Comparative Analysis of the Criminalization of Offenses against Administrative Integrity in Iran and Afghanistan in Light of the Merida Convention

Abstract

The present study, titled “Comparative Analysis of the Criminalization of Offenses against Administrative Integrity in Iran and Afghanistan in Light of the Merida Convention,” aims to examine the extent to which the criminal policies of the two countries conform to international anti-corruption standards. The research method is descriptive–analytical and based on a comparative study of national and international legal documents. This article first explicates the theoretical concepts of criminalization and administrative integrity and then examines the international framework of the Merida Convention and its governing principles, including transparency, accountability, international cooperation, prevention, and asset recovery. Subsequently, the legal systems of Iran—such as the Islamic Penal Code, the Law on Intensifying Punishment for Perpetrators of Bribery, Embezzlement, and Fraud, and the Law on Promotion of the Administrative Health System and Combating Corruption—and those of Afghanistan—such as the Penal Code (2017) and the Law on Combating Administrative Corruption (2018)—are analyzed. The findings indicate that Afghanistan has taken a step further than Iran in terms of the comprehensiveness of criminalization and alignment with the provisions of the Convention, while Iran possesses stronger jurisprudential foundations and institutional structures. Nevertheless, both countries face challenges such as legislative fragmentation, weak enforcement mechanisms, lack of protection for whistleblowers, and the influence of political structures on law enforcement. It is concluded that achieving administrative integrity requires legislative reforms, strengthening institutional independence, and institutionalizing a culture of transparency and accountability so that the obligations contained in the Merida Convention can be effectively and sustainably implemented.