequently report either offering or being compelled to pay a bribe in connection with obtaining various permits and licences. Citizens also perceive corruption in relation to getting utilities connected and repaired as widespread. Furthermore, the Armenian health system is also riddled with corruption, and roughly one quarter of households who had contact with medical services in 2009 report having paid a bribe, according to the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Similarly, Global Integrity 2009 reveals a high degree of corruption in the health system, with hospital staff requesting and receiving bribes in connection with child delivery. Similarly, the US Department of State 2010 alleges that there is widespread corruption in the Medical-Social Expertise Commission (MSEC) under the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the body that determines a person's disability status.

Business Corruption

SMEs report complicated and time-consuming procedures when obtaining licences and permits. According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, almost two out of three SMEs admit that informal payments are required to obtain community permits. Transparency International Armenia 2006 reveals that the average bribe paid by surveyed households in order to get licences, certificates and permits issued is USD 300. Nevertheless, the World Bank & IFC Doing Business 2012 notes a substantial decrease in the time and costs needed to get construction permits in Armenia, from 137 days in 2011 to only 79 days in 2012, which is nearly half the OECD average. According to the report, also the procedures associated with starting a company have been considerably eased in Armenia.

SMEs consider the process of obtaining public utilities to often involve corruption and demands for bribes. Acquiring a telephone connection, getting connected to power and water supply systems and obtaining community permits may all require bribes. Companies report that facilitation payments, sometimes in form of gifts, are necessary when dealing with licence-issuing authorities. For instance, it is especially difficult to get water and sewerage permits and fire certificates, as indicated by Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006. Moreover, in practice, business inspections by government officials to ensure public health and safety standards are usually carried out in an arbitrary and ad-hoc manner, and bribes are paid by companies in return for favourable treatment or expedited processing, as reported by Global Integrity 2009.

According to the US Department of State 2011, relationships between high-ranking government officials and the emerging private business sector encourage influence peddling. Powerful officials at the federal, district, or local levels acquire direct, partial or indirect control over emerging private companies. Such control is exercised through a hidden partner or through majority ownership of a prosperous private company. This involvement can also be indirect, such as through close relatives and friends. According to the report, these practices may lead to an environment characterised by corruption and a lack of transparency.

Political Corruption

High-ranking officials, domestic business executives and politicians are able to deal with the red tape associated with licensing procedures and obtaining permits by either paying a small sum of money or making no payments at all, as opposed to ordinary citizens.

In March 2010, chief inspector at the department of internal audit and financial control at the Ministry of Finance, Arman Hovhanyan, was taken to custody on charges of bribery, and an investigation was launched against him, as reported in a 2010 article by ArmeniaNow. Hovhanyan conducted financial inspections on a company involved in metal production through appropriation of budget resources. Allegedly, he requested and received a USD 1,500 bribe from the company in addition to another AMD 240,000 (over USD 650) worth bribe in exchange for not registering serious violations.

In 2010, newspapers reported allegations that the head of the Control Service within the Presidency, Hovhannes Hovsepian, arranged for relatives to be appointed to government positions. One sister was appointed as head of a state medical college while another sister was appointed as head of a maternity hospital, according to the US Department of State 2010. Hovsepian also allegedly arranged for his brother-in-law to be appointed deputy head of a department of the real estate registration agency.

In May 2009, the Prosecutor General's Office filed a criminal case against the head of the legal and inspection department of the Ministry of Culture on charges of abuse of office. Hayrapetian allegedly arranged for the ministry to pay USD 53,000 to a private insurance company which he owned for services that were never provided, according to the US Department of State 2010.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- The number of annual licensing procedures related to opening a warehouse is 18, while the average time spent dealing with licences is 79 days.

- The associated cost of dealing with these licences is nearly 57% of income per capita, which is only slightly above the OECD average.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the government regulations in Armenia a score of 3.5 on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely burdensome' and 7 'not burdensome at all').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Nearly 40% of households surveyed consider public officials to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 17.1% of households who had contact with registry and permit services in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- 19.1% of households who had to obtain medical services in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- 12.2% of households who had contact with the education system in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give public officials a score of 3.8 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

- Citizens give the Armenian education system a score of 4.2 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt'), thus, perceiving it as the most affected by corruption sector in the country.

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 11% of companies expect to give gifts to get an operating licence.

- 22% of companies expect to give gifts to get a construction permit.

- 7.5% of companies expect to give gifts to get a phone connection.

- Over 5.5% of companies identify business licensing and permits as a major constraint on doing business.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2008:
- 16% of the companies surveyed reported that the licensing and permits poses a problem for conducting business.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 49% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are 'always/often' required to get installed electricity, water, and telephone line.

- 64% of SMEs report that informal payments are 'always/often' required in order to obtain a construction permit.

- 64% of SMEs say informal payments are 'always/often' required to obtain community permits.

- 97% of SMEs report that informal payments are 'always' required for fire-fighting and sanitation services.

Individual Corruption

According to the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2009, a considerable amount of Armenian households point to the interaction with land authorities as an area where bribes are often demanded. Moreover, households perceive land matters to be distorted by grand and political corruption. However, in Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, less than one-fifth of the households report to have paid a bribe to land authorities in 2009.

Business Corruption

According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, land administration is considered by SMEs to be among the least corrupt services in Armenia.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2007, political corruption within the sphere of privatisations is widespread. This is supported by Freedom House 2010, according to which Armenian oligarchs have received preferential treatment in the early stages of privatisation. The executive director of the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses, Narine Mailyan, reports that high-ranking officials can easily surpass property regulations and purchase government-owned property with a small amount of money if they enjoy the President's or Prime Minister's patronage.

