Program name: USAID Project for the Promotion of Justice and Integrity in 
the Public Administration (Pro-Integridad)
USAID Financing Office: USAID/Peru – Martin Castro, COR
Contract number: AID-527-C-13-00001 
Contractor: ARD Inc.
Issue Date: November, 2015
 
November 2015
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and prepared by Tetra Tech DPK (Tt DPK), a division of ARD Inc. in Peru.
The opinions issued by the authors in this publication do not necessarily reflect the point of view 
of USAID or of the Government of the United States of America.
USAID/PERU 
PRO-INTEGRIDAD 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT ON 
THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY 
MODEL IMPLEMENTED IN THE 
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN 
RIGHTS OF PERU
 
2 
Contents 
Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 3
1. The concept of integrity and the instrument for data collection ...................................... 3
1.1. The operative concept of Institutional Integrity........................................................... 3
1.2. Components and aspects to record for an assessment and evaluation of the 
institutional integrity in the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.................................. 6
1.3. The instrument for information gathering, diagnosis, progress and final results of 
the implementation of the Institutional Integrity Model in the Ministry of Justice and 
Human Rights ......................................................................................................................... 9
2. Final Evaluation of the Institutional Integrity situation in the Ministry of Justice and 
Human Rights through the application of the instrument. .................................................. 17
2.1. Situation of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights according to the 
application of the instrument............................................................................................... 17
2.2. Inventory of the situation of the aspects and indicators of the institutional 
integrity model....................................................................................................................... 23
2.3 Potentiality of the Institution ......................................................................................... 28
2.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 31
3 
Introduction 
USAID Pro-Integridad Project (Project) implemented by Tetra Tech ARD, aims mainly 
to support the Government of Peru to reduce corruption levels and strengthen the rule 
of law through activities closely in line with local initiatives of justice reform, in 
coordination with other international cooperation agencies. 
Within its Objective 2, the Project provided technical assistance to the Ministry of 
Justice and Human Rights (MINJUS) to adopt and implement the Institutional Integrity 
Model – IIM1
. This Model refers to implanting an organizational culture based in the 
ethical behavior of the workers and the institutional procedures designed to reduce 
corruption risks and functional lack of efficiency. 
This report shows the results of the final evaluation of the IIM implementation in the 
MINJUS by November 2015. The advance achieved by this institution with the Project’s 
technical assistance has been a very positive one since the assessment presented in 
October 2013. This can be observed in the results obtained on the progression scale 
designed at the beginning of this task2
. 
As of the assessment of October 2013, MINJUS obtained 6 points over a total of 39 
points, which rated the institution in at risk position. At the intermediate evaluation of 
November 2014 the MINJUS increased its rating to 21 points, making it achieve a 
position of in the path to integrity. As of November 2015, MINJUS has advanced to 
26 units achieved, still in the position of in the path to integrity. Potentially, by July 
2016 MINJUS could reach 31 units achieved, which would bring it significantly near the 
position of integrity that is reached which starts at 35 points. 
We consider that the positive quantitative results reflect the level of engagement 
demonstrated by the high authorities of MINJUS and the officials that form the leader 
team for the implementation of the IIM that has been held since October 2013 even 
with the frequent changes of authorities which occurred in 2015. The institution is also 
implementing the mechanisms to sustain the Model after the Project is closed. 
1. The concept of integrity and the instrument for data collection 
1.1. The operative concept of Institutional Integrity 
"The IIM development seeks reliability, which involves developing a climate of trust 
both internally and externally, that guarantees the concrete fulfillment of the institutional 
mission, its strengthening, renovation and effectiveness, and seeks to guide all the 
 
1 Tetra Tech DPK ™ 2012
2
 The progression scale designed for the implementation of the IIM in the MINJUS considers 6 aspects 
and 39 registration units on a discrete scale with the following sections: 
- From 0 to 20 units fulfilled: In at risk situation. 
- From 21 to 34 units fulfilled: On the path to integrity. 
- From 35 to 39 units fulfilled: Integrity. 
4 
Institution’s human capital through the way of transparency and functional and 
institutional conscience” (DPK, 2012). 
This approach considers two important twists, which the idea of “institutional integrity” 
entails with respect to approaches such as “personal values” or “ethics”. This leads to 
consider not only the individual who acts, but the institution, which implies thinking 
about the behavior of the institution rather than the individual's. It is clear that the first 
idea involves the second and for proper conduct of the institution it is necessary to 
construct clear and organized spaces for the correct behavior and action of individuals. 
On the other hand, it is important to consider a practical twist in the “integrity” focus 
because it needs to be understood the structure of an institution not only as an abstract 
concept but as a set of practices that defines that value. Within this approach is a 
practice that allows to account for values (and not necessarily the individual abstract 
values which appear as the center of the actions). Even if both aspects seem 
connected to the daily life, the focus is concentrated in a control of practices and 
actions, procedures and mechanisms of institutional functioning. 
Graph 1 
Tensions in the operative concept of integrity 
Own Production 
The core idea in the approach is to avoid fragmentation of the elements of the 
organizational and institutional structure. Thus, the "institutional integrity" requires 
thinking in the institution as a set of integrated elements and running in the same 
direction (and not as a set of fragmented individuals), and requires that this integration 
is manifested in the effective, specific and recordable institutional practice (and not only 
in speeches and abstract values). 
It is important to understand that these elements work as a whole and not as 
juxtaposed operations in the organizational structure so that integrity cannot be 
established if the "system" is not fully drawn. It is evident that the integrity concept 
means the “whole of something” and the “participation of all the parts of something”. So 
one cannot be “halfway honest” or “honest in half”. 
In order to achieve an integral institutional structure it is necessary to build an 
Institutional Integrity Model – IIM – which strives to redefine the institutional practices
based on the redefinition of the concrete practices of the individuals and their functions, 
individuals that form the institutions and whose performance (their capacity to act as 
Institution / Individual 
Practice / Concept 
Integrity / Fragmentation
5 
people free to assume responsibilities for their acts) is carried out observing legal 
principles of ethics based in the public service. Thus, the implementation of an IIM 
involves contemplating and applying at least the following operative elements: 
Graph 2 
General components of the Institutional Integrity Model 
Source: Tetra Tech DPK, 2012 
Own production 
These elements appear in a process line marked by the “decision and leadership” of 
the institution’s authorities who promote mechanisms of “human management, 
administration, discipline, merits, dissemination, education, etc.”, looking for concrete 
results that lead to the “certification of integrity”. 
