CILC is an independent international council devoted to the study of corruption and to fighting it: integrity in public procurement, transparency, accountability and legal cooperation between States.
The International Council for the Fight against Corruption brings together lawyers, researchers and public procurement specialists around a shared objective: to produce rigorous evidence and workable standards that reduce corruption in the management of public resources.
To analyse the concrete mechanisms of corruption and to propose legal and institutional responses that withstand technical scrutiny.
Corruption crosses borders. Our work is comparative and rests on the multilateral instruments in force, starting with UNCAC.
Independence, methodological rigour, transparency about our own sources and funding, and open publication.
Legal and documentary analysis, case studies and operational typologies by stage of the procurement cycle.
The leadership of the Council is answerable for its research programme, for the independence of its publications and for representing the organisation before institutions and international bodies.
Chairs the Council, directs its research programme and represents the organisation before public institutions, universities and international bodies. Author of Council studies on whistleblower protection and corruption mechanisms in public procurement.
Assists the Presidency and coordinates the Council's areas of work, its technical cooperation and the open-access publication of its studies.
Expert in state and municipal public procurement. Advises the Presidency of the Council on that subject.
Manages the Council's projects and research: planning, coordination of the teams and follow-up of their delivery.
Each area combines research, legal analysis and technical cooperation with public and academic institutions.
Risk diagnosis, typologies of conduct and evaluation of integrity policies.
Integrity across the purchasing cycle: planning, tendering, award and performance.
Access to information, open data and effective institutional control.
Protection frameworks, secure reporting channels and safeguards against retaliation.
Multilateral instruments, mutual legal assistance and asset recovery.
Methodology, typologies and comparative studies underpinning all the areas above.
The right to appeal a decision of a supervisory authority to a higher instance belongs to the standard set of guarantees of a procurement system. The report traces the fate of 28 applications filed with the central office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia between March and August 2026. Not one was considered on the merits: 24 were returned without consideration and 4 received replies concerned with compliance with internal procedural deadlines rather than the substance of the dispute. The result is zero irrespective of the applicant, the region, the legal regime, the procurement method and the price, while at the first instance the same material yields 24.9 per cent of confirmed violations.
Dzianis Limarau · Report, 9 pages, EN · ES · RU · DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22819817
Ignat Krukovskiy · Publication, 42 pages, EN · ES · RU · DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22237028
Anonymised dataset of 427 procurement procedures challenged before and decided by the Federal Antimonopoly Service, across 68 regions, with all four outcomes, the initial contract price, the procurement method and generalised attributes of the contracting authority. It ships with the anonymisation and packaging scripts, so every table in the study can be reproduced without recourse to the primary register.
Ignat Krukovskiy · 427 records, CSV and JSON · CC BY 4.0 · DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22236602
Orders 30 corruption mechanisms across ten stages of the procurement cycle and six functional clusters, and distinguishes them from observable risk indicators.
Dzianis Limarau · Report, 15 pages, English · DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21939393
Introduces the category of the external reporter: the person who challenges restrictive tender requirements is almost always a market participant outside the contracting authority, and falls outside both the review channel and the whistleblower protection regimes.
Dzianis Limarau · Report, 8 pages, English · DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21855670
The list reflects only work actually published by the Council. Every study is deposited with a DOI and released in open access with its full text and methodology.
Get notified of new publications →The Council maintains a monitoring register of public procurement procedures that underpins its empirical research. We invite companies and suppliers to contribute their data on tenders, restrictive requirements and challenges, and to access the aggregate results of the analysis. Participation is voluntary and data are handled in aggregated, anonymised form.
Software for monitoring public procurement procedures and detecting corruption risk indicators. Silver Hammer structures the data of a procedure, matches it against the typology of mechanisms published by the Council and flags the stages of the cycle where risk signals appear.
Published Work · Software, registered with the Dirección Nacional del Derecho de Autor (DNDA) of the Ministry of Justice of Argentina.
Of 28 applications filed with the second instance of the supervisory authority, not one was considered on the merits: 24 were returned and 4 received replies about internal deadlines.
Read the report →
The Council submitted a proposal to cooperate in monitoring the Judicial Council's procurement procedures, within the action plan of the OECD review of its electronic procurement.
Read the OECD review →
A Council study of the share of the value of procedures carrying a risk signal that a review authority confirms as a violation before the contract is signed.
Read the study →
427 challenged and decided procurement procedures, anonymised and released in CSV and JSON together with their anonymisation scripts, under a CC BY 4.0 licence.
View the dataset →
A Council report setting out a typology of 30 mechanisms by stage of the procurement cycle, with risk indicators.
Read the report →
A Council report on the protection gap facing those who challenge restrictive requirements in tender documentation.
Read the report →Public institutions, universities, international organisations and individual specialists may write to the Council with proposals for joint research, technical assistance or participation in the data exchange programme.