The Chamber of Control has revealed cases of abuse of power in the Armavir region in connection to illegal sale of community lands. Here land was sold for a small amount of money in 2008, and then re-sold for a 50-100 times higher price, as reported by ArmeniaNow.

In 2009, Ishkhan Zakaryan, Chairman of the Chamber of Control (COC), an official auditing body that monitor's government budgetary activity, reported irregularities in the prices of public land sold to private individuals in the Armavir region, as cited in the US Department of State 2009. Zakaryan stated that the COC discovered instances of land sales considerably below actual market value. He indentified one initial sale of 10 acres that went for over USD 90 per acre; this land was then sold two days later for USD 10,500. The COC also stated that it had discovered irregularities in expenditures allegedly allotted to town planning in Armavir that amounted to over USD 230,000.

In 2006, the Parliament passed an amendment to the legislation on private property, which enables the government to confiscate land under 'exceptional cases defined by the law' and with 'commensurate compensation' paid to the property owners. However, according to Freedom House 2008, irregular procedures have been applied when expropriating land for construction of expensive residential and office buildings. Many people have not received appropriate compensation and have instead been threatened when they protested. The former national Ombudsman, Larisa Alaverdian, Transparency International Armenia and several other organisations have described the process of land confiscation as 'illegal'.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- It takes an average of 3 procedures and 7 days (several times less the regional average) at a cost of 0.3% of the property value to register property and secure property rights in Armenia.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the property rights in Armenia a score of 3.8 on a 7-point scale (1 'very weak' and 7 'very strong').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 17.1% of the households surveyed reported to have paid a bribe to land services in 2009.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009:
- 43% of households consider grand or political corruption in land matters to be a 'very serious problem'.

- 48% of respondents consider bribes to land authorities to obtain favourable decisions a 'very serious problem' in Armenia.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 35.5% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are 'always/often' required in order to register property.

- 54% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are required to register ownership rights.

Individual Corruption

According to the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2008, bribery connected to taxes and tax collection is not uncommon in Armenia, and it is common practice to 'negotiate' a fine with tax officials if small violations of tax laws are discovered during audits. This is supported by the Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2009, in which a considerable amount of households report to pay informal fees when interacting with tax authorities. In contrast, only a small part of the households surveyed in Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010 reports to have paid a bribe to tax authorities in 2009.

Business Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2009, in practice, tax laws are not enforced uniformly and without discrimination in Armenia, and some groups, most notably large companies favoured by the government or other influential actors, often avoid paying taxes due to their connections. According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, tax regulations are considered as the second most problematic factor for conducting business in Armenia. Similarly, the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2008 reports that informal payments are frequently made when dealing with tax officials. According to the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006, nine out of ten SMEs identify the taxation system and tax collection as a major problem, impeding the development of SMEs in Armenia. In addition, it is reported that one out of three SMEs were often forced to pay bribes to avoid/reduce taxes.

Political Corruption

In 2009, authorities confiscated a company owned by MP and opposition supporter, Khachatur Sukiasian. In 2008, authorities had seized the assets of his Bjni mineral water company to collect a USD 12 million fine, ostensibly for tax fraud. However, local observers viewed the action as politically motivated. The company was ultimately sold in December 2009 to a pro-government businessman, according to the US Department of State 2009.

A government-drafted bill that empowers tax authorities to deploy agents in large companies suspected of tax evasion was adopted by the Parliament in September 2009, as reported by ArmeniaNow. According to the bill, special tax officials are allowed unrestricted access to large companies' financial documentation and other business operations with the aim of ensuring that these companies do not evade taxes. It should be noted that tax bodies will assign their agents only to companies whose annual budget exceeds USD 10.7 million. According to Vahan Hovhannisyan, an MP, this measure would 'spare the importer but hit the producer'.

In a move to increase transparency and decrease tax evasion, in 2009, the Armenian government tightened enforcement of a 2005 law that obliged traders to report all transactions through cash registers. To maximise the effect of implementation, the government encouraged customers to demand cash register receipts from retailers; state-run lotteries were instituted at the end of each month, during which control numbers of the receipts were to be drawn. Monetary prizes for winners ranged from USD 16.60 to 1,600. Although after a few months the lottery was suspended due to fraud allegations, most retailers, fearing unexpected tax audits, continued to provide receipts to customers. According to the US Department of State 2011, as a result of this action, the government managed to raise about USD 30 million in additional revenues.

Another recent effort to increase tax compliance by larger companies was legislation permitting the State Revenue Committee to place tax inspectors on the premises of large companies to oversee sales volumes, prices and corresponding documentation, according to the US Department of State 2011.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- Medium-sized companies must make 34 tax payments annually, taking 500 hours to complete at a total tax rate of nearly 41% of profits.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives identify tax regulations as the most problematic factor for doing business in Armenia after corruption.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 10% of households who had contact with tax revenue services throughout 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 13.5% of the surveyed companies expect to give gifts in meetings with tax officials.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2008:
- 16% of companies state that bribery is frequent in their dealings with the tax authorities.

- On average, companies reported being inspected more than 3 times per year by tax agencies.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 90% of the surveyed SMEs identify taxation system and tax collection as a major problem, impeding the development of SMEs in Armenia.

- 60% of the surveyed SMEs report that informal payments are 'always/often' required to get tax penalty provisions reduced.