Graph 3 
Flow of the institutional integrity certification process 
 
IIM
Decision and 
Leadership
Processes:
 Human 
management
 Administratio
n and 
finances
 Discipline
 Merits
 Process 
management
 Dissemination
, training 
(socializing)
Key Results 
of the MIII:
Ethics
Integrity
Transparency
Resources
Results on 
individuals
Responsibility 
and freedom
Results on users
(Justice)
Results on 
Society
(Credibility)
Organizational 
Culture
(Individuals)
Facilitating Agents Results
Integrity Certification
Ethics 
Regulations 
(Policies and 
strategy)
Consequences
Source: Tetra Tech DPK, 2012.
1. The clear definition of the institutional culture 
that should show the human capital, directly 
facing the user and based on the institutional 
ethical principles.
2. The definition and establishment of a 
consequences system, that highlights merits or 
blames the behavior of members of the 
institution expressed through the system of 
promotions, ascents or recognition, or when 
appropriate, the application of the disciplinary 
system.
3. Regulations on public ethics and anti￾corruption.
4. Transparent management of substantive 
procedures of each institution, as well as 
efficiency, efficay and effectiveness of 
administrative, financial and institutional audit 
procedures.
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY 
MODEL (IIM)
6 
The components of the Model design appear in the flow of certification process and are 
reinforced in that way (see the elements that must be strengthened by the “Decision 
and Leadership” and the “Processes” that need to be built or enhanced related to the 
“Results” in Graph 3). In order to determine which are the aspects to be strengthened 
and built regarding the components and the certification flow it is necessary to 
determine the diagnostic situations in the institutions. 
1.2. Components and aspects to record for an assessment and evaluation of the 
institutional integrity in the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights 
How to assess the institutional integrity situation and based on it conduct an evaluation 
on its advance? It involves generating areas to be recorded that truly represent the 
components of the Model identifying the aspects of the situation records. These 
aspects are related to objective and measurable elements (through quantitative or 
qualitative tools) that represent the fields covered by the Model. In the case of the 
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Tetra Tech DPK has identified six relevant 
aspects to record and monitor, associated to the components of the Institutional 
Integrity Model: 
Table 1 
Model Components and Aspects to Record 
Components of the Model Aspects to Record
1. The clear definition of institutional 
culture 
1. Studies on culture/organizational 
environment
2. Public perception regarding the 
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights
2. The definition and establishment of a 
consequences system and a promotion 
system. 
3. Productivity statistics
4. Human capital management systems 
(announcement, selection, training,
performance evaluation)
3. Regulations regarding public ethics and 
fight against corruption. 
5. Regulation related to ethics and/or anti￾corruption regulations 
4. Transparency in procedures 
management
6. Management of public information and 
transparency 
Source: Tetra Tech DKP 
Own production 
These “aspects” may be divided in two relevant blocks. The first (aspects 1, 2 and 3) 
respond to fundamental elements of the institutional integrity model. The second 
(aspects 4, 5 and 6) are fundamental registration aspects due to the characteristics of 
the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and to the Open Government indicators. 
Registration Aspect 1: Studies of the institutional culture. The IIM entails a 
deep institutional change in order to ensure that the institutional principles and 
values are assimilated by all the institution’s members. The Culture change is a 
complex process and requires prolonged periods that can be shortened from 
the commitment, decision and participation of senior officials. Therefore a key to 
promote culture change must start by knowing the "inner voice" of the 
institution, considering the following criteria: interpersonal relationships (degree 
7 
to which employees help each other and their relations are respectful and 
considerate) ; management style (degree to which the chiefs support, 
encourage and give their employees participation); sense of belonging 
(satisfaction derived from their bond to the institution, sense of commitment and 
responsibility in relation to its objectives and programs); remuneration (degree 
of equity in pay and benefits from work); availability of resources (extent to 
which employees have the information, equipment and required input from other 
people and agencies to carry out their jobs); stability (degree to which 
employees see clear possibilities of belonging to the institution and feel that 
people are caring or dismissed with just criteria); clarity and consistency in 
direction (degree of clarity of senior management on the future of the institution; 
extent to which the areas’ goals and programs are consistent with the criteria 
and policies of senior direction or management); collective values (degree to 
which institutional values and principles are internally perceived) (DPK, 2012). 
Registration Aspect 2: Study of external perception. Know specifically the 
perception of the users of the services offered by the MINJUS, in order to 
measure the level of acceptance and impact it provides to the public, is a key 
factor of the IIM diagnosis and implementation. The study of perception, 
according to DPK, must include at least the following registration areas: impact 
of service; opinion of leaders and/or specific groups; image of the institutions; 
effectiveness of the service received; waiting time; main aspects perceived as 
of higher interest for direct users; trust or mistrust in the service. On the other 
hand, it is important to incorporate studies of insight, that is, how officials of the 
Ministry itself see the entity, as inside it there are also dynamics of users and 
providers of services between the different offices, directions and areas. Thus, it 
is necessary to take into account the following criteria: design, development, 
implementation and regular monitoring of qualitative tools (interviews) to 
measure perceptions of officials; development of guidelines on the image; 
speech on integrity and development of a media strategy; Ministry’s 
communication team capable of monitoring instruments; and local and media 
dissemination of the Ministry and its integrity approach. 
Registration Aspect 3: Study performance evaluation (productivity and 
effectiveness). The performance study must be focused on learning about the 
competencies of the public servants considering institutional pre-established 
indicators. The criteria proposed by Tt DPK to conduct such study must be 
based on indicators such as: pre-established competencies for each position; 
evaluation indicators; evaluation strategies and instruments; quantitative and 
qualitative measurement reports; efficiency, effectiveness, honesty and quality 
of service indicators; identification of the performance cases not satisfactory 
and/or removal from office. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the 
importance of evaluating the following matters: institutional size measurement 
(conditions, circumstances, complexity, time and workload referred to attention 
and services); measuring production indicators associated to the institutional 
size, suitable tools and work instruments (productivity and output gap); 
determining institutional quality standards; periodic productivity studies 
8 
published after an external evaluation; study of gaps between the size, the 
production indicator and the quality standards expected. 