- 36.5% of SMEs were often forced to pay bribes to avoid/reduce taxes.

Individual Corruption

Global Integrity 2007 reports that corruption and informal payments are routine in the customs service. This is supported by Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009, which emphasises that the customs administration is considered to be one of the most corrupt services in Armenia. According to Transparency International Armenia 2006, the majority of surveyed households perceive the customs system as 'partially corrupt', 'corrupt' or 'very corrupt'. In a similar vein, more than one-fifth of the companies surveyed in Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010 report to have paid a bribe to customs authorities in 2009.

Business Corruption

Customs administration is considered by SMEs as one of the most corrupt institutions in Armenia. According to the US Department of State 2011, the inconsistent application of customs, tax and regulatory rules, especially in the area of trade, undermines competition and adds uncertainty for SMEs. Also Global Integrity 2009 reports that customs and excise laws are not enforced uniformly and without discrimination in practice, and some groups, such as well-connected companies, may consistently evade customs laws.

The EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2008 reports that informal payments are sometimes made when dealing with customs officials. Similarly, the Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses 2006 reveals that almost two out of three SMEs expect to make informal payments to clear deliveries of goods through customs. Corruption in customs administration has also been highlighted by President Serzh Sargsian, who has expressed concerns about the State Customs Committee's (SCC) unrestricted authority and ability to assess the value of imported commodities, drawing attention to the extensive smuggling of goods by businesspeople who 'conspire' with customs officials, as well as other attempts at evading customs duties, as reported by Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009. Also in the World Economic Forum Global Enabling Trade Report 2010, business executives report that exporting and importing requires considerable time and paperwork to clear goods at the Armenian border, and that the process is plagued by corruption and bribery.

In 2002, the Ministry of State Revenue and Customs administration adopted a code of conduct for customs officials. In addition, an anti-corruption strategy group was formed to prepare an action plan to combat corruption in customs services. According to the EBRD & World Bank BEEPS Armenia 2008, corruption in the customs has significantly decreased in the time-frame 2005-2008.

Political Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2011, the government continues to deploy government agencies, including the customs services, against political opponents. Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009 reveals rampant corruption in the higher echelons of the customs administration in Armenia. According to the report, the coffee processing company, Royal Armenia (RA), had claimed that the State Customs Committee (SCC) had periodically discriminated against the company, ignoring company invoices and setting inflated customs prices for coffee, compared with other coffee importers. The head of the RA, Gagik Hakobyan, had alleged that the SCC's management had demanded bribes for RA's shipments, which the company had refused to pay, seeing this refusal as the primary cause of the SCC's actions. This led the National Security Service to file a criminal case against RA and initiate a criminal investigation. The charges included smuggling, tax evasion and fraud. The RA management argued that the accusations were unfounded. During the trial in 2007, the judge Pargev Ohanyan acquitted RA's leadership on the grounds that the argument presented was based on assumptions rather than evidence. As a result, the judge was sacked, while the review court reversed the initial verdict and sentenced RA's head and managing director to prison terms, allegedly for revealing corruption in the customs.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- On average, a standard export shipment of goods requires 5 documents, takes 13 days and costs USD 1,815 per container.

- On average, a standard import shipment of goods requires 8 documents, takes 18 days and costs USD 2,195 per container.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 21.1% of households who had contact with customs authorities throughout 2009 report having paid a bribe.

World Economic Forum: The Global Enabling Trade Report 2010:
- Business executives give the efficiency of customs procedures (formalities regulating the entry and exit of merchandise) in Armenia a score of 2.7 on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'extremely efficient').

- Business executives give the transparency of border administration (pervasiveness of undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with imports and exports) a score of 2.6 on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'extremely efficient').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- 26.5% of the trade companies surveyed identify Armenian customs and trade regulations as a major constraint on doing business.

- 6% of companies surveyed expect to give gifts to get an import licence.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2008:
- 15% of the companies surveyed report that bribery frequently takes place in customs.

- 47% of the companies surveyed reported that customs regulations represent an obstacle to doing business in Armenia.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 63.5% of the surveyed SMEs expect to 'always/often' pay bribes to get customs clearance.

Business Corruption

Public procurement regulations can be found at the official website of the procurement system of Armenia (in Armenian). According to Global Integrity 2009, mandatory publishing of tender proposals is allegedly not enforced; furthermore, reportedly no corruption cases involving public procurement civil servants have been investigated. No advertisements are made for major public procurements, as the scope of bidders is very small, the bidder has already been decided upon and the auction is a formality.

Although the 2004 Law on Procurement envisaged a more transparent procurement process through the establishment of electronic procurement, companies continue to witness non-transparent practices. Sometimes the state only shares information with selected bidders, generating accusations of pre-selecting winners. In other instances, the terms and conditions for bidding are specified so that few companies can actually bid (single sourcing).

The US Department of State 2011 reports instances of unfair tender processes and preferential treatment within the Armenian procurement system. According to the report, such instances have undermined the government's assurances of equal treatment and transparency. Nevertheless, in December 2010, the WTO Committee on Government Procurement invited Armenia to join its Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), which makes Armenia the first CIS country to accede once required domestic legislation is passed. 

According to the Transparency International Armenia Monitoring of Public Procurement Systems 2008-2009 (in Armenian), the level of trust in Armenia's public procurement systems is low, largely as a result of inconsistent enforcement of procurement regulations. The report thus assesses the public procurement environment in the country to be mid to low-risk. Furthermore, according to the report, corruption and non-transparent practices within the country's public procurement systems hinder business competition. Companies are recommended to use a specialised public procurement due diligence tool in order to mitigate the corruption risks associated with public procurement in Armenia.

See more on public procurement under 'Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives' in the Initiatives section.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2007, political corruption frequently occurs under public procurement processes. For instance, business elites with political ties are usually favoured over small companies when allocating municipal land.

In March 2010, during a cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Sargsian publicly reprimanded the agriculture minister for misuse of government funds, according to the US Department of State 2010. The Chamber of Control discovered that the Agriculture Ministry had purchased cattle medication for farmers from a private supplier at grossly inflated prices. Sargsian asked the state body overseeing the civil service to dismiss the two senior Ministry of Agriculture officials in charge of procurement, according to the report.

Frequency

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the diversion of public funds due to corruption a score of 2.9 on a 7-point scale (1 'common' and 7 'never occurs').

- Business executives give the favouritism of government officials when deciding upon policies and contracts a score of 2.9 on a 7-point scale (1 'always show favouritism' and 7 'never show favouritism').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- Less than 2% of the companies surveyed expect to give gifts to secure a government contract.

- The average value of gift given to secure a government contract amounts to 0.1% of the contract value.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Armenia 2008:
- The value of an unofficial payment made to secure a government contract typically constitutes around 0.6% of the contract value, a figure lower than the regional average.

Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006:
- 63% of the surveyed SMEs state that informal payments are 'always/often' necessary to win a public procurement contract.

Business Corruption

Environmental considerations have been recognised as essential elements in the overall reform programme. The government has raised concerns regarding the over-exploitation of natural resources, such as the depletion of water resources, erosion of soil and biodiversity degradation.

Companies report that bribery is common when dealing with environmental inspections in Armenia. This should be seen in the context of the high levels of corruption in relation to different kinds of government inspections. For example, Global Integrity 2009 reports that business inspections by government officials to ensure public environmental standards are usually carried out in an arbitrary and ad-hoc manner, and bribes are often extracted from companies in return for favourable treatment or expedited processing.

Similarly, according to Transparency International's Corruption & the Environment 2006, commercial corruption within the environmental sphere, particularly in relation to illegal logging/ timber theft, is pervasive in Armenia. For example, according to the report, an average timber volume of nearly 4,000 cubic metres was illegally harvested each year between 1998 and 2002. It has been reported that this illegal logging had been executed by businesspeople that were paying bribes to government staff and officials in return for not prosecuting these cases.

Political Corruption

Despite the government's legislative attempts to crackdown on corruption within the forestry sector and decrease illegal logging, efforts have come up short, as the Parliament has yet to adopt many of the measures that will make environmental anti-corruption laws enforceable, according to Transparency International's Corruption & the Environment 2006. The report reveals that in the period 1998-2002, 55% of the total number of illegal logging cases registered by government officials was settled out of court - however, only 27% of the fines for out-of-court settlements were collected and submitted to the government.

In December 2009, a criminal case was launched against the head of Armenia's Seismic Protection Service, Alvaro Antonian, for allegedly misappropriating USD 8,000 in a French government-sponsored assistance programme to establish a network of seismic stations in the country, according to the US Department of State 2010.

According to the same report, in February 2010, the Prosecutor General's Office accused Tigran Grigorian, the head of the State Ecological Inspectorate under the Ministry of Nature Protection, and his deputy, Arsen Petrosian, of accepting nearly USD 13,000 in bribes from a mining company to reduce the company's fines for violations of environmental safety rules. In August 2010, the court sentenced Grigorian to seven years in prison, and Petrosian to 10 years' imprisonment, on charges of bribery.

• Legislation: Armenia has introduced some anti-corruption legislation in recent years and ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2007 and the Council of Europe Civil and Criminal Law Conventions on Corruption in 2005 and 2006. Relevant anti-corruption legislation includes the Criminal Code, the Law on Procurement, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Law against Laundering of Illicit Proceeds, and the Law on the Freedom of Information. The Criminal Code criminalises the major forms of corrupt activity, including active and passive bribery, attempted corruption, extortion, bribing a foreign official, money laundering and abuse of office. It also forbids officials to receive gifts, to hold additional jobs and to engage in private business activities. As of January 2009, all public officials and their family members, as well as citizens with annual incomes exceeding USD 21,000, were subject to financial disclosure laws, according to which they had to file their asset declarations no later than April 2009. However, it remained unclear to what extent officials and individuals with high incomes complied with this law. According to local observers, the authorities lacked the will and technical capacity to verify the accuracy of the declarations, which were not fully accessible to the public, or to take action against persons who concealed their incomes, as reported by the US Department of State 2009. The GRECO Evaluation Report on Incriminations 2011 concludes that the 2008 amendments to the country's Criminal Code were a very positive step, but finds that in order to fully comply with the standards of the Council of Europe's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption the legal provisions need to be further amended to ensure, among other things, that the request for a bribe can be prosecuted, that the private sector is covered and that Armenia can prosecute all corruption offences committed by its citizens abroad. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Armenia.