Registration Aspect 4: Human capital management systems (convening, 
selection, training, performance evaluation). IIM is based on the 
commitment that it is able to generate among officers and servants at the 
entities where it is implemented. In order to achieve this, MINJUS needs to 
develop a holistic human capital management policy that considers the 
following criteria: explicit personnel convening mechanisms, published, and 
arranged through office interpenetration control mechanisms; study pre￾established competencies for each position with evaluation instruments (open 
eligibility criteria); develop an institutional performance evaluation system 
(ethics, dedication, respect, etc.) and of personnel individual production that 
allows to identify, catalogue and appraise merits, efficiency, efficacy and 
productivity; develop a professional improvement system related to production 
requirements; build a training program on basic concepts of ethics and integrity; 
develop impact indicators on professional training regarding staff performance 
and production; quantitative and qualitative measurement reports on efficiency, 
effectiveness, honesty and quality of service that include the identification of 
non-satisfactory performance cases. 
Registration Aspect 5: Regulation related to ethics and/or anti-corruption.
A relevant aspect is the set of rules to promote ethics and address corrupt acts 
within the entities. That means that the following criteria are needed to obtain 
information regarding the existence and applicability of regulations inside the 
MINJUS: implementation of a leading team in charge of the ethics code and its 
follow-up; development of the code of ethical behavior; definition of forbidden 
conducts related to international and national laws and regulations; 
development of a consequences system to i) define sanctions, and ii) monitor 
the sanction to any conduct against the law and regulation of the institution’s 
ethical behavior; develop and sign engagement of the institution’s members; 
monitoring and reports of production and quality of performance of the 
Processes Commission with sanction indicators; mechanisms of internal control 
implemented and functioning. 
Registration Aspect 6: Management of public information and 
transparency. One of the most relevant aspects that has direct relationship 
between the State and citizenship is that referred to access to public information 
and institutional transparency. We hereby present the criteria that need to be 
considered in the assessment and evaluation: adequacy of the criteria of 
transparency and access to public information according to law through an 
application manual; setting up an office in charge of attention to requests for 
public information and institutional transparency; periodic and updated 
publication of the public information of the ministry in its web site; affidavit of 
incomes, assets and revenue disseminated through the web; development of a 
measurement of indicators on replies to request for public information and 
transparency; development of a hard and virtual archiving system that is 
amicable and secure for the information provided by the MINJUS; report of the 
9 
Ministry on transparency and access to the information with quantified data and 
the efficacy and quality of the replies; and transparent system of information 
and open and transparent mechanisms for involving civil society in the process 
of construction of public policies. 
1.3. The instrument for information gathering, diagnosis, progress and final 
results of the implementation of the Institutional Integrity Model in the Ministry of 
Justice and Human Rights 
The components are recorded through the aspects, and the aspects are split into 
registration units, referred to concrete actions and objective elements developed and 
recordable in the field data collection. This logical sequence has resulted in a basic 
instrument to establish a diagnosis of the situation of the Ministry of Justice and Human 
Rights, monitor compliance of activities and indicators regarding elements laid out and 
the ability to evaluate them. To that end, a matrix for simple register on a double entry 
table that includes the registration elements and units (indicators) for each aspect of 
the Model has been developed. 
Thus, the instrument includes i) a column of aspects raised from the Model’s 
components, ii) six rows with each of the aspects subdivided into registration units 
(indicators of compliance with the integrity standard). Each aspect is divided among 
five and seven registration units whose valuation sets compliance (0) or non￾compliance (1) of the standard (see Table 3). 
What are the criteria for selection of indicators (record units) and their type of numerical 
weighting? 
The registration units are derived from the aspects, and aspects from the 
components. Thus, registration units are those that, in progressive order, can 
meet the aspects considered in the model.
The aspects of institutional integrity must be met progressively. Thus, the order 
of the location of the record units involved are met from left to right. While there 
may be registration units from the right end satisfied (with rating 1), it may 
happen that no units have a history log. That shows that there may exist a 
product but not necessarily will be supported in the institutional integrity model. 
Integrity cannot imply a partial fulfillment. A binary criterion (0-1) is chosen to 
determine compliance with the registration units and no intermediate stops. This 
is because aspects and registration units should be met with the standard of 
integrity (there cannot be "medium integrity." That is contradictory to the 
concept). 
How to apply the instrument? Using "exit interviews" (between 5 and 20 questions) 
operating as a contrast and complement to the documentation provided by each area, 
direction or office in which registered aspects were investigated. 
10
Table 2 
Complementary tools to fill out the Registration Matrix (Table 3)
Complementary 
tools Record card file Exit interviews
Data source Institutional document 
archive Institutional officers
Instrument Check list derived from the 
registration matrix
Open questionnaire derived 
from the registration matrix 
Quantity 1 application to the current 
universe
10-20 applications until 
saturation
Own production 
How to read the results of the application of information gathering tools and evaluation 
measuring instrument, previously used in the diagnosis carried out in 2013? For this, 
two important issues should at least be considered. The first has to do with the total 
number obtained from adding recording units deemed fulfilled. That amount can be 
arranged on a pre-built scale and indicates a general diagnostic situation of institutional 
status. The second important issue concerns the progression of the shares of the 
satisfactory performance indicators for each aspect, so it is necessary to know if the 
progressive indicators are met in progression or have jumped stages. 
 
Weighting in the scale. The instrument should be applied through the 
complementary tools and must fill in the columns indicating 0 or 1. The total 
sum for each row and the total sum of all rows determine the final number within 
a qualitative situation scale. On this scale less than 50% compliance of the 
possible numbers obtained (you can get maximum 39 points) indicates a risk 
regarding the integrity model (less than 20 points). The following quartile 
(between 21 and 34 points) shows a not at risk situation, on the way to integrity 
(see example in Table 4). 
Progression of registration units. To monitor the progressive compliance of the 
registration units it must be determined what, in a horizontal line from left to 
right (arrow), the criterion of progression from A to G in the columns of 
registration units is. A complete arrow shows complete fulfillment; and 
incomplete arrow but with units counted as satisfactorily from left to right, even if 
they do not have satisfactory registration units, means progressive and stable 
compliance; an arrow with holes between the registration units shows no 
progression so the units are achieved without generating integrity (see example 
of Table 5).
11
Table 3 
Matrix of registration aspects and units of the Institutional Integrity Model 
Aspects
Registration 
Unit 
A B C D E F G H Σ 
1. Studies of 
organizational 
culture/climate
1.A.