• Government Strategies: Armenia adopted a Government Anti-Corruption Strategy and Implementation Action Plan in November 2003. The Strategy emphasises providing organisational and legal measures in order to prevent corruption in banking, taxation, customs, health care, education, environment, licensing, public procurement, public administration and the judiciary. The Anti-Corruption Strategy is implemented by an Anti-Corruption Action Plan. A special position of Advisor to the President on Anti-Corruption Policy was created to coordinate anti-corruption activities. The current 2009-2012 Anti-Corruption Strategy involves the implementation of existing laws and puts special emphasis on taxation and customs, as these are areas that are deemed to be mostly affected by corruption. Other priorities set by the new strategy include improvement of legislation and infrastructure to combat money laundering, increasing transparency in the public sector, and enhancement of accountability of all branches of government. Beginning in early 2010, the Armenian Prime Minister publicly, and repeatedly, reprimanded various government ministers for failing to cut down on corruption within their institutions. According to the US Department of State 2010, government programmes to curb systemic corruption continue to produce few tangible results. The activities of the governmental anti-corruption strategy and anti-corruption bodies continue to be viewed with skepticism. According to the report, the government failed to fund implementation of the strategy and devoted no money for anticorruption efforts.

• Anti-Corruption Council: In conformity with a Presidential Decree of June 2004, an Anti-Corruption Council was set up to pursue the following goals: 1) to compare activities of the relevant bodies during the elaboration of measures to prevent corruption, 2) to implement measures provided for in the Anti-Corruption Strategy and international obligations assumed by Armenia and 3) to maintain co-operation with regional and international organisations in the process of fighting corruption. According to Global Integrity 2009, the Council is not effectively protected from political interference. Similarly, according to the report, the appointments to the body are usually made based on political considerations, and individuals appointed may have clear party loyalties. Also, the head of the institution is in practice not protected from removal without relevant justification.

• Monitoring Committee of the Anti-Corruption Council: In accordance with the Presidential Decree of June 2004, a Monitoring Committee was established under the Anti-Corruption Council. The objective of the Committee is to assess the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, including 1) observing the performance of the Strategy with respect to Armenia's international obligations and implements proposals by international organisations, 2) monitoring the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy and departmental anti-corruption programmes and 3) making proposals concerning the improvement of the anti-corruption mechanisms. The public policy expert of Transparency International Armenia, Varuzhan Hoktanyan, reports that both the Anti-corruption Council and Committee act in the interest of the government, lack public accountability and are underfunded and powerless in practice.

• Prosecutor General: Within the Prosecutor General's Office, a special Department for the Fight Against Corruption has been set up to combat corruption. Prosecutors working within the Department receive information from law enforcement agencies and are empowered to initiate investigations in relation to corruption cases. According to Global Integrity 2009, the Department very seldom initiates investigations into allegations of corruption by law enforcement officials independently. In February 2010, the Prosecutor General's Office accused Tigran Grigorian, the head of the State Ecological Inspectorate under the Ministry of Nature Protection, and his deputy, Arsen Petrosian, of accepting nearly USD 13,000 in bribes from a mining company to reduce the company's fines for violations of environmental safety rules. In August 2010, the court sentenced Grigorian to seven years in prison, and Petrosian to 10 years' imprisonment, on charges of bribery, according to the US Department of State 2010. In May 2007, a new Law on the Office of the Public Prosecutor brought several important changes related to corruption. According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009, these changes include new procedures for appointing the prosecutor general and prosecutors, as well as a new system for sanctioning prosecutors. The law also establishes a new commission of ethics and a new system of remuneration for prosecutors and other employees working in the offices of public prosecutors. According to Global Integrity 2009, the special anti-corruption unit within the Prosecutor General's Office is commonly influenced by political and personal incentives, including conflicting professional relationships, political loyalties, as well as abuse of power. 

• Chamber of Control of the National Assembly (COC, in Armenian): The COC is an equivalent to the Auditor General and audits the financial legislation and the effectiveness of execution of the state budget. The COC, which audits state departments twice a year, has registered a misuse of about USD 570,000 in the Armavir region and at the Ministry of Culture, as reported by ArmeniaNow. As a result, in June 2009, Deputy Minister of Culture Gagik Gyurjyan was released of his duties. The COC Chairman, Ishkhan Zakaryan, reported that the COC has filed 9 cases at the Prosecutor General's office, which are currently being processed. In addition, according to Zakaryan, 80% of the embezzled money has been returned to the state budget. Over the past year, this is the second case of serious disclosure; the first case was in November 2008, when in five ministries violations equal to USD 3 million were registered, for which no high-ranking official was called to account, according to ArmeniaNow. In October 2009, Zakaryan presented to the National Assembly the COC's 2008 report, in which the chamber registered financial violations and wasteful spending by government agencies during the year that totalled almost USD 21 million, of which approximately USD 16 million could be recovered, as reported by the US Department of State 2009. The COC published similar findings on gross violations and financial abuse in numerous state bodies during 2009; as in previous years, however, these cases were rarely prosecuted. According to Transparency International Armenia, as cited in the US Department of State 2009, the government ministers and regional governors implicated by these reports simply returned some of the money to the budget and continued to work without any legal action being taken against them. The deputy head of the COC and the staff of the council are appointed by the president at the suggestion of the head of the COC. According to an assessment by Global Integrity 2009, the appointments to the COC do not sufficiently support its independence from the executive; thus, appointments may be politically influenced, and individuals appointed may have clear party loyalties. According to the report, the government does not always react on the findings of the audit institution and may sometimes ignore or give only superficial attention to the audit reports. Access the COC's reports (in Armenian).