Declaration 
and definition 
of the values, 
principles, 
language and 
symbols of the 
institution
0 1 1.B.Development 
of ethical 
compliance 
monitoring 
mechanisms of 
the functions 
related to the 
definition of 
values and 
training of officers 
0 1 1.C.Development 
of periodic 
reflection spaces 
and activities on 
the value of 
integrity and 
ethics in the 
institution 
0 1 1.D. Recognition 
system to actions 
in line with the 
meritorious 
indicators 
assessment and 
management 
0 1 1.E. Periodic 
surveys of 
identification of 
disrupting 
elements in the 
development of 
institutional 
values 
0 1 1.F. Tools 
designed, 
implemented and 
institutional values 
and satisfaction 
assimilation and 
compliance 
measurement 
results monitored 
0 1 1.G.Development 
and dissemination 
of studies on 
organizational 
climate (structure, 
functions, 
perceptions) 
0 1 Σ ≤ 7
2. Public 
perception 
regarding the 
Ministry of 
Justice and 
Human Rights 
2.A.Design a 
tool to integrate 
the instruments 
to measure 
perceptions on 
the Ministry of 
Justice and 
Human Rights 
0 1 2.B.Design, 
development, 
application and 
monitoring of 
periodic surveys 
to users and 
citizens on i) 
effectiveness of 
the service, ii) 
impact, iii) timing, 
iv) the aspects of 
higher interest for 
direct users, v) 
trust in the 
service, vi) 
warmth of the 
attention
0 1 2.C.Design, 
development, 
application and 
periodic 
monitoring of 
qualitative 
instruments 
(interviews) to 
measure 
perceptions of 
officers 
0 1 2.D.Design, 
development 
application and 
periodic 
monitoring of 
qualitative 
instruments 
(focus groups) to 
study 
perceptions in 
experts, specific 
groups, and
media 
0 1 2.E.Construction 
of guidelines on 
the image and 
speech on 
integrity and 
development of 
a media strategy 
0 1 2.F.Communication 
team of the 
Ministry trained to 
monitor the 
instruments and 
media and local 
dissemination of 
the Ministry’s 
image ant the 
integrity focus 
0 1 Σ ≤ 6
3. Productivity 
statistics 
3.A. 
Measurement 
of the 
institutional
size 
(conditions, 
circumstances, 
complexity, 
time and 
workload 
regarding the 
services and 
attention
0 1 3.B.Measurement 
of production 
indicators
associated to 
institutional size, 
tools and 
adequate work 
instruments 
(productivity and 
performance gap)
0 1 3.C.Determination 
of institutional 
quality standards 
0 1 3.D.Periodic 
productivity 
studies published 
based on 
external 
evaluation 
3.E.Study on 
gaps between 
the size, the 
production 
indicators and 
the quality 
standards 
expected 
0 1 Σ ≤ 4
4. Human 
capital 
management 
systems 
convening, 
selection, 
training, 
performance 
evaluation)
4.A.Explicit, 
published 
personnel 
convening 
mechanisms 
and arranged 
through office 
interpenetration 
control 
mechanisms 
0 1 4.B.Study pre￾established 
competencies for 
each position 
with evaluation 
instruments 
(open eligibility 
criteria) 
0 1 4.C.Development 
of an institutional 
performance 
evaluation system 
(ethics, 
dedication, 
respect, etc.) and 
of personnel 
individual 
production that 
allows to identify, 
0 1 4.D.Development 
of a system of 
professional
improvement 
referred to 
production 
requirements 
0 1 4.E.Construcof 
a training 
program on 
basic concepts 
of ethics and 
integrity
0 1 4.F.Construction of 
impact indicators of 
professionals
training related to 
personnel 
performance and 
production 
0 1 4.G. Quantitative 
and qualitative 
measurement 
reports on 
efficiency, 
effectiveness, 
honesty and 
quality of service 
that include the 
identification of 
non-satisfactory 
Σ ≤ 7
12
catalogue and 
appraise merits, 
efficiency, 
efficacy and 
productivity 
performance 
cases (I7 - GA) 
5. Regulation 
related to 
ethics and/or 
anti￾corruption
5.A.
Implementation 
of a leading 
team in charge 
of the ethics 
code and its 
follow-up
0 1 5.B.
Development of 
the code of 
ethical behavior 
0 1 5.C. Definition of 
forbidden 
conducts related 
to international 
and national laws 
and regulations
0 1 5.D. 
Development of 
a consequences 
system to i) 
define sanctions, 
and ii) monitor 
the sanction to 
any conduct 
against the law 
and regulation of 
the institution’s 
ethical behavior
0 1 5.E. Develop 
and sign 
engagement of 
the institution’s 
members.
0 1 5.F. Monitoring 
and reports of 
production and 
quality of 
performance of the 
Processes 
Commission with 
sanction indicators
0 1 5.G. 
Mechanisms of 
internal control 
implemented 
and functioning 
(I10 - GA)
Σ ≤ 7
6. 
Management 
of public 
information 
and 
transparency
6.A. Adequacy 
of the criteria of 
transparency 
and access to 
public 
information 
according to 
law through an 
application 
manual (I1, I2 -
GA)
0 1 6.B. Setting up 
an office in 
charge of 
attention to 
requests for 
public information 
and institutional 
transparency
(I3 - GA)
0 1 6.E. Periodic and 
updated 
publication of the 
public information 
of the ministry in 
its web site
0 1 6.D. Affidavit of 
incomes, assets 
and revenue 
disseminated 
through the web
(I13 - GA)
0 1 6.E.