• Ombudsman: The Human Rights Defender (Ombudsman) is elected by the National Assembly. According to Armenian law, the Ombudsman may initiate investigations but does not have the right to impose penalties on offenders. Global Integrity 2009 reports that the Ombudsman is not sufficiently protected from political interference in practice and may sometimes be influenced by political or personal incentives, including conflicting family relationships, professional relationships, as well as threats and abuses of power. The Ombudsman produces annual reports which are delivered during the first sitting of the National Assembly's spring session. The annual report is also presented to the media and relevant NGOs. Access the Human Rights Defender's Annual Report 2009. According to Global Integrity 2009, these reports are usually ignored and sometimes even criticised by the government. The current Ombudsman has several times publicly criticised the government system of Armenia, characterising it as 'oligarchic' and 'repressive', the judiciary as lacking independence and the law enforcement bodies as 'incompetent'. According to the Ombudsman reports, the main complaint of the citizens concerns the judiciary, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies; these structures are considered to be the most corrupt, as noted by ArmeniaNow. However, whether this critique can transform into actions in the future, reducing political interference and bringing about a change in the system, is still unknown.

• E-Governance: The UNDP launched a USD 35,000 e-governance system for a project run by the Ministry of Territorial Administration of Armenia in 2005. As a result of this project, several governmental portals have been launched, including the portals of the National Assembly of Armenia, the Human Rights Defender's Office, the judicial system, the Customs Service (in Armenian), State Revenue Committee (in Armenian), the Prosecutor General's Office, and the government of Armenia. In addition, the government has created Armenian Development Agency, which has been designed as "one-stop shop" agency for investors in Armenia, assisting them in setting up a company. Many regions have participated in pilot e-governance initiatives to offer services and information to citizens and companies. The project is in its final phase and has been scheduled to end in 2009. The objective of e-governance implementation has been to reduce corruption and eliminate administrative barriers for citizens and companies interacting with the government. However, the transparency of the e-governance initiative could be discussed. For instance, Global Integrity 2009 is critical of e-procurement and suggests that the e-procurement system purports to enhance transparency in procurement processes and decrease corruption in government expenditures in theory, its effectiveness is in practice limited by insufficient number of skilled personnel competent in electronic procurement systems. The service of public procurement is available under the Ministry of Justice, while the website of the State Revenue Committee incorporates both the customs and the taxes.

• Public Procurement: The Law on Procurement, adopted in 2004, foresees electronic procurement and aims at making the process more transparent. The law requires competitive bidding for major procurements and provides strict formal requirements to limit the extent of single sourcing. Notices of public procurements can be found at the official website of the procurement system of Armenia (in Armenian). However, Global Integrity 2009 reports that the provision to ensure competitive bidding is not enforced satisfactorily at the local level. For example, according to the chief expert of the Ministry of Trade and Economic Development, Ashot Sarkhoshyan, there is no process of advertising major public tenders. In order to not attract attention, tenders are often published in local newspapers in very small letters. Furthermore, the auctions are usually a formality, and the bidder is decided upon prior to the auction, according to Global Integrity 2009. According to the report, companies guilty of major violations of procurement regulations are neither in law nor in practice prohibited from participating in future procurement bids. In addition, the Transparency International Armenia 2007 reports that public procurement is often a mediated process, as a result of which the procurement prices increase. Hence, regulations for public procurement in Armenia are regarded by many companies as non-transparent and selectively applied. In law, there are no mechanisms that monitor the assets, incomes, and spending habits of procurement officials.

• Whistle-Blowing: Global Integrity 2009 evaluates whistle-blowing measures in Armenia as 'very strong'. Nevertheless, although the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code guarantee the protection of a wide range of persons, including witnesses, they do not directly address the protection of whistleblowers. According to the media contact at the Transparency International Armenia, Vakhtang Siradegyan, witnessing against corruption in Armenia may have repercussions for whistleblowers. For instance, the head of Royal Armenia Ltd., a coffee processing company, was imprisoned for having reported a corruption case in the customs services. He was first acquitted, but later imprisoned and sentenced to six years in prison. Global Integrity 2009 reports that the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Education, among others, have established hotline services, through which citizens can report on corruption.

• General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: The government of Armenia has made little tangible progress in implementing anti-corruption initiatives. The problems include high-level figures enjoying immunity from legal prosecution, and whistleblowers and victims of corruption not being protected by the law. Freedom House 2010 highlights corruption as a major inhibitor of democratic development and public trust in government actions in Armenia.

• Media: Freedom of speech and the press is guaranteed in Armenian law; however, the authorities often limit press freedom in practice. According to Global Integrity 2009, journalists are able to publish corruption-related stories in the opposition or neutral media, while pro-governmental media, especially state television and radio companies, censor corruption-related material. However, journalists take a personal risk when reporting corruption, and media outlets who commonly report on corruption face long-term consequences or violent reprisals, as reported by Global Integrity 2009. Most broadcast media depend on private financing and their reports tend to be supportive of the government, illustrating the symbiotic relationship between political and business elites. Media coverage of presidential and parliamentary elections continues to be biased in favour of pro-government parties. Media outlets which try to communicate alternative viewpoints often experience difficulties, such as sudden inspections by tax officials. Libel, defined in the Criminal Code as dissemination of defamatory information, remains a criminal offence. The independent media use self-censorship in order to avoid libel charges. Recent years have witnessed an increase in instances of violence towards journalists who have been assaulted, subjected to heavy fines, subjected to arson, or imprisoned. For example, journalist Edik Baghdasaryan was assaulted in 2008 following his investigative reports that exposed corruption in Armenia's mining industry, according to Freedom House 2010. The Internet, used by approximately 10% of the population, continues to offer alternative opinions and the government does not restrict access to web sites. In June 2008, the European Court found that the Armenian authorities violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) by repeatedly refusing to grant the A1 Plus, an opposition television station, a broadcasting licence, as reported by Freedom House 2011. In recent years, government pressure on media was exercised primarily through financial leverage by discouraging companies from advertising with disloyal media, according to Freedom House 2010. Reporters Without Borders 2010 ranks Armenia 101st out of 178 countries, while Freedom House 2011 ranks the country 146th out of 196 countries and describes its media environment as 'not free'.