Development of 
a measurement 
of indicators on 
replies to 
request for 
public
information and 
transparency (I8 
- GA)
0 1 6.F. Development 
of a hard and 
virtual archiving 
system that is 
amicable and 
secure for the 
information 
provided by the 
MINJUS
0 1 6.G. Report of the 
Ministry on 
transparency and 
access to the 
information with 
quantified data 
and the efficacy 
and quality of the 
replies (I6, I14 -
GA)
0 1 6.H.Build 
transparent system 
of information and 
open and 
transparent 
mechanisms for 
involving civil 
society in the 
process of 
construction of 
public policies (I16 -
GA)
Σ ≤ 8
Integrity 100 ΣX = 39
Integrity 35 ≤ X
In the path to integrity 21 ≤ X ≤ 
34 
At risk situation X ≤ 20
Own production 
 
13
Table 4 
Assessment results according to the table of registration of institutional integrity indicators in the MINJUS (October 2013)
Aspect
Registra
tion 
Unit
A B C D E F G H Σ 
1. Studies of 
organizational 
culture/climate
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Σ = 0
2. Public 
perception 
regarding the 
Ministry of 
Justice and 
Human Rights
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Σ = 0
3. Productivity 
statistics
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Σ = 0
4. Human capital 
management 
systems 
convening, 
selection, 
training, 
performance 
evaluation)
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Σ = 2
5. Regulation 
related to ethics 
and/or anti￾corruption
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Σ = 1
6. Management 
of public 
information and 
transparency
0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Σ = 3
Sum of registration units of the institution Σ = 06
Integrity 100 ΣX = 39
Integrity 35 ≤ X
In the path to integrity 21 ≤X≤ 34 
At risk situation X ≤ 20
14
Table 5 
Assessment results of the progression of registration units in the MINJUS table of application (October 2013) 
Aspect
Registratio
n Unit
A B C D E F G H Σ 
1. Studies of 
organizational 
culture/climate
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GOL
No 
progression
2. Public 
perception 
regarding the 
Ministry of 
Justice and 
Human Rights
0 0 0 0 0
GOL
No 
progression
3. Productivity 
statistics
0 0 0 0 0
GOL
No 
progression
4. Human capital 
management 
systems 
convening, 
selection, 
training, 
performance 
evaluation)
1 0 0 0 1 0 0
GOL
No 
progression
A-E
5. Regulation 
related to ethics 
and/or anti￾corruption
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
GOL
No 
progression 
G
6. Management 
of public 
information and 
transparency
0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
GOL
No 
progression
C-D-F
Own production
The tables above show the situation in the Ministry as of the assessment in year 2013, 
based on the limits detected at that moment. They show that the rating weight was six 
points over 39 possible, which placed the MINJUS at a risk situation according to the 
categories set forth. 
To get to those results, an inventory of critical areas and gray zones in the compliance 
of the institutional integrity indicators was carried out. The critical area considered 
those aspects that do not show complete indicators development of no progression. 
Gray zone are those aspects that have met the indicators but there is no progression. 
The description of the results of the assessment of October 2013 is as follows: 
Critical area 1: Aspect 1: Studies of organizational culture and climate. 
According to the Institutional Integrity Model, the institutional culture 
represented by the habits and persistent practices in institutions represent a key 
element: integrity, understood as adequacy of personal conduct to comply with 
the standards set by the entity, is an important element of justification on how 
people are able to appropriate institutional values. In this sense, the recording 
table shows that no indicator has been fully achieved so, without information, 
there is no way to determine the institution’s specific status, areas to be 
strengthened and the problems that must be addressed and resolved. 
Critical area 2: Aspect 2: Public perception regarding the Ministry of 
Justice and Human Rights. The public perception regarding the Ministry is 
also a key element in the implementation of the Institutional Integrity Model. We 
especially understand the public perception as a tool to determine the level of 
user satisfaction with the service provided by the institution. According to the 
data, the Ministry does not have tools regularly applied to measure public 
perception regarding its work, so there is no contrast or progression reference 
on the improvement or deterioration of perceptions of the institution. As it has 
been noted, the mechanisms to monitor public opinion are temporary and 
basically refer to following news in the media. 
Critical area 3: Aspect 3: Productivity statistics. The productivity statistics 
measure the impact of work to achieve the institutional objectives and mission. 
There needs to be information of the size of the demand in terms of services 
provided by the institution, allows to determine more precisely the workload that 
is needed to reply to that demand and determine the appropriate resources to 
be efficient. The presence of satisfactory indicators bring relevant results: i) 
Increased trust of the citizen in the institution; ii) Improved institutional climate 
as the worker is given better conditions to perform; iii) Access to objective 
evaluation systems on the positions’ profiles and the performance of the worker 
to improve production within the institution. The MINJUS does not have 
instruments that allow work productivity measurement. That means that there 
are no standards or lines to compare, or regular hiring criteria established. 
Critical area 4: Aspect 5: Regulation related to institutional ethics and 
integrity. The existing regulations on institutional ethics and integrity matters 
are based currently on the Law of the Code of Ethics in the Public Sector. 
16
Though it is true that this law represents an important element to evaluate 
functional conducts, it is also true that it is necessary to adapt many of its 
principles, duties and prohibitions to the specific application context of the 
MINJUS. That means a practical adaptation exercise of that established by the 
law, the mission, vision and specific institutional values of the entity and the 
understanding of these by the workers, in a logic of awareness, information and 
ongoing training. It is also necessary to establish a clear merit and sanction 
system that encourages the workers to comply with what is expected of them in 
performing their work. According to the information collected, it is proven that 
there is only the Internal Control System in place. 
Gray zone 1: Aspect 4: Human capital management systems convening, 
selection, training, performance evaluation). Human capital management is 
a key element in the development of any organization, because it is this process 
that determines the success or failure of institutions: people with qualities, skills 
and limitations, which with their work determine the type of operation of an 
entity. In the case of the MINJUS, the system of human capital management 
shows progress in relation to this aspect, effectively complying with the 
procedures established by SERVING in notice cases of staff to run for work 
spaces and in relation to the training of officials in the framework of the 
Development of People Program. Still the development of profiles for the 
positions according to the entity’s production requirements are pending, as well 
as the development of evaluation systems that encourage enhancement of 
official productivity. 
Gray zone 2: Aspect 6: Management of public information and 
transparency. The MINJUS shows important advances in the implementation 
of the Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information. The principle of 
publicity is clearly developed, according to the standards foreseen in the law. 
The use of the web site is adequate and according to what the officials say, the 
Presidency of the Council of Ministers evaluates satisfactorily the compliance of 
the entity. Regarding the archiving system, there is information related to 
physical archives of the institution. There is no information that there is a virtual 
efficient archive in place. There is the need of a manual for the application of 
the Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information that allows the 
workers to adequately apply the law in their performance. Also, they need to 
have an official office in charge of the promotion and follow up on transparency 
and access to public information that gives information on the level of access of 
citizens to the information requested and the efficiency of the Ministry to reply to 
those requests. Not having these mechanisms in place may create risks of 
misconducts and negative impacts in the user perception. There may be a good 
performance level regarding claims by not attending as adequate the requests 
for information, as well as the publicity of the information according to the 
standards established by law. Nevertheless, not necessarily the citizen who 
accesses information or seeks information finds a satisfactory reply, because of 
the way the information is arranged is not appropriate, or because the attention 
to its requirement does not satisfy its request. 