• Civil Society: Civil society groups in Armenia are generally able to conduct their work without state interference. However, although legislation on NGOs was assessed to be in compliance with international standards by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, registration requirements for NGOs have been described as cumbersome and time-consuming by Freedom House 2011. According to Freedom House 2010, civil society in Armenia is relatively well developed when compared to the rest of the region. Around 4,000 NGOs are registered with the Ministry of Justice of Armenia, although only about 10% are active. Most civil society groups depend on foreign funding, for instance, diasporic funds. This has led to public perceptions of civic groups as foreign-funded companies rather than civil society organisations. One clear restriction on NGOs and non-profit organisations is that they are not permitted to participate in government tenders, which has implications for their sustainability. While Freedom House 2010 notes the presence and favourable activities of NGOs in the country, it criticises government hostility towards and opposition against efforts of NGOs. Eight NGOs will be awarded grants of the equivalent of USD 15,000-20,000 for their anti-corruption projects to be carried out until spring 2010, as reported by ArmeniaNow. The grants will be awarded by the US Agency for International Development's (USAID) Mobilizing Action against Corruption Project (MAAC).

• Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia): Transparency International Armenia addresses corruption issues and carries out programmes to counter corruption. The latest publication concerns monitoring of the country's anti-corruption commitments.

• Achilles Center: The Achilles Center for Protection of Drivers' Rights is an NGO that promotes the creation of a legal, well-informed and non-corrupt society. The Achilles Center's objectives include educating drivers about their rights in the traffic, involvement in traffic police commissions in order to reduce the number of power abuses by traffic police officers, and decreasing the level of corruption and increasing the transparency of traffic police entities. The Armenian and Russian versions of the website also provide drivers with a hotline service.

• Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses (FSMB): The FSMB is a non-profit NGO that formed the Business Advocacy Network to improve the business environment of SMEs. The FSMB conducts surveys and publishes reports on combating corruption in Armenia, such as Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006.

• Civil Society Institute (CSI): The CSI is an NGO which aims to assist and promote the establishment of a free and democratic society in Armenia. The CSI has implemented a series of programmes, research and publications concerning the principles of democracy and human rights, freedom of information, and anti-corruption.

The websites listed below provide useful facts on Armenia as well as contacts and tools for companies operating in Armenia:

• International Finance Corporation: Global SME Toolkit
  Guide to sustainable business management practices for SMEs.
• Business Fighting Corruption
  An online resource centre for business on collective action to avoid corruption which contains a guide and resources for partnerships with companies and other stakeholders to fight against corruption.
• CIA World Factbook: Armenia Profile
• The World Bank: Armenia Data Profile

Sources for further reading:

• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2010.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.

UNCAC Status: Signed 19 May 2005. Ratified 8 March 2007.

Status on UNCAC Implementation
This field describes the country's status on the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Please note any declarations and reservations made upon ratification. The list of signatories can be found on the UNODC website. Read more about the UNCAC.

Other Relevant Conventions or Treaties:

• Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption. Signed 15 May 2003. Ratified 9 January 2006.
  Read Transparency International's summary and assessment of the convention.
• Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption. Signed 17 February 2004. Ratified 7 January 2005.
  Read Transparency International's summary and assessment of the convention.
• United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Signed on 15 November 2001. Ratified 1 July 2003.
  Read Transparency International's summary and assessment of the convention.
• Member of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) since 20 January 2004.
• Member of the OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Transparency CPI: 2011: 129/182 (Score: 2.6)

Transparency CPI
This field consists of the score for the country in question on the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International as well as its ranking.

World Bank CORR Index (-2.5 - +2.5): 2010: -0.67

World Bank Corruption Index
This field consists of the score for the country in question on the 'Control of Corruption' indicator in the World Bank Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot (GRICS): 1996-2010.

OECD Country Risk Classification (0-7): 2011: 6

Country Risk Classification
The classification of countries by risk category has the aim of providing OECD countries with a basis for calculating the premium interest rate to be charged to cover the risk of non-repayment of export credits. Countries are placed in risk categories 0 - 7, with 0 being the lowest risk category and thus the least expensive. Conversely, premium group 7 is the highest risk category. Each classification is comprised of 2 components: 1) an assessment of the country's economic/financial situation, and 2) its overall political stability. Access the complete list of OECD Country Risk Classification figures.

Data Verification:

Publication date: November 2011

Data verified by: Global Advice Network

General Information Sources

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• GRECO: Evaluation Report on Armenia on Incriminations 2011.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2010.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2010.
• US Commercial Service: Doing Business in Armenia: A Country Commercial Guide for US Companies 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2009.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Between Albania and Kenya: Competitiveness survey upgrades Armenia to 'efficiency-driven' economy', 9 September 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Culture and Corruption: Audit shows wrong doing by Armenia ministry and regional bodies', 30 June 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Global barometer: Survey shows judiciary perceived as most corrupt sector in Armenia', 4 June 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'We've got an idea: NGOs 'sell' anti-corruption projects at USAID-organized marketplace', 24 April 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2008.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2008.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008.
• EBRD & World Bank: Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) Armenia 2008.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Honesty for Hire: Judges salaries to be doubled as anti-corruption measure', 5 December 2008.
• Eurasia Insight: 'Armenia: Getting Serious About Corruption', 11 July 2008.
• Reuters: 'Analysis: Riots, standoff destabilise Armenia', 7 March 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• INDEM & OPORA: Business Without Corruption: An Action Guide 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2007.
• Transparency International: Corruption & the Environment 2006.
• GRECO: Evaluation Report on Armenia 2006.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia 2006.
• Transparency International Armenia: Anti-Corruption Policy in Armenia 2006.
• Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006.
• Деловой Экспресс: 'Взятки Оплачивают Государство', июнь 2006 (in Russian).
• INDEM Foundation: БИЗНЕС И КОРРУПЦИЯ: ПРОБЛЕМЫ ПРОТИВОДЕЙСТВИЯ 2006 (in Russian).
• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Armenia 2006.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2006.
• Eurasia Insight: 'Allegations of Injustice, Corruption Dog Armenia's Construction Boom', 27 February 2006.
• Eurasia Insight: 'Corruption Remains Pervasive in Armenia, Despite Two-Year Anti-Graft Campaign', 10 November 2005.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Corruption Levels Sources

Judicial System

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2010.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2010.
• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2009.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Global barometer: Survey shows judiciary perceived as most corrupt sector in Armenia', 4 June 2009.
• EBRD & World Bank: Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) Armenia 2008.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2008.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2008.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Honesty for Hire: Judges salaries to be doubled as anti-corruption measure', 5 December 2008.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Armenia 2006.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2006.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Police

• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2009.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Driver, policeman, kickback: Corruption risks still high on Armenian roads, largely through driver ignorance', 19 June 2009.
• Armtown: 'Armenian Police Report Surge in Corruption Cases', 27 March 2009.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• INDEM & OPORA: Business Without Corruption: An Action Guide 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2007.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2006.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Licences, Infrastructure and Public Utilities

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Finance Ministry official in custody for suspected bribery', 31 March 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2009.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• EBRD & World Bank: Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Land Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• US Commercial Service: Doing Business in Armenia: A Country Commercial Guide for US Companies 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2009.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Culture and Corruption: Audit shows wrong doing by Armenia ministry and regional bodies', 30 June 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2007.
• Eurasia Insight: 'Allegations of Injustice, Corruption Dog Armenia's Construction Boom', 27 February 2006.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Tax Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2009.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Take Two: Government succeeds in pushing controversial 'Tax Agent' bill through parliament', 18 September 2009.
• EBRD & World Bank: Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Customs Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• World Economic Forum: Global Enabling Trade Report 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2009.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• EBRD & World Bank: Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Public Procurement and Contracting

• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• Transparency International Armenia: Monitoring of Public Procurement Systems 2008-2009 (in Armenian).
• EBRD & World Bank: Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• Transparency International Armenia: MCA-Armenia Procurement Monitoring Report 2007.
• Transparency International Armenia: Mapping Public Procurement System in Armenia 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Environment, Natural Resources and Extractive Industry

• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Corruption & the Environment 2006.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2005.
• UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Investment Climate in Armenia 2003.

Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives Sources

• GRECO: Evaluation Report on Armenia on Incriminations 2011.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2010.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2010.
• US Commercial Service: Doing Business in Armenia: A Country Commercial Guide for US Companies 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2009.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• Lexadin: The World Law Guide - Legislation Armenia 2009.
• Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia): 'Anti-corruption campaign in Armenia is of imitating nature', 25 September 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Freedom House Report Highlights Declines in Democratic Development', 3 July 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Culture and Corruption: Audit shows wrong doing by Armenia ministry and regional bodies', 30 June 2009.
• GRECO: Compliance Report on Armenia 2008.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center (Transparency International Armenia): Transparency International Anti-corruption Center Remarks and Suggestions on the Draft of the Armenian Procurement System Reforms Strategy 2008.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Honesty for Hire: Judges salaries to be doubled as anti-corruption measure', 5 December 2008.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• UNDP Anti-corruption Practitioners Network 2007.
• OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Armenia Update on Actions to Implement Recommendations 2007.
• GRECO: Evaluation Report on Armenia 2006.
• Eurasia Insight: 'Corruption Remains Pervasive in Armenia, Despite Two-Year Anti-Graft Campaign', 10 November 2005.

Private Anti-Corruption Initiatives Sources

• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2011.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Armenia 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2010.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2010.
• Reporters Without Borders: Armenia Country Report 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom of the Press Index 2009.
• Reporters Without Borders: Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2009.
• Freedom House: Freedom of the Press - Armenia 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Freedom House Report Highlights Declines in Democratic Development', 3 July 2009.
• ArmeniaNow: 'We've got an idea: NGOs 'sell' anti-corruption projects at USAID-organized marketplace', 24 April 2009.
• Freedom House: Nations in Transit - Armenia 2008.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Armenia 2008.
• Freedom House: Freedom of the Press - Armenia 2008.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008.
• ArmeniaNow: 'Honesty for Hire: Judges salaries to be doubled as anti-corruption measure', 5 December 2008.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia - Phone Survey 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2007.
• Global Integrity: Armenia Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International Armenia: Corruption Perception in Armenia 2006.
• Transparency International Armenia: Anti-Corruption Policy in Armenia 2006.
• Foundation for Small and Medium Businesses: Combating Corruption: SME Sector Perception and Solutions 2006.
• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Armenia 2006.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Armenia 2006.