17
2. Final Evaluation of the Institutional Integrity situation in the 
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights through the application 
of the instrument.
2.1. Situation of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights according to the 
application of the instrument 
Following the same methodology as that of the assessment of October 2013, the 
results of the implementation of the Institutional Integrity Model in the MINJUS has 
been evaluated as of November 2015. The following are the results: 
21
Table 6 
Assessment results according to the table of registration of institutional integrity indicators in the MINJUS 
(November 2015)
Aspect
Registrati
on Unit
A B C D E F G H Σ 
1. Studies of 
organizational 
culture/climate
1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Σ = 5
2. Public perception 
regarding the 
Ministry of Justice 
and Human Rights
0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Σ = 4
3. Productivity 
statistics
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Σ = 3
4. Human capital 
management systems 
convening, selection, 
training, performance 
evaluation)
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Σ = 3
5. Regulation related 
to ethics and/or anti￾corruption
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Σ = 6
6. Management of 
public information 
and transparency
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Σ = 5
Sum of registration units of the institution Σ = 26
Integrity 100 ΣX = 39
Integrity 35 ≤ X
In the path to integrity 21 ≤X≤ 34 
At risk situation X ≤ 20
22
Table 7 
Assessment results on progression of registration units according to the table of application in the MINJUS (November 2015) 
Aspect
Registratio
n Unit
A B C D E F G H Σ 
1. Studies of 
organizational 
culture/climate
1 0 1 0 1 1 1 No 
progression
2. Public 
perception 
regarding the 
Ministry of 
Justice and 
Human Rights
0 1 1 0 1 1 Yes 
progression 
3. Productivity 
statistics
1 1 1 0 Yes 
progression 
4. Human capital 
management 
systems 
convening, 
selection, 
training, 
performance 
evaluation)
1 0 0 1 1 0 No 
progression 
5. Regulation 
related to ethics 
and/or anti￾corruption
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Yes 
progression 
6. Management 
of public 
information and 
transparency
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 No 
progression 
C-D-F
Own production 
2.2. Inventory of the situation of the aspects and indicators of the institutional 
integrity model 
Aspect 1. On the Studies of organizational culture/climate.
According to the information provided by the head of the Human Resources Office, the 
indicators for registration aspect 1 are at the following status: 
1.A. Declaration and definition of values, principles, language and symbols of the 
institution 
This has been achieved through the Code of Ethical Behavior and other especially 
relevant institutional documents. 
1.B. Development of monitoring mechanisms on the ethical compliance of 
functions related to the definition of values and servants’ training. 
These mechanisms are not yet developed. However, according to the information 
provided by the Head of Human Resources, they are expected to be designed by next 
year and are scheduled in its 2016 work plan. 
1.C. Development of periodic reflection spaces and activities on the value of 
integrity and ethics in the institution 
There is a space named “Thursday of Ethics”, which is to deliver a four-hour training 
to workers on issues of public ethics and institutional integrity. This space is for workers 
to be more aware of their role in an ethical perspective and also for them to reflect on 
the relevance of their work to help strengthen the institutional integrity. In 2014, 845 
MINJUS workers (including 48 officers) have been trained directly with project 
assistance. This space has been institutionalized by the Ministry and has been ongoing 
through all 2015. It is estimated that more than a thousand workers of the Ministry have 
been trained in the development of the Institutional Integrity Model and key aspects of 
public ethics. It must be also noted that during 2015 the Project has trained 464 
penitentiary agents of the National Penitentiary Institute – INPE, public executing 
agency of the Justice Sector. 
1.D. Recognition system to actions in line with the meritorious indicators 
assessment and management
It does not yet exist. Even though it was incorporated as an activity in the 2015 work 
plan, it could not be done. It will be incorporated in the 2016 work plan. 
1.E. Periodic surveys of identification of disrupting elements in the development 
of institutional values 
Developed during 2015. The study yields four disruptor elements: disorganization, lack 
of motivation, misinformation on the institutional values, and weak integrity of workers. 
The identification of these elements that hinder the exercise of institutional values, will 
allow the Ministry to develop a policy for the dissemination and improvement of 
organizational climate to increase professional ethics. 
1.F. Tools designed, implemented and institutional values and satisfaction 
assimilation and compliance measurement results monitored 
24
Developed during 2015. The study of disruptive elements now include a methodology 
applied to measure assimilation and compliance of the institutional values and the 
workers satisfaction level. The results were that there is low level of knowledge of 
institutional values leading to weak compliance of them. The study also revealed that 
the level of satisfaction of the workers is low. 
1.G. Development and dissemination of studies on organizational climate 
(structure, functions, perceptions) 
This year a study on organizational climate was done and the results of March 2015 
were negative. The climate is weak. Main causes are: no career line in the Ministry, the 
different hiring instruments generate distrust and suspicion among the workers and 
there is not enough attention to their needs. 
Aspect 2. On Public perception regarding the Ministry of Justice and Human 
Rights 
According to the information provided by the head of the Institutional Communication 
and Image Office, we hereby present the advance on the progression indicators for this 
registration aspect. 
2.A. Design a tool to integrate the instruments to measure perceptions on the 
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights 
The tool has not yet been designed. It was incorporated in the 2015 work plan but due 
to budgetary reasons could not be done. It is now incorporated in the 2016 work plan. 
2.B. Design, development, application and monitoring of periodic surveys to 
users and citizens on i) effectiveness of the service, ii) impact, iii) timing, iv) the 
aspects of higher interest for direct users, v) trust in the service, vi) kindness of 
attention 
This indicator was developed through a survey carried out by IMASEN under a contract 
with the World Bank. 
2.C. Design, development, application and periodic monitoring of qualitative 
instruments (interviews) to measure perceptions of officers 
IMASEN conducted a survey via email to 400 officers that was accompanied by 
interviews to motivate officers to be open and candid in their replies. The survey 
determined the perception of officers regarding their work within the Ministry and their 
needs to improve their sense of belonging to the institution. Also, the trainings during 
the “Thursdays of Ethics” 3added a dynamic so that the workers could openly express 
their perceptions regarding the MINJUS and their participation to improve their 
performance. 
2.D. Design, development of application and periodic monitoring of qualitative 
instruments (focus groups) to study perceptions in experts, specific groups and 
media 
Not yet implemented. Included in the 2016 work plan. 
 
3
 Weekly meetings held by MINJUS aimed at sensitizing staff members on issues like public ethics and 
institutional integrity. 
25
2.E. Construction of guidelines on the image and speech on integrity and 
development of a media strategy 
A dissemination process has been developed on ethics and integrity and has been 
spread through the institutional web, social networks and TV. A line of products has 
also been developed to put the speech on institutional integrity in the minds of officials 
of the institution and users, such as pens, clipboard, poles, and other souvenirs in 
order to reinforce the message of institutional ethics and integrity. 
2.F. Communication team of the Ministry trained to monitor the instruments and 
media and local dissemination of the Ministry’s image and the integrity focus 
The Institutional Office of Communication and Image team has been trained during 
their attendance at the Thursdays of Ethics. 
Aspect 3. On Productivity Statistics
3.A. Measurement of the institutional size (conditions, circumstances, 
complexity, time and workload regarding the services and attention). 
The draft Procedures Manual - MAPRO identifies all the processes in the MINJUS. It 
has established a level of detail from the macro-processes, processes, sub-processes, 
activities and tasks, as well as the identification of the input document and the product 
or service provided to the user, in order to improve the quality of services. The number 
of resources spent or used in each process has also been established so as to 
determine a less costly structure versus the actual one set forth by the TUPA, and the 
kind of value generated by each activity or task. Finally, improvements deal with the 
aspect of process (reduction of tasks and / or activities as eliminating bottlenecks), 
automation (implementation of information flow tools) and organization (modification of 
the functional organizational structure to one by process).
3.B. Measurement of production indicators associated with institutional size, 
tools and adequate work instruments (productivity and performance gap) 
It must be noted that each process or sub-process identified by MAPRO’s project has 
productivity indicators so that the implementation of the processes (procedures) fulfills 
its purpose and there is a continuous monitoring and control in order to improve a 
quality implementation. Also, along with the heads of offices and directorates, the 
connotation of monitoring processes and oversight have been restructured as 
missional or operational in order to see the production process thereof, and the 
implementation of the control system on the goals of the processes. 
3.C Determination of institutional quality standards 
MAPRO has determined the quality standards for key selected processes. Also, a 
training process through the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and its Institute for 
the Quality is going on to strengthen the institutional quality standards. 
3.D. Periodic productivity studies published based on external evaluation 
Not yet in place. Included in the 2016 work plan. 
26
3.E. Study on gaps between the size, the production indicators and the quality 
standards expected 
Not yet in place. Included in the 2016 work plan. 
Aspect 4. On Human capital management systems convening, selection, training, 
performance evaluation)
4.A. Explicit, published personnel convening mechanisms and arranged through 
office interpenetration control mechanisms 
There are personnel convening mechanisms explicit and published through the 
Ministry’s web site. 
4.B. Study pre-established competencies for each position with evaluation 
instruments (open eligibility criteria) 
There is no study on pre-established competencies as these are linked to the 
development of position profiles whose guidelines must be approved by SERVIR and 
have not yet done so. 
4.C. Development of an institutional performance evaluation system (ethics, 
dedication, respect, etc.) and of personal individual production that allows to 
identify, catalogue and appraise merits, efficiency, efficacy and productivity 
The system to evaluate the institutional performance is not yet set. As with the previous 
paragraph, they are expecting the approval of SERVIR. 
4.D. Development of a system of professional improvement referred to 
production requirements 
There is a system for professional strengthening under the Personnel Development 
Plan (PDP) 
4.E. Construct a training program on basic concepts of ethics and integrity
There is a training program in place on concepts of ethics and integrity that has been a 
success factor in the implementation of the IIM in the MINJUS. Through this program a 
significant number of workers from the institution have been trained, making 
sustainable the Thursdays of ethics. The training program designed by Pro-Integridad 
is currently underway in the MINJUS, and is expected to continue the following next 
year as well. 
4.F. Construction of impact indicators of professional training related to 
personnel performance and production 
No impact indicators in place. The evaluations are conducted through a survey to the 
heads after the courses received by their personnel to see if the course has had any 
impact, but not based on pre-established indicators. This activity will probably be 
included in the 2016 work plan. 
27
4.G. Quantitative and qualitative measurement reports on efficiency, 
effectiveness, honesty and quality of service that include the identification of 
non-satisfactory performance cases 
No reports yet. They will be included in the 2016 work plan. 
Aspect 5. On Regulation related to ethics and/or anti-corruption 
5.A. Implementation of a leading team in charge of the ethics code and its follow￾up 
The team leading the Code of Ethical Conduct was formed in 2014 and was approved 
by Ministerial Resolution. It is led by the Secretary General and the Executive 
Secretariat rests with the head of the office of planning and budget implementation. 
The team has been formalized by Ministerial Resolution 0105-2014-JUS, in which the 
functions of this working group were set forth. 
5.B. Development of the Code of Ethical Behavior 
The Code of Ethical Behavior was approved through Ministerial Resolution 0151-2014-
JUS. The Minister presented it to the institution’s workers during a public event in the 
year 2014. It is still an instrument being disseminated during the trainings provided by 
the Ministry to newly appointed workers in the institution. 
5.C. Definition of forbidden conducts related to international and national laws 
and regulations 
The Code of Ethical Behavior clearly states the forbidden conducts within the 
framework of national and international regulations. 
5.D. Development of a consequences system to i) define sanctions, and ii) 
monitor the sanction to any conduct against the law and regulation of the 
institution’s ethical behavior 
The Code of Ethical Behavior includes a defined consequences system. 
5.E. Develop and sign engagement of the institution’s members
The institution’s workers have signed letters of commitment during the trainings 
provided through the Thursdays of Ethics. 
5.F. Monitoring and reports of production and quality of performance of the 
Processes Commission with sanction indicators 
No such report has been yet developed, included in the 2016 work plan. 
5.G. Mechanisms of internal control implemented and functioning
The Assessment Report on the System of Internal Control is developed. Currently 
there is a bidding process underway to hire a consulting firm to work the 
implementation study. 
Aspect 6. On Management of public information and transparency 
28
6.A. Adequacy of the criteria of transparency and access to public information 
according to law through an application manual 
With the Project’s technical assistance, during 2015 a Manual on the Application of the 
Transparency and Access to Public Information was developed and is available to all 
the MINJUS workers. 
6.B. Setting up an office in charge of attention to requests for public information 
and institutional transparency 
There is no office in charge of these functions. Its set-up has not been discussed. 
6.C. Periodic and updated publication of the public information of the ministry in 
its web site 
The Presidency of the Ministers’ Council and the Council of Peruvian Press have 
carried out quarterly evaluations with good results. There are guidelines in place to 
make transparent the information in the MINJUS. 
6.D. Affidavit of incomes, assets and revenue disseminated through the web 
Incomes and revenue are published through the institutional transparency web page. 
6.E. Development of a measurement of indicators on replies to request for public 
information and transparency 
There is no such measurement in the institution. It is planned in the 2016 work plan. 
6.F. Development of a hard and virtual archiving system that is amicable and 
secure for the information provided by the MINJUS 
There is a Project to digitalize the documents. It is expected to be implemented during 
2016. There is an updated physical archive in place. 
6.G. Report of the Ministry on transparency and access to the information with 
quantified data and the efficacy and quality of the replies 
There is no report of the kind in the institution. 
6.H. Build transparent system of information and open and transparent 
mechanisms for involving civil society in the process of construction of public 
policies 
With technical assistance of the Project, a document proposing the development a 
citizen participation mechanism was drafted. The proposed mechanism is an 
accountability process with civil society participation. The draft was validated with civil 
society and MINJUS representatives which allowed a final tuned-up and discussed 
version of this product. 
2.3 Potentiality of the Institution 
Table 8 shows the level of advance of the MINJUS in the implementation of the IIM by 
November 2015 and potential advance of the institution towards the first semester of 
2016. Color blue shows results achieved by the institution and the green boxes show 
what is currently in process. 
29
The table shows that by July 2016 the MINJUS could reach a score of 31 points, which 
may bring the institution near the integrity status by only four points. 
30
Table 8 Potentiality after the evaluation of November 2015
 REGISTRATION UNIT
ASPECT
A B C D E F G H Σ 
1. Studies of organizational 
culture/climate
1 0 1 0 1 1 1 Σ = 6
2. Public perception regarding 
the Ministry of Justice and 
Human Rights
0 1 1 0 1 1 Σ = 4
3. Productivity statistics 1 1 1 0 0 0 Σ = 3
4. Human capital management 
systems convening, selection, 
training, performance 
evaluation)
1 0 0 1 1 0 Σ =6
5. Regulation related to ethics 
and/or anti-corruption
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Σ = 7
6. Management of public 
information and transparency
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Σ = 5
Sum of the registration units of the institution Σ = 31
Integrity 100 ΣX = 39
Integrity 35 ≤ X
In the path to integrity 21 ≤X≤ 34 
At risk situation X ≤ 20
31
2.4 Conclusions 
First conclusion. The MINJUS shows a positive level of advance versus the results 
shown in the assessment of October 2013. The initial six points score placed the 
MINJUS in at risk situation. By November 2015 they came up to 26 points placing the 
MINJUS in the path to integrity. 
Second conclusion. It is important to highlight that the strong aspects of this 
improvement has been the development of regulations and the internal dissemination 
of the Institutional Integrity Model that MINJUS has developed. Aspect number 2 
“Public perception regarding the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights” has moved 
from zero initial points to four points. Aspect 3 as well has moved from initial zero 
points to three points. Aspect 5 “Regulation related to ethics and/or anti-corruption” 
advanced from one to six points, and finally aspect 6 moved from three to five points. 
All these cases show the institutional leadership and engagement of the high 
authorities that are included in the Ministry’s leading team to improve the processes 
with USAID Pro-Integridad support. 
Third conclusion. The training process on the Model has been the most noted issue 
inside the MINJUS, and has allowed the indicators on critical registration areas to move 
in a positive way, creating a “good opinion” inside the institution regarding the IIM. It is 
important to note that 845 MINJUS workers (including 48 officials) have been trained 
with direct Project assistance on the most important Institutional Integrity Model and the 
ethics in performing the public function. The training continued during 2015 and is 
institutionalized in the Thursdays of Ethics of the MINJUS. 
Fourth conclusion. The results of the IIM in the MINJUS have been positive and 
sustained notwithstanding frequent changes of ministers and high level authorities 
during 2015. The institution’s interest to continue implementing the IIM has been 
maintained. This can be seen on the progression shown on the following table. 
32
Table 9 Progression of the implementation of the IIM in the MINJUS 
Aspects
Registration Units fulfilled
Potentiality by 
July 2016
Maximum 
October possible
2013
November
2014
November
2015
1. Studies of organizational 
culture/climate 0 2 5 6 7
2. Public perception regarding 
the Ministry of Justice and 
Human Rights
0 4 4 4 6
3. Productivity statistics 0 3 3 3 4
4. Human capital management 
systems convening, selection, 
training, performance 
evaluation)
2 3 3 6 7
5. Regulation related to ethics 
and/or anti-corruption 1 6 6 7 7
6. Management of public 
information and transparency 3 3 5 5 8
Sum of registration units 
fulfilled 6 21 26 31 39
Integrity 100% ΣX = 39
Integrity 35 ≤ X
On the path to integrity 21 ≤X≤ 34 
At risk situation X ≤ 20
The table shows the comparison with years 2013 and 2014; during 2015 the rhythm of 
advance was slower. While during the period between October 2013 and November 
2014 the MINJUS moved from six fulfilled units to 21, during the period between 
November 2014 and November 2015 the level of advance was from 21 to 26 units. 
This relates on the one hand to a larger number of aspects to move forward, but also to 
the fact that this year there have been three leadership changes of minister which had 
a disruptive effect. Thus, the constant changes of officials have delayed some of the 
activities planned and the approval of documents related to IIM indicators. However, it 
is noteworthy that even in that context the institution has kept the interest in the model 
and has made progress in important indicators. 
Fifth conclusion. The sustainability strategy is marked by a follow-up to the explicit 
commitment of the new Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice, Dr. Patricia 
Figueroa, who at a meeting held on November 5 indicated that she would issue a 
resolution of institutionalization of the IIM before the end of this year. This will 
strengthen the advancing trajectory of the IIM, as the model is already built into the 
Institutional Anti-Corruption Plan of the Ministry of Justice; however, a formal 
recognition of its existence as an institutional policy, ensures its continued 
